www.411mania.com
|  News |  Columns |  Reports |  Video Reviews |  Title History |  News Report |
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// Kim Kardashian Shows Off Some Cleavage In London
MUSIC
// Miley Cyrus Goes Pantless At Billboard Music Awards
WRESTLING
// 411’s Instant Access 05.20.12: WWE Over The Limit 2012
POLITICS
// Rev. Wright Hubbub Has Ramifications For Romney
MMA
// Roundtable Discussion: Can Frank Mir Defeat Junior Dos Santos?
GAMES
// Sonic 4 Episode 2 Launch Trailer Released


SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 



 
 411mania » MMA » Columns



Advertisement
411 MMA Fact or Fiction 07.09.08: Griffin's Chances of Retaining his Belt, Affliction's Poor Marketing, and More
Posted by Bren Oliver on 07.09.2008



Welcome to 411Mania MMA's Fact or Fiction - the column NSAC Judges unanimously voted the best "Bachelorette" re-cap column on the world wide web! I'm back with another set of opinions as delivered from the fingertips of a few fellows who know a thing or two about Mixed Martial Arts, and back from my "4th of July" trip to the beach for that matter. For any crossover readership who happens to read my other column, "Punch Drunk Hangover", rest assured PDH will be back in all its glory next Monday and will definitely include my thoughts on the mixed card that was UFC 86. However, you're here for "Fact or Fiction", and not shameless self promotion, so let me first introduce this week's contributors and then skate on into our six subjects.

First up is a newcomer to both "Fact or Fiction" and the 411Mania MMA team. You may recognize Scott "Kuch" Kuczkowski from the comments he often leaves on MMA articles, as well as one of our Zone's newest features - "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" - where he breaks down events in a manner Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood would be proud of. Across the aisle from Kuczkowski is a familiar face with more familiar keystrokes, Adam Tool, whose news report "The Fightin Stance News" can be found closing out every work-week with a solid dose of insight and opinion. And, of course, there are the co-stars to this lovely production we call MMA Fact or Fiction - the topics upon which our contributors base their delectable thoughts.

Fellow 411Mania columnists...are you ready? Then, America, with an enlarged heart and an empty skull, I say unto you the words of my Uncle...


ALLEZ FACT OR FICTION!!!!!!!


1. The lack of mainstream advertising for "Affliction: Banned" is inexcusible and will ultimately cost them thousands of PPV buys.


Scott Kuczkowski: FACT. The only thing about this statement that makes me cringe is the whole "inexcusable" claim. I don't know why they don't promote it or if there is some grand scheme that only the boys from Affliction are privy to, but yeah, I can see the lack of advertising costing them down the road. Right now the show is two weeks out and the only place I have seen an advertisement for it other than the internet is on HDNet. I'd like to think that Donald Trump would have made sure that word about this was getting out to the casual fans, but I haven't seen that happen yet. Affliction is going to learn the lesson that a number of promotions have gone out of business for not learning: if you can't draw the casual fans, you won't last for long. Affliction needs to bring in the folks off the street who only follow MMA to the point that they know when to buy UFC PPVs because they see the advertisements for them on Spike. EXC on CBS did a better job of advertising their show. Affliction's lack of advertisement will definitely hurt them.


Adam Tool: FACT. Honestly, are there any MMA fans that don't follow the news online that are looking forward to this show? Example: my brother-in-law is a big fan of the sport, but as a truck driver that spends most of his days on the road, he's barely even able to follow the UFC's schedule of events. The hardcore fans (i.e. most people reading this site) are pumped, but the casual fan has little reason to care about this show. For a new company looking to make it big in the increasingly-crowded MMA marketplace, this is not a good start. Of course we won't know for sure until the show is over and the buyrate numbers are released, but I won't be surprised if those numbers are relatively weak.


