View Cart | View Account | Help
Order by phone: 800-880-2592
Check out our favorite NEW ARRIVALS
Need it fast? Order before 4pm Eastern and your order ships SAME DAY.

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:40 pm 
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 1394
Location: Newmarket, ON, Canada
Hey it was an interesting bout for sure. As GSP said at the end, he was focusing on Dan's weakest part of his game and it worked. Those two arm locks were insane!! The one Kimura was jerked so far back I was surprised his arm didn't break. And the arm bar was nuts too, when he twisted it just before Dan snuck out, just plain insane. Well I enjoyed it for one! Georges St. Pierre WINS AGAIN!! GO CANADA!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:51 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 2479
Location: Jackson, Michigan
I've given up on UFC.

It's turning into the WWE. They have some seriously garbage results when a match goes to the judges.

That, and I'm tired of paying $50-60 a month to be a "fan" of their sport. Why spend that money when I can watch any other sport for free??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:13 pm 
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 1394
Location: Newmarket, ON, Canada
I watched the fight for free last night... so maybe you just aren't looking hard enough. And if it were turning into WWE (which it isn't, the UFC has real punches and kicks in it), I'm pretty sure only hicks would watch it. And anyone who knows me will testify, I'm far from being a hick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:24 pm 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 2479
Location: Jackson, Michigan
bucky310 wrote:
I watched the fight for free last night... so maybe you just aren't looking hard enough. And if it were turning into WWE (which it isn't, the UFC has real punches and kicks in it), I'm pretty sure only hicks would watch it. And anyone who knows me will testify, I'm far from being a hick.


Did you watch it at a bar or a restaurant, or a friend's house?

Here's a list I made a while back with the Top 10 Reasons that I Hate the UFC. Feel free to discuss any of these, because I'm definitely game. Keep in mind I made this list back in EARLY 2009, so some of the names that are in it aren't really seen much anymore in the UFC.

1. Names for the PPVs. Things like "No Remorse" and "The Ultimate 2008" are completely lame. Let's just go with things that don't sound ridiculous. Like UFC 92: December 2008. Or, just UFC 92. That would work.

2. Speaking of names...why does every fighter have to have a nickname?? I mean, seriously, a guy tonight named Mike Massenzio is nicknamed "The True Master of Disaster." Really?? Seriously??? He's actually a "Master of Disaster?" That's really, really, REALLY lame. Why can't he just be Mike Massenzio?? Does the UFC have some kind of Ultra Lame Nickname Generator that they just press a button to come up with some of this crap?? Kenflo?? The Dean of Mean?? The Axe Murderer?? The Huntington Beach Bad Boy?? These are all completely ridiculous. Also, what ever happened to the idea of EARNING a nickname?? Stuff like this is on UFC WAY too much..."Carl, 'The Serial Killer from Cool California' Carlson, with a 0-27-2 record..." Come on. You should have to meet some certain requirements before you get to have a nickname. Maybe if they had some requirements, they wouldn't end up with so many idiotic pseudonyms.

3. Joe Rogan. This shouldn't really require any explanation, but I will give one anyways. Could this guy shout out any more homo-erotic comments while giving his commentary?? In ONE night several months ago I heard him say the following things:
--Regarding Anderson Silva fighting at 205 pounds for the first time:
"Anderson looks THICK AND FIRM at 205...THICK AND FIRM." Ummm...what are you looking at, there, Joe???
--During the Anderson Silva fight that same night:
"Anderson is the type of guy that likes to feel his opponent and then EXPLODE all over him!!!" Really Joe?? Do YOU like to feel another guy then explode all over him??
--During a fight earlier in that same event:
"It's tough to do anything when you've got a guy that size on top of you just pounding away." Ummmm....

4. Bruce Buffer. You're not your brother. He's good. Again, you're not your brother.

5. Guys who come out with the fighters draping giant posters over the cage with sponsors on it. As if your fighter's outfit isn't being whored out with as many sponsors as it possibly can already, you feel the need to drape some stupid poster over the fence with even more logos of the same companies just to get that little extra exposure??

6. Not enough air time for the ring girls...or round girls...whatever they're called, they need to be shown more often.

7. I paid $50 for your pay per view...I don't want to see a commercial...at all. Special notice: Movie previews ARE commercials.

