[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about the split decision for Maynard over Huerta? Psssshh, man Maynard won fair and square from my view, no split. I like both the Diaz brothers too, very game. I'd like to see Nate get some more strength somehow...but Melvin as per usual comes out on fire and then gets choked out...lol Good show I thought?

I almost choked on my drink when they read the first card for Huerta. I have no clue what that guy was watching.

I don't like Nate's attitude (Nick is even more obnoxious), but he's a very skilled fighter and highly entertaining in the octagon.

I've seen enough of Guillotine Guillard. Cut him already, he's a waste of time.

As for TUF, entertaining seeing the heavyweights, but this looks like it will be the least talented season by far. The loser of that fight looks like he has no MMA skill at all and I doubt the ex-football players are going to do much better. Add Kimbo into the mix and you have a circus. Fun to watch, but the winner of the show won't even need to be all that skilled to "earn" a contract. IMO, whoever wins will do nothing to bolster the heavyweight division.

 

[ZepFloyd]

i dont think rampage is a good coach. he tends to look at people size em up and expects them to just dominate. like picking kimbo first? i dont think kimbo will be terrible, but he wasnt the cream of the crop either. and the fight he chose was insane, a dude with great ground game vs a dude with no ground defense. when i mean no ground defense, i mean the dude was taken down at will and just got pummeled. rampage was just yelling, "get up" the whole time, which is terrible coaching. i think he knows what he would do, and what he wants the fighters to do, but cant express it right. hes gotta tell that dude to look to move their leg, arm wherever. just yelling "get up" isnt going to help the guy.

 

[fuseboxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif i saw it. Rampage is hilarious. i think the Joe Stevenson-BJ Penn fight was bloodier, but that cut was pretty nasty. Rashad probably has the better/skilled team. this is the most entertaining TUF by far.

I don't even know why the referee didn't stop the fight considering how bloody it was...

...or at least stopped it to get the cut checked.

 

[fuseboxx]

WHAT. THE. ****!?

Shogun vs Machida = Best fight I've seen in the UFC in a long time - so technical, strategic & disciplined - and worst decision I've seen in quite a while: How the hell did Lyoto win that?!? Robbed.

To be fair, it was close... sure... But Shogun was the more consistent and aggressive one throughout the fight.

This calls for a rematch. NAO.

P.S. - Joe Rogan should get off Shogun's balls. Stop being so blatantly biased, man...

 

[SemiAudiophile]

it looked like shogun definitely did more damage in the fight (at least by all those leg kicks). i have to watch the replay, but it looked to me like shogun won at least rounds 1, 3, and 5. the other rounds were very close and looked like a tie. i was very impressed by shogun, how patient he was and how he changed and stuck with his strategy throughout the fight. that should be shogun's belt!! the machida era is over!!

edit: after watching the replay, i give shogun rounds 4 and 5. machida gets round 3. and rounds 1 and 2 are a tie.

 

[nhancakes]

i'm pissed. Machida abandoned that karate around the 4th round, and he looked like a regular fighter. Absolutely sick having to watch Shogun cry in the lockerroom because of that decision.

 

[fuseboxx]

he cried? O.o

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif WHAT. THE. ****!? Shogun vs Machida = Best fight I've seen in the UFC in a long time - so technical, strategic & disciplined - and worst decision I've seen in quite a while: How the hell did Lyoto win that?!? Robbed. To be fair, it was close... sure... But Shogun was the more consistent and aggressive one throughout the fight. This calls for a rematch. NAO. P.S. - Joe Rogan should get off Shogun's balls. Stop being so blatantly biased, man...

Absolutely agree. That was the best MMA fight I have seen in a while. But it highlights two, perhaps inescapable, problems with the UFC:

1. This seems to be a problem with MMA generally... Bad decisions.

I mean all types of decisions. How many <insert sport here> matches have you seen at the top level where the referee made a terrible decision. A few, the refs are human and mistakes happen. But in a season, or tournament, of <insert sport> the number of mistakes is very small, and if the errors are large, measures are immediately taken to ensure better performance in the future.

I can't remember the last UFC event I saw where there wasn't either a serious refereeing mistake, or a terribly judged fight. Why does Steve "random stoppage" Mazzagati still have a refereeing job?

MMA will not become a mainstream sport until this is addressed.

2. A problem specifically with the UFC is the way they have allowed fight promotion to dominate all aspects of their events. Their employees consistently show a non-existent level of professionalism. See: Joe Rogan's constant cheerleading. Why does Mike "I can't speak English, and know nothing about MMA" Goldberg still have a job commenting on MMA? And don't get me started on Dana White.

/rant

It just makes me sad. Fights are fun to watch, and MMA could be a huge sport. But it continues to be completely mishandled.