SCORE: 1 for 1. It's almost as if the UFC is becoming to Mixed Martial Arts what "Soulja Boy" is to hip-hop music - the flashy, mainstream beat selling millions of records that every bops their head to while underground artists are relegated to late-night rotation. Fortunately for everyone reading/writing this column, the UFC at least has a deep wealth of talent unlike a certain young "rapper". It's a shame so few people know about a card as incredible as "Affliction: Banned", but truly the company has nobody to blame other than themselves, as the consensus amongst hardcore fans and those in the media is that the event has been shamefully underpromoted.


2. Allowing Jesse Taylor to return to the UFC less than a month after the Ultimate Fighter 7 Finale sets a bad precedent in terms of permissible fighter conduct.


Scott Kuczkowski: FACT. I'm a little biased towards this because I'm not a huge JT fan, but yeah, I think bringing him back this soon is bad business. Jesse Taylor is a train wreck waiting to happen on a personal level (wait…it already happened and he was kicked off the finale for it) so I imagine it would only be a matter of time before he screws up again. I don't understand bringing him back this soon unless the UFC is looking to make some money off the fact that the guy acted like an idiot. Maybe they are worried that if they wait too long that no one will remember him at all and are operating under the mindset of "bad press is better than no press." What also confuses me is that Jesse wasn't the most dynamic fighter, so it's not like the fans were missing anything by not seeing him fight. The guy was basically a clone of Sean Sherk but with weaker ground and pound. What would be his finale? Pissing his pants in the Octagon?


Adam Tool: FICTION. Personally I'd be perfectly happy if Taylor never shows up on my TV screen again. He's not an exciting fighter, and he's got the personality of a Cro-Magnum. That being said, all reports indicate that after he was kicked off the show (which finished taping months ago) Taylor made big steps in getting his life turned around. He quit drinking, trained harder, and hopefully he's stopped peeing his pants as well. My philosophy is that everyone deserves a second chance, so I have no problem with Dana White bringing him back.


SCORE: 1 for 2. I hope "Koko the Monkey" has indeed cleaned his life up and is 100% focused on his family and training. Okay, maybe 99% on those things, and 1% on his strangely entertaining poetry. Let's just hope we never hear about him again belligerently running around a casino, and harrassing females and security, because this time, if he screams that he's a "UFC Fighter", he'll be telling the truth and that's something the sport and company definitely don't need to be burdened with.


3. Gilbert Melendez should no longer be ranked as a "Top 10" Lightweight after losing two of his last three fights (against Ishida and Thomson).


Scott Kuczkowski: FICTION. This was a tough one and I actually had to pull up some Lightweight rankings to get some perspective. My whole issue is "should no longer be ranked as a "Top 10" Lightweight". I think he still belongs on that list even though he has lost. His first loss was to Ishida in a pretty dull bout that saw Ishida take him down twice but not really cause any damage. The loss to Thomson isn't necessarily more excusable, but the fact is Thomson out hustled him for five rounds. If anything, I would say that fight alone should drop Melendez a spot or two but raise Thomson's ranking two or three spots. Despite those two losses, I still think Melendez belongs in the Top 10. How many other lightweights out there can boast a 14-2 record and claim victories over Clay Guida, Rumina Sato, and Tatsuya Kawajiri? Give the guy a break.


Adam Tool: FACT. If there wasn't much else going on in the Lightweight ranks, I could see Melendez sticking around in the Top Ten. However it just so happens to be one of the most competitive divisions in the world. You've got guys like Aoki and Alvarez tearing it up in DREAM, KJ Noons asserting his place in EliteXC, Gomi and JZ still hanging around, and of course the dozens of talented fighters currently working under the Zuffa banner (Penn, Florian, Huerta, Sherk, Griffin, Stevenson, etc.). Of course fighter rankings are purely subjective, so your results may differ.