8. Chuck Liddell. The guy is a redneck, white trash, drunken idiot. He's a HORRIBLE fighter. Going out there and throwing random punches at random times isn't a good "style." It's not even a good idea. No wonder he's getting knocked out so much lately.

9. How the announcers are constantly talking about how great whoever they feel is winning a fight is. If Joe is beating the crap out of Chris, then Joe is the greatest fighter in the world. When Chris suddenly lands a lucky punch that knocks Joe out, then Chris is now the greatest fighter in the world and was just "using his knowledge and skill as a fighter to pick the right time to strike." Right. That's it.

10. Joe Rogan. I know he's already on the list, but he's so bad that he needs to be mentioned again. If you must have a different Reason #10, then let's throw in the fact that these fights are beginning to seem more and more rigged. Especially when they go to the judges for a decision. There is no way that some guy that just absorbed 122 punches each round for the last 3 rounds and only landed one kick to his opponents thigh should win...but in the UFC you never know. They might as well just start having tag team matches where they attack the "legal" fighter while the ref is looking the other way.


Last edited by Gimpdiggity on Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:35 pm 
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 1394
Location: Newmarket, ON, Canada
Sure, I'll give you my opinions on what you said, because I like to watch it for fun. It may be the fact that I used to practice Judo and did a little Boxing, but I'll oblige.
1) Sure, they sound ridiculous, I'll agree with that. But it's not necessarily a good reason to not like the UFC. It gets the redneck hicks exited to watch it.

2) Not every fighter has a nickname. Nate Diaz is the first one that comes to mind. I'm not 100% sure, but pretty sure that Frank Mir doesn't have one. There are a bunch of fighters that don't have nicknames.

3) If you're afraid of homosexuals, that's fine by me. But you're taking his words out of context, and this leads me to believe (even if you aren't this age anymore) that you're living with a teenage boy mindset.

4) Not a reason to dislike the UFC, it's a reason to dislike Bruce Buffer.

5) So they're not supposed to make money off of their sponsors? If you had people who decided to give you thousands upon thousands of dollars just so you could fight people, and train for a living, you'd go ahead and tell them that you won't put their logo on display somewhere? Good luck keeping a sponsor who would let you do that.

6) If you want to watch pretty women, well... you've got the internet, go ahead. But the UFC is a fighting league, not a let's watch pretty women league.

7) Sure, I can agree with this. But if you're angry, watch it online if you aren't of age to go to a bar.

8) Chuck Liddell is a horrible fighter, I agree. However, again, not a reason to dislike the UFC. And besides, he's not been fighting much lately anyways. He's on his way out of the league. If not, already gone because they made him a Hall of Fame member (not that I agree with it).

9) Absolutely false. If you watch more than 1 event, you'll notice this. I've heard Joe Rogan many times say something along the lines of "it was unbelievable that this guy just won" because he was losing for the entire fight and landed a lucky punch.

10) Rigged? How do you know they are rigged? Fights are judged based on how well you perform OVERALL. If you escape submission attempts, if you stop the guy from taking you down, if you avoid punches, if you're more active on the ground, etc. There are many things that go into the judges decisions based on a round-by-round basis. And if you can show me the fight you are referring to, then I'll believe you, but I'm pretty sure the example you gave has never happened.

I'll leave you with a final remark. I know you won't change your mind or anything and there is no point in me trying to. So I won't. However, you are judging the sport unfairly based on a few people you don't like, a fear of homosexual people, and the fact that you believe something is rigged (with no proof I might add). You are 100% entitled to your opinions, but in my mind, you are being unfair and you were quick to judge. If you don't like fighting as a sport, that's fine, watch something else and don't complain. But you did even take the time to post in this thread, so that tells me something about your mentality too. Anyways, I'll leave it at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:08 pm 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 2479
Location: Jackson, Michigan
bucky310 wrote:
Sure, I'll give you my opinions on what you said, because I like to watch it for fun. It may be the fact that I used to practice Judo and did a little Boxing, but I'll oblige.
1) Sure, they sound ridiculous, I'll agree with that. But it's not necessarily a good reason to not like the UFC. It gets the redneck hicks exited to watch it.


It speaks to the mindset of the organization. When you need to give your event some "extreme" name every month, then it shows that you are reaching a bit too far and trying to be too hip.

