Fedor?

I agree with you on the kinda neutral position. Indeed you have more submissions options, and the top man gets more power from gravity.

Conors elbows worked from the back, but most punches don’t work too well. He could worked a bit more with subbed tho.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Guess my main point is I believe the takedown should have larger value than the 4 minutes of top time with NO damage or submission attempts[/quote]

It depends on the takedown. A belly to back Suplex, Harai Goshi, Clean Double? Heck yeah! A just “leech myself onto you and drag you to the ground” ala Damien Maia’s recent WW fights? No, I don’t think those deserve many points.

I am also in agreement though that just being on top and not doing any damage or threatening any submissions is equally unimpressive and does not deserve much credit either.[/quote]

Maia’s takedowns where not being hid, but he still imposed his will over others

Yes, agreed, and many times he would end up with a dominant position (which again I feel should earn him points), I was more so saying that the takedowns themselves were not very impressive and had he landed in guard I don’t feel that he should have gotten points from them. Once on the ground though Maia passes and/or submits relentlessly, so doesn’t really need the points from the takedowns so much to demonstrate that he is winning the grappling exchanges.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Yes, agreed, and many times he would end up with a dominant position (which again I feel should earn him points), I was more so saying that the takedowns themselves were not very impressive and had he landed in guard I don’t feel that he should have gotten points from them. Once on the ground though Maia passes and/or submits relentlessly, so doesn’t really need the points from the takedowns so much to demonstrate that he is winning the grappling exchanges.[/quote]

Then how do you score a fighter who stops takedown attempts to maintain a striking exchange?

You don’t score anything, just like you wouldn’t score a blocked punch or kick.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
You don’t score anything, just like you wouldn’t score a blocked punch or kick. [/quote]

maybe Im just biased but whoever dictates where the fight takes place either standing or on the ground or against the cage/ring is being the determining force so it should count for a plain leg drag even if he doesn’t throw a single punch.

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
You don’t score anything, just like you wouldn’t score a blocked punch or kick. [/quote]

maybe Im just biased but whoever dictates where the fight takes place either standing or on the ground or against the cage/ring is being the determining force so it should count for a plain leg drag even if he doesn’t throw a single punch.[/quote]

But who cares if they take the fight to the ground if they show no dominance/do no damage once they get there? MMA is a sport fight, not a wrestling match. Dictating where the fight happens means diddly squat if it doesn’t give you any advantage/lead to victory.

That said, within the “10 point must” scoring system (which I strongly dislike), I would agree that if a fighter continually takes their opponent down (even if they land in guard and they do nothing once they get there) while avoiding any damage on the feet, you would have to give that fighter the round. This I think highlights one of the major flaws in that scoring system though and partly explains the UFC’s hesitancy to showcase pure wrestlers like Askren or Tito (since non wrestling aficionados will often boo such fights and feel cheated if the wrestler wins via decision and so tend to shy away from paying for further cards with that/those fighters on them).

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
You don’t score anything, just like you wouldn’t score a blocked punch or kick. [/quote]

maybe Im just biased but whoever dictates where the fight takes place either standing or on the ground or against the cage/ring is being the determining force so it should count for a plain leg drag even if he doesn’t throw a single punch.[/quote]

But who cares if they take the fight to the ground if they show no dominance/do no damage once they get there? MMA is a sport fight, not a wrestling match. Dictating where the fight happens means diddly squat if it doesn’t give you any advantage/lead to victory.

That said, within the “10 point must” scoring system (which I strongly dislike), I would agree that if a fighter continually takes their opponent down (even if they land in guard and they do nothing once they get there) while avoiding any damage on the feet, you would have to give that fighter the round. This I think highlights one of the major flaws in that scoring system though and partly explains the UFC’s hesitancy to showcase pure wrestlers like Askren or Tito (since non wrestling aficionados will often boo such fights and feel cheated if the wrestler wins via decision and so tend to shy away from paying for further cards with that/those fighters on them).[/quote]

I hate the 10 point must, but I also hate the fact that there is rounds. However, Zuffa thought it was more sport-like oppose to human cock fighting

Taking someone down again and again is nothing but dominance its showing I fight where I want to in my eyes.

I can somewhat understand having rounds, but like you would prefer just a time limit. I would actually also prefer “finish only” outcomes (TKO, KO, or sub) but I realize how much trouble that could cause in terms of titles, so it’s obviously unrealistic.

I respect your opinion. I guess I am somewhat biased from a RMA perspective where just taking someone down but not being able to do anything once you get there means Jack and Shit, and Jack just left town. To me that’s not “winning” a fight, that’s just “unfinished business.”

That said I do enjoy watching wrestling and Judo where the whole point is to take your opponent down (and pin them if possible, or sub them in Judo’s case). They are just different sports to me.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I can somewhat understand having rounds, but like you would prefer just a time limit. I would actually also prefer “finish only” outcomes (TKO, KO, or sub) but I realize how much trouble that could cause in terms of titles, so it’s obviously unrealistic.

