Sorry, but Rampage didn't pull it out. Rampage was given the win. He definitely should not have won, and he said so himself. I don't care for Machida, but he should have won the fight.
Sorry, but Rampage didn't pull it out. Rampage was given the win. He definitely should not have won, and he said so himself. I don't care for Machida, but he should have won the fight.
i am sorry for those who still feel machida won...compustrike stats even show jackosn cleary outscoring machida with landed shots 25-12 first round and 29-9 second round including a takedown. machida did win round three but the 6 shots he landed on rampage that most people are deeming to have been enough to win the fight..still dont make up for the first two rounds..especially when half of machidas landed strikes were leg kicks...but i guess that fact that for the first two rounds of rampage controlling the cage and cutting machida off contiously forcing the action/being the aggressor/ stalking him around and not counterfighting doesnt count for anything either. but this is my opinion and most mma fans now seem to experts in their own mind as well.
4 things need to happen now to end this ****:
1. Knees to the head of a downed opponent
2. .5 point rounds; many are too close to give a full point difference
3. Yellow cards
4. TRAINED judges that are/were fighters and/or trainers
4 things need to happen now to end this ****:
1. Knees to the head of a downed opponent
2. .5 point rounds; many are too close to give a full point difference
3. Yellow cards
4. TRAINED judges that are/were fighters and/or trainers
i agree ..but the yellow card needs to also come with a purse fine as well. it would be nice to have overtime rounds like in the tuf show too. or be like old pride with 2 rounds..one ten minute round and a 5 minute overtime. they really need more things to make fighters want to finsh fights instead on the old greg jackson special where you hang on and try not to get beat. soccer kicks/ head stomps should be with knees to the head of a downed opponent.
well they need to implement the purse fine...that way fighters like rashaad earn the money they make...he gets over 400k and doesnt fight to win, but fights fights not to lose.or they need to make point deductions for stalling.
4 things need to happen now to end this ****:
1. Knees to the head of a downed opponent
2. .5 point rounds; many are too close to give a full point difference
3. Yellow cards
4. TRAINED judges that are/were fighters and/or trainers
yeah but what about the guys who just hold there opponent on the fence or who hold for a 5 minute takedown attempt??? its a fighting sport, am i not wrong? what most wrestlers have been doing im mma trying not to lose instead of winning would be like a wreslter in a match not doing anything but circle because he doesnt want to get taken down or his shot stuffed...but dont they get penalized for things like that though...but i do agree with the lack of skill that needs to be addressed...but that also is due to the fact that any body at any time can be a pro mma fighter..any random person can go fight and i they get any compensation for the showing...then they are now pro fighters.
So how would these rule changes have played out or made a difference in this RamChida fight???
Discussion?
well learning how to clinch and hold onto someone legs for 5 minutes is easier to learn than bjj. especially developing an effective guard .and cage tactics are hard to implement when you are fighting someone who doesnt want to really fight back other than clinch and attemp takedowns.
So you mean to tell me that becoming an elite BJJ player is difficult? How long have you been holding onto this information!?
In all seriousness, though, this is the beauty of MMA. It's so dynamic that the runs of most fighters only last 3-5 years before the sport passes them by due to new training, integration, etc. Wrestlers have always had success in MMA and this will likely not change soon as more Olympians, D1 Champs, etc. are crossing over into MMA.
The key word in your statement is attempt. It takes serious conditioning to press for 3 full rounds and not get caught. I personally have no problem if someone can constantly get a TD because it is up to the other fighter to counter and implement his strategy. There's no secret to Shields, GSP, Rashad, etc. gameplan and their opponents should also make a tactical plan to effectively counter.
yeah but your not going to out wrestle a wrestler if they are better than you are..especially the caliber of olympians and d1 champs like you say..so with that in mind..how do you figth someone who is merely trying to wreslte their way into not getting beat...do you not take the fight..my point is if your not the better wrestler and your opponent only is wanting to wrestle i n the fight..how does one counter that..if the wreslte thows no punches and just clinches and holds..what do you do..even a bjj expert can get nulified with that tactics becuase even if they drop guard, the wreslter stills contiues to hold on and do nothing...then what, is it the bottom guys duty to let a guard pass or a mount happen just to further the action in attempt to get the obviously stalling wrestler to move??
im not saying wrestlers are in fallible...but rosholt loses are do to him losing fights that he actually fights back in..he doesnt lay in pray are hold legs for round after round against the cage...he actually fights..as its mma or ultimate fighting, not ultimate wreslting. there are alot of great wreslters who get beat because they lose the fight like randy, hendo, coleman, king mo, kos, hammil, rashaad, simpson, dollaway etc...but they actually fight..but look at rashaad after his lose to machida now and king mo...they have both stated that they will go back to wrestling to win the point game...which is winning..but not fighting...with all of your new rules to implement for the sake of judging and fight finishing..then also include elbow strikes to the neck and back/ traps of an opponent laying on the legs of a 5 min takedown attempt...its no different than a knee to the head of downed opponent as far as serious injury concern, and it will make the praying wreslter either finish the takedown or transition to something else. ..i know back of the head shots are illegal..but then why is it ok for a wreslter to slam a guy down on the back of his head and neck, usually knocking them out, and that not be illegal??? its a back of the head strike..right? so allow those elbow strike defenses and see how that guy standups .