They don't need that. They don't need to have extreme names for events to make them seem more interesting or hip or fresh. It's lame and unnecessary. It's also very WWE-ish...what's next, the UFC Regal Rumble?? UFC Fightmania??

Quote:
2) Not every fighter has a nickname. Nate Diaz is the first one that comes to mind. I'm not 100% sure, but pretty sure that Frank Mir doesn't have one. There are a bunch of fighters that don't have nicknames.


You just named two fighters. For every two that you name, I can name 10 that have ridiculous nicknames.

Quote:
3) If you're afraid of homosexuals, that's fine by me. But you're taking his words out of context, and this leads me to believe (even if you aren't this age anymore) that you're living with a teenage boy mindset.


My best friend in high school is a homosexual. My father in law is a homosexual. I'm pretty sure I'm not afraid of homosexuals. Why you would even go this direction is beyond me. Joe Rogan says some really homo-erotic things. Bottom line. Taken out of context?? To an extent, but that doesn't change the fact that they are extremely homo-erotic statements, now, does it??

Quote:
4) Not a reason to dislike the UFC, it's a reason to dislike Bruce Buffer.


I'm sorry. I thought someone that is heavily involved in the organization IS in fact a reason to not like the organization. Let me guess...if I said I didn't like Dana White, you'd probably say "That's not a reason to dislike the UFC, it's a reason to dislike Dana White." Am I right??

Quote:
5) So they're not supposed to make money off of their sponsors? If you had people who decided to give you thousands upon thousands of dollars just so you could fight people, and train for a living, you'd go ahead and tell them that you won't put their logo on display somewhere? Good luck keeping a sponsor who would let you do that.


Of course you need to display your sponsors. I would think that showing them on your trunks, on your shirt, and on your hat are enough. Having two cronies come to the octagon with you to drape some dumb poster over the cage is just stupid.

Quote:
6) If you want to watch pretty women, well... you've got the internet, go ahead. But the UFC is a fighting league, not a let's watch pretty women league.


It was a bit of a joke. Congratulations on taking it way too seriously. You're a sharp one.

Quote:
7) Sure, I can agree with this. But if you're angry, watch it online if you aren't of age to go to a bar.


So, you're telling me to either go to a bar to watch it or steal it?? That's some great advice, there. I don't go to bars because I'm not a big fan of being around a couple hundred "hardcore" and "extreme" young punks that think they're the next TapOut star. I also don't like bars in general. As for watching it online?? Sorry, I prefer to pay for the products that I consume, not steal them.

Quote:
8) Chuck Liddell is a horrible fighter, I agree. However, again, not a reason to dislike the UFC. And besides, he's not been fighting much lately anyways. He's on his way out of the league. If not, already gone because they made him a Hall of Fame member (not that I agree with it).


At least you've got a little sense.

Quote:
9) Absolutely false. If you watch more than 1 event, you'll notice this. I've heard Joe Rogan many times say something along the lines of "it was unbelievable that this guy just won" because he was losing for the entire fight and landed a lucky punch.


I'm not going to go into how many UFC events I've watched, but I can virtually guarantee you that I've watched more of them than you. I was watching this crap back in the mid-90s when you had to CALL your cable company to get a PPV. You couldn't just order it on a remote.

Quote:
10) Rigged? How do you know they are rigged? Fights are judged based on how well you perform OVERALL. If you escape submission attempts, if you stop the guy from taking you down, if you avoid punches, if you're more active on the ground, etc. There are many things that go into the judges decisions based on a round-by-round basis. And if you can show me the fight you are referring to, then I'll believe you, but I'm pretty sure the example you gave has never happened.


So you've never watched a UFC event where a fight went to the judges and then when the winner was announced you were like "Wait, what??" If so, then you really haven't watched much of this at all. I'm not going to give you a specific example, because it seems to happen about once every three PPVs. If you aren't seeing it, then you really don't know what you're watching.

Quote:
I'll leave you with a final remark. I know you won't change your mind or anything and there is no point in me trying to. So I won't. However, you are judging the sport unfairly based on a few people you don't like, a fear of homosexual people, and the fact that you believe something is rigged (with no proof I might add). You are 100% entitled to your opinions, but in my mind, you are being unfair and you were quick to judge. If you don't like fighting as a sport, that's fine, watch something else and don't complain. But you did even take the time to post in this thread, so that tells me something about your mentality too. Anyways, I'll leave it at that.