 

[SemiAudiophile]

MMA got mainstream ever since UFC started airing on spike. then we saw IFL, strikeforce, and others on main network stations like NBC, etc.

like Dana said, bad decisions happen, even in other sports as well. this fight was a very, very close match though and no one was the clear winner. i'm ready to see the rematch. it is definitely going to be a better fight next time around.

i don't have a problem with Mike Goldberg. he doesn't really talk into full MMA detail like Joe, but he does a good job at giving info. I think Joe does a great job too. they are both waay better than those commentaries heard on other amateur MMA leagues (ex. strikeforce).

the only MMA worth watching is UFC, Pride, K1, and WEC. All others are amateur crap.

 

[DarkAngel]

I would score fight for Shogun......
He was the clear aggressor and stalked Machida most of the fight, Machida mostly being defensive and retreating, but I agree it was close.

Shogun would have tipped the scales more decisively his way if he would have planned being very active/aggressive closing the round last 20 seconds, stealing the round.......in close fights very important to finish each round aggressive

 

[pcf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif the only MMA worth watching is UFC, Pride, K1, and WEC. All others are amateur crap.

Strikeforce has some good ones too. I went to see Shamrock and Diaz live in San Jose and enjoyed it very much, especially the Scott Smith one punch KO.
WEC is my current favourite. They last one was great as usual.
I will never forgive UFC for killing off Pride

(I know, Pride killed itself too). I also don't like to pay for UFC to see usually just one good main event. I used to order Pride every time and always felt that it was money well spent. They would have 5 or 6 bouts that were good enough to make UFC main event. Things like the open weight tourament were amazing. I really miss Pride.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Quote:

MMA got mainstream ever since UFC started airing on spike. then we saw IFL, strikeforce, and others on main network stations like NBC, etc.

Wrong. MMA is not mainstream. Mainstream means the majority of the population is aware of it, and it enjoys a large following. Ask a random person on the street about MMA.

Quote:

like Dana said, bad decisions happen, even in other sports as well. this fight was a very, very close match though and no one was the clear winner. i'm ready to see the rematch. it is definitely going to be a better fight next time around.

Everything Dana White says is worthless. This is a case in point. Sure bad decisions happen in all sports. Name me a sport other than MMA where not only wrong decisions, but wrong decisions that have a major impact on the game, are made on regular basis at the top tier level of competition (i.e. for every 5 games, 1 game is decided by a bad call). Like I said, I can't remember the last time I saw a UFC event in which the referee or the judges handed a win to a fighter through blatantly bad decision-making.

No one was the clear winner? That is nonsense. Sure the fight was close, but unless the fight is ruled a "no contest" there is always a winner. There is a very clear set of guidelines for deciding the winner. If you watch the fight with these in mind you will see that Shogun won a close fight.

Quote:

i don't have a problem with Mike Goldberg. he doesn't really talk into full MMA detail like Joe, but he does a good job at giving info. I think Joe does a great job too. they are both waay better than those commentaries heard on other amateur MMA leagues (ex. strikeforce).

I suppose that is personal preference. I agree with you that Joe occasionally gives useful information, especially about ground positions. But to me they are terrible commentators. The point of sports commentating is to give the viewer some insight into what is going on. This typically means explaining some of the rules/calls, making the viewer aware of things that can't be seen on the screen and to some extent giving an audible account of the events taking place. To me, Mike and Joe are almost indistinguishable from two fans in a pub sitting at the table next to yours; complete with the urge to break a bottle over their heads. Their "banter" is irrelevant, completely unprofessional and plausibly the result of one too many pints.

Even if you don't agree with my opinion of the subjective qualities of the UFC commentary, it is also objectively bad. A regular occurrence during UFC broadcasts is inaccurate commentary. You will be watching a fight, and see a fighter clearly perform action A, and Mike or Joe will say that action B occurred. This is slightly annoying, and not really their fault. The UFC is the only situation that I have seen where the commentators have a worse view of the action than the person watching at home.

 

[Fido2]

I think this may hearken back to boxing where, usually, in a championship match, unless the champ is SOUNDLY defeated they will almost always give a close fight to the champ.

