Jump to content

UFC 141:Lesnar vs Overeem Discussion Thread


David

  

85 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
I never want to see Nate Diaz vs Maynard again.

 

The last fight was fucking tedious from what I remember, they are just a horrible match up for one another, both looked like crap coming out of the fight the had on Fight Night.

 

It wasn't great, pretty much a sloppy boxing match but the fight they had on TUF 5 was really good. I think both have improved a ton since their second fight so a third would probably be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 444
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members

I'd like to see that but i think Diaz might be a little bit higher up in the mix. The 155lb division is pretty hard to rank, so many guys are there or there abouts it's hard to say who's next. I think Diaz is up there though mainly because he's one of the most recognisable guys and popular (or unpopular depending on which way you look at it) guys in the division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
I love your trolling, Dave, I really do, so I'm not going to go into it AGAIN with you how Nate beat Maynard up and got screwed against Kim and how Guida would have been penalised for constant stalling if Nate hadn't worked to keep it as some sort of fight and how Nick hasn't lost a fight in over 5 years and how you know damn well that judging as it stands is a major, major problem in the sport that gives a grotesquely unfair edge to wrestlers, which is the only skillset that doesn't actually enable you to WIN A FIGHT. You know the truth, so I'll just let you dance your little dance for now.

 

Last time I watched all the fights started standing up?

 

What's your point? A fight can be convincingly won on the feet for four and a half minutes. You know that if the losing guy manages a takedown in the last 30 seconds he's going to win the round. That's before you even consider the number of awful lay'n'pray and drunken sailor rounds that guys win, even when there's no aggression and no striking. It's not even really "effective grappling" to me if the guy isn't doing something to try and, y'know, win the fight.

 

 

My point is that you said the sport 'gives a grotesquely unfair edge to wrestlers' & I disagree. The original point of the UFC was to determine the most effective discipline, yes the sports massively evolved since then but the point still stands that those fighters with advanced wrestling will always be the most dominant as they're the people controlling the fight, determining where the fight goes & often in the dominant position. The 'stand-up' rules are there to stop people 'laying & praying' so if there's no advancement of position or activity the fight goes back to their feet (to the detriment of the wrestler). People like Sonnen & Fitch who effectively use wrestling to win fights, albeit rarely finishing fights avoid 'stand-ups' by remaining active on the ground. Getting a win by dominating an opponent on the ground gets the same end result as subbing or KO'ing an opponent. So y'know they're still trying to win the fight, just not in the way that entertains you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love your trolling, Dave, I really do, so I'm not going to go into it AGAIN with you how Nate beat Maynard up and got screwed against Kim and how Guida would have been penalised for constant stalling if Nate hadn't worked to keep it as some sort of fight and how Nick hasn't lost a fight in over 5 years and how you know damn well that judging as it stands is a major, major problem in the sport that gives a grotesquely unfair edge to wrestlers, which is the only skillset that doesn't actually enable you to WIN A FIGHT. You know the truth, so I'll just let you dance your little dance for now.

If by trolling you mean "stating the facts", then fair enough I guess. I told you that Diaz would lose to Maynard and he did. You were wrong, and all your crying and if's, buts and maybe's makes for hilarious reading, but nothing more. If the way the sport is set up gives a "grotesquely unfair edge to wrestlers" then I guess you wouldn't mind telling me how many of the UFC's current title holders are primarily wrestlers by trade?

 

Heavyweight champion Junior Dos Santos? The guy who has seen over 70% of his wins come via KO? Light-Heavy champ Jon Jones? Middleweight champ Anderson Silva? Featherweight champ Jose Aldo? Bantamweight champ Cruz?

 

That leaves Frank Edgar & St-Pierre.

 

Face facts. Nate Diaz simply isn't good enough, or smart enough, to crack the puzzle of how to defeat someone with high level wrestling.

