Guy Bifkin Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Completely agree Herb. I do worry about the shots Weidman has taken in the last three fights. I think a long break and a nice easy tune up fight on return is what is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted April 13, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted April 13, 2017 To be fair to Weidman, I do believe he thought it was an illegal knee at the time. It's easy for everyone to look back now and say 'well the knee was legal, what's the problem?'. But in real time? I mean, look how many replays and different angles the commentators needed before they settled on it definitely being a legal strike. In the heat of battle, all Weidman is going to remember is he was putting his hands on the mat, he took some hard knees to the head (whether legal or not) and then Big Dan's telling him he has 5 minutes to recover. So of course Weidman is going to assume it landed while he was a downed opponent or else Miragliotta wouldn't have given him the time out. You can't expect a fighter in the midst of a fight, who's also just taken damage to the head, to know for sure it was clean or not when fucking Rogan needs a production crew and 5 replays from 3 different angles to know. In the end, this whole debacle did answer one thing. That the new rule about the one hand on the canvas = not a downed opponent thing obviously hasn't taken away the controversy factor. If anything it seems to have clouded things even more. It won't happen but I'd rather they just make knees on the ground legal. End this bollocks altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Bifkin Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 He was quite happy to fuck around with his hands on and off the ground so I think he gambled there and lost. I certainly agree with the last paragraph. The rules in MMA are in a state and even more confusing with different commissions having different rules. I'd like to see nearly everything legal except stuff like biting, eye poking/gouging and (although fun when accidental) groin strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members herbie747 Posted April 13, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted April 13, 2017 I'm not at all saying Weidman knew they were legal, Wand - I'm just saying that he couldn't continue after them. And that was a doctor's decision not done lightly. And if that decision was a result of legal knees, then a TKO is the correct call here. If they were illegal knees however, then it would have been a DQ (if deemed intentional) or a no contest (if deemed accidental). Either way, I don't see an issue with any of the decisions made here by any of the parties involved. Weidman got TKO'd by 2 knees and the doctor called off the fight. That's all it comes down to really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted April 13, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted April 13, 2017 My post wasn't aimed at you specifically Herb. I just thought some of the criticism he's had has been a bit harsh. He was in a spot there where Mousasi had a hold of him and he was kind of on all fours. That's not an easy position to just escape from. So there's going to be a little period there where you almost have to play that game. And if the rule is there that if you have your hands on the floor the opponent can't knee you, you'll exploit that until you can escape the position. I don't blame Weidman one bit. I blame the shitty rule for being shit. Pride did a lot of shady stuff and they let some fighters take beatings for way too long (SAKURABA!). But knees to grounded opponents were never a big problem in Pride. No-one really got fucked up any worse in Pride from knees on the ground than you see from ground and pound elbows in the UFC. There was the Sakuraba (him again) vs Arona fight but that bloodbath started with a kick that caused Saku's eye to swell shut. Of course refs would have to be on the ball but they should be anyway. Knees to grounded opponents were never the monster they've been made out to be. And I'd feel much better with refs like John McCarthy and Herb Dean policing them than the bloodthirsty Japanese refs we had back in Pride. I get why stomps aren't ever going to be legalised. Totally. But knees on the ground should be good to go IMO. It would change things for the better, I reckon, and would probably eliminate a lot of stalling tactics on the ground. It'd definitely eliminate a Mousasi-Weidman situation happening again. But yeah, never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted April 13, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted April 13, 2017 4 hours ago, herbie747 said: NYSAC said it is used - which is why Big John used it, then conferred with Dan to fill him in. http://www.mmafighting.com/2017/4/11/15264748/nysac-instant-replay-legally-used-for-gegard-mousasi-vs-chris-weidman-at-ufc-210 Can't see a problem with the decision TBH. Weidman was either fit to continue or he wasn't. The doctors deemed he wasn't. And it was the result of 2 legal knees to the head. So it's a TKO. Dan had no choice but to call a foul at the time, because to everyone it looked illegal initially. But when it turned out to be legal, Weidman had already spent 3 minutes playing up to the doctors; either for real or because he wanted out. Either way he couldn't have continued after that. I thought the commentary said that replays were not used? It all added to confusion. Didn't help that Rogan went on one of his little rants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members herbie747 Posted April 13, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted April 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, Egg Shen said: I thought the commentary said that replays were not used? It all added to