ufc/pride

Originally posted by Mindset
He's probably high.

Ahaha, my thoughts exactly.

By the way, UFC 131 went more or less as I predicted. Even the stupid judging were there as always.
The asian dude is robbed, Florian and Munoz got the first round of their fights. Talk about incompetence.

As for JDS, yeah, it was a good fight. In the end he didn't go for the kill because he was fearing the power shot KO and I can't really complain about lack of offense when Carwin ends up as busted as he was.

So just like I said it before, I am confident that JDS will be the new HW champion.
I am also confident that after Overeem is done with Strikeforce, he will take the title from JDS' hands.

Junior is a f*ckin beast.

Originally posted by batdude123
Junior is a f*ckin beast.

I gotta admit, maybe I'm just being a prisoner of the moment here, but I think Junior is gonna f*ck Cain up.

Of course the rules favor strikers. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Let's play a game, I'll name all the rules that favor striking and ya'll list the one favoring wrestlers. Word of advice: Don't play, you'll lose. 1. Gloves. See how many strikers quit With broken hands if it went bareknuckle. 2. The fight starts on the feet. 3. When a grappler is inactive on the ground, it's stood up, but when a striker is inactive on the feet is it retarted on the ground? Hell no. 4. When there is a foul on the ground, it's restarted on the feet. Does a foul on the feet get restarted on the ground? nope. 5. there are NO bonuses a wrestler can get. On takedown of the night etc. 6. WAY more restrictions on the ground than on the feet. There are dozens more, but you get the point. So don't bring that bullshit in here. There is only ONE rule that favors wrestlers. That's it. One. Dumbasses.

I completely disagree.

Now that should settle the discussion.

Sorry. And of course I'm biased, I'm a wrestler. But you guys are flat wrong.

You can disagree. But you're wrong. If not, prove it. List them. You can't. You won't.

Yes, I disagree. No, you're wrong. I can. I won't.

Nope. You're wrong. You can't so you won't. Being the only one here to take a fight, I trump you. Beotch! Dude, mongoose montague gave me a shout out on the underground forum. Awesome! I'm the shit.

UG is for queers.

And I am always right.

Before I even start, I know you're bitter coming off of getting KTFO after having your fight stood up, but...

Really, lp? Really?

Originally posted by long pig
1. Gloves. See how many strikers quit With broken hands if it went bareknuckle.

The irony here is that the MMA glove was created so that the fighters would be able to grapple without any problems. That's the reason why the fingers are exposed. If you want to argue that gloves help a striker, I can just as easily say that the gloves help a grappler just as much. Sure makes ground and pound a lot easier...

Maybe if he had gloves, Keith Hackney wouldn't have shattered his hand like he did in that gif.

Originally posted by long pig
2. The fight starts on the feet.

I figured this point might be brought up, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't say something so stupid.

Let me ask you something: Where does a real fight start? Does it start with a guy on his back and his opponent in between his legs? The answer is no, jackass.

Hell, where does a wrestling match start? A BJJ match, even?

THEY ALL START ON THE FEET.

You claim to be a wrestler, right? The whole point of wrestling is, from a standing position, to take your opponent to the ground in order to pin him. If the match already started on the ground, it takes away from the wrestling aspect entirely.

It's a God damn fight. And just like in a real world scenario, the onus is on the grappler to bring the fight to where he's strongest. I'm begging you to use some common sense here.

Originally posted by long pig
3. When a grappler is inactive on the ground, it's stood up, but when a striker is inactive on the feet is it retarted on the ground? Hell no.

This is entirely dependent on the referee of the match, but it's only stood back up when there's literally no activity on the ground. It actually forces a fighter to fight, rather than lay there and take a breather. And usually, if there's any movement at all on the ground, the fight is kept there, which is how Clay Guida exploits the rules for hollow victories.

Originally posted by long pig
4. When there is a foul on the ground, it's restarted on the feet. Does a foul on the feet get restarted on the ground? nope.

Whenever a fight is on the ground and it gets stopped to check on a fighter, afterward, the fight is restarted in the same position on the ground. It just happened this event in the Nick Ring/James Head fight.

And of course if a foul happens when the fight is on the feet it won't be restarted on the ground, because it would be impossible to get a purely neutral position. Standing on the feet is a neutral position.

Originally posted by long pig
5. there are NO bonuses a wrestler can get. On takedown of the night etc.

barker

Because a takedown doesn't finish a fight. Jesus you're dense.

Originally posted by long pig
6. WAY more restrictions on the ground than on the feet.

Explain this one.

Originally posted by long pig
There are dozens more, but you get the point. So don't bring that bullshit in here. There is only ONE rule that favors wrestlers. That's it. One. Dumbasses.