SCORE: 1 for 3. I'm a fan of "El Nino", but I believe hurricane season has temporarily passed and won't be back until claiming another victory or two. He has some impressive wins, but I agree with Tool in the sense Lightweight is as deep as it gets, and losing two of three bouts in a row is enough to drop a guy with 14 wins out of the ten best fighters in the division (outside of maybe being a "Top 5" guy who loses to some variation of Penn/Gomi/Aoki). And really, what does "Top 10" even mean in a group of guys as stacked as the 155-pound class? Melendez is a very talented fighter with a bright future. He needs to tweak his game, perhaps mentally to an extent, and he'll be back banging with the best of 'em.


---SWITCH!!!---


4. Tyson Griffin next fight should be a #1 Contenders' bout for the UFC Lightweight Championship.


Adam Tool: FACT. Without a doubt. He's on a four fight win streak over some very tough opponents like Aurelio, Tibau and Guida. I know some people will hate on Griffin because he can't seem to finish his fights, but there's no doubt the man is dominant enough that he doesn't really need to. I say throw Griffin in there with Sean Sherk and if Tyson comes out victorious then he should absolutely be next in line. The only other option I would like to see is Griffin dropping down to 145 to challenge Urijah, but I'd say that's highly unlikely at this point.


Scott Kuczkowski: FACT. I initially said FICTION for this, but I changed my mind. I think Tyson Griffin right now has done everything he needs to do to be considered a contender for the belt. Do I think he should get a title shot tomorrow? No, but I would agree with pitting him against someone else for a title shot in the very near future. I'd like to see him go against the loser of the Florian/Huerta fight, as I think both fights would be very exciting. Maybe even Sean Sherk. Griffin has only one loss against Frankie Edgar, but has handled the rest of his opponents pretty well. The only other real issue I have with Griffin is his inability to finish. I think this makes him more difficult to market, but I guess if the UFC can market Sean Sherk then they can market Tyson Griffin.


SCORE: 2 for 4. I think most UFC Lightweights are in trouble when it comes to contendership. Dana White stated after UFC 86 that he's going with Penn vs. GSP II depending on the outcome of St. Pierre's title-defense at UFC 87. He also mentioned it meant the winner of Florian vs. Huerta, who is said to be getting the next crack at BJ's belt, would have to wait on the clash of champions to sort itself out. While Griffin may have proven himself worth of a #1 Contender's fight, he's going to have to face off against at least one more opponent before it's going to happen. Sean Sherk would definitely be an interesting choice, as would Nate Diaz (who has expressed dislike of the XTreme Couture Lightweight in the past).


5. Quinton "Rampage" Jackson was more deserving of the judges' decision than Forrest Griffin.


Adam Tool: FICTION. I know our taskmaster Bren will disagree with me here, as I've already been a witness to his outrage over this decision while perusing the 411 forums. There's no question that this fight was extremely close. However, let's remember what Goldberg tells us at the beginning of each show: scoring is based on effective striking, grappling, aggression and Octagon control. While Rampage punched harder, Forrest threw more strikes with more variety. Considering the way Rampage was hobbling around after all those leg kicks, I'd say Forrest was pretty effective in his striking. Rampage had no submission attempts, while Forrest tried two. More often than not Forrest took the center of the cage and was the one moving forward, pressing the action. Like I said it was close, but looking at the entire 25 minutes of action I have to say that Forrest was the winner.


Scott Kuczkowski: FICTION. I think this question is ridiculous. What would be the reasoning behind Griffin getting a decision he didn't deserve? A fix? Is this the WWE? No, it's not. Watch the fight. Forrest Griffin did enough to win the fight. Did he dominate Rampage? No, but he didn't have to. Forrest stuck to his game plan and out struck Rampage. Sure, Rampage probably landed more power shots, but Forrest landed more total punches and kicks. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take off their Rampage fanboy glasses and watch the fight again. While neither fighter was ever in danger of being finished, Forrest dictated the pace of the fight more than Rampage did, controlled the striking aspect more than Rampage, and out gamed Rampage. Honestly, Rampage didn't even look like the same guy who went 5 rounds with Dan Henderson. At the end of the second round, Rampage didn't look very confident and almost looked as though he realized that he had underestimated Forrest.