well as much as i appreciate your professional opinion...these are just opinions. and referees only break up stalling psotions like that when its a not a known wreslter doing it. but your saying that if a guy is in north south position and throws a knee to the head, that it doesnt have the same potential of an elbow to cause paralysis? and if its not for the back of the head hitting the ground from a downward slam, then what causes the knockout? its not the power of the slam i am questioning its the point of impact on the back of the head from the slam..and im not really griping..im just debating my opinion for conversation.
the rule changes are needed for the fighters who do not fight, but play the point game so they do not get beat. you cannot finish a fighter that will not engage in the fight. and i dont care how many leg kicks you land, if you get taken down once then the judges will score the round against you, even if you pop right back up...and have the jugdes dont know any submissions, so how can they score an attempt? they are no more knowledgeble than the fans that boo if there is not continuos action or if the fight is on the ground....the only thing they can identify is punch, a ko, and a takedown.
You can disagree all you want, it is an opinion, neither yours nor mine is correct, that is the beauty of everyone's varying in one way or another.
As far as the scoring system, are you trying to tell me that leg kicks and near submissions arent taken into account? I beg to differ, matter of fact that is all you hear about during fights, how Joe Rogan (if UFC) or Frank Mir and others (if WEC) talk about a fight being skewed in one way or another if the fight is close due to leg kicks or near submissions. Are light leg kicks going to be credited, hell no, but hard landing leg kicks that are not checked most certainly, cautious or sub-cautious are taken into account!
Also near submissions will also skew a judges decision if it is close, much like a late take down. If a fight is very close come the end of a round and you score a take down and not even necessarily do anything while in side mount, the take down at the end can and will get you a W for the round every time, let alone a take down and a near submission.
Near submissions and leg kicks rank right up there with pushing the fight, you may not be throwing many kicks or punches but as long as you are not getting hit, and you push the fight and are constantly trying to cut the octagon off on your opponent, it gets you points in the eyes of a judge.
I do agree that the judges are a work in progress and do not always see things as others may, but your claims are inaccurate, and again I say...... knock them out or tap them and this discussion never even happens.
I am not disagreeing whether or not the judges are ignorant, I am merely saying that instead of making changes to the rules and making this about fines and money, just simply make fights with guys who you know are going to fight and put it all on the line and the others, well fill their cards with no names until their contracts are full filled and get rid of them. Simple as that.
Some guys are notorious (McKee) for merely winning fights based on points, you know it, Dana knows it, Zuffa knows it, and they continue to set up fights for them.
Now if you were to say they need to enforce their point deduction system a little better then yes I could agree. But handing someone a yellow card like they are in soccer and then they receive a fine for it is not the right approach!
Fact is, some people want to fight and love to be hit, and others are in the UFC because they think they are fighters and until the real deal fighters knock them around, they will be in it until their fight card is filled then get rid of them.
Oh and I completely disagree with the comment that you can not defeat a fighter who wont engage, that is an excuse. Does it frustrate you, yes, but there are ways of training for those types of fighters and you can beat them, if you are better then them!
Paulo Tiago is a guy who comes to mind, if you wanna waltz around the outside of the octagon and play games, he will come in after you and make you fight HIS FIGHT!
Leg kicks seldom play a huge factor into the decision of the judges because they generally do not train and understand how much that can change a fight. I never said anything about a fine, but implementing yellow cards would light a fire under the ass of most fighters. Make it a loss of a point instead of a fine and you give them all the incentive they will need. I've seen fights end due to timidity via DQ and it was great to see the refs enforcing the rules properly. On the other hand, I've seen a ref standup a fight in side sontrol with a kimura locked in. Hell, near submissions are even more ignored (e.g. Cerrone/Henderson I) even if they occur several times within a round.
I've talked to a few TX judges backstage at some events were I was a cornerman and I never get a consensus agreement about the rules and which weighs more heavily. The refs are just as bad if not worse.
You can have the romantic view of fighting were it always ends in a stoppage, but the fact is there will always be decisions especially as the talent gap becomes more and more narrow. When you have fighters constantly expanding their skills, they will inevitably cancel out some of their strengths (e.g. Munoz/Simpson).
Ok so we do agree on something here, I mentioned above the point deduct system as well.
I think near submissions play a factor for the individual placing it if it is a close fight and you lock something in and that was pretty much the highlight of the round, however..... multiple attempts resulting in failure looks bad on the individual placing the attempt because then it appears you can not get the job done with numerous opportunities. This leads the judges to believe there is a weak area in your submission attempts.
I do agree that some change may be good as you make a good debate and seem to know your stuff and have access to the "behind the curtain" scene.
I do not think the UFC and their management is perfect but I think they do a pretty good job, and with change things dont always turn out better.
Who's Rampage and Machida fighting next? I know Dana already said no to a rubber match.