I respect your opinion. I guess I am somewhat biased from a RMA perspective where just taking someone down but not being able to do anything once you get there means Jack and Shit, and Jack just left town. To me that’s not “winning” a fight, that’s just “unfinished business.”

That said I do enjoy watching wrestling and Judo where the whole point is to take your opponent down (and pin them if possible, or sub them in Judo’s case). They are just different sports to me.[/quote]

I would like to see fights judged in totality instead of by rounds which would require less rounds or 1 solid frame of fighting, BUT that is a huge disadvantage to corners who use a lot of strategy.

Will Never happen, but Use yellow cards like Pride did to in courage action from fear of losing money

I’m pretty much a proponent of rounds. It might not be the real death match, but after all it IS a sport. And think of it this way situation: there is just a time limit, there are no rounds. Say 25 minutes or 15, just like the current rules, but then just in 1 round.

I think this isn’t really that much of an improvement in pace: Because there is no rest BETWEEN the rounds, fighters have to rest DURING the rounds. This will result in far more stalling and lowering the pace to spare your gas tank.

As an example, try running max distance in 25 minutes, without rest periods. Try it next week with a minute of rest (stopping the timer) every 5 minutes. I believe I can travel quite some more distance in 5x5 minutes than a straight 25 minutes.

I also get the need of SOME points system, I think a hell lot of fights would be draws, and/or a hell lot of more damage happens to fighters when fighters start doing stupid shit to force a finish.

I agree the 10 points must system sucks, and most judges sucks. And I agree fights should be scored as a whole.
But how do we fix it?

[quote]Panopticum wrote:
I’m pretty much a proponent of rounds. It might not be the real death match, but after all it IS a sport. And think of it this way situation: there is just a time limit, there are no rounds. Say 25 minutes or 15, just like the current rules, but then just in 1 round.

I think this isn’t really that much of an improvement in pace: Because there is no rest BETWEEN the rounds, fighters have to rest DURING the rounds. This will result in far more stalling and lowering the pace to spare your gas tank.

As an example, try running max distance in 25 minutes, without rest periods. Try it next week with a minute of rest (stopping the timer) every 5 minutes. I believe I can travel quite some more distance in 5x5 minutes than a straight 25 minutes.

I also get the need of SOME points system, I think a hell lot of fights would be draws, and/or a hell lot of more damage happens to fighters when fighters start doing stupid shit to force a finish.

I agree the 10 points must system sucks, and most judges sucks. And I agree fights should be scored as a whole.
But how do we fix it? [/quote]

Former fighters as judges and referees would be a major step forward, then we quit judging based off of appearances. Example GSP-Hendricks. If you looked at both men at the end of the fight who LOOKED like they lost? even if GSP out landed him over 5 rounds. All these things as is, is what scares fighters to go the distance because they MIGHT get a shitty decision I.E. Sanchez-Pearson

I flirted with that idea to, to be honest. But the judges (and referee???) are chosen by Nevada Commission. They would prolly be jackasses about it, because that’s what they ussualy do in recent times when everybody with a dash of sense in his mind agrees about something.

I also believe most refs aren’t that great at there job. Standing in the way of fighters, really late or early stopages, not taking care of fighters. Great shame. Fighters and there corner don’t come to quit at the appropriate time, they come to fight until someone gives them a damn good reason to stop. Refs should step up there game and take care of the fighters.

I think some former fighters might be totally capable of those jobs, after a comprehensive screening and intensive course. If only the boys in Vegas agreed too…

[quote]Panopticum wrote:
I flirted with that idea to, to be honest. But the judges (and referee???) are chosen by Nevada Commission. They would prolly be jackasses about it, because that’s what they ussualy do in recent times when everybody with a dash of sense in his mind agrees about something.

I also believe most refs aren’t that great at there job. Standing in the way of fighters, really late or early stopages, not taking care of fighters. Great shame. Fighters and there corner don’t come to quit at the appropriate time, they come to fight until someone gives them a damn good reason to stop. Refs should step up there game and take care of the fighters.

I think some former fighters might be totally capable of those jobs, after a comprehensive screening and intensive course. If only the boys in Vegas agreed too…[/quote]

Have SAC give them the same testing as Mazzigotti has and NO one will ever get an early or appropriate stoppage until hes about dead

So Fedor has picked where he is fighting, but am I the only one kinda unsure of to whom it is? Viacom is funding a reboot of Pride under a new name since they sold it to Zuffa? Is there even any other fighter on the damn roster or is this Dream all over again?

I think I figured out what is happening. Bellator is sending guys over to Asia and Fedor is being used to bring huge numbers to the fights and fighters. Maybe M-1 and other European organizations like KSW etc are going to be plucked from and maybe UFC fighters will leave over the Reebok deals sponsor limits if the pay is reasonable

BUMP

Has any thing been released on who the opponent for Fedor is yet?

Fight card announced.

I saw this about a week ago and have to say I am a little disappointed in it