SCORE: 3 for 5. It doesn't have to be a fix for people to exhibit poor judgement. If you don't believe such things happen, I'll direct you to the recent scoring of a judge who gave a dominated Evan Tanner the edge over Kendall Grove or the memorable debacle that was Bisping vs. Hamill. I'll save the long-winded UFC 86 rant for a future PDH, as instead I'd rather state something I believe everyone can agree on. Jackson vs. Griffin II needs to happen in a bad way. The fans want it. The fighters want it. And, while it resulted in a controversial decision at best, the fight was extremely exciting, left onlookers wanting more, and could be marketed as a new "Liddell vs. Couture"-esque saga. The only reason it shouldn't be immediate has to do with Jackson's knee and whether or not he can fight again before January 2009.


6. Forrest Griffin will successfully defend his Light Heavyweight Championship at least one time.


Adam Tool: FACT. There are a number of variables to this question that made it difficult to answer. Mainly, who will Forrest defend his belt against? I don't think Rampage should get an immediate rematch (although I do think he should be only one win away from it) but if he does the fight could certainly go either way. If Machida gets the next title shot, as he should, then I may have to favor him. We could be waiting to see who wins Liddell vs. Evans, and either man could give Forrest trouble. However after his wins over Shogun and Rampage, arguably the top two light heavyweights in the world, it'll be hard to count Forrest out against anyone. He's made a lot of improvements since the loss to Jardine and I think he looks better than we've ever seen him before.


Scott Kuczkowski: FACT. This is a hard call, because we don't know who he will defend against. The reason I'm saying fact is that Forrest has demonstrated that he trains with and takes the advice of some very smart people. One of those people happens to be Randy Couture, one of the best fight strategists around. I think that with the team and trainers he has now, Forrest will be able to prepare for and be ready for just about any opponent he goes up against. Despite all that, I also think Forrest has matured as a fighter in the aspect that he doesn't just want to stand in there and trade punches with people anymore. Forrest learned from his fight with Jardine that just swinging for the fences and hoping to connect does not always work. I think that loss and the subsequent changes he made to his style have made him a better fighter.


SCORE: 4 for 6. The three top contenders, outside of a rematch with "Rampage", are Lyoto Machida, Liddell (assuming he beats Rashad Evans), and Wanderlei Silva. I think those are all bad match-ups for Griffin, though I refuse to doubt his ability to beat any opponent put in front of him. Were I "Kuch" or Tool, I'd be answering this sucker as "FACTION" cause I simply have no idea.


----

Join us next week when two more participants discuss "Affliction: Banned", "UFC Fight Night 14", Patrick Cote vs. Anderson Silva, and other issues lingering out there in the Mixed Martial Arts' world ...


Post Comment (34)  |  Email Bren Oliver  |  View Bren Oliver's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (34)

 
Forrest won fair and square. He was ,ore aggressive than Rampage.

Posted By: Q (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 12:23 AM

 
 
5. Feel free to check the medical releases to see who got the better of who in that fight if you have any doubts Forrest won... or just listen to Rampage-

"He jacked my leg up."
"...he just whooped my ass."

Quinton hasn't disputed the judges. He openly admitted that Forrest won the fight. So why is anyone questioning it?


Yes, judges make bad calls often enough, but when that happens, people show outrage. Hell, the UK was booing their own blood when it was ruled that the Count won. Did any of that happen? No. The crowd cheered when they announced Forrest's name while Quinton and Forrest hugged. The only person arguing is Ibarra.


Posted By: cyks (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 02:27 AM

 
 
I really, really wish people would stop going on about the Bisping - Hamill fight. Bisping won...deal with it.

Posted By: Dave - Proud Engliahman (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 05:53 AM

 
 
"(Quinton) openly admitted that Forrest won the fight. So why is anyone questioning it?"

