UFC 116 Discussion ****SPOILERS INSIDE****

Forest Master

Without getting into the pedantics of corruption in boxing: cowzerp is saying that the ref must have been briefed to not stop the fight if Brock was losing. It's an insane theory - in fact, it's completely disproven by the FACTS of the matter, which are that Jeff Rosenthal told them both in the back that if either were in trouble, he'd tell them 3 times to improve their position or he'd stop it - each time he told Brock, he moved & improved.

Seth Petruzelli even implying on a regional radio show that he was told to stay standing with Kimbo led to a whole promotion folding & being dropped by a TV network. Imagine UFC risking their entire business by suggesting this to a ref!? It's a laughable theory.

rovert

Lane Glamorous Pest wrote: »

I never said I thought the reffing was corrupt,I specifically said I had no opinion.

It is stupid to dismiss someone making accusations about reffing though,by stating that it was a sanctioned fight.
Boxing is corrupt as hell and their has been dodgy refs in sanctioned fights in boxing.
Maybe you need to cool your jets and read posts properly before mouthing off.

It isnt stupid when they have no proof what so ever.

The straw clutching is rathering sad here.

callaway92

anyone got a link to a Press Conference that doesn't freeze at the Leben bit? Tried Wrestling Observer and Cage Potato but they both had that problem, thanks

MrStuffins

Lane Glamorous Pest wrote: »

It is stupid to dismiss someone making accusations about reffing though,by stating that it was a sanctioned fight.
Boxing is corrupt as hell and their has been dodgy refs in sanctioned fights in boxing.
Maybe you need to cool your jets and read posts properly before mouthing off.

Of course!

Sure a few years ago, there were fixed football matches in Italy, leaving Juventus being stripped of their title.

Therefore, the World Cup is fixed!

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

Of course!

Sure a few years ago, there were fixed football matches in Italy, leaving Juventus being stripped of their title.

Therefore, the World Cup is fixed!

Oh please the most recent obvious case being Mallinagi v Diaz ,boxing is corrupt as fcuk and is sanctioned.

So if someone is trying to proove MMA isnt corrupt by saying its a State sanctioned fight,they had better come up with a better one.

MrStuffins

Lane Glamorous Pest wrote: »

Oh please the most recent obvious case being Mallinagi v Diaz ,boxing is corrupt as fcuk.

Therefore MMA is corrupt?

rovert

Lane Glamorous Pest wrote: »

Oh please the most recent obvious case being Mallinagi v Diaz ,boxing is corrupt as fcuk.

Explain how Lesnar-Carwin must have been a fix then?

Forest Master

rovert wrote: »

Explain how Lesnar-Carwin must have been a fix then?

Because Lesnar won - and they don't like him. He's bad for "their" sport. And by "they", I mean the MMA fans - y'know, the ones that hate the phoney wrestling that MMA evolved from...

callaway92

Forest Master wrote: »

Because Lesnar won - and they don't like him. He's bad for "their" sport. And by "they", I mean the MMA fans - y'know, the ones that hate the phoney wrestling that MMA evolved from...

WOW :rolleyes:

Unique User Name

My God there's a lot of Lesnar haters. It's always the people that say they know so much more about MMA too. Oh if you understood you'd now that he's not a proper fighter with no skills bar being athletic and super strong. What rubbish! He won the fight far and square and by submission which I would wager none of the haters thought possible.

Yes he's from WWE but he's a proper wrestler first and foremost and he's put a lot of work into developing all other aspects of his game and thats why he's the champion and number 1. People need to stop hating him because he came from WWE and embrace that. Look at all the extra fans he's bringing to the sport. Perhaps some people would be happier if UFC stayed underground like the old days forever.

MrStuffins

callaway92 wrote: »

WOW :rolleyes:

You can't deny that A LOT of Lesnar haters here are only haters because he came from Pro Wrestling.

Of course, some would deny this, but it's completely obvious to anyone with half a brain!

cowzerp

Forest Master wrote: »

I love the way cowzerp has completely avoided replying to my post about him claiming the ref was in on the "fix" - but he still continues to read the thread & thank all the anti-Brock posts that agree with his disproven opinion.

Forest master not that it's any of your business, I have been on my phone keeping an eye on how the thread is going and cant respond off it at all-it wont let me ever. its an N97 so maybe someone may know why that is!

Anyway-i never said the ref was on the fix, what i said was that he may have been asked to protect the UFC's interests, that fight should have been stopped, that i have no doubt about-maybe the ref was not briefed and just knew his carreer could be in jeopardy if he stopped the fight.

if a fighter covers up like brock he wants out and im saying that as a fighter-if people want MMA made mainstream you cant have lads looking like there been beat up when there like that.

ps, i dont hate Lesnar-i just think the wrong man won the fight,

Why Should I

I just got to say, Alot of you are sad people.

Facts have been posted for both sides, But some of you are unwilling to even accept them.


There has been alot of giving out about "Bad Ref calls" A fight gets stopped to early and now because it didnt!


The simple fact of it all is this.

The ref said before the fight to both fighters, I will give you 3 chances.

Every time he said anything to Brock, Brock responded by covering, kicking away, or taking a hold of a arm.

He did what he said he was going to do.



As for the rest of the card, WoW. I just loved it.

rovert

Forest Master wrote: »

Because Lesnar won - and they don't like him. He's bad for "their" sport. And by "they", I mean the MMA fans - y'know, the ones that hate the phoney wrestling that MMA evolved from...

Was Brock's diverticulitis a work then?

MrStuffins

cowzerp wrote: »

Anyway-i never said the ref was on the fix, what i said was that he may have been asked to protect the UFC's interests, that fight should have been stopped, that i have no doubt about-maybe the ref was not briefed.......

It's a pretty big and serious "maybe". In my opinion, you should either back up your "maybe" with facts or retract it. Becaus eit's a pretty bold thing to say with absolutely no substance to back it up!

EDIT: it also seems to me that you would rather believe something that you have just made up "your maybe" rather than the actual explanations given by parties involved in the fight as to why it wasn't stopped.

pablohoney87

Why Should I wrote: »

I just got to say, Alot of you are sad people.

Facts have been posted for both sides, But some of you are unwilling to even accept them.


There has been alot of giving out about "Bad Ref calls" A fight gets stopped to early and now because it didnt!


The simple fact of it all is this.

The ref said before the fight to both fighters, I will give you 3 chances.

Every time he said anything to Brock, Brock responded by covering, kicking away, or taking a hold of a arm.

He did what he said he was going to do.



As for the rest of the card, WoW. I just loved it.

Did anyone see the Tuchsherer- schaub fight? Tuchsherer grabbed a limb and it was still rightfully stopped.

rovert

cowzerp wrote: »

Anyway-i never said the ref was on the fix, what i said was that he may have been asked to protect the UFC's interests, that fight should have been stopped, that i have no doubt about-maybe the ref was not briefed and just knew his carreer could be in jeopardy if he stopped the fight.

if a fighter covers up like brock he wants out and im saying that as a fighter-if people want MMA made mainstream you cant have lads looking like there been beat up when there like that.

Way to ignore points which have been made and cited again and again in this thread.

MrStuffins

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Did anyone see the Tuchsherer- schaub fight? Tuchsherer grabbed a limb and it was still rightfully stopped.

You keep making this same point. You just pop up and say the same thing: "It happened before, so Brock should've been stopped."

Don't you believe that each fight should be taken on it's merits?

pablohoney87

MrStuffins wrote: »

You keep making this same point. You just pop up and say the same thing: "It happened before, so Brock should've been stopped."

Don't you believe that each fight should be taken on it's merits?

No. Every sport needs consistency in its referees.

Forest Master

cowzerp wrote: »

he [the ref] may have been asked to protect the UFC's interests

The UFC's interests are that their whole business doesn't get exposed & outed for trying to influence the officiating of a fight.

if a fighter covers up like brock he wants out

I would have thought tapping (from strikes) means you want out... as opposed to cover and respond, which is what Brock did.

Okay - we disagree on these 2 points.

Forest Master

rovert wrote: »

Was Brock's diverticulitis a work then?

UFC & Brock is all a work. Fedor is a shoot.

MrStuffins

pablohoney87 wrote: »

No. Every sport needs consistency in its referees.

