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

MrStuffins

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Ok, let me make it relevant.

You and rovert are Brock Lesnar fanboys

I stopped reading here.

This is entirely inaccurate!

If you had read the thread you would know my feelings on Brock Lesnar. I made it clear in this very thread.

Just because i disagree with the Brock haters, does not make me a "Brock fanboy".

If you aren't going to read my posts, then don't bother addressing me in the thread.

MrStuffins

cowzerp wrote: »

where is all this evidence that you's keep talking about? the fact that the ref came out saying the 3 warning stuff just shows that people feel he let it go on to far.

there is none, the rules of MMA are set-i know them, ref's cant pick and choose them and have to take each fight as it happens, brock done everything but verbally tap in the 1st round, when fighters have to tap due to strikes it's down to terrible reffing, most fighters just wont tap and trust that the refs will look after them.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm disappointed that you keep claiming things but wont address the answers you're getting here.

You're accusing refs of fixing fights with absolutely nothing to back it up. You aren't even attempting to back anything up. Is that where this forum is going?

Am i allowed now to accuse you and others of illegal activity and not back it up at all? Can i now say "I saw Cowzerp fight and he had been taking performance enhancing substances", not back anything up but be within my rights to make the claim?

Sorry, but you obviously missed my post the first 2 times, otherwise you'd have addressed it right?

amacachi

You're a fanboy rovert! Because you think that the UFC's World Heavyweight champion can compete!


FFS if Carwin was good enough he would've knocked Lesnar out. Why look to the referee, why not look at Carwin who threw thump after ineffective thump and gassed himself out. "Lesnar only won because Carwin gassed." No ****. It's pretty ****in rare to see a fight when someone loses without making a mistake.

rovert

cowzerp wrote: »

where is all this evidence that you's keep talking about? the fact that the ref came out saying the 3 warning stuff just shows that people feel he let it go on to far.

The evidence has been posted and reposted over and over again. This do your case much justice. The referee hasnt commented either so fail there too.

Explain how the fight was fixed in Lesnar's favour, please?

Plastikman_eire

rovert wrote: »

Stop with the name calling

Ok will do....

So, is it one rule for other fighters like finney, and another for Brock because you are a massive fan of his or not?

callaway92

chopperbyrne wrote: »

You didn't use the exact word "fixed", but you clearly implied just that.

The UFC have no say in the referees. Did you even watch the post-ppv press conference. Dana said he was shocked to see Rosenthal get the main event as he expected Herb Dean to be reffing it.

There is no doubt that the UFC would rather have Brock as champion because he's hugely marketable and does great PPV numbers, but they have no sway with NSAC referees at all or Steve Mazagatti wouldn't ever ref a UFC fight.

You are making wild claims with no evidence to support them and are arguing against people who have provided evidence.

gd post :cool:

Plastikman_eire

MrStuffins wrote: »

I stopped reading here.

This is entirely inaccurate!

If you had read the thread you would know my feelings on Brock Lesnar. I made it clear in this very thread.

Just because i disagree with the Brock haters, does not make me a "Brock fanboy".

If you aren't going to read my posts, then don't bother addressing me in the thread.

Well side stepped.:rolleyes:

rovert

amacachi wrote: »

You're a fanboy rovert! Because you think that the UFC's World Heavyweight champion can compete!


FFS if Carwin was good enough he would've knocked Lesnar out. Why look to the referee, why not look at Carwin who threw thump after ineffective thump and gassed himself out. "Lesnar only won because Carwin gassed." No ****. It's pretty ****in rare to see a fight when someone loses without making a mistake.

He lost because he lost :pac:

Ive ran out of ways to say this but yet again Carwin was throwing a lot of punches but most of them were being blocked and the ones that landed were not fully connecting. Cawin must have landed 4-5 really good punches. Most of Carwin's punches were hitting Lesnar's arms and they were losing speed and power fast. Brock meanwhile was always moving, trying to pick a better spot and kept trying to kick Carwin away. The ref made the right call.

MrStuffins

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Well side stepped.:rolleyes:

I side-stepped nothing.

You call me a "Brock Fanboy" after i had actually stated my feelings toward Brock in THIS THREAD.

So why bother replying to your post? You didnt bother reading my previous posts, why would you start now?

Propane Nightmare

Guys are ye seriously still arguing this?

Youre never going to agree...

cowzerp

rovert wrote: »

The evidence has been posted and reposted over and over again. This do your case much justice. The referee hasnt commented either so fail there too.

Explain how the fight was fixed in Lesnar's favour, please?