It's TUF backlash. Internet fans like to think TUF and all fighters associated with it are a joke. So, a TUF'er beating Rampage blows up their bubble.

It was a close fight, could have gone either way. But I've seen way worse decisions, so it's not worth being pissed off about.


Posted By: Anon (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 08:02 AM

 
 
But Rampage won! Rampage won! Rampage wo-

HEE-HAW! HEE-HAW! HEE-HAW!


Posted By: Vallejo (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 09:07 AM

 
 
"I really, really wish people would stop going on about the Bisping - Hamill fight. Bisping won...deal with it."

All right douche bag how bout you put down the tea and turn off the cricket match for a second and try to learn the sport of MMA. Bisping didn't just lose that fight he got handled, it wasn't even that close. You better get used to it being brought up because it was possibly the single worst judges decision in the recent history of the UFC. I've seen every PPV and televised card since 2003 and I have never been more shocked and appalled at a judge's decision. So learn the damn sport before you bitch online you ignorant ass. Pull your head out of the Queens royal a-hole and show a little objectivity.

Also got a good laugh at your misspelling of Englishman, learn to type you stupid sod.


Posted By: stronelis (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 09:20 AM

 
 
Forest won fair and square. He excuted his gameplan better than Rampage did.

It was obvious that Rampage came to the octagon trying to KO Forest just like Jardine did with the uppercut. Rampage thew it over and over but only landed once in the first round.

He should have had a better game plan then just going for the KO.


Posted By: Redvexx (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 09:39 AM

 
 
Affliction: Banned isn't an incredible card.

1. Most heavyweight fights are boring, see Sylvia/Arlovski.

2. It's a bunch of mismatches.


Posted By: Guest#1610 (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 09:46 AM

 
 
The main rule of fighting is NEVER let it go to decision. You can never tell what the judges are thinking.

Posted By: Mr. C. (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 09:53 AM

 
 
For me what was worse than anything about the Bisping-Hamill decision (which I agree was the worst I have seen in years), was the way Bisping acted afterwards. He was given a gift and then talked shite like he kicked Hamill's ass......while Hamill was gracious. I 100% shifted my pre-fight allegiances after seeing that.

Posted By: Gary Goodrich (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 09:58 AM

 
 
Yeah, who would want to see a card where Paul Buentello vs. A. Emelianenko and Vitor Belfort vs. Terry Martin have been relegated to being shown on FoxSports as a lead-in?!? Ewww, and the way there are all those "Top 10" Heavyweights on the card? Totally lame! Don't even get me started about Matt Lindland, an elite Middleweight, and the always-entertaining "Babalu" Sobral being in action. Definitely nothing special about THAT card. lol

Posted By: Bren Oliver (Registered)  on July 09, 2008 at 10:04 AM

 
 
storenlis since 2003 huh? so that makes you some expert 2003 lol try pancraese then get back to me or Inoki/ali (was a really shitty fight btw), Bisping won eat it out boxed hammil period. Forrest won it wasnt even close. Just because you dont know enough about the sport to be a judge doesnt mean everyone else is stubid. Mainstream fans suck. Booing all the time for nothing, acting like they know everything because they watched a reality show. MMA didnt start till Forrest Bannor attitude drive me nuts sometimes!! I remember delucia getting owned in UFC 1 and laughing my ass off, Or the guy that gave out like 15 groin shots to his opponent and still lost. Really wish they would release those old shows full on dvd.

Posted By: me (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 10:16 AM

 
 
You can't look at the entire 25 minutes to determine a winner. In a decision you have to base it round by round. This isn't Pride.

Posted By: Mister S Dot (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 10:42 AM

 
 
Matt Lindland, an elite Middleweight

lawl


Posted By: Guest#2055 (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 10:45 AM

 
 
I think Forrest won the fight 48-46. The only round I gave to Jackson was the first, and I gave it to him 10-8. I seen two knockdowns, not just one from Rampage... I haven't had a chance to rewatch the fight, so one knockdown could have been a slip on Forrests part.. I gave the next 4 rounds to Griffin. I wanted Forrest to win, I'm a big fan, but I put my money on Rampage winning the fight. I handed my money to my betting opponent before the decision was even announced.