 

[SemiAudiophile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wrong. MMA is not mainstream. Mainstream means the majority of the population is aware of it, and it enjoys a large following. Ask a random person on the street about MMA.

we apparently have different definitions of "mainstream". maybe the people in Ontario haven't caught on as fast, but MMA has gotten pretty mainstream at least a good 5 years ago here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif No one was the clear winner? That is nonsense. Sure the fight was close, but unless the fight is ruled a "no contest" there is always a winner. There is a very clear set of guidelines for deciding the winner. If you watch the fight with these in mind you will see that Shogun won a close fight.

yes, i said it. no one was the clear winner (though my vote did go for shogun at the end of the fight). the fact is neither fighter pushed hard enough at the end of the fight to settle the score. shogun said it himself, his corner told him that he was winning, that's why he didn't push harder. that's what happens when you leave scoring to the judges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif To me, Mike and Joe are almost indistinguishable from two fans in a pub sitting at the table next to yours; complete with the urge to break a bottle over their heads. Their "banter" is irrelevant, completely unprofessional and plausibly the result of one too many pints.

that's actually why i prefer Rogan and Goldberg's commentary. they sound like real people and they don't try to sell me any of that BS. i don't care about no professionalism. i want to hear what's raw and real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if you don't agree with my opinion of the subjective qualities of the UFC commentary, it is also objectively bad. A regular occurrence during UFC broadcasts is inaccurate commentary. You will be watching a fight, and see a fighter clearly perform action A, and Mike or Joe will say that action B occurred. This is slightly annoying, and not really their fault. The UFC is the only situation that I have seen where the commentators have a worse view of the action than the person watching at home.

i don't know what you're talking about. example?

people have strong opinions on Head-Fi, i prefer not to argue. we each have our own opinion. i sometimes find it best to agree to disagree.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif we apparently have different definitions of "mainstream". maybe the people in Ontario haven't caught on as fast, but MMA has gotten pretty mainstream at least a good 5 years ago here.

This may be true. I know that the percentage my family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances that know about MMA is small. The number that follow the sport is smaller still. I like to think that they are representative of the public at large, but perhaps they aren't. Then again, Hawaii may have more that it's fair share of high-profile fighters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif yes, i said it. no one was the clear winner (though my vote did go for shogun at the end of the fight). the fact is neither fighter pushed hard enough at the end of the fight to settle the score. shogun said it himself, his corner told him that he was winning, that's why he didn't push harder.

Again, there is a clear evaluation system that ensures a winner is chosen. That "neither fighter pushed hard enough" is not a good enough reason to award a 10-10 round.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's what happens when you leave scoring to the judges.

A favourite Dana-ism. The fact that the judging system is so poor that you would even consider saying this indicates how far MMA is from being a proper sport.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's actually why i prefer Rogan and Goldberg's commentary. they sound like real people and they don't try to sell me any of that BS. i don't care about no professionalism. i want to hear what's raw and real.

Rogan and Goldberg give me the exact opposite impression. They sound completely fake, and spend their entire time selling you BS. The BS they sell is UFC propaganda. I find that commentary that sounds the most like "real people" comes from real people, not industry hacks. As to professionalism versus what's raw and real, there is no reason commentary should not be "raw" or "real." As long as the commentator is performing their intended function there is room for stylistic differences. What there is no room for is crap like this (from UFC104):

Rogan: Gleison moves away and Josh just chases after him.
(Neer throws a front kick that lands)
Goldberg: <indecipherable grunt> (sounds like "teak")
*pause*
Goldberg: That was for my crew. Mark Dellagrotte.

Completely unprofessional. Their job is to call the fight, not to boost their own image, not to suck up to the celebrities that show up to the fights, not to chum around with the fighters or their trainers, and not to promote their twitter feeds. Again, find me a mainstream sport (other than WWE) where commentators behave this way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif i don't know what you're talking about. example?

Bah, I was hoping you wouldn't call me on this...

I don't have an example handy. I don't think it happened in this PPV.

Basically it's because of where Rogan and Goldberg sit. They are right at the edge of the ring, which is fine most of the time. But when the fighters are at the other end of the octogon, or when the "striking line" is parallel with their line of sight (i.e. one of the fighters has his back to them obscuring their view of the other pugilist), they can't see the action as well as the cameramen can. They should have a TV monitor for those occasions but they don't seem to use them. The result is, every once in a while, Goldberg or Rogan will say something that is clearly blatantly wrong. Such as "oh he got rocked" when in reality the fighter dodged a blow and slipped in the process.

It's not a huge deal. It's just really strange as in every other sport, the commentators have a better view of the action than the rest of the spectators, and can shed light on things that you can't see at home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemiAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif people have strong opinions on Head-Fi, i prefer not to argue. we each have our own opinion. i sometimes find it best to agree to disagree.

I don't see the point of holding strong opinions if you are not prepared to defend them. Argument is an essential part of life. It helps you to understand your own feelings and to clarify your own positions. It helps onlookers to make up their minds on an issue. It helps propagate good ideas and fosters a respect for logic and inquiry. And in the case of arguments such as this one it helps prepare you for serious debates on more important matters.

That doesn't mean that we can't be civil. I certainly don't mean to cause offense.