Ultimate Fighter 5 4/26

Off Topic
61

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
new2training wrote:
He’s just a huge fan who stumbled into the position (he’s normally a stand up comedian). He doesn’t claim to be an expert or anything, but he is pretty damn knowledgeable (especially BJJ, in which he has a purple belt under Eddie Bravo). He’s kind of a mixed bag you’ll find, some people love him some hate him.

Either way, I don’t think Joe gives a shit what people think of him, he’s just having fun.

[/quote]

Thanks Donut.

I’ve been eavesdropping on some of the MMA threads around here. Trying to get a feel for who’s who in the sport. I appreciate your insight.

I watched some of the early UFC stuff but haven’t really tuned in for a while. The names I remember are Grace, Severn, Abbot, Shamrock etc.

I’m starting to enjoy the sport again. Newbie viewers probably annoy old timers like yourself but I guess its what the sport needs to continue to grow.

There, I’ve justified my existence.

Who do you like to watch fight these days?

62

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
new2training wrote:
I’m fairly new to watching MMA but have taken an interest in it of late.

What is the general feel for the Rogan guy who calls some of the Spike fights?

He annoys the crap out of me. To me, he makes some pretty off the wall comments, and screams into the mike a little too much.

Is he well liked, or considered knowledgeable?

He’s just a huge fan who stumbled into the position (he’s normally a stand up comedian). He doesn’t claim to be an expert or anything, but he is pretty damn knowledgeable (especially BJJ, in which he has a purple belt under Eddie Bravo). He’s kind of a mixed bag you’ll find, some people love him some hate him.

Either way, I don’t think Joe gives a shit what people think of him, he’s just having fun.

[/quote]

I am a big fan of Rogan, he is a free-thinking libertarian. Check out his website it’s wild.

His stand up comedy is good and he destroys hecklers.

He is in excellent physical shape for a 40 year old guy.

I wish all UFC fights were announced by Rogan, Couture and Bas.

63

[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
new2training wrote:
I’m fairly new to watching MMA but have taken an interest in it of late.

What is the general feel for the Rogan guy who calls some of the Spike fights?

He annoys the crap out of me. To me, he makes some pretty off the wall comments, and screams into the mike a little too much.

Is he well liked, or considered knowledgeable?

He’s just a huge fan who stumbled into the position (he’s normally a stand up comedian). He doesn’t claim to be an expert or anything, but he is pretty damn knowledgeable (especially BJJ, in which he has a purple belt under Eddie Bravo). He’s kind of a mixed bag you’ll find, some people love him some hate him.

Either way, I don’t think Joe gives a shit what people think of him, he’s just having fun.

I am a big fan of Rogan, he is a free-thinking libertarian. Check out his website it’s wild.

His stand up comedy is good and he destroys hecklers.

He is in excellent physical shape for a 40 year old guy.

I wish all UFC fights were announced by Rogan, Couture and Bas.

[/quote]

I’ll have to check out his website. Never seen his standup. Thanks for the input

64

Rogan is a cool guy all around,
speaking of UFC annoucers I was watching the tale end of a womans beach volleyball tourament and Mike Goldberg of all people was annoucing. After the match point he screamed IT IS ALL OVER!!! I couldn’t stop laughing it was the same exact call he does when someone gets knocked out.

65

I dislike Goldberg far more than Rogan. Rogan can be annoying but he does a great job of brining an air of excitement to every match. Hearing him splooge every time someone pulls rubber guard is hilarious. Mauro Ranallo and Stepehen Quadros are the best play by play guys out there, and Rogan and Bas Rutten are the best color guys. Any combination of those would be a superb booth. Add in guest appearances of current fighters for the main events for a three man booth and it’s genius. Mauro, Bas, and Randy Couture were a superb team when they called the Pride Shockwave’s.

66

In other news check out these odds on the Penn-Pulver fight:

almost worth betting on Pulver…

67

[quote]slimjim wrote:
treco wrote:
What changes would you guys make so the fights would be more interesting (or at least fights)?

I institute a point reduction system for stalling, much like the yellow card Pride employed.

Allow knees/kicks to the head on the ground.