Posted By: Toddo (Registered)  on July 09, 2008 at 11:12 AM

 
 
Your quite the Affliction fanboy, eh Bren ?

lol


Posted By: Guest#9987 (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 11:44 AM

 
 
directed to 'me'

all right assclown now you got me pissed. I've been studying this shit for over 4 years now and whether u believe it or not i got a pretty damn good handle on it. plus while i started watching full time when bonnar/griffin happened i had been more than aware of mma for quite some time just not watching the ppvs on a regular basis.

IDK what the fuck you are talking about with Aoki/Ali never seen it never plan to see it and i have no idea why you brought it up. also i never commented on Griffin/Jackson i talked about Bisping/Hamil, but if ur gonna bring that fight up for no reason than i will state my opinion. Griffin won 48-46 taking round 2 10-8, round 3 10-9 and round 5 10-9.

As far as bisping beaten hamil cleanly you my ignorant douche are in the minority. Anyone with any fight knowledge watched that fight and knew who won. Christ my fuckin gf whose been watching mma for less than a year was shocked at the decision. bisping was manhandled for 3 straight rounds and sure managed to land some shots late in the fight but hamil landed shots for the entire fight.

Oh and by the way i have seen ufc 1-5 so don't fucking quote me moments from them when u can't even name the fighter involved.


Posted By: stronelis (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 12:03 PM

 
 
The problem isn't with Forrest doing enough to get a decision, but the fact that he got a decision and when we see the score cards afterwards they are all over the place.

I scored the fight a draw, now I know I'm not "qualified" to be a judge as some of you have stated, but neither is Adelaide Byrd who can't even score a boxing fight much less an MMA match.

The UFC is really setting themselves up for some unwanted controversy if they don't make this re-match. At the very least they need to lobby the NSAC to get judges who know about MMA and would be able to know what they're looking at.

Adelaide Byrd's card looks like she looked down at her scorecard and said, "Oops, too many rounds for Forrest I think I'll give the last two to Rampage."


Posted By: Frank (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 12:06 PM

 
 
Don't think the Soulja Boy/UFC comparison makes much sense. Jay-Z, being one of the most popular and really setting the tone for others, probably works better. Otherwise, great article.

Posted By: Mike (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 12:23 PM

 
 
1. Fact.

If it's not mainstream or advertised on TV/Print, then there will not be many buys. If this show draws 50,000 buys, then it will have to be considered as a success.

2. Fiction.

I agree everyone deserves a second chance when (Not if) they mess up... but just 1 outburst from JT and he'll be shown the door!

3. Fact.

I agree with Tool. There are SO many great Lightweight fighters out there, that 2 losses in 3 fights simply is not enough to keep someone on a list of top 10 fighters.

4. Fact.

Absolutely he should. But since Penn/St. Pierre II will happen 1st,Griffin will be 2nd in line until the winner of Huerta/Florian fights Penn. Tough Break for Tyson.

5. Fiction.

At 1st this was a difficult choice, but after watching the fight for the 4th time, it was really a no brainer of a choice. Forrest controlled a majority of the fight, pressed the action the entire fight, DOMINATED the 2nd round... and it goes on and on. Forrest deserved the decision. Will he make a good champ?
That segues nicely into:
6. Fact.

I didn't think he had a chance against Shogun. I didn't think he had a chance against Rampage. I'll be damned if I go against him a 3rd time! Forrest I think will have at least 1 title successful defense.


Posted By: Guest#0603 (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 01:21 PM

 
 
Adelaide Byrd was blackballed a few years for her scorecard in the holyfield-lewis fight. She said she gave holyfield rounds bc she couldnt see lennox's punches landing bc she wasnt facing him????