I'll leave you with a final remark. You're saying an awful lot about me and assuming an awful lot about me because I don't like something that you do.

I guess since you know so much about me, I'll go ahead and assume some things about you. I would guess that you're an extreme douche bag type 20-something that wears a Tap Out shirt to the gym and yells a lot. You probably wear awesome sunglasses and a hat that's a bit too big for you. Is that correct?? Or is assuming something about someone you don't know really ignorant??

Fear of homosexual people?? Nope, not at all. Joe Rogan says homo-erotic things...it's a fact. That doesn't say anything at all about how I feel about or towards homosexual people. You're fairly ignorant if you can't separate those two things. It also says something about you as a person when you take a statement that is clearly a fact and try to turn that around into an assumption about how someone else feels about a group of people. Let me guess, if I told you that Kobe Bryant was black, you'd probably say I'm a racist...right???

Don't like a few people?? That's a pretty fair reason to dislike something. If you didn't like the main stars of a TV show, would you watch it?? Would you think it's a fair reason for disliking it?? Or would you just watch that show and be like "Well, I like it even though I hate all the characters..." I'm guessing you wouldn't watch it and think it a fairly valid reason for not liking it.

As far as it being rigged?? When even the OWNER of said league is saying that something needs to be done about poor judging decisions, then you KNOW something is wrong. It's not like just some guy on the internet is saying they've been poor decisions, it's the OWNER. If you can't understand that when the owner says something is wrong, then that means that there is something wrong, then I really don't know how to explain it to you any better.

And just to finish this up...I've hung out a bit with Rashad Evans. I live in his hometown and hang out quite a bit where he went to college. A couple of my friends were very close with him while he was attending Michigan State University. He still lives in my hometown, and whenever he is flying out to train he goes through the airport that I work in. I regularly see him around town and am a big fan of his. I have also met quite a few of the guys that he trains with, and they all fight in the UFC as well.

I only add this to give you a bit of information as to what I understand and don't understand about this league and this sport. I can guarantee you that all of those assumptions that you've made about me are about as far from the truth as can be, and you shouldn't be so offended that I don't like something that you do. It doesn't offend me that you do like it, but you are clearly mad (which is lame, sad, and funny all at the same time) that I don't like something that you enjoy. Get over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:51 pm 
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 1394
Location: Newmarket, ON, Canada
Gimpdiggity wrote:
It speaks to the mindset of the organization. When you need to give your event some "extreme" name every month, then it shows that you are reaching a bit too far and trying to be too hip.
They don't need that. They don't need to have extreme names for events to make them seem more interesting or hip or fresh. It's lame and unnecessary. It's also very WWE-ish...what's next, the UFC Regal Rumble?? UFC Fightmania?? I didn't disagree with you, I was giving a possible reason for why they do it.

You just named two fighters. For every two that you name, I can name 10 that have ridiculous nicknames. Good for you, but you said every fighter had to have a nickname, one example proves you wrong there, but I realize you didn't mean every fighter, you meant almost every fighter.

Quote:
3) If you're afraid of homosexuals, that's fine by me. But you're taking his words out of context, and this leads me to believe (even if you aren't this age anymore) that you're living with a teenage boy mindset.


My best friend in high school is a homosexual. My father in law is a homosexual. I'm pretty sure I'm not afraid of homosexuals. Why you would even go this direction is beyond me.
I went in that direction because you seemed to be mocking someone who made statements like that. Usually (and remember, above I said "if", I didn't say "you ARE afraid of homosexuals"), this means the person taking these words out of context is afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality in general. It's good that some of your friends are like that, and even your father in law, there's nothing wrong with it, and I've had friends who were homosexuals too. I have no problem with them.
Joe Rogan says some really homo-erotic things. Bottom line. Taken out of context?? To an extent, but that doesn't change the fact that they are extremely homo-erotic statements, now, does it?? Sure doesn't, but it also doesn't change the fact that you took them out of context.

Quote:
4) Not a reason to dislike the UFC, it's a reason to dislike Bruce Buffer.