Give a clear outline of what judges should be scoring. Ambiguous criteria such as “Octagon control” lead to unbalanced judging. Sometimes takedowns count greatly, other times they don’t. Consistency would be nice.[/quote]

I completely agree with giving a clear outline of the scoring system. That would be a great first step. I scored the fight for Emerson. The tough thing is that there wasn’t a clear aggressor in the fight.

I would be a fan of fighting until knockout or submission. However, I do realize that it’s highly impractical.

68

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
Hill got a frickin gift even being on the show without ever having even fought. It’s obvious they want to keep him around for his personality.

I disagree. Emerson was timid and keep covering up and backing away. He did not push the action.

Plus, in theory all that matters is the fight. But the judges were likely thinking (as I was): “Emerson got a second chance. He shouldn’t even be fighting right now. He’d better do something spectacular.” Instead, Emerson fought a conservative fight and was therefore punished for it.

IMHO, the last round as a draw. In a system requiring 10-9, I would have given it to Hill for at least trying to push the action; and because Emerson “owed” it to everyone to do more than cover-up for most of the fight.

I agree to a point, I think Emerson has no one to blame but himself for the loss. It was obvious he was fighting to not lose in round 3. But I still think Emerson won that last round based on damage done by the leg kicks. I also saw the first round as a draw, but hell maybe I am crazy.[/quote]

i saw the fight the other way around. emmerson was the go getter, though hills height made the fight awkward.hill just waited to be attacked and then swung defensively.

emmerson didn’t finish the fight, but he did fight more aggresively, and he did fight more effectively.

i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win.

UFC is sacrificing real fighting for flashy fighting and hopeful big knock outs.

69

[quote]Steve4192 wrote:
Djwlfpack wrote:
If you include the finales, then there’s no way that fight was better than Griffin-Bonnar or Herman-Grove.

I don’t think Dana is including the finales. He’s only talking about the ‘exhibition’ fights that take place at the UFC training facility with no audience. Even then, I wouldn’t call Diaz-Emerson the best fight of the series.

  • Cummo-Morgan was a back-and-forth affair that ended with a sweet muay thai knee to the noggin KO.

  • Burkman-Guillard was a fast-paced war with tons of great takedowns, scrambles, and sweeps.

  • Bonnar finishing off an over-aggressive Mike Swick with a triangle was good stuff

  • Tito’s called shot on the high kick in the Singer-Hutcherson fight was a thing of beauty even if the kick itself was hideous.[/quote]

jeez, you’ve got a hell of a memory. good call on the cummo-morgan fight. i had forgotten about it, was going thru some VHS tapes a month or two ago and I guess I had that episode taped. what a great fight. dont know if i would’ve had the ability to instantly recall it tho, good call

70

[quote]KO421 wrote:

Great post!

I mean if you go on a show that is 155lbs why would you show up a pudgy 180? I don’t get it! He souldve been glad he didn’t get picked the first week, and got on the treadmill…

Did he ever even intend to make weight? [/quote]

everyone seems to forget that joe stevenson came in at 190 for a welterweight competition and ended up winning the whole damn thing. I wont fault a guy for what he comes in at, but you had better get teh job done when it comes to weight loss

71

[quote]texasguy wrote:

i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win. [/quote]

… and then you get debacles like last weekends mayweather-dlh boxing match. notice that i didnt call it a “fight.” Fights are aggressive; that match was nothing more than mayweather trying (and succeeding) on winning by points. I’ll even give dlh the benefit of the doubt and say that he was aggressive enough; others would go further and say he wasnt.

there’s got to be a way to balance aggression and tactics. go too far to either end of the spectrum and you have a product that is not entertaining.

72

[quote]texasguy wrote:
i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win. [/quote]

Wrong. The goal of a fight is to impose your will upon another - to literally subjugate him. A civilized way to do this is through knockout or submission. To submit is to literally say, “My life is in your hands.” A person knocked out is helpless and survives only because of the graciousness and mercy of his opponent.

Anyone who steps into a ring or cage and thinks of doing anything other than imposing his will upon his opponent should take up ballet. In ballet, dancing in encouraged. In fighting, dancing is properly scorned.