Wrestlers have absolutely no room to bitch when takedowns with no offense hold more weight than strikes in the judges' eyes. Judges will also completely ignore any amount of offense a fighter has while on the bottom. That's why there are so many terrible decisions in the UFC nowadays.

And after this post, you have completely forfeited the right to call anybody a dumbass ever again.

Argh.....Badtude got to that ridiculous post before I did. Lol at the fight starting on the feet being striker bias. Cuz real fights and even wrestling matches start lying down Amirite? Smh

Originally posted by long pig
Of course the rules favor strikers. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Let's play a game, I'll name all the rules that favor striking and ya'll list the one favoring wrestlers. Word of advice: Don't play, you'll lose. 1. Gloves. See how many strikers quit With broken hands if it went bareknuckle. 2. The fight starts on the feet. 3. When a grappler is inactive on the ground, it's stood up, but when a striker is inactive on the feet is it retarted on the ground? Hell no. 4. When there is a foul on the ground, it's restarted on the feet. Does a foul on the feet get restarted on the ground? nope. 5. there are NO bonuses a wrestler can get. On takedown of the night etc. 6. WAY more restrictions on the ground than on the feet. There are dozens more, but you get the point. So don't bring that bullshit in here. There is only ONE rule that favors wrestlers. That's it. One. Dumbasses.

The rules aren't biased against grapplers; they're biased against lazy grapplers. If the two guys are just laying on the ground playing grab-ass, then of course the ref will stop them. If there's no fighting, then why let inactivity continue?

The fights start on the feet...obviously. A good grappler can put an end to that pretty fast, though. What are you suggesting? The referee's position? One guy on his back, the other in his guard? Perhaps one with a full mount? Because any of those positions automatically puts one fighter at a disadvantage. This isn't wrestling; this is MMA. Besides, for the last several years All-American style wrestlers have been a dominant force in the UFC, so I think they're doing pretty good.

Originally posted by batdude123
Lmao. Take a look at the competition Shields and Chael have been facing compared to Guida, then come talk to me.

Originally posted by long pig
6. WAY more restrictions on the ground than on the feet.

Originally posted by batdude123

Explain this one.

That one's arguable actually. Many smaller, local promotions ban certain submissions. The ones that are considered "more dangerous" than the standard choke or armbar. For instance; Desert Rage, an Arizona-based small time promotion, outlaws heel-hooks and all spinal locks. (fyi: DR puts on fights only in Indian casinos, because MMA still isn't legally recognized in AZ.)

Then again, those aren't exactly high-percentage moves. Armbars, guillotines and rear-nakeds are far and away the most common submissions. Still, its kinda lame that the others are banned.

Originally posted by I-Drop
Ok. Guida can at least say he finished Gomi. Chael's a decision king & whenever he fights anyone good, either he beats them by decision or they finish him. If you hate the way Guida fights, you should hate Sonnen's style even more.

No, because at least Sonnen is constantly punching them in the face while he rapes them on the ground. Guida, on the other hand, especially in the fight against Pettis, was content to lay there, stifle anything Pettis was doing... and shoulder shrug him in the face?

C'mon brah.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That one's arguable actually. Many smaller, local promotions ban certain submissions. The ones that are considered "more dangerous" than the standard choke or armbar. For instance; Desert Rage, an Arizona-based small time promotion, outlaws heel-hooks and all spinal locks. (fyi: DR puts on fights only in Indian casinos, because MMA still isn't legally recognized in AZ.)

Then again, those aren't exactly high-percentage moves. Armbars, guillotines and rear-nakeds are far and away the most common submissions. Still, its kinda lame that the others are banned.

But that's not relevant to UFC/Strikeforce, which is what lp was talking about.

Also, finishing fights, at least in terms of entertainment value, gets overrated by the masses. You have to look at the methods employed by the fighter who finishes. I don't care if Clay Guida finishes his next 5 fights, I would still rather watch Forrest Griffin fight, who's a decision king.

😠 Who the **** said you could use "decision king"? Guida did his best. He threw more than just shoulder butts, even went for the RNC at the end. Pettis ain't easy to finish. I haven't seen him or Forrest in a boring fight. Both are way more exciting than Sonnen, whose only exciting fight was against a pre-injured Silva.

Originally posted by I-Drop
😠 Who the **** said you could use "decision king"? Guida did his best. He threw more than just shoulder butts, even went for the RNC at the end. Pettis ain't easy to finish. I haven't seen him or Forrest in a boring fight. Both are way more exciting than Sonnen, whose only exciting fight was against a pre-injured Silva.

Nah, brah. Sonnen >>> Guida.