The funniest thing from that episode is still the "Do you guys want to win $1500 or see me knock him the fuck out?" 'cause that was totally the choice.
And now they don't get either. I originally was rooting for Rampage because it was a case of "I hate this guy a little less than I hate that guy" but after 10 episodes of this show, that attitude has changed drastically. Not that we'll ever get to see the fight anyway. Apparently Rampage took Dodge as a feat when he last leveled up.
The funniest thing from that episode is still the "Do you guys want to win $1500 or see me knock him the fuck out?" 'cause that was totally the choice.
And now they don't get either. I originally was rooting for Rampage because it was a case of "I hate this guy a little less than I hate that guy" but after 10 episodes of this show, that attitude has changed drastically. Not that we'll ever get to see the fight anyway. Apparently Rampage took Dodge as a feat when he last leveled up.
Have I mentioned recently that Rampage is a jackass?
I blame his deteriorated mental condition, really.
He's really gone down hill, though. I mean, he's always been a little goofy, but he's become big-C Crazy now. Best of luck to him and his family. Maybe he's got sleep apnea or something and needs a CPAP. I doubt it's substance abuse... they test for too many things for him to get by long.
I counted Brendan grabbing the shorts 3 times, and grabbing the fence at least TEN times. In the second round he stuffed at least one, possibly two takedowns through fence grabbing. And trying to slam or takedown someone takes a lot of energy, and to have it halted halfway through because of an illegal move is even more draining. That ref was a damn pussy for not calling the fighter out on that and docking points in the first round.
Seriously, if the refs are going to be like that, why not just start every fight with a hard groin shot and an eye poke. Apparently the first few illegal moves are free, so why not hurt the other fighter and put him at a disadvantage for the rest of the fight?
I missed the preview for next weeks TUF. I think I can guess it, though.
"With Kimbo out injured, is this the break that Kimbo needs to get back into the Kimbo and Kimbo Kimbo Kimbo?"
Next week is a two hour special, with 4 fights (last two quarterfinals + semis). Its still up in the air whether Kimbo will fight or not, which to me means he won't.
I counted Brendan grabbing the shorts 3 times, and grabbing the fence at least TEN times. In the second round he stuffed at least one, possibly two takedowns through fence grabbing. And trying to slam or takedown someone takes a lot of energy, and to have it halted halfway through because of an illegal move is even more draining. That ref was a damn pussy for not calling the fighter out on that and docking points in the first round.
Seriously, if the refs are going to be like that, why not just start every fight with a hard groin shot and an eye poke. Apparently the first few illegal moves are free, so why not hurt the other fighter and put him at a disadvantage for the rest of the fight?
No joke. Where are Big John and/or Herb Dean when you need them? John would have stomped a mudhole in Brendan's ass for disobeying his orders that many times and Dean is 2nd best now that John doesn't ref for the UFC anymore. IMO, anyway.
Where do you get certified to be a ref or a judge, anyway? I could do either of those jobs better than say...Yves Lavinge or Cecil Peoples.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I counted Brendan grabbing the shorts 3 times, and grabbing the fence at least TEN times. In the second round he stuffed at least one, possibly two takedowns through fence grabbing. And trying to slam or takedown someone takes a lot of energy, and to have it halted halfway through because of an illegal move is even more draining. That ref was a damn pussy for not calling the fighter out on that and docking points in the first round.
Seriously, if the refs are going to be like that, why not just start every fight with a hard groin shot and an eye poke. Apparently the first few illegal moves are free, so why not hurt the other fighter and put him at a disadvantage for the rest of the fight?
No joke. Where are Big John and/or Herb Dean when you need them? John would have stomped a mudhole in Brendan's ass for disobeying his orders that many times and Dean is 2nd best now that John doesn't ref for the UFC anymore. IMO, anyway.
Where do you get certified to be a ref or a judge, anyway? I could do either of those jobs better than say...Yves Lavinge or Cecil Peoples.
Here's an interview with Rogan for SI.com were he talks about judging for MMA in general.
Let go of the fence.
Let go of the fence.
Fingers out of the cage.
Let go. *slap*
Hands off the cage.