Rovert your starting to troll now-i have said many times that i never said it was fixed so dont say that again, i think the ref might have felt pressured to not stop brock for obvious reasons, the ref defending his inaction is not evidence, it's him trying not too look like a crap ref, either way i disagree with his take on it and would not feel safe with a ref treating me like that in the cage. Again the fact he felt the need to say that proves that he felt in the wrong or was been questioned on it because people felt he was wrong.

amacachi

rovert wrote: »

He lost because he lost :pac:

Ive ran out of ways to say this but yet again Carwin was throwing a lot of punches but most of them were being blocked and the ones that landed were not fully connecting. Cawin must have landed 4-5 really good punches. Most of Carwin's punches were hitting Lesnar's arms and they were losing speed and power fast. Brock meanwhile was always moving, trying to pick a better spot and kept trying to kick Carwin away. The ref made the right call.

Aye that's basically what I meant to say if it didn't come out clearly. :pac: If I just watched a stream last night I may have thought he was battering him but on a decent monitor it's obvious how well Lesnar defended.


On another note, did anyone else find it hilarious how the commentary ridiculously **** for the ME? "Once he keeps pushing with his elbow he's OK". Yeah, he looks alright.:rolleyes: And wondering how badly Carwin had gassed, sure he couldn't stand after 4 minutes FFS.

Plastikman_eire

MrStuffins wrote: »

I side-stepped nothing.

You call me a "Brock Fanboy" after i had actually stated my feelings toward Brock in THIS THREAD.

So why bother replying to your post? You didnt bother reading my previous posts, why would you start now?

Ok, I sincerely apologise for making such a thoughtless and cutting remark. I genuinely did not wish to offend you to the point where you felt you couldnt answer my question.

Now, my disgusting behaviour, and your silly pretence that the question is irrelevant aside; Do you feel that ALL fighters should be given the chance that Brock was given last night? (I use the finney fight as a counter point given the similarities between her choice of defense and Brock's)

MrStuffins

cowzerp wrote: »

Rovert your starting to troll now-i have said many times that i never said it was fixed so dont say that again, i think the ref might have felt pressured to not stop brock for obvious reasons, the ref defending his inaction is not evidence, it's him trying not too look like a crap ref, either way i disagree with his take on it and would not feel safe with a ref treating me like that in the cage. Again the fact he felt the need to say that proves that he felt in the wrong or was been questioned on it because people felt he was wrong.

I don't know why i'm bothering here because you repeatedly fail to address my posts towards you.

But everyone here is expressing their opinion with facts. Your claims are Pie in the Sky and you continue to refuse to back them up.

MrStuffins

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Ok, I sincerely apologise for making such a thoughtless and cutting remark. I genuinely did not wish to offend you to the point where you felt you couldnt answer my question.

Now, my disgusting behaviour, and your silly pretence that the question is irrelevant aside; Do you feel that ALL fighters should be given the chance that Brock was given last night? (I use the finney fight as a counter point given the similarities between her choice of defense and Brock's)

I think, if fighters are intelligently definding themselves, they should be given a chance, yes.

rovert

Cowzerp #982 you said that you said. You said that the fight was fixed in Brock's favour Im not twisting your words.

Im not trolling if you werent so stubborn this would be a dead issue. Every point Ive made is rooted in fact. A lot of what you wrote i.e. UFC controlling refs is either wrong or fantasy land. Im sorry if you cant back up what you said. On what was quote from you in post #982 was that you merely mispoke then I would accept it but instead you are twisting and denying things.

cowzerp

MrStuffins wrote: »

I don't know why i'm bothering here because you repeatedly fail to address my posts towards you.

But everyone here is expressing their opinion with facts. Your claims are Pie in the Sky and you continue to refuse to back them up.

What do you want me to answer because i dont know-really, do you not now my opinions on the whole thing?

just ask me straight out and stop asking me to answer something that i dont know what your talking about.

my claims are all opinion bar the rules which are fact, i never claimed to be talking definite facts in most my posts, actually none bar the rules.

cowzerp wrote: »

The big fight was a joke IMO, the ref must have been briefed to not stop the fight if Brock was losing unless he had absolutely no other alternative because cowering on the ground and not trying to advance position is not intelligently defending yourself in my eyes
.

That was my post, post 982 was not my post so what are you on about?

and i did not say fix at all-your grasp of english must be off as there is a difference in a fix and a ref leaving a stoppage till he has no other choice, fix would mean that Carwin would win no matter what-thats not what i said or meant, now stop with that crap.

MrStuffins

cowzerp wrote: »

What do you want me to answer because i dont know-really, do you not now my opinions on the whole thing?

just ask me straight out and stop asking me to answer something that i dont know what your talking about.

my claims are all opinion bar the rules which are fact, i never claimed to be talking definite facts in most my posts, actually none bar the rules.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm disappointed that you keep claiming things but wont address the answers you're getting here.

You're accusing refs of fixing fights with absolutely nothing to back it up. You aren't even attempting to back anything up. Is that where this forum is going?

Am i allowed now to accuse you and others of illegal activity and not back it up at all? Can i now say "I saw Cowzerp fight and he had been taking performance enhancing substances", not back anything up but be within my rights to make the claim?

.

Plastikman_eire

MrStuffins wrote: »

I think, if fighters are intelligently definding themselves, they should be given a chance, yes.

I agree.

Brock defended himself no more intelligently then Jan Finney did. So which of those fights was called in correctly?

(And yes before you say it...again...I appreciate they are different fights, but its your opinion on those fights Im interested in)

rovert

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

I agree.

Brock defended himself no more intelligently then Jan Finney did. So which of those fights was called in correctly?

(And yes before you say it...again...I appreciate they are different fights, but its your opinion on those fights Im interested in)

Was Nog intelligently defending himself against Sylvia?

We could play this game all day.

MrStuffins

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

I agree.

Brock defended himself no more intelligently then Jan Finney did. So which of those fights was called in correctly?

(And yes before you say it...again...I appreciate they are different fights, but its your opinion on those fights Im interested in)

This is your opinion. Just because it is yours, doesn't necessarily mean it is mine.

Brock was effectively defending himself, blocked a lot of the punches, and was MUCH the fresher guy in the 2nd round.

He won the fight. there you go!

scudzilla

My take on all this

If it had been a normal fight and not for the title then i THINK that the ref would have stopped it, as the title was on the line Josh gave Brock a little bit more leeway than he normally would have. Maybe stopping the fight early and getting hammered for it by Dana and Press was on his mind but i personally doubt it.

IMO i think he did a great job, and i don't like Brock at all, too many times i've seen a fight end prematurely by over-zealous reffing.

cowzerp

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm disappointed that you keep claiming things but wont address the answers you're getting here.

You're accusing refs of fixing fights with absolutely nothing to back it up. You aren't even attempting to back anything up. Is that where this forum is going?

Am i allowed now to accuse you and others of illegal activity and not back it up at all? Can i now say "I saw Cowzerp fight and he had been taking performance enhancing substances", not back anything up but be within my rights to make the claim?

I have addressed everything i have said-will i keep going till i say exactly what you want me to say?

No your not allowed to accuse anyone of illegal activities without proof, i never accused anyone of illegal activities and thats where your wrong, i never said refs where fixing fights-now stop twisting my words and move on..

and before you say thats what i meant-i did not and you cant prove otherwise-my opinion was bad reffing, maybe influenced by fear.. maybe not

Plastikman_eire

rovert wrote: »

Was Nog intelligently defending himself against Sylvia?

.

No, he wasnt. The only thing working in Nogs favor there was Tim wouldn't follow him to the ground, but it's harder to make a case for not defending yourself if you are standing upright holding your guard up, then if you are pressed against the cage covering up taking dozens on unanswered shots to the head.

MrStuffins

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

No, he wasnt. The only thing working in Nogs favor there was Tim wouldn't follow him to the ground, but it's harder to make a case for not defending yourself if you are standing upright holding your guard up, then if you are pressed against the cage covering up taking dozens on unanswered shots to the head.

Wait.... you mean that all fights aren't the same? And that addressing a former fight isnt the answer to the problem in a more recent fight?

I'm stunned!

rovert

Cowzerp what other implication could be drawn from what you wrote, seriously? If you say that you didnt mean it eights hours ago you would have saved yourself a lot of agro instead you came across as someone who didnt want to admit they made a mistake in communication. Sad.

If you clarified what you said rather than saying you never said it in the first place I wouldnt have "trolled" either.

baaaa

There have been fixed fights in MMA before,where there is big money involved we have seen fixing in many sports,particularly boxing.
It's naive to think that MMA is any different.
This was a huge money fight and Brock is the ufc's biggest financial asset by far.

scudzilla

Are you guys goin to cop the fcuk on and get back on topic?

Just a reminder, the topic is 116 discussion :rolleyes::rolleyes:

scudzilla

Lovin Stephan Bonner, the guy is a total warