- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Posts
- 2,431
- Likes
- 1,447
Quote:
there is a evaluation system. based on that system they awarded Machida as the winner. when i said there was no clear winner, that was based on my opinion. i should have put "IMO" at the end of the sentence.
IMO shogun did more damage and it's obvious by looking at Machida's face and legs. so he should have been the winner. but if you look at it overall, neither one really won the fight. if the fight kept going to round 6, it could have landed either way depending on who had the better cardio.
the other point i think people were trying to make is that maybe the judges didn't follow the ruling system and they were bias with their scoring (scoring in favor of the champion).
Quote:
i didn't catch that. maybe you are too busy paying attention to the commentary and not watching the fight?
Quote:
so he made a mistake? big deal. again, this kind of stuff doesn't really bother me. but i can see how it might bother others. maybe you should focus your attention on the fight instead? or perhaps turn down the volume?
Quote:
here's where we do agree. it's not that i run away from arguments, i just prefer to avoid them.
Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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...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. |
there is a evaluation system. based on that system they awarded Machida as the winner. when i said there was no clear winner, that was based on my opinion. i should have put "IMO" at the end of the sentence.
IMO shogun did more damage and it's obvious by looking at Machida's face and legs. so he should have been the winner. but if you look at it overall, neither one really won the fight. if the fight kept going to round 6, it could have landed either way depending on who had the better cardio.
the other point i think people were trying to make is that maybe the judges didn't follow the ruling system and they were bias with their scoring (scoring in favor of the champion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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. |
i didn't catch that. maybe you are too busy paying attention to the commentary and not watching the fight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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. |
so he made a mistake? big deal. again, this kind of stuff doesn't really bother me. but i can see how it might bother others. maybe you should focus your attention on the fight instead? or perhaps turn down the volume?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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. |
here's where we do agree. it's not that i run away from arguments, i just prefer to avoid them.