Posted By: guest (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 01:48 PM

 
 
"But Rampage won! Rampage won! Rampage wo-

HEE-HAW! HEE-HAW! HEE-HAW!"

Nicely done. I actually just watched this episode the other night.


Posted By: Adam Tool (Registered)  on July 09, 2008 at 02:08 PM

 
 
i have no interest in the f0f questions...but the comments are awesome here.

stonelis - it was antonio inoki vs. muhammad ali --- wrestler vs. boxer and it was the worst fight in history...no need to see it.

"me" --- yeah, the newbies can be annoying, but it doesn't mean that they know nothing...sometimes folks that claim to be around for awhile are pretty clueless as well...comparing current ufc to the initial ufc events is ridiculous (and delucia didn't fight in the first ufc, royce gracie broke his arm a little later on in the game). And bringing up antonio inoki vs. muhammad ali is just silly, are you that old?

Guest#1610 (Guest)- sylvia/arlovski was super exciting...sylvia/arlovski II may be the most exciting first round knockout in the history of the sport...'course you probably weren't watching back then were you? if you expect two guys who've knocked each other out to not be cautious in the third meeting, you're a moron.

to all of you knuckleheads - if bisping/hamill was the worst decision of all time, then mma has some pretty good judges...take a look at some of the ridiculous decisions boxing has on its books.

i really need to start educating the masses...y'all should pay me for these fucking comments.


Posted By: romano (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 02:34 PM

 
 
Hey romano, what about Sylvia/Arlovski 3 ?

Or Sylvia/Monson,Sylvia/Vera, or Werdum/Arlovski.


Get over yourself, douchbag.


Posted By: Guest#9046 (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 03:36 PM

 
 
sigh.. u do realize all u people who talk about the bisping-hamill fight realize that not only do WE as a majority believe was a retarded decision... but i also believe Dana White and even the commentators said that it was insane.. .. WHY DO YOU THINK BISPING LEFT LHW!? yes. it may see to dominate middleweight.. but he knows hes never going to beat Silva... IT WAS TO GET AWAY FROM HAMILL!

Posted By: t (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 04:04 PM

 
 
"all right assclown now you got me pissed. I've been studying this shit for over 4 years now and whether u believe it or not i got a pretty damn good handle on it. plus while i started watching full time when bonnar/griffin happened i had been more than aware of mma for quite some time just not watching the ppvs on a regular basis.

IDK what the fuck you are talking about with Aoki/Ali never seen it never plan to see it and i have no idea why you brought it up. also i never commented on Griffin/Jackson i talked about Bisping/Hamil, but if ur gonna bring that fight up for no reason than i will state my opinion. Griffin won 48-46 taking round 2 10-8, round 3 10-9 and round 5 10-9."

Nice language. You are a credit to MMA's fanbase. No wonder that major companies are hesitant to advertise during UFC events and MMA events in general. Can you imagine why multi-billion dollar companies that are concerned about their image would want to distance themselves from a sport that attracts viewers of this class?


Posted By: Kenny (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 04:27 PM

 
 
hahahahaha, aw i'm sorry kenny did i offend you with my bad words. But you do have a good point about us crude fans. We are most certainly keeping all the big sponsors away from the UFC. I mean come on the UFC's main sponsor is Budweiser, what the fuck is Budweiser never heard of them, must be some no name company that advertises on the UFC cause it can't afford anything else.

Kenny shut the fuck up and if you don't like my language go hide in your closet cause the 50s are over and no one so easily offended and backwards should be allowed to bring down the rest of society.


Posted By: stronelis (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 04:48 PM

 
 
To Kenny: "Nice language. You are a credit to MMA's fanbase. No wonder that major companies are hesitant to advertise during UFC events and MMA events in general. Can you imagine why multi-billion dollar companies that are concerned about their image would want to distance themselves from a sport that attracts viewers of this class?"