Let go of the shorts.
Fingers out of the cage.
Fingers out of the shorts.
Shorts off the cage fingers.
Let go of the fence.
Let go of the fence.
Fingers out of the cage.
Let go. *slap*
Hands off the cage.
Let go of the shorts.
Fingers out of the cage.
Fingers out of the shorts.
Shorts off the cage fingers.
And I'd rather allow all of that than glove-tap takedown attempts anyday. What goes around comes around.
Have I mentioned recently that Rampage is a jackass?
I blame his deteriorated mental condition, really.
He's really gone down hill, though. I mean, he's always been a little goofy, but he's become big-C Crazy now. Best of luck to him and his family. Maybe he's got sleep apnea or something and needs a CPAP. I doubt it's substance abuse... they test for too many things for him to get by long.
He's been big-C Crazy ever since he was on the Jesus juice. Believing that it's His will that you're winning, and then LOSING, was probably what snapped his mind and sent him on that driving rampage.
Cage-grabbing is a consistent problem. There must be a solution, like putting a mesh over the cage or something. I've seen people escape takedowns by grabbing the cage many times, and I've never once seen a fighter penalized for it that I can recall.
Cage-grabbing is a consistent problem. There must be a solution, like putting a mesh over the cage or something. I've seen people escape takedowns by grabbing the cage many times, and I've never once seen a fighter penalized for it that I can recall.
The only one I can think of is Tito Ortiz vs Rashad, where the deducted point ended up with the match being a draw (otherwise it was tito's win).
But it's like any illegal thing, it's not a rule that's in there for shits and giggles. If used right, it can alter the outcome of a match, just like eye poking does. And that's what gets me, it's not just that they're ignoring the ref's rules, but sometimes grabbing the cage can really alter the outcome of a fight. Like it did last night.
You could argue that brendan would have still won, and maybe he would have. But he was using that cage last night to spin away from the ground and pound, and he used it to stuff at least one, possibly two take downs, and who knows how the fight goes after that.
A pretty obvious solution when you think about it. I also prefer the four corners over the octagon, because it allows you to trap another fighter, and makes it harder for people to run. But it makes ground and pound sometimes harder because you have nothing to push against.
I like one idea I heard a while ago. Put a small, like foot tall padded barrier around the edges of the ring, just inside the ropes. So you'd have something to push against for ground and pound, and to stop wrestlers from sliding out of the ring, but not big and tall enough for people to hold onto and abuse, or big enough to block spectator's vision..
A ring brings its own sets of problems, including guys ducking out through the ropes. And if a guy is gonna grab a fence to stop a takedown, there's no reason to believe they won't grab a rope or even hook their arm over one of the ropes. (Edit: Yeah, like Cango said.)
The solution to the problem is stunningly simple: just give the guy the takedown. Refs don't want to deduct points on "minor" penalties because they know that even one point can turn a win into a draw. So instead, if a ref feels like a fighter grabbed the cage to avoid a takedown, then stop the action and reposition the fighters on the ground with the takedowner on top in half-guard and the takedownee on the bottom.
Then you can make it a three strikes rule. The first two times, the fighter gets put on his back. The third time he grabs the fence to stop a takedown, he gets put on his back and he loses a point.
A ring brings its own sets of problems, including guys ducking out through the ropes. And if a guy is gonna grab a fence to stop a takedown, there's no reason to believe they won't grab a rope or even hook their arm over one of the ropes. (Edit: Yeah, like Cango said.)
The solution to the problem is stunningly simple: just give the guy the takedown. Refs don't want to deduct points on "minor" penalties because they know that even one point can turn a win into a draw. So instead, if a ref feels like a fighter grabbed the cage to avoid a takedown, then stop the action and reposition the fighters on the ground with the takedowner on top in half-guard and the takedownee on the bottom.
Then you can make it a three strikers rule. The first two times, the fighter gets put on his back. The third time he grabs the fence to stop a takedown, he gets put on his back and he loses a point.
Problem solved.
And any time a fighter dares to defend a shoot, put him on his back automatically under mount.