73

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win.

Wrong. The goal of a fight is to impose your will upon another - to literally subjugate him. A civilized way to do this is through knockout or submission. To submit is to literally say, “My life is in your hands.” A person knocked out is helpless and survives only because of the graciousness and mercy of his opponent.

Anyone who steps into a ring or cage and thinks of doing anything other than imposing his will upon his opponent should take up ballet. In ballet, dancing in encouraged. In fighting, dancing is properly scorned.[/quote]

Ali danced and he was cheered by the world. Mayweather danced and he made something like $ 10 million last weekend.

Grace and skill have a huge place in the ring.

74

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
texasguy wrote:

i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win.

… and then you get debacles like last weekends mayweather-dlh boxing match. notice that i didnt call it a “fight.” Fights are aggressive; that match was nothing more than mayweather trying (and succeeding) on winning by points. I’ll even give dlh the benefit of the doubt and say that he was aggressive enough; others would go further and say he wasnt.

UFC is sacrificing real fighting for flashy fighting and hopeful big knock outs.

there’s got to be a way to balance aggression and tactics. go too far to either end of the spectrum and you have a product that is not entertaining.

[/quote]

let the fighters fight and score accordingly. grant the winner the win, even if it is by points.

fights will still be aggressive. everyone wants to get the knock out or the submission because they win for sure.

leaving the fight open until the end creates the risk of giving your opponent the oppurtunity to win. of course you are going to try to knock him out asap.

but, if your opponent is a foot taller than you or even just more skilled, you should definately not be punished for fighting smart.

fighting is as much strategy as it is aggression, probably more so. aggression is part of an overall strategy.

i just think it is a shame that mma is being compromised. watching the strategies and how each fighter responds to challenges is the cool part, big knock outs are icing on the cake.

for marketing purposes, big knock outs are desired, and the fighting itself is downplayed due to most fans now not knowing what they are watching.

they are looking for bar fight brutality in an athletic event.

75

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win.

Wrong. The goal of a fight is to impose your will upon another - to literally subjugate him. A civilized way to do this is through knockout or submission. To submit is to literally say, “My life is in your hands.” A person knocked out is helpless and survives only because of the graciousness and mercy of his opponent.

Anyone who steps into a ring or cage and thinks of doing anything other than imposing his will upon his opponent should take up ballet. In ballet, dancing in encouraged. In fighting, dancing is properly scorned.[/quote]

you have a weak self esteem don’t you?

76

[quote]texasguy wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
texasguy wrote:

i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win.

… and then you get debacles like last weekends mayweather-dlh boxing match. notice that i didnt call it a “fight.” Fights are aggressive; that match was nothing more than mayweather trying (and succeeding) on winning by points. I’ll even give dlh the benefit of the doubt and say that he was aggressive enough; others would go further and say he wasnt.

UFC is sacrificing real fighting for flashy fighting and hopeful big knock outs.

there’s got to be a way to balance aggression and tactics. go too far to either end of the spectrum and you have a product that is not entertaining.

let the fighters fight and score accordingly. grant the winner the win, even if it is by points.

fights will still be aggressive. everyone wants to get the knock out or the submission because they win for sure.

leaving the fight open until the end creates the risk of giving your opponent the oppurtunity to win. of course you are going to try to knock him out asap.

but, if your opponent is a foot taller than you or even just more skilled, you should definately not be punished for fighting smart.

fighting is as much strategy as it is aggression, probably more so. aggression is part of an overall strategy.

i just think it is a shame that mma is being compromised. watching the strategies and how each fighter responds to challenges is the cool part, big knock outs are icing on the cake.

for marketing purposes, big knock outs are desired, and the fighting itself is downplayed due to most fans now not knowing what they are watching.

they are looking for bar fight brutality in an athletic event.

[/quote]

MMA was compromised the moment that they instituted decisions and then referee standups. IF you are truly interested in a “real” fight we could go back to the days of guys laying around the cage for upwards of an hour while people fall asleep.

77

[quote]slimjim wrote:
texasguy wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
texasguy wrote:

i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win.