I'm sorry. I thought someone that is heavily involved in the organization IS in fact a reason to not like the organization. Let me guess...if I said I didn't like Dana White, you'd probably say "That's not a reason to dislike the UFC, it's a reason to dislike Dana White." Am I right?? Sure... I'm not a big fan of Dana White myself, but I still like the UFC

Quote:
5) So they're not supposed to make money off of their sponsors? If you had people who decided to give you thousands upon thousands of dollars just so you could fight people, and train for a living, you'd go ahead and tell them that you won't put their logo on display somewhere? Good luck keeping a sponsor who would let you do that.


Of course you need to display your sponsors. I would think that showing them on your trunks, on your shirt, and on your hat are enough. Having two cronies come to the octagon with you to drape some dumb poster over the cage is just stupid. I'm glad we agree to an extent. But I'm pretty sure it's the sponsor's decision to put the poster up, not the fighter. They probably have no say in it.
Quote:
6) If you want to watch pretty women, well... you've got the internet, go ahead. But the UFC is a fighting league, not a let's watch pretty women league.


It was a bit of a joke. Congratulations on taking it way too seriously. You're a sharp one.
It has been said many times here, sarcasm cannot be read over the internet. And the rest of your post was serious, so how was I supposed to determine the change in tone?

Quote:
7) Sure, I can agree with this. But if you're angry, watch it online if you aren't of age to go to a bar.


So, you're telling me to either go to a bar to watch it or steal it?? That's some great advice, there.
The good thing about advice is, you can take it or leave it.
I don't go to bars because I'm not a big fan of being around a couple hundred "hardcore" and "extreme" young punks that think they're the next TapOut star. I also don't like bars in general.
Fair enough, that's fine by me, but there are other places that show it that are less bar-ish. Some restaurants will show it.
As for watching it online?? Sorry, I prefer to pay for the products that I consume, not steal them.
Good, at least you're morally correct. You don't by any chance listen to any pirated CDs? Sure it's unrelated, but its just a question. Or are you one of the people that pays for iTunes?

Quote:
8) Chuck Liddell is a horrible fighter, I agree. However, again, not a reason to dislike the UFC. And besides, he's not been fighting much lately anyways. He's on his way out of the league. If not, already gone because they made him a Hall of Fame member (not that I agree with it).


At least you've got a little sense.
I've got no response for this, but I do feel the insult to my intelligence (or my amount of sense) was unnecessary.

Quote:
9) Absolutely false. If you watch more than 1 event, you'll notice this. I've heard Joe Rogan many times say something along the lines of "it was unbelievable that this guy just won" because he was losing for the entire fight and landed a lucky punch.


I'm not going to go into how many UFC events I've watched, but I can virtually guarantee you that I've watched more of them than you. I was watching this crap back in the mid-90s when you had to CALL your cable company to get a PPV. You couldn't just order it on a remote.
That's an odd guarantee since I too have watched the pre-2000 events. The old Royce Gracie tournament style stuff was pretty cool. But then again, I didn't watch them when they aired, just much later when I became a fan of the league.

Quote:
10) Rigged? How do you know they are rigged? Fights are judged based on how well you perform OVERALL. If you escape submission attempts, if you stop the guy from taking you down, if you avoid punches, if you're more active on the ground, etc. There are many things that go into the judges decisions based on a round-by-round basis. And if you can show me the fight you are referring to, then I'll believe you, but I'm pretty sure the example you gave has never happened.


So you've never watched a UFC event where a fight went to the judges and then when the winner was announced you were like "Wait, what??"
I have, but does that prove it has been rigged? Probably not, just gives cause for concern.
If so, then you really haven't watched much of this at all. I'm not going to give you a specific example, because it seems to happen about once every three PPVs. If you aren't seeing it, then you really don't know what you're watching.
Well then I cannot seem to accept your point. No specific example means it doesn't exist.

Quote:
I'll leave you with a final remark. I know you won't change your mind or anything and there is no point in me trying to. So I won't. However, you are judging the sport unfairly based on a few people you don't like, a fear of homosexual people, and the fact that you believe something is rigged (with no proof I might add). You are 100% entitled to your opinions, but in my mind, you are being unfair and you were quick to judge. If you don't like fighting as a sport, that's fine, watch something else and don't complain. But you did even take the time to post in this thread, so that tells me something about your mentality too. Anyways, I'll leave it at that.