A ring brings its own sets of problems, including guys ducking out through the ropes. And if a guy is gonna grab a fence to stop a takedown, there's no reason to believe they won't grab a rope or even hook their arm over one of the ropes. (Edit: Yeah, like Cango said.)
The solution to the problem is stunningly simple: just give the guy the takedown. Refs don't want to deduct points on "minor" penalties because they know that even one point can turn a win into a draw. So instead, if a ref feels like a fighter grabbed the cage to avoid a takedown, then stop the action and reposition the fighters on the ground with the takedowner on top in half-guard and the takedownee on the bottom.
Then you can make it a three strikers rule. The first two times, the fighter gets put on his back. The third time he grabs the fence to stop a takedown, he gets put on his back and he loses a point.
Problem solved.
This is one of the best things ever. I love it.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
A ring brings its own sets of problems, including guys ducking out through the ropes. And if a guy is gonna grab a fence to stop a takedown, there's no reason to believe they won't grab a rope or even hook their arm over one of the ropes. (Edit: Yeah, like Cango said.)
The solution to the problem is stunningly simple: just give the guy the takedown. Refs don't want to deduct points on "minor" penalties because they know that even one point can turn a win into a draw. So instead, if a ref feels like a fighter grabbed the cage to avoid a takedown, then stop the action and reposition the fighters on the ground with the takedowner on top in half-guard and the takedownee on the bottom.
Then you can make it a three strikers rule. The first two times, the fighter gets put on his back. The third time he grabs the fence to stop a takedown, he gets put on his back and he loses a point.
Problem solved.
And any time a fighter dares to defend a shoot, put him on his back automatically under mount.
That sounds fair.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
A ring brings its own sets of problems, including guys ducking out through the ropes. And if a guy is gonna grab a fence to stop a takedown, there's no reason to believe they won't grab a rope or even hook their arm over one of the ropes. (Edit: Yeah, like Cango said.)
The solution to the problem is stunningly simple: just give the guy the takedown. Refs don't want to deduct points on "minor" penalties because they know that even one point can turn a win into a draw. So instead, if a ref feels like a fighter grabbed the cage to avoid a takedown, then stop the action and reposition the fighters on the ground with the takedowner on top in half-guard and the takedownee on the bottom.
Then you can make it a three strikers rule. The first two times, the fighter gets put on his back. The third time he grabs the fence to stop a takedown, he gets put on his back and he loses a point.
Problem solved.
And any time a fighter dares to defend a shoot, put him on his back automatically under mount.
And any time a fighter dares to defend a shoot, put him on his back automatically under mount.
That sounds fair.
That's not even close to what he said...
If he wants to give grapplers freebies, might as well go all the way.
Are you saying that giving a fighter a takedown when his opponent commits a penalty to avoid a takedown, do you really believe that amounts to "giving grapplers freebies"?
And any time a fighter dares to defend a shoot, put him on his back automatically under mount.
That sounds fair.
That's not even close to what he said...
If he wants to give grapplers freebies, might as well go all the way.
He's not giving grapplers a freebie. If you defend the takedown without breaking the rules, there's no penalty. If you grab the fence, which is against the rules, there is a penalty. How does this constitute giving a grappler a "freebie"? All you have to do to avoid it is not break the rules.
And any time a fighter dares to defend a shoot, put him on his back automatically under mount.
That sounds fair.
That's not even close to what he said...
If he wants to give grapplers freebies, might as well go all the way.
Are you saying that giving a fighter a takedown when his opponent commits a penalty to avoid a takedown, do you really believe that amounts to "giving grapplers freebies"?
UFC is already grappler biased. A ring favors a striker, a cage favors a grappler. If you want to skew it even more in favor of the favored fighter type, might as well go to the extreme since you don't want balance at all.
You'll be giving refs more power to decide in favor of grapplers. Accidental cage grabbing while you still defend the takedown with or without it? Oh have some free ground and pound.
It just shows your bias that you would support implementing this slanted rule over something simpler and more fair like a mesh.
UFC is already grappler biased. A ring favors a striker, a cage favors a grappler. If you want to skew it even more in favor of the favored fighter type, might as well go to the extreme since you don't want balance at all.