… and then you get debacles like last weekends mayweather-dlh boxing match. notice that i didnt call it a “fight.” Fights are aggressive; that match was nothing more than mayweather trying (and succeeding) on winning by points. I’ll even give dlh the benefit of the doubt and say that he was aggressive enough; others would go further and say he wasnt.

UFC is sacrificing real fighting for flashy fighting and hopeful big knock outs.

there’s got to be a way to balance aggression and tactics. go too far to either end of the spectrum and you have a product that is not entertaining.

let the fighters fight and score accordingly. grant the winner the win, even if it is by points.

fights will still be aggressive. everyone wants to get the knock out or the submission because they win for sure.

leaving the fight open until the end creates the risk of giving your opponent the oppurtunity to win. of course you are going to try to knock him out asap.

but, if your opponent is a foot taller than you or even just more skilled, you should definately not be punished for fighting smart.

fighting is as much strategy as it is aggression, probably more so. aggression is part of an overall strategy.

i just think it is a shame that mma is being compromised. watching the strategies and how each fighter responds to challenges is the cool part, big knock outs are icing on the cake.

for marketing purposes, big knock outs are desired, and the fighting itself is downplayed due to most fans now not knowing what they are watching.

they are looking for bar fight brutality in an athletic event.

MMA was compromised the moment that they instituted decisions and then referee standups. IF you are truly interested in a “real” fight we could go back to the days of guys laying around the cage for upwards of an hour while people fall asleep.[/quote]

a more pure fight would be more enjoyable imo. i did used to wrestle and grapple though, so i enjoy the sport for what it is. i do understand that most people just want to see a quick and brutal fight on TV in the same way they have blood lust for bar and school yard fights.

it’s all about the violence, which isn’t boring, and not about the sport, athleticism and technique that actually makes many styles of martial arts that comprise mma what they are.

stand ups limit some fighting styles in a way that removing a wide receiver’s left leg would limit football.

78

[quote]texasguy wrote:

a more pure fight would be more enjoyable imo. i did used to wrestle and grapple though, so i enjoy the sport for what it is. i do understand that most people just want to see a quick and brutal fight on TV in the same way they have blood lust for bar and school yard fights.

it’s all about the violence, which isn’t boring, and not about the sport, athleticism and technique that actually makes many styles of martial arts that comprise mma what they are.

stand ups limit some fighting styles in a way that removing a wide receiver’s left leg would limit football.
[/quote]

Poor analogy, it would be more like removing the ability to pass from a football game.

79

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
i don’t see why fighters should be punished for fighting smart. the goal is to win.

Wrong. The goal of a fight is to impose your will upon another - to literally subjugate him. A civilized way to do this is through knockout or submission. To submit is to literally say, “My life is in your hands.” A person knocked out is helpless and survives only because of the graciousness and mercy of his opponent.

Anyone who steps into a ring or cage and thinks of doing anything other than imposing his will upon his opponent should take up ballet. In ballet, dancing in encouraged. In fighting, dancing is properly scorned.

Ali danced and he was cheered by the world. Mayweather danced and he made something like $ 10 million last weekend.

Grace and skill have a huge place in the ring.[/quote]

Ali had personality.

Look at Couture. When you really look at it, he isn’t the most exciting fighter. He doesn’t possess knock out power, and he doesn’t do anything fancy. Technically his fight with Sylvia was pretty dull. If it had been any other 2 fighters there would have been a bit of booing probably. But it was Randy Couture…Captain America, and he was cheered from start to finish.

80

[quote]slimjim wrote:
texasguy wrote:

a more pure fight would be more enjoyable imo. i did used to wrestle and grapple though, so i enjoy the sport for what it is. i do understand that most people just want to see a quick and brutal fight on TV in the same way they have blood lust for bar and school yard fights.

it’s all about the violence, which isn’t boring, and not about the sport, athleticism and technique that actually makes many styles of martial arts that comprise mma what they are.

stand ups limit some fighting styles in a way that removing a wide receiver’s left leg would limit football.

Poor analogy, it would be more like removing the ability to pass from a football game.[/quote]

My analogy wasn’t very good either, it would be more like removing the shot clock from the NBA.