Indeed!

So the Brock fight should be looked at and refs in the future should realise that, when in that position, Brock was well aware and was never out of the fight or knocked out. So, in future, fighters should be given a chance.

Agreed? Would that be consistant enough for you?

By the way, MMA isn't like other sports like soccer or Rugby, Carwin and Lesnar could fight again, be restarted in that exact position, and 1 of any 1 million outcomes could materialise!

rovert

Forest Master wrote: »

The UFC's interests are that their whole business doesn't get exposed & outed for trying to influence the officiating of a fight.

cowerp is acting like Brock is the only fighter who can get 1+ million pay per view buys.

pablohoney87

MrStuffins wrote: »

Indeed!

So the Brock fight should be looked at and refs in the future should realise that, when in that position, Brock was well aware and was never out of the fight or knocked out. So, in future, fighters should be given a chance.

Agreed? Would that be consistant enough for you?

By the way, MMA isn't like other sports like soccer or Rugby, Carwin and Lesnar could fight again, be restarted in that exact position, and 1 of any 1 million outcomes could materialise!

I see more people getting hurt that way than fighters regaining their composure. Which is not what the sport needs considering the tragedy during the week.

rovert

pablohoney87 wrote: »

I see more people getting hurt that way than fighters regaining their composure. Which is not what the sport needs considering the tragedy during the week.

That is why the referee uses his discretion. Big difference between Brock and Tree.

MrStuffins

pablohoney87 wrote: »

I see more people getting hurt that way than fighters regaining their composure. Which is not what the sport needs considering the tragedy during the week.

You didnt answer my question.

You don't think that from now on, fighters should be given a chance to stay in the fight if they are defending themselves and are indicating to the referee that they are ok?

You think refs should be consistant and stop every fight that gets into this position? Is that what you're trying to say here?

MrStuffins

The Simpsons on SKY1 right now.

"The Ultimate Punch, Kick and Choke Championship"

:pac:

pablohoney87

When your talkin bout referees discretion its not like Brock has a wealth of experience and is a known survivor in the sport.

Also Mr stuffins
I think Brock was given a chance. Then on Carwins second burst on the ground it shouldve been stopped. I think if the fighter is just covering up and takes that many unanswere shots every fight should be stopped in that situation yes.

rovert

pablohoney87 wrote: »

When your talkin bout referees discretion its not like Brock has a wealth of experience and is a known survivor in the sport.

He is now

If Brock was truly in trouble the ref would have stop it.

Some people in this thread not to mention any names are acting if Carwin KO'd Brock the ref would pretend he would something in his eye.

cowzerp

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's a pretty big and serious "maybe". In my opinion, you should either back up your "maybe" with facts or retract it. Becaus eit's a pretty bold thing to say with absolutely no substance to back it up!

Why should i? so i'm not allowed to have an opinion that the ref's decision was career based-Either the ref was deliberatly letting the fight go for that reason or he was incompetent, was it a fix? i dont know.
was it bad reffing-most definitely, in reality it could have been stopped standing when brock was cowering and turning and running away if the ref had wanted to and nobody could have argued.

The UFC could certainly affect a refs carrer if they chose too-if people dont agree with that well-:rolleyes:

it makes economic sense to have brock on top, Carwin would excite fans who are already into MMA, Lesnar brings new fans into MMA-if people dont understand that well then there is no point talking to them on it.

Lesnar is a beast that i have no doubt but he is 1 dimensional and i feel that more now than i did-doing a beginner sub on a man that is that gassed out is nothing, just proves he knows how to do an arm choke, it was not very good technically either, strenght was the main factor with the sub. im pretty sure he could do most subs after 6 months against an opponent that gassed out and if he cant then i'd be worried about his development.

ps, even Mark coleman won by arm triangle against Milco Voorn in 2005.

Forest Master

pablohoney87 wrote: »

When your talkin bout referees discretion its not like Brock has a wealth of experience and is a known survivor in the sport.

LOL - besides still not answering MrStuffins' question, now you're contradicting yourself.

You want consistency with refs, but then you're saying that whether or not he's a 'known survivor' should be factored into the ref's decision making.