You'll be giving refs more power to decide in favor of grapplers. Accidental cage grabbing while you still defend the takedown with or without it? Oh have some free ground and pound.
You are impossible.
Here's what normal people do. If they have a question about something, if they'd like clarification, they ask for clarification.
For example, you could have asked, "What if the cage-grabbing was an accident?" or "What if the grabbing didn't factor into the takedown defense?"
But no, you didn't ask those questions. Instead, you just assumed you knew the answers and started making stupid counter-arguments.
Well played.
Edit: Oh, and you edited in an extra bat-shit insane line just because you apparently felt that you didn't go crazy enough. My god.
Edit: Oh, and you edited in an extra bat-shit insane line just because you apparently felt that you didn't go crazy enough. My god.
Good ad-hominem that doesn't address any points.
You trust the refs to not abuse that tainted rule if they so choose? In boxing, if a boxer accidentally lands a low blow, the ref doesn't give his opponent a free haymaker attempt.
And any time a fighter dares to defend a shoot, put him on his back automatically under mount.
That sounds fair.
That's not even close to what he said...
If he wants to give grapplers freebies, might as well go all the way.
Are you saying that giving a fighter a takedown when his opponent commits a penalty to avoid a takedown, do you really believe that amounts to "giving grapplers freebies"?
UFC is already grappler biased. A ring favors a striker, a cage favors a grappler. If you want to skew it even more in favor of the favored fighter type, might as well go to the extreme since you don't want balance at all.
You'll be giving refs more power to decide in favor of grapplers. Accidental cage grabbing while you still defend the takedown with or without it? Oh have some free ground and pound.
It just shows your bias that you would support implementing this slanted rule over something simpler and more fair like a mesh.
I don't see where you get that the UFC is grappler biased, considering the imposition of standups, shorter rounds, and Dana White's repeated assurances in interviews and promotional snippets that "there won't be any groundwork in ______ fight." A grappler-biased promotion would favor longer rounds and no standups.
Furthermore, how exactly do you "accidentally" grab the cage?
Edit: Oh, and you edited in an extra bat-shit insane line just because you apparently felt that you didn't go crazy enough. My god.
Good ad-hominem that doesn't address any points.
Make a point worth addressing.
Wet Bandit on
0
Options
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
Wait, is the argument that grabbing the cage should be treated like low blows? Like, three or more and the ref should seriously consider stopping the fight?
The argument is that SOMETHING should happen. As it stands now, fighters can grab the cage several times with no consequences aside from a verbal warning from the ref.
Posts
And now they don't get either. I originally was rooting for Rampage because it was a case of "I hate this guy a little less than I hate that guy" but after 10 episodes of this show, that attitude has changed drastically. Not that we'll ever get to see the fight anyway. Apparently Rampage took Dodge as a feat when he last leveled up.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
"With Kimbo out injured, is this the break that Kimbo needs to get back into the Kimbo and Kimbo Kimbo Kimbo?"
Seriously, if the refs are going to be like that, why not just start every fight with a hard groin shot and an eye poke. Apparently the first few illegal moves are free, so why not hurt the other fighter and put him at a disadvantage for the rest of the fight?
Next week is a two hour special, with 4 fights (last two quarterfinals + semis). Its still up in the air whether Kimbo will fight or not, which to me means he won't.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Where do you get certified to be a ref or a judge, anyway? I could do either of those jobs better than say...Yves Lavinge or Cecil Peoples.
Found this funny. It's Tank's "profile picture" on his Wikipedia page.
Here's an interview with Rogan for SI.com were he talks about judging for MMA in general.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/podcasts/josh_gross/listenlive.player.html?file=http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/joshgross/audio/2009/11/17/gpb-ep24-111709.mp3
It's a podcast so you can get it free via the itunes store. Just search for Josh Gross and it should pop up.
He starts talking about judging at 10:20.
Let go of the fence.
Fingers out of the cage.
Let go. *slap*
Hands off the cage.
Let go of the shorts.
Fingers out of the cage.
Fingers out of the shorts.
Shorts off the cage fingers.
