Paid Members Egg Shen Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 I think its safe to say Tate doesn't fancy her chances against Tate again. She probably believes she beats Nunes then gets Ronda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members lambyUK Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 Tate really is a moron. I don't like this bollocks either of her claiming it was the UFC's decision with her diminishing Holm's credentials as to why she doesn't deserve a rematch. Perhaps Tate, maybe because she mauled the the most dominant female fighter in history, one who tore off your arm in 1 of your 2 fights. It's just the sneaky shit I hate that she's been accused of doing in the past, along with Caraway too. I applaud her defending her title, I don't applaud her defending it against completely the wrong person. Holm was the obvious rematch here, and somehow Tate is controlling who her opponent is which is a fucking joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 How come everyone's for instant rematches all of a sudden? Holm lost her belt at the first attempt of defending it. Was she really that deserving of an instant rematch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 How come everyone's for instant rematches all of a sudden? Holm lost her belt at the first attempt of defending it. Was she really that deserving of an instant rematch? People only want instant rematches if they'll make the UFC more money than the alternative. Because that's what's important to the viewer, or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chunk Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 How come everyone's for instant rematches all of a sudden? Holm lost her belt at the first attempt of defending it. Was she really that deserving of an instant rematch? People only want instant rematches if they'll make the UFC more money than the alternative. Because that's what's important to the viewer, or something? Pretty sure people on here are commenting and talking from the perspective of the fighters, not in terms of what they want ... Not that complex, really ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members lambyUK Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 How come everyone's for instant rematches all of a sudden? Holm lost her belt at the first attempt of defending it. Was she really that deserving of an instant rematch? Everyone's for instant rematches all of a sudden? Instant rematches have been a pattern now for 2/3 years. That said, I'm not sure what you even mean by "everyone"? Most people, including in this forum, have voiced their concerns about instant rematches. However, where the rematch makes sense, people can accept it. If Tate is to defend her belt, the correct opponent from a sporting and business sense is Holm without doubt. I've already stated earlier why, but she's the woman who destroyed the previously unbeatable champion. She's the opponent who utterly dominated and outclassed the current champion until a last minute choke. The problem is Nunes hasn't earned that shot at all. She's beaten no one. Only Zingano has beaten anyone of note in that top 4/5 of the women's division who isn't Rousey, Tate or Holm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tibbs Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Yes, if it makes sense (either business or a worthy contender). This makes neither, They have a gold mine of fights sitting there. All they have to do is demonstrate some patience. Nunes to me is not a worthy contendar at this point. She didnt look that good in her last fight and was sucking on air by the end of the second. I just think they had better options they could have taken. This year is going great guns, but it could easily fall of a cliff if Connor continues to lose and they dont create any new stars. That doesn't really matter though, does it? The UFC tend to work with whatever they can at the time. If Tate is refusing to face Holm and Grousey isn't returning until November they really have no choice. Thats a fair point David. At the time I wrote this i was not aware that Tate bad turned down the Holm fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 I think its safe to say Tate doesn't fancy her chances against Tate again. Yeah, she's her own worst enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 How come everyone's for instant rematches all of a sudden? Holm lost her belt at the first attempt of defending it. Was she really that deserving of an instant rematch? It's a little inaccurate to imply that people are invariably against instant rematches. I'm pretty sure it's been widely discussed that there are exceptions to the rule, and one of them is if the fight was particularly close enough that a rematch wouldn't guarantee the same result. This is one of those situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tibbs Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 If Tate is to defend her belt, the correct opponent from a sporting and business sense is Holm without doubt. I've already stated earlier why, but she's the woman who destroyed the previously unbeatable champion. She's the opponent who utterly dominated and outclassed the current champion until a last minute choke. Eh, 10-8 second round to Tate wasn't it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theringmaster Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 It's funny because most people on here usually hate the idea of instant rematches... I think Tate is just being smart, Boxers do it all the time. Holm wasn't smart in choosing Tate as her first challenger. It's a fight that really intrigues me because Nunes has been talked about as a title challenger for a while now but I have never really seen it or felt it. A lot of people been calling her a dark horse for a while now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members lambyUK Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 If Tate is to defend her belt, the correct opponent from a sporting and business sense is Holm without doubt. I've already stated earlier why, but she's the woman who destroyed the previously unbeatable champion. She's the opponent who utterly dominated and outclassed the current champion until a last minute choke. Eh, 10-8 second round to Tate wasn't it! Yeah, she took her down, and if I remember rightly did nothing whilst down there. She did no damage at all. The 3 other rounds Holm picked her apart, including the subsequent rounds after your claimed 10-8 round. I think Tate is just being smart, Boxers do it all the time. Holm wasn't smart in choosing Tate as her first challenger. It's a fight that really intrigues me because Nunes has been talked about as a title challenger for a while now but I have never really seen it or felt it. A lot of people been calling her a dark horse for a while now It shouldn't be the champions choice, it's who's the rightful opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tibbs Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 If Tate is to defend her belt, the correct opponent from a sporting and business sense is Holm without doubt. I've already stated earlier why, but she's the woman who destroyed the previously unbeatable champion. She's the opponent who utterly dominated and outclassed the current champion until a last minute choke. Eh, 10-8 second round to Tate wasn't it! Yeah, she took her down, and if I remember rightly did nothing whilst down there. She did no damage at all. The 3 other rounds Holm picked her apart, including the subsequent rounds after your claimed 10-8 round. Are you being serious here mate or just looking for a bite. All 3 judges had that a 10-8 round. To get that from all meant that she did more than lay and pray. She took her down (exposing that Holms ground game was her weakness) and beat the piss out of her! I think she had a choke locked in too! Think you need to re-watch that second round! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
METAL ON METAL Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 If Tate is to defend her belt, the correct opponent from a sporting and business sense is Holm without doubt. I've already stated earlier why, but she's the woman who destroyed the previously unbeatable champion. She's the opponent who utterly dominated and outclassed the current champion until a last minute choke. Eh, 10-8 second round to Tate wasn't it! Yeah, she took her down, and if I remember rightly did nothing whilst down there. She did no damage at all. The 3 other rounds Holm picked her apart, including the subsequent rounds after your claimed 10-8 round. Well on the actual scorecards all judges had the second round 10-8 to Tate. Holm was 38-37 up after the fourth round, so if Tate had taken the fifth round (which she likely would have if she didn't get the finish) it would've been a draw. That doesn't scream 'utterly dominated' or 'outclassed', nor did the actual fight itself - it was one of the rare times on the Internet that no one really debated the scoring of the second round or that it was likely going to be a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members lambyUK Posted April 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2016 Come on MOM, do you honestly believe that? I don't care what the score cards said...10-8, it doesn't matter. On top of that, until she got Holm down in that final round, Holm was again out striking her comfortably. Without the finish, the round was comfortably Holm's. This is the problem with a card scoring system, it doesn't reflect a fight at all. For 3 out of the 4 rounds, Holm out boxed, out moved, and easily outclassed Tate. The second round, Tate managed to get her to the ground, and simply hold her there. She landed no ground and pound, and there was hardly any submission attempts. It maybe a 10-8 score due to staying on the deck, but to me the fact she did nothing down there says an awful lot. Edit:- Sorry Tibbs, missed your post. I'm completely serious. I've watched the fight twice now, and she didn't land any ground and pound. If I remember correctly she attempted a choke, but didn't get the job done at all with it. Was it a 10-8 round? Possibly, but again, scores on cards aren't a true reflection on what happens in a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.