I'll leave you with a final remark. You're saying an awful lot about me and assuming an awful lot about me because I don't like something that you do. Sure there, I assumed you were afraid of homosexuality, I'll retract that. I posted quickly. Never meant to say that.

I guess since you know so much about me, I'll go ahead and assume some things about you.
Warranted
I would guess that you're an extreme douche bag type 20-something that wears a Tap Out shirt to the gym and yells a lot.
Don't own one, never will, don't go to the gym.
You probably wear awesome sunglasses and a hat that's a bit too big for you. Is that correct?? Or is assuming something about someone you don't know really ignorant??
Sure it can be, but initially I didn't completely state my assumption as fact, and that's how I intended it to remain, but I got careless.

Fear of homosexual people?? Nope, not at all. Joe Rogan says homo-erotic things...it's a fact.
It's not a fact, you took them out of context. He was referring to fighting techniques and styles. But I'm sure you already know this.
That doesn't say anything at all about how I feel about or towards homosexual people.
You're right.
You're fairly ignorant if you can't separate those two things. It also says something about you as a person when you take a statement that is clearly a fact and try to turn that around into an assumption about how someone else feels about a group of people.
It wasn't taking a fact and turning it into an assumption. What it was, was taking a twisted set of words that someone took out of context to form a guess (sure assumption, same thing) as to their feelings towards a certain group of people.
Let me guess, if I told you that Kobe Bryant was black, you'd probably say I'm a racist...right???
Not at all. That would be fact. Not racist. Actually on that subject, everyone in your country has the right to free speech (and in mine) so you can call that race of people whatever you want to their face, and nobody can do anything about it legally. I'm not saying you're that kind of a person, but if an African American disliked it when you called him black, then he cannot stop you from doing so ever. Just a hypothetical example.

Don't like a few people?? That's a pretty fair reason to dislike something. If you didn't like the main stars of a TV show, would you watch it??
Sure, my first example is the office. I don't like the characters Dwight, Angela, Michael or Kelly on it, but I still watch it every week because it is funny. My second example, Two and a Half Men. I don't like ANY of the characters on that show, but occasionally do still watch it.
Would you think it's a fair reason for disliking it??
In some cases yes.

Or would you just watch that show and be like "Well, I like it even though I hate all the characters..." I'm guessing you wouldn't watch it and think it a fairly valid reason for not liking it.
In most cases, yes.

As far as it being rigged?? When even the OWNER of said league is saying that something needs to be done about poor judging decisions, then you KNOW something is wrong.
Again, still not proof it is rigged. Just speculation.
It's not like just some guy on the internet is saying they've been poor decisions, it's the OWNER. If you can't understand that when the owner says something is wrong, then that means that there is something wrong, then I really don't know how to explain it to you any better.
Then I still cannot accept your point as fact. But opinion doesn't have to be fact.

And just to finish this up...I've hung out a bit with Rashad Evans. I live in his hometown and hang out quite a bit where he went to college. A couple of my friends were very close with him while he was attending Michigan State University. He still lives in my hometown, and whenever he is flying out to train he goes through the airport that I work in. I regularly see him around town and am a big fan of his. I have also met quite a few of the guys that he trains with, and they all fight in the UFC as well.
That sounds cool, I hope he is a nice guy, he comes off as a nice guy whenever I see him on a UFC related show.

I only add this to give you a bit of information as to what I understand and don't understand about this league and this sport. I can guarantee you that all of those assumptions that you've made about me are about as far from the truth as can be, and you shouldn't be so offended that I don't like something that you do.
I'm not, I'm just saying you've been judging it for some poor reasons. Again this is my opinion.
It doesn't offend me that you do like it, but you are clearly mad (which is lame, sad, and funny all at the same time) that I don't like something that you enjoy. Get over it.
I'm not mad at all, which means you clearly don't know me. I am over an argument with someone on the internet. It's just someone virtual that you're talking to. I gave my opinions in most cases, and if I were angry, I would have spoken less clearly like some of the fourteen year-olds here and probably resorted to insults. But I don't get angry very often.


I suppose my main point would be that the UFC is not turning into the WWE. Sure they have corny names, but that's the only example (from what I can see) that you gave which leads your point in that direction. From the rest (and to be fair, you did state this) you're just stating your reasons for not liking the sport. That's great, maybe you should stop watching as I have suggested previously. Especially after having watched way more fights than I have (a personal guarantee from you). That's what I usually do when I stop liking something, I stop supporting it (not that you ever said you still do). But if you're willing to stop the assumption train as much as I am, then I'll stop right here. I leave the rest of this thread to be either locked, picked apart, or to go on its intended direction and to talk about how people liked/disliked this particular fight.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:44 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 2479
Location: Jackson, Michigan
bucky310 wrote:
I suppose my main point would be that the UFC is not turning into the WWE. Sure they have corny names, but that's the only example (from what I can see) that you gave which leads your point in that direction. From the rest (and to be fair, you did state this) you're just stating your reasons for not liking the sport. That's great, maybe you should stop watching as I have suggested previously. Especially after having watched way more fights than I have (a personal guarantee from you). That's what I usually do when I stop liking something, I stop supporting it (not that you ever said you still do). But if you're willing to stop the assumption train as much as I am, then I'll stop right here. I leave the rest of this thread to be either locked, picked apart, or to go on its intended direction and to talk about how people liked/disliked this particular fight.


For what it's worth, St. Pierre is probably one of my favorite fighters in the UFC. He's a hard working guy that is as humble in victory as he is in defeat, which makes him an excellent sportsman and person. He's an asset to the UFC, and hopefully more fighters like him will come along.

I still feel that the sport is going down a dangerous road and is in danger of becoming something that many people equate to the exact same as professional wrestling. If they really want to move forward with the sport, they need to drop some of the "extreme" aspects of it (like the horrible names for the PPVs and the lame nicknames) and start taking themselves a bit more seriously and professionally.

Quote:
No specific example means it doesn't exist.


I just wanted to touch on this for a second...

Did you know that gravity is just a theory?? It isn't an absolute fact that gravity exists. It exists in theory, however, it hasn't been tested to the point where it is an absolute provable fact.

However, this doesn't discourage us from understanding that gravity DOES in fact exist, and we all (for the most part) accept it as a fact.

My point, although I'm rambling a bit, is that just because an example for something isn't given doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's simply a silly thing to say. I can't give you an example of a living alien, that doesn't mean that they don't exist somewhere.

The simple fact of the matter is that Dana White himself has suggested that the judging in the UFC is suspect, and that it needs to be addressed. Now, he's saying this...yet he's not doing anything about it...which means that one can make a fairly logical assumption that he's not interested in doing anything about it, thus wanting the controversy that the poor judging causes. That controversy brings in viewers. Viewers bring in dollars. Dollars is what business is all about.

But...since you seem to not believe that there are poor decisions being made, here's a few that I can think of.

Machida-Shogun Rua. Rua clearly carried the fight, yet Machida retained the championship. The reasoning given by the judges after the fight?? Rua was landing leg kicks, which they deemed as "ineffective" blows. If a leg kick is an ineffective blow, then I don't understand why any fighter would do one. That's a weak excuse to validate a poor decision. Rua landed more strikes, harder strikes, and carried the flow of the fight...especially in the later rounds. But apparently half of his strikes, the leg kicks, are ineffective blows so they don't count. I guess.

Brandon Vera clearly dominated the Ancient Randy Couture. He even got it to the point where the bout could have been called in the middle of the second round. In that fight, if I recall correctly, Couture was given the first round because of a takedown in an otherwise evenly fought round. A takedown that Vera was back up from in about 5 seconds. Should have been a draw round, but it went to Couture because of the scored takedown. Vera won the second round decisively. He landed the most blows, the most power blows, and even knocked Randy down (almost out). So that's one round each. The third round was another close one, with punches and blows being about the exact same. Vera, however, scored a takedown in that third round. Now, if you give Couture the first round for a takedown, don't you think the third round should go to Vera for the same reason?? Vera scored the lone takedown of that round, and actually passed Couture's guard and got in a full mount. Yet...Couture was given the round, and in essence given the fight. This was absolutely ludicrous. It wasn't even a split decision. It was unanimous in favor of Couture...29-28...yet Vera clearly won two of the rounds. If it was unanimous anything, it should have been in favor of Vera.