And I'd rather allow all of that than glove-tap takedown attempts anyday. What goes around comes around.
He's been big-C Crazy ever since he was on the Jesus juice. Believing that it's His will that you're winning, and then LOSING, was probably what snapped his mind and sent him on that driving rampage.
of course then you'll have fighters trying to bounce each other's heads off of it
The only one I can think of is Tito Ortiz vs Rashad, where the deducted point ended up with the match being a draw (otherwise it was tito's win).
But it's like any illegal thing, it's not a rule that's in there for shits and giggles. If used right, it can alter the outcome of a match, just like eye poking does. And that's what gets me, it's not just that they're ignoring the ref's rules, but sometimes grabbing the cage can really alter the outcome of a fight. Like it did last night.
That's what I thought last night too.
The danger is that sometimes the plexiglass shatters, and also, it can get smeared with blood and sweat (and feces?)
How about a ring?
I like one idea I heard a while ago. Put a small, like foot tall padded barrier around the edges of the ring, just inside the ropes. So you'd have something to push against for ground and pound, and to stop wrestlers from sliding out of the ring, but not big and tall enough for people to hold onto and abuse, or big enough to block spectator's vision..
People grab ropes just as much. Then theres the guys diving out of the ring to avoid a submission.
The solution to the problem is stunningly simple: just give the guy the takedown. Refs don't want to deduct points on "minor" penalties because they know that even one point can turn a win into a draw. So instead, if a ref feels like a fighter grabbed the cage to avoid a takedown, then stop the action and reposition the fighters on the ground with the takedowner on top in half-guard and the takedownee on the bottom.
Then you can make it a three strikes rule. The first two times, the fighter gets put on his back. The third time he grabs the fence to stop a takedown, he gets put on his back and he loses a point.
Problem solved.
And any time a fighter dares to defend a shoot, put him on his back automatically under mount.
That sounds fair.
This is one of the best things ever. I love it.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
That's not even close to what he said...
If he wants to give grapplers freebies, might as well go all the way.
Are you saying that giving a fighter a takedown when his opponent commits a penalty to avoid a takedown, do you really believe that amounts to "giving grapplers freebies"?
He's not giving grapplers a freebie. If you defend the takedown without breaking the rules, there's no penalty. If you grab the fence, which is against the rules, there is a penalty. How does this constitute giving a grappler a "freebie"? All you have to do to avoid it is not break the rules.
UFC is already grappler biased. A ring favors a striker, a cage favors a grappler. If you want to skew it even more in favor of the favored fighter type, might as well go to the extreme since you don't want balance at all.
You'll be giving refs more power to decide in favor of grapplers. Accidental cage grabbing while you still defend the takedown with or without it? Oh have some free ground and pound.
It just shows your bias that you would support implementing this slanted rule over something simpler and more fair like a mesh.
You are impossible.
Here's what normal people do. If they have a question about something, if they'd like clarification, they ask for clarification.
For example, you could have asked, "What if the cage-grabbing was an accident?" or "What if the grabbing didn't factor into the takedown defense?"
But no, you didn't ask those questions. Instead, you just assumed you knew the answers and started making stupid counter-arguments.
Well played.
Edit: Oh, and you edited in an extra bat-shit insane line just because you apparently felt that you didn't go crazy enough. My god.
Good ad-hominem that doesn't address any points.
You trust the refs to not abuse that tainted rule if they so choose? In boxing, if a boxer accidentally lands a low blow, the ref doesn't give his opponent a free haymaker attempt.
You're arguing for the equivalent in the UFC.
I don't see where you get that the UFC is grappler biased, considering the imposition of standups, shorter rounds, and Dana White's repeated assurances in interviews and promotional snippets that "there won't be any groundwork in ______ fight." A grappler-biased promotion would favor longer rounds and no standups.
Furthermore, how exactly do you "accidentally" grab the cage?
Same way there's accidental eye pokes during striking. Fingers go places, especially if you have those open-finger gloves on.
Still, this is a silly argument over a stupid rule. Let's just agree that the rule is terrible and leave it at that.
Make a point worth addressing.