While Stronelis' language may not have been the cleanest, it shows what passion he has for MMA. I think we can all appreciate that sort of enthusiasm. You calling him classless for using a few bad words only makes you look pompous. Let's face it, he used "fuck" once but more as an adjective which is common these days. And I can think of a lot worse curses than "shit" and "assclown"! If I'm not mistaken, I believe assclown is a WWE reference too. I think calling someone classless is stooping to a lower level than calling someone an assclown.


Posted By: Sarah (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 05:03 PM

 
 
Yeah, considering the word "fuck" comes out of Dana White's mouth like it's Carbon Dioxide and business is booming, I don't think the UFC has any worries when it comes to their fans being equally crude.

Posted By: Bren Oliver (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 05:06 PM

 
 
After reading some of the comments people directed towards each other here... well, I'm so glad to see that comments are moderated as promised.

Posted By: cyks (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 05:09 PM

 
 
While I'll agree Rampage/Griffin was close enough that it could have been a draw, using Bisping/Hamill as an example of bad judging is a weak call.

Hamill won the first round and barely lost the next two. He did more damage, but the fights are scored round by round and he did all his damage in the first. Bisping/Hamill is an example of the problems with the judging criteria and the ten point must system, not bad judging.

Check out the numbers for the fight at fightmetric.com they have an excellent compilation of statistics for fights and fighters.

They have Rampage/Griffin as well, and their statistics show that you're right to call the fight a draw.


Posted By: KSti (Registered)  on July 09, 2008 at 07:04 PM

 
 
Romano hey I said it was a really bad fight Inoki/Ali. I was just trying to say that touting that you have watched since 2003 isnt much of an edge. So I listed some of the things I remember from way back then. I wasnt comparing current UFC and back then I was just pointing out that there has been alot of stuff before 2003. And the fact that he was like my gf who has less than a year agrees with me whatever I think that speaks for itself. Bisping Hammil I could see getting the contorversy but not this and I wasnt the one bringing it up (Bisping Hamil). UFC 2 really? Man its been so long. And I never called anyone stubid I said, I dont like guys that have only been watching since the show and act like they know it all. I would respond to who I orginaly responded to but he is going around calling people douches and assholes so no point in it as he proved my point for me. Forgive my assumption that he thought Forrest won. If I did, I might have just skiped subjects I'm bad about that. I have study MA since I was kid have belts in several different arts and was honored to sit in on many gracie training sessions. Never tested but was told if I did I'd be at brown belt. 3 of my freinds were golden gloves in Philly and new york and 2 were were high school state wrestlers in the south and had a few go over sees to do muaytai and kickboxing in denmark. So I have some idea of how things work. What judges look for and the like. I was just shocked to see the response to the Rampage griffin fight sorry if I came off wrong. More of shock tone then your an idiot tone. Stubid non verbal communcation :). No I'm not that old but I did see the fight Inoki ali unfortuantly.

Posted By: me (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 08:45 PM

 
 
lol @ cyks

are you new to the internets ???


Posted By: Guest#3794 (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 09:44 PM

 
 
Ksti
Now if you want to get into the system being wrong, I can get behind that. the round by round system I dont really like. Theres alot of rules I dont like, no knees or kicks to grounded opponent, downward elbows or punches to the back of the head. The fact that one knee is considered down two limbs should touch the floor before a fighter is considered down IMO, so like two knees or a knee and a hand would be considered down. The fact that the fight isnt judged in its entirety. Unfortuantly it is what it is and the rules are set for now. Cant blame the judges for following the rules. Well I guess you can but doesnt make much sense too. BTW well you know were I stand on the Rampage Griffin fight. Round one could of been a draw due to the knock down though I dont think it was, but wouldnt have been surprised if it had been. Good points Ksti. about the 10 point system.


Posted By: me agian (Guest)  on July 09, 2008 at 09:50 PM

 


www.41mania.com
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.