confusion. Didn't help that Rogan went on one of his little rants. Yeah, the commentary did say that. But the NYSAC have since said it is used - and John McCarthy watched the replay and advised Dan Miragliotta they were legal knees - no way McCarthy would overstep the mark like that if it wasn't allowed. This is just a case of Rogan (and Ratner) being clueless like with the Tim Means situation. Rogan I can understand, but Ratner should know better - that's his only job FFS. Quote UFC VP of Regulatory Affairs Marc Ratner believed the blows were legal given Oliveira only had one knee on the mat. But according to the current Unified Rules of MMA, an opponent with anything other than the soles of his feet on the mat is, in fact, a downed opponent, making strikes like the ones Means delivered illegal. http://mmajunkie.com/2016/12/ufc-207-results-controversial-illegal-or-legal-knee-sends-tim-means-alex-oliveira-to-no-contest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted April 16, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 Anthony Johnson is putting an appeal in about the Cormier/towel thing at the weigh in. And wants DC fined and stripped of the title. Anthony Johnson has demanded that Cormier testify under oath about the situation, give up 20% of his purse, and be stripped of the light heavyweight title. The appeal states that Cormier "chose to, inexplicably, grab the towels in front of him while on the scale." And that Cormier "must be called upon to explain, under oath, to the NYSAC, Anthony Johnson, the general public, the UFC, his fellow fighters, and the sport of mixed martial arts, the reason for his actions at the weigh in on April 8, 2017." The appeal concludes by listing what they feel is an appropriate punishment for DC: "At a minimum, Daniel Cormier should be ordered to pay 20% of his fight purse to Anthony Johnson, and should be stripped of his UFC men's light heavyweight title." So is Rumble retiring or not? Is he just after a few grand on his way out the door? If it's not just about money then I don't get his motivation unless he's already changing his mind about retiring. Otherwise you just wouldn't bother, would you? If he was so pissed off about the weigh in, why was he singing DC's praises post-fight? I just don't get why he's pushing for Cormier to be stripped of the belt unless he's after a fight. Edit - quote tags are all to cock now, aren't they? Oh and the article was from BJPenn.com but Brett Okamoto from ESPN was tweeting about the appeal so it is legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted April 16, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 Feels even stranger considering how friendly DC and Rumble were post fight. Rumble didn't even bring it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Fox Piss Posted April 16, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 He put up some Insta post about how he didn't want D.C stripped but he wanted answers because that's what is right. If people don't like it then thats tough he also said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted April 17, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted April 17, 2017 It's funny how he's only moaning about it now though. It just seems like sour grapes because he lost. I didn't see him mention it once after the weigh in, nor after the fight. If he'd won I doubt he'd be bothering "looking for answers because that's what's right". Wasn't this guy meant to have beat his mrs up years ago? Now he's looking for 'what's right'. Fuck off Crumble Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members lambyUK Posted April 17, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted April 17, 2017 Agreed 100% Wand. If he had a problem he should have brought it up before the fight and as the incident happened. However he didn't as he didn't want to risk not fighting for the title. He made his bed, now he needs to lie in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted April 17, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted April 17, 2017 you could probably put it down to not wanting to take his focus away from the fight but i agree that it's bullshit that you only cry-foul once you've lost. The 20% of the purse i understand but stripping DC of his belt achieves nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted April 17, 2017 Author Paid Members Share Posted April 17, 2017 He says it's not about the money (why ask for 20% then?) and he doesn't want DC stripped of the title (again, why have it in the appeal then?). He says it's about principle and that "knuckleheads" just don't understand that. He's full of shite. I get that he mightn't have brought it up after the weigh in because he was focused on the fight. But then he also never mentioned anything about it after the fight and was actually the total opposite and couldn't have sucked up to Cormier more. It's like he went home and sat around feeling sorry for himself for a week, realised he blew it again and got all bitter. I don't get what the point of it is. If he's done fighting, why even chase this up if it's not about the money? Shouldn't he be busy with this other mysterious dream job he's got lined up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members lambyUK Posted April 17, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted April 17, 2017 i wouldn't be surprised if his cunt of a manager Ali Abdelaziz is behind it too. Apparently him and Cormier have it in for one another. He's Khabib's manager as well. Just a slimey shite in my eyes. I just can't see how anything can come from it though.The fact is because the commission didn't act on it there and then, there's no way to actually prove Cormier did anything wrong. Cormier can stick with the scales being off story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.