 

I do know the truth, Kenneth. And I've went to the trouble of providing some evidence of it here for you my friend. ;

 

dwfzO.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody questions the Stevenson or McDonald decisions. The Kim decision was utterly bizarre, and was absolutely a case of judges seeing one guy on top and assuming he was winning, even when he was landing nothing, never advancing position, getting submission attempts thrown at him from all over the place and getting his face punches about a hundred times in the second round. And that's before you get into the question of whether the fight should have been stopped when Kim wilted under a LEGAL knee in the third. The Maynard fight was close, I grant you, but count the shots landed, or look at Fightmetric's assessment of the fight or even look at the fact that one judge DID give the fight to Diaz. The Guida fight was dreadful. I think most people can agree that it's one of Guida's least entertaining fights, and that's coming against a guy who has more FOTNs than most. He did well in the first round, but then held on desperately to his drunken sailor position, doing nothing to advance position or even throw a strike, while Diaz consistently worked for the kimura on the feet then threw switches to put Guida down. Judges consider that because Guida managed to hold on to Nate's back for a minute after they went down that Guida was still winning the fight. My view is that since Diaz was the one deciding that the fight was going to the ground then, from there, getting into better positions and eventually getting back to his feet, his grappling was more effective. His strikes on the feet were consistently more effective too, and by driving the action, he was more aggressive. Guida theoretically takes it for "Octagon control" since he managed to keep the fight in one position for fairly long periods. I don't think that makes him a winner according to the rules of the game. And you know as well as I do that the judges do not always apply the judging criteria correctly. I hope you won't make me trawl through every comment you've ever made about bad judging decisions to prove me right on that one.

 

Dead Mike - the sport now is not about whether wrestling is better than boxing or boxing is better than jiu jitsu. It's a bigger sport than that. The judging criteria are meant to give equal weight to striking and submission grappling (which they don't - you can have multiple near finishes with submissions in a round and NEVER get a 10-8, whereas you can with strikes) and wrestling should really only come into in terms of aggression and Octagon control, which are secondary scoring criteria. However, takedowns count for more than just about anything else in the game when it comes to scoring, despite doing little or no damage, on the basis that the person doing the takedown is "controlling where the fight takes place" or "imposing his will." (Ugh. I hate that phrase.) Nobody ever counts sweeps and stand-ups the same way. I mean, when was the last time you saw a guy get up from underneath a great wrestler and have the commentators say "he's controlling where the fight takes place"? Never. They say the wrestler is ahead because he got the takedown. It hardly seems fair. The takedown artist has gravity working for him. The guy on bottom doesn't even have a leverage advantage, never mind having a 15 stone guy on top of him. Even if you're talking about "effective grappling," judges rarely take account of the offensive threat from a guy on bottom. Instead, the guy on top will almost always get the round, no matter how ineffective his grappling is.

 

Take, for example, round two of Diaz-Kim. Kim tries several times to pass guard but routinely gets held back by Diaz. He tries to throw punches but they're blocked. Diaz throws something like forty punches himself. Diaz throws his legs up and spend a good while with his leg behind Kim's neck while he tries to find space to get his other leg up to sink in a triangle. Kim defends well, but towards the end of the round, Diaz sweeps him, takes his back and almost gets a rear naked choke. Diaz is more effective with strikes and grappling in terms of advancing position and attempting to end the fight, is certainly more aggressive and only loses on Octagon control if you choose to believe that he doesn't feel perfectly comfortable fighting off his back. Yet the judges gave the round to Kim, ultimately costing Diaz a win that would have done wonders for his career. Why? Because Kim scored a takedown and stayed on top. It's what mikey used to call "anti-jitsu scoring" and it stinks. What's worse is that it's actually anti-striking too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some like Joe Rogan actually argue that the sport favours strikers, as there is the stand up due to inactivity rule that Rogan hates.

 

The judges are morons who favour wrestlers and top position unfairly at times, but I guess they just file that under Octagon Control when they are scoring. It is not the only things judges get wrong, they also favour strikers who lunge forward hence why Lenord Garcia gets wins he does not deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
UFC 141 did around 800k buys. Solid stuff, from a business perspective at the very least they will miss Lesnar.

 

http://www.fightersonlymag.com/content/new...-800k-ppv-sales

 

I read that Overeem is getting $2 for every PPV sold aswell, so he gets $1.6 million in PPV cuts alone. Add that to his $386K pay plus any sponsorship money and undisclosed bonuses. He fucking cleaned up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...