Forest Master

cowzerp wrote: »

The UFC could certainly affect a refs carrer if they chose too-if people dont agree with that well-:rolleyes:

That statement isn't just a subjective case of opinion though - the UFC hate Steve Mazagatti - Dana openly says it to the press - but they still can't stop the commission appointing him to ref matches. Please explain why this is the case, if UFC can affect a refs career, as you claim.

MrStuffins

Cowzerp, yes you can have an opinion on it, but it's obvious that your opinion is only based on a guess that the ref may be making a decision based on his "career"

Its MUCH more logical to presume he was reffing fairly.

pablohoney87

Forest Master wrote: »

LOL - besides still not answering MrStuffins' question, now you're contradicting yourself.

You want consistency with refs, but then you're saying that whether or not he's a 'known survivor' should be factored into the ref's decision making.

I was addressing the roverts point about discretion. I still stand by my point that discretion shouldnt be an issue. What point of stuffins did i not address in my edit?

cowzerp

rovert wrote: »

cowzerp is acting like Brock is the only fighter who can get 1+ million pay per view buys.

No 1 in the UFC bar James Toney and Brock Lesnar can bring new fans into the game just by been there, the current fighters are not known outside of MMA-Toney and Brock already are world famous and will attract non UFC fans who may become new MMA fans not only in the short term but in the long term, Randy Coutore is not going to excite non MMA fans to want to watch UFC at all-thats just the way of the world..

Thats why there was a discussion about Batista joining Strikeforce, ready made name and new fans new money.

cowzerp

Forest Master wrote: »

That statement isn't just a subjective case of opinion though - the UFC hate Steve Mazagatti - Dana openly says it to the press - but they still can't stop the commission appointing him to ref matches. Please explain why this is the case, if UFC can affect a refs career, as you claim.

So why do we not see the same ref's on Strikeforce, Big John should still be in the UFC in that case, they have more control than you think.

Forest Master

pablohoney87 wrote: »

I was addressing the roverts point about discretion. I still stand by my point that discretion shouldnt be an issue.

That still makes no sense. So should the refs use discretion or not?
Keeping in mind that you want consistency, the probelm is that now you've backed yourself into a corner by a series of contradictions. If you answer yes, then how can 'the refs discretion' ever be expected to be a consistent judgement call? If you answer no, then how can you say that being a "known survivor" should have been factored into last night's decision?

Do you want consistency - i.e. a set of rules that apply to all fighters & all refs in specifically broken down situations - or do you want it subjective & at the refs discretion? You're asking for both, depending on what suits your reply at the time.

What point of stuffins did i not address in my edit?

Eh, you edited your post after I made mine.

Plastikman_eire

cowzerp wrote: »

So why do we not see the same ref's on Strikeforce, Big John should still be in the UFC in that case, they have more control than you think.

Didnt Dana vetto Mazagatti reffing Lesnar v Mir 2 on Brocks say so?

rovert

Oh cowerzp

cowzerp wrote: »

Why should i? so i'm not allowed to have an opinion that the ref's decision was career based-Either the ref was deliberatly letting the fight go for that reason or he was incompetent, was it a fix? i dont know.
was it bad reffing-most definitely, in reality it could have been stopped standing when brock was cowering and turning and running away if the ref had wanted to and nobody could have argued.

Simply amazing you are refusing to believe evidence to the contrary.

This is quite sad.

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Didnt Dana vetto Mazagatti reffing Lesnar v Mir 2 on Brocks say so?

No Brock applied to the commission.

Forest Master

cowzerp wrote: »

So why do we not see the same ref's on Strikeforce, Big John should still be in the UFC in that case, they have more control than you think.

Big John is registered with the commission in California, but not Nevada.

pablohoney87

Forest Master wrote: »

That still makes no sense. So should the refs use discretion or not?
Keeping in mind that you want consistency, the probelm is that now you've backed yourself into a corner by a series of contradictions. If you answer yes, then how can 'the refs discretion' ever be expected to be a consistent judgement call? If you answer no, then how can you say that being a "known survivor" should have been factored into last night's decision?

Do you want consistency - i.e. a set of rules that apply to all fighters & all refs in specifically broken down situations - or do you want it subjective & at the refs discretion? You're asking for both, depending on what suits your reply at the time.


Eh, you edited your post after I made mine.

I was 1st addressing the fact that if you want refs to use theyre discretion, then a stoppage in the fight would have still been fully justified as brock is not known yet for his ability to take punishment.
My point is still that the guidelines for refs are pretty clear about fighters defending themselves. If there was a stoppage in one fight then if there is an identical situation in another fight regardless of who is fighting or what time in the round it is or whether it is a title fight or not the fight should still be stopped.
I am not contradicting myself at all. I am addressing each point and trying to take on baord what people have to say and resond as so. Not just blindly arguing with people.

Also just because I am against referees officiating at their own discretion, it doesnt mean I cannot express my views about it when it does arise.

cowzerp

rovert wrote: »

Oh cowerzp



Simply amazing you are refusing to believe evidence to the contrary.

This is quite sad.

What evidence?

The ref weasling out saying he'd give 3 warnings?

he should have giving them quicker-easy excuse for him to keep it going as long as he wanted, 1 warning should do, and if he does not actually defend himself-he's out.. he folded up, not intelligent defense in my book.

also you saying that i gave you a hard time all week? when-i simply had a different opinion to you, and that opinion still stands, brock is 1 dimensional. submitting a non resisting opponent does not make a BJJ player!!

SDTimeout

Seems very similar to me that you're allowed to have an opinion on companys trying to prolong someone's reign at the top. ( Illegal )

But you're not allowed to have an opinion on who make be taking performance enhancing drugs ( Also Illegal )

Odd.

Forest Master

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Didnt Dana vetto Mazagatti reffing Lesnar v Mir 2 on Brocks say so?

No - they made a formal request to the commission based on the fact that when Lesnar was tapping out to Mir in their first fight, Mazagatti just stood there looking at him & he could have done long-term damage to his knee due to bad officiating.
There was no "veto" - it was Lesnar's lawyers dealing with the commission & making a case on his behalf. It was still the NSAC's call though.

Why are the pro wrestling fans having to explain to the MMA fans how the athletic commissions & the sanctioning of MMA works? I thought you guys were the experts... do you not follow the sport?

MrStuffins

cowzerp wrote: »

What evidence?

I ask you the same question.

What evidence do you have to suggest that the fight wasn't stopped because the UFC told him not to?

I'd rather you just admit you have none and that its just a presumption!

rovert

cowzerp wrote: »

What evidence?

The ref weasling out saying he'd give 3 warnings?

he should have giving them quicker-easy excuse for him to keep it going as long as he wanted, 1 warning should do, and if he does not actually defend himself-he's out.. he folded up, not intelligent defense in my book.

Wut

cowzerp wrote: »

also you saying that i gave you a hard time all week? when-i simply had a different opinion to you, and that opinion still stands, brock is 1 dimensional. submitting a non resisting opponent does not make a BJJ player!!

You did give me a hard time all week on this issue.

There is something here which I wont say.

SDTimeout

I'm presuming the UFC also told Kurt Pellegrino not to beat George Sotiropolous last night.

It makes economics sense to have someone from the nation to be on a good winning streak for when they return to Australia as it effects the Push-Pull factor of people towards the event.

rovert

SDTimeout wrote: »

I'm presuming the UFC also told Kurt Pellegrino not to beat George Sotiropolous last night.

It makes economics sense to have someone from the nation to be on a good winning streak for when they return to Australia as it effects the Push-Pull factor of people towards the event.

I guess John Hattaway forgot the gameplan during the Tom Egan fight too.

Forest Master

rovert wrote: »

I guess John Hattaway forgot the gameplan during the Tom Egan fight too.

Nah, they had Marcus Davis as a backup. So they didn't need to work that particular fight.

Unique User Name

I'm a little bemused that people believe the fight should have been stopped. I believe Brock defended himself well enough and moved as necessary when the ref said so. But much more importantly he got back to his feet before the end of the first round. If he was unable to continue this simply would not have happened. Again in the second round regardless of Carwin gassing, Brock had enough in him to take him down and grind out the submission. Hardly evidence of a man who should have been stopped.