Those are just two of the matches that I have seen in the last year that I literally sat there and scratched my head when the winners were announced. They were so horribly judged that there is no reason NOT to believe that they weren't rigged, or at least influenced by factors OTHER than the fight itself (Machida getting an extra bonus for already being the champ and Couture getting a bonus for being Couture).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:54 am 
User avatar
Offline
Emperor Penguin

Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 7253
Location: Texas
To be honest your reasons for not liking the UFC arent that strong or that serious. If I didnt know any better id think you were joking.


Its like me saying I hate nascar because all they do is go in circles. Its a stupid reason not to like it, but I say it anyway to annoy those who love nascar. I have real reasons of my own, but they arent as fun to discuss.

Im betting, hoping, you have some better reasons than the 10 you posted for not liking the UFC.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:05 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 2479
Location: Jackson, Michigan
DavidTheCryptic wrote:
To be honest your reasons for not liking the UFC arent that strong or that serious. If I didnt know any better id think you were joking.


Its like me saying I hate nascar because all they do is go in circles. Its a stupid reason not to like it, but I say it anyway to annoy those who love nascar. I have real reasons of my own, but they arent as fun to discuss.

Im betting, hoping, you have some better reasons than the 10 you posted for not liking the UFC.


Ah, someone was able to read the deliberate humor in the post. I applaud you for getting it.

You are absolutely correct. Those reasons were more of a "joke" that I posted on another message board a while back.

If you read my posts, my main reasons for beginning to dislike this sport are the suspect judging and the unnecessary attempts at being "extreme."

The XFL failed because it tried to force "extreme" down everyone's throats with...lame nicknames, stupid PR, and absurd commentary. By and large, it's extremely similar to the types of things that the UFC does right now. Horrible nicknames given to unproven fighters, over the top PR for pay-per-view events, and a couple of ring side announcers that don't seem to have much credibility at all and seem to get more and more flaky every month.

The NFL, on the other hand, succeeds because it sticks to a very strict professional business model. Sure, there are some players that are nut jobs and some owners that are a bit out there, but by and large the league thrives on the fact that it's a REAL business. The nut jobs are usually disciplined in various ways and the league stays on top by being a model of professionalism and business.

I think the UFC could be an absolutely fantastic sports entity if it started following the model set forth by the NFL, and started going away from the things that it does that are like the XFL. A few minor changes and it would end up being a lot better off, and still make as much money as it does right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Georges St. Pierre Vs Dan Hardy (Spoiler Alert)
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:25 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 922
Location: cincinnati
Okay being a huge UFC fan I definitely have to throw my hat into the ring on this one. So here you go gimpdiggity.

1. There aren't names for all the ppv's. They were named and numbered back in the day but not so much any more. 111,112,113,114 etc.

2. Other sports throw nicknames around like candy too. Floyd "money" Mayweather. Pernell "sweet pea" Whitaker. 500 guys named "sugar". edited sportsnation calls Lebron James the "Akron Hammer". They exist in every sport...it is what it is.

3. Joe can get carried away at times, but he is a real fan of the sport and knows what he is talking about. He actually trains with eddie bravo, so he's a real student of the sport as well. I do have a problem with mike goldberg though...they need to find somebody to replace him.

4. I agree with you bruce buffer sucks...I think the WEC announcer is the best...don't know his name though.

5. So do you hate nascar too? Those guys have even more sponsors. I can't blame them for getting as many sponsers as they can. If you figure a new up and coming fighter is only making something around 7-15 thousand dollars a fight, i say make all the money you can in sponsorships.

6. agreed

7. What where they advertising? I don't remember seeing any commercials...plugs yes, commercials, no.

8. He makes more money than you. nuff said.

9. I already said i don't like mike goldberg.

10. Dana white would tend to agree with you about judges decisions. Thats why there is a machida vs. rua rematch and why Dana always says finish the fight. don't leave it in the judges hands. judging isn't always reliable in any sport... ive seen lots boxers snubbed, same goes for gymnasts, and we all remember that figure skating fiasco that happened at the winter olympics a few years ago.

MMA is still a relatively young sport. It's come a long way and it only seems to be getting better...at least in terms of competition any way.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2009 Penguin Magic, Inc.