UFC vs Boxing

lol he totally did. He literally held onto Chael's shorts for twenty seconds at one point which helped prevent the TD and helped him land big punches, greased himself up AND there was the illegal knee to a downed opponent. If Chael doesn't make such a stupid mistake next time like he did with the spinning elbow (though to be fair the wild, aggressive striking mixed with the great, persistent wrestling is what really makes Chael the fighter he is), Anderson doesn't cheat and Chael doesn't lapse in his concentration and get submitted, he will win the rematch.

5 rounds imo is too long, it favours the finishers heavily giving them 25 minutes to get it. I think 3 is good for regular fights, and championship fights should have just 4.

Ahh yes, I forgot the shorts grab. I'll give that to you, for whatever little it's worth. By Chael's own admission it did nothing, and he claims he also grabbed Anderson's shorts iirc.

As for the knee lol. You can knee a downed opponent. You just can't knee them in the head.

Some feel that there aren't enough rounds. It does kinda sound like you just want to increase Chael's odds of winning though. vin

Originally posted by StyleTime
Maybe Chael will learn how to strike someday....probably not though.

Not gonna happen.

This got me thinking... as great as dominating a fight is it only really matters on the score cards, whereas finishing is finishing, it ends the fight no problem. What I don't like about that though is that the person dominating the fight, especially if they are in good grappling position, would probably be in good position to finish the fight were it not for round resets. So in a way finish by domination is held back by resetting positions, but finishing by finish is instantaneous.

So I propose that for finishes (KO, TKO, submission, DQ etc) it should just end the fight, but not necessariyl grant the finisher the win, but instead maybe just a 10-7 round. I think it's fairer on the type of fighter who finishing comes more slowly, but almost as assured given how dominant they are.

Does it really seem fair for example, that Anderson Silva walks out of the first Chael fight the winner? Under my system you would give that last round to Anderson Silva 10-7, compared to the other four 10-8/10-7 rounds for Chael. If Chael got to maintain his position for all of that time instead of constantly restarting at the end of each round, he would have finished Anderson before making that mistake, but because of the way fights are formatted, a fight that he should have won declares him the loser just because of one split second mistake. It's not fair.

Originally posted by evry1lovesrolan
So I propose that for finishes (KO, TKO, submission, DQ etc) it should just end the fight, but not necessariyl grant the finisher the win, but instead maybe just a 10-7 round. I think it's fairer on the type of fighter who finishing comes more slowly, but almost as assured given how dominant they are.

No, that's both crazy and retarded.

Originally posted by evry1lovesrolan
Does it really seem fair for example, that Anderson Silva walks out of the first Chael fight the winner? Under my system you would give that last round to Anderson Silva 10-7, compared to the other four 10-8/10-7 rounds for Chael. If Chael got to maintain his position for all of that time instead of constantly restarting at the end of each round, he would have finished Anderson before making that mistake, but because of the way fights are formatted, a fight that he should have won declares him the loser just because of one split second mistake. It's not fair.

Chael lost cos he's not as good as Silva; this was blatantly shown to us in their second meeting. Time to just accept this.

Not at all. First fight - Chael dominates in what would have been 50-40 fight, second fight - anderson silva cheats his way to a wain, and still loses round 1 10-8.

They have completely different styles, but Chael is approximately as good a wrestler as Anderson is a striker, and Chael can use that skillset to dominate fights, he doesn't need much else. Anderson Silva on the other hand needs to be able to stay standing, and while his TDD is good it is not amazing, Michael Bisping for example his TDD and defencive wrestling in general is a lot better.

Anderson Silva is a truly brilliant striker, and he also has a lot of power and an incredible chin, incredible in the clinch, quite good TDD, pretty good submissions off of his back. But his skillset is largely incomplete, as there is only one area where he is truly elite in, standing, and he isn't that great at keeping the fight standing. Chael on the other hand excels in controlling where the fight goes, and maintaing top position, and as long as he defends against submissions that is all he needs.

Anyways Chris Weidman is probably the best guy in the division right now. He has incredible wrestling like Chael but also much better stand up and is also something of a BJJ whiz. I predict that when he fights Anderson he takes him down and submits him in the first round.

Originally posted by evry1lovesrolan
This got me thinking... as great as dominating a fight is it only really matters on the score cards, whereas finishing is finishing, it ends the fight no problem. What I don't like about that though is that the person dominating the fight, especially if they are in good grappling position, would probably be in good position to finish the fight were it not for round resets. So in a way finish by domination is held back by resetting positions, but finishing by finish is instantaneous.

So I propose that for finishes (KO, TKO, submission, DQ etc) it should just end the fight, but not necessariyl grant the finisher the win, but instead maybe just a 10-7 round. I think it's fairer on the type of fighter who finishing comes more slowly, but almost as assured given how dominant they are.

Does it really seem fair for example, that Anderson Silva walks out of the first Chael fight the winner? Under my system you would give that last round to Anderson Silva 10-7, compared to the other four 10-8/10-7 rounds for Chael. If Chael got to maintain his position for all of that time instead of constantly restarting at the end of each round, he would have finished Anderson before making that mistake, but because of the way fights are formatted, a fight that he should have won declares him the loser just because of one split second mistake. It's not fair.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion and I would have felt the same if someone suggested it to me just two weeks ago. But I was thinking about when Chael was joking around and saying that when he tapped he thought that he was just submitting to that round, that it actually wasnt the worse idea in the world. Naturally if you finish the round you still would get a 10-7 score which would be the deciding factor in the vast majority of 3 round fights and a very big factor in 5 round fights as well, just not the complete decider. It helps balance out the fact that dominant positions would often ultimately lead to finishes if not for the position resets you get at the end of round (or even during them by the ref). This way crazy "comebacks" or as I'd rather call them, fluke finishes, which don't really tell the full picture of the fight, would not negate an entire fight's worth of domination. For example, if you look at the recent Tim Boetsch-Yushin Okami fight. Okami dominated the fight easily, possible getting at least one 10-8 round, so under my system that fight may well have become a draw, but instead Tim Boetsch, the weaker opponent, gets the win of a fight he was getting dominated in.

I understand that this is the kind of thing that would be near impossible to be established, but I think it's a good system.

Except that fights are made to decide who is the clear winner between the two. That is when someone gets KTFO or gives up, then a clear winner is decided. The point system was established in order to determine who wins in stalemates when time runs out.

This is a sport, not a deathmatch, point fighting can be very important as well and it isn't just about finishing.

And what of when a round ends with one guy in a dominant position, only for the fight to return to neutral ground when the next round begins?

Often when a powerful grappler gains a very dominant position over a lesser opponent, it's only a matter of time until he would finish him. Don't reset the position and don't give either guy a rest, and it's almost a given that the dominant guy will get the finish even if they have to do it by just wearing the other guy out. Likewise, if you have someone hurt with strikes, often it is the break between rounds that saves them, where without that break they possibly wouldn't recover.

The point is that the current system heavily favours fluke comeback finishes and quick finishes over dominant control and slow grafting finishes.

Giving the finisher a 10-7 round is almost likely to get them a win anyway, the times it wouldn't would be if the finished dominated the fight beforehand, which would usually include things like dominant grappling, or stunning/hurting the opponent with strikes repeatedly, things that would often lead to finishes if not for the format of the fight with its rounds, position resets and breaks in between rounds.

If you were to go back to the first round of the Chael/Anderosn fight, but instead of enidng the round just letting the fight go on for 25 minutes or indefinitely, then without the breaks between rounds or Chael having to waste time regaining his dominant position each round, he would have finished Anderson at some point, if through nothing but just wearing him out.

I'll have to disagree about "it isn't just about finishing". It IS about finishing in MMA. As it is about "finishing" in any sport (fighting or otherwise) where a clear winner can be decided via a clear criteria. That is how any winner should be determined: Black and white. When things aren't that clear, you go to a subjective (and oftentimes undependable) alternative: W/c is letting the judge's scorecard decide.

Fluke or no fluke, a KO/Submission is how fights in MMA are won/lost. No judges. No controversy. No doubt. Like I mentioned above, judging can be very subjective at times and adopting your system wherein it comes down to the judge's decision at all times would make every win thereafter open to doubt and interpretation.

The point system is just a supplementary to the true, basic, fundamental win condition of an MMA fight: W/c is submission/KO.

Now you're welcome to your opinion and you can certainly go ahead and come up w/ whatever system you can imagine to make it seem like Chael won that fight. Just don't expect a lot of agreement.

Originally posted by evry1lovesrolan
Not at all. First fight - Chael dominates in what would have been 50-40 fight, second fight - anderson silva cheats his way to a wain, and still loses round 1 10-8.

They have completely different styles, but Chael is approximately as good a wrestler as Anderson is a striker, and Chael can use that skillset to dominate fights, he doesn't need much else. Anderson Silva on the other hand needs to be able to stay standing, and while his TDD is good it is not amazing, Michael Bisping for example his TDD and defencive wrestling in general is a lot better.

Anderson Silva is a truly brilliant striker, and he also has a lot of power and an incredible chin, incredible in the clinch, quite good TDD, pretty good submissions off of his back. But his skillset is largely incomplete, as there is only one area where he is truly elite in, standing, and he isn't that great at keeping the fight standing. Chael on the other hand excels in controlling where the fight goes, and maintaing top position, and as long as he defends against submissions that is all he needs.

Anyways Chris Weidman is probably the best guy in the division right now. He has incredible wrestling like Chael but also much better stand up and is also something of a BJJ whiz. I predict that when he fights Anderson he takes him down and submits him in the first round.

No, it's totally retarded saying a KO or a TKO doesn't mean a fighter won.

Chael lost the first fight, he tapped out. That's a loss; it doesn't matter how well he did prior. Chael tapped out = loss.

Chael lost the second fight cos Silva litterally beat his ass down with knees and punches. That's also a loss.

Stop trying to make excuse for Chael and it's utterly ridiculous of you suggesting the rules be changed so a loser like Chael could win after tapping out or being utterly brutalized by a far superior fighter. Stop fanboying Chael.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I'll have to disagree about "it isn't just about finishing". It IS about finishing in MMA. As it is about "finishing" in any sport (fighting or otherwise) where a clear winner can be decided via a clear criteria. That is how any winner should be determined: Black and white. When things aren't that clear, you go to a subjective (and oftentimes undependable) alternative: W/c is letting the judge's scorecard decide.

Fluke or no fluke, a KO/Submission is how fights in MMA are won/lost. No judges. No controversy. No doubt. Like I mentioned above, judging can be very subjective at times and adopting your system wherein it comes down to the judge's decision at all times would make every win thereafter open to doubt and interpretation.

The point system is just a supplementary to the true, basic, fundamental win condition of an MMA fight: W/c is submission/KO.

Now you're welcome to your opinion and you can certainly go ahead and come up w/ whatever system you can imagine to make it seem like Chael won that fight. Just don't expect a lot of agreement.

1. Actually, finishing itself isn't always black and white, hence things like early stoppages or any kind of stoppage by the ref or corner where the fighter may still claim to be ok. Not to mention arguable DQs with certain finishes such as Erick Silva's recent DQ that Yamazaki got called out on by Rogan immediately afterwards. Or questionable things within the fight that can lead to finsihes, such as Anderson cheating his way to it in the second round of his fight with Chael.

2. Depending on the technology available and timing, point scoring can be mostly objective, if you look at number of strikes (effective striking), duration of time in certain grappling positions and number of takedowns (effective grappling), duration of time spent in segments of the octagon (octagon control), time spent moving towards or away form your opponent and offencive/defencive stances employed (aggression). Now there will always be some subjectivity in how you weigh the four different elemnts, as well as things like how powerful the strikes are, how damaging the TDs, etc., but it can be a mostly objective things, and in some cases will be black and white. Look at the majority of GSP's fights for example. Subjectivity or no subjectivity, you'd have to be a madman to score the fight to Dan Hardy for example.

3. As much as you may strive for a finish, as a fighter you need to understand that sometimes fights will end in decisions, such as in very competitive exchanges, or when up against someone with an iron chin etc... And sometimes, if you stirve too hard for a finish and don't achieve it, you will often loose a decision (often by punching yourselg out and gassing, see carwin/lesnar as an example). So fighters often need to learn the poitns game, and many fighters/coaches/training camps will base strategies and entire training camps off of that style of fighting. Who are you to compeltely discount that aspect of MMA when in some cases it's necessary component of the game that fighters need to train for?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it's totally retarded saying a KO or a TKO doesn't mean a fighter won.

Chael lost the first fight, he tapped out. That's a loss; it doesn't matter how well he did prior. Chael tapped out = loss.

Chael lost the second fight cos Silva litterally beat his ass down with knees and punches. That's also a loss.

Stop trying to make excuse for Chael and it's utterly ridiculous of you suggesting the rules be changed so a loser like Chael could win after tapping out or being utterly brutalized by a far superior fighter. Stop fanboying Chael.

And what if instead of enidng the first round in the first fight you just continued it indefintiely, or for the 25 minutes? You think Chael wouldn't have been able to finish Anderson without giving him a break,a nd having to spend time regaining the position.

In the second fight, Anderson did all of the following:

1. Greased himself prior to the fight, which would have made it harder for Chael to get the TD.

2. Held onto his shorts repeatedly, at one point for a full 20 seconds, using it as leverage to land attacks and to avoid TDs.

3. Kneed Chael in the face when he was downed.

And even then, Chael dominated in the first, with at least a 10-8 round, got finished in the second. Under my system, Cgael would have won the first round 10-8, Anderson would have won the second 9-7 (10-7 but with a point deduction), ending the fight in a draw,a nd that's if we didn';t DQ Anderson.

Fact of the matter is, no matter how much you might like to paint Chael out to be a clown or whatever, he truly dominated the first fight and lsot it due o a moment of carelessness, and he lost the second fight where they were even on rounds, against a cheater.

Originally posted by evry1lovesrolan
And what if instead of enidng the first round in the first fight you just continued it indefintiely, or for the 25 minutes? You think Chael wouldn't have been able to finish Anderson without giving him a break,a nd having to spend time regaining the position.

In the second fight, Anderson did all of the following:

1. Greased himself prior to the fight, which would have made it harder for Chael to get the TD.

2. Held onto his shorts repeatedly, at one point for a full 20 seconds, using it as leverage to land attacks and to avoid TDs.

3. Kneed Chael in the face when he was downed.

And even then, Chael dominated in the first, with at least a 10-8 round, got finished in the second. Under my system, Cgael would have won the first round 10-8, Anderson would have won the second 9-7 (10-7 but with a point deduction), ending the fight in a draw,a nd that's if we didn';t DQ Anderson.

Fact of the matter is, no matter how much you might like to paint Chael out to be a clown or whatever, he truly dominated the first fight and lsot it due o a moment of carelessness, and he lost the second fight where they were even on rounds, against a cheater.

What if the round 1 went 30 seconds longer and Silva reversed it and KO'd Chael with an elbow? What if? What if? What if? You can "what if" ad infinitum, doesn't change the fact that Chael lost.

LoL.

1) Excuse making

2) Excuse making

3) Excuse making

Under your system a fighter (Chael here) who first tapped out and then got his ass literally beaten down wouldn't have lost either fight. Ergo, it's a stupid and broken system made only so you can have your favorite not lose.

Chael is a clown and your "lost due to a moment of carelessness" is just more excusing. He lost to a superior fighter. It happens. He accepts this; you should to.

Originally posted by evry1lovesrolan
1. Actually, finishing itself isn't always black and white, hence things like early stoppages or any kind of stoppage by the ref or corner where the fighter may still claim to be ok. Not to mention arguable DQs with certain finishes such as Erick Silva's recent DQ that Yamazaki got called out on by Rogan immediately afterwards. Or questionable things within the fight that can lead to finsihes, such as Anderson cheating his way to it in the second round of his fight with Chael.

2. Depending on the technology available and timing, point scoring can be mostly objective, if you look at number of strikes (effective striking), duration of time in certain grappling positions and number of takedowns (effective grappling), duration of time spent in segments of the octagon (octagon control), time spent moving towards or away form your opponent and offencive/defencive stances employed (aggression). Now there will always be some subjectivity in how you weigh the four different elemnts, as well as things like how powerful the strikes are, how damaging the TDs, etc., but it can be a mostly objective things, and in some cases will be black and white. Look at the majority of GSP's fights for example. Subjectivity or no subjectivity, you'd have to be a madman to score the fight to Dan Hardy for example.

3. As much as you may strive for a finish, as a fighter you need to understand that sometimes fights will end in decisions, such as in very competitive exchanges, or when up against someone with an iron chin etc... And sometimes, if you stirve too hard for a finish and don't achieve it, you will often loose a decision (often by punching yourselg out and gassing, see carwin/lesnar as an example). So fighters often need to learn the poitns game, and many fighters/coaches/training camps will base strategies and entire training camps off of that style of fighting. Who are you to compeltely discount that aspect of MMA when in some cases it's necessary component of the game that fighters need to train for?

1). You misunderstood my meaning on "finishing" (w/c, btw, I indicated/mentioned in my argument): When I mention "finishing" I only meant: KO and submission. THAT is the goal given to each fighter, THAT is black and white.

Pls stop making excuses for Sonnen. He lost and even he accepts it. He doesn't need you to fight his battles.

2). You can always come up with your own sport wherein a computer (w/c, atm, cannot determine damage) decides who wins via set criteria that you want via octagon position, striking points and the like. But please don't call it UFC/MMA. Call it Lovetaptango Psudeofighting Championship or something.

3). Saying something is supplementary does not mean that I completely "discount" an aspect of MMA. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. It's a necessary component that is used WHEN AND ONLY WHEN fights don't finish.

The point is that Anderson Silva relied on the format of the fights to survive the first fight against Chael..

1.
2.
3. Translation: I have nothing.

My system simply favours dominance over fluke finishes.

As I said, it is arguable that Anderson is superior fighter. His TDD is a big hole in his game. It is good, and can protect him against most wrestlers, but against anyone like Chael or Chris Weidman, GSP or Koscheck, Rashad or Jones, or Dan Henderson, he would be very vulnerable to the TD. Against those fighters, he would need to rely on his iron chin and durability to survive being dominated, possibly get a submission against people with the lack of solid BJJ like Jones, Chael, Koscheck, Henderson or in a moment of carelessness (very slim possibility), and try desperately to finish them on the feet before they can take him down, and he gets 5 rounds to try.

The fact of the matter is that he did cheat in his second fight with Chael, and got extremely lucky in the first. Jones, Rashad, Chris Weidman, GSP, and Hendo (Hendo has the tools to beat Silva but isn't as persistent with his wrestling,a nd likes to strike a lot) would all be much tougher competition.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
[B]1). You misunderstood my meaning on "finishing" (w/c, btw, I indicated/mentioned in my argument): When I mention "finishing" I only meant: KO and submission. THAT is the goal given to each fighter, THAT is black and white.

So you use the word differently than everyone else does? Finishing is KO, TKO, submission, that is how everyone uses the term, and the argument for finishing concerns all three. It seems you now want to put KOs and submissions in one catagory, and TKOs and decisions in another. Truly weird bro...

Also, many "KOs" are actually truly TKOs that look like KOs. Plus, the latter two points I made still apply for KOs as well. There can still be some cases of grey as many KOs take place because of the way the fight has progressed up to that point, or more imemdiately can come soon after a shot to the back of the ehad for example.

Pls stop making excuses for Sonnen. He lost and even he accepts it. He doesn't need you to fight his battles.

You and Rob calling them exccuses doesn't male them excuses. Please explain why they should't be considered illegal tactics that psoitively contributed to Anderson Silva's performance?

That was Chael the "character". That particular flavour of his character was the humble, graceful in defeat flavour. His training camp felt very differently, and were thinking about appealing.

2). You can always come up with your own sport wherein a computer (w/c, atm, cannot determine damage) decides who wins via set criteria that you want via octagon position, striking points and the like. But please don't call it UFC/MMA. Call it Lovetaptango Psudeofighting Championship or something.

What are you talking about? This is essentially what happens now, minus judges instead of computers (though which are acytually using comptuers mroe and more for assistance for the record). What point are you making? The fact of the matter is that there are many objective values we can use, and most fights aren't so close that they are in fact pretty black and white. You think GSP-Hardy isn't Black and White because there was no KO or submission?

3). Saying something is supplementary does not mean that I completely "discount" an aspect of MMA. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. It's a necessary component that is used WHEN AND ONLY WHEN fights don't finish.

I am referring to your words here, pal: "I'll have to disagree about "it isn't just about finishing". It IS about finishing in MMA. As it is about "finishing" in any sport (fighting or otherwise) where a clear winner can be decided via a clear criteria. That is how any winner should be determined: Black and white."

You basically say it is just about finishing.

You misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying that gameplans/tactics that are used to score points are becoming a necessary component of the game.

Nibedicus, you my friend, have lost. Admit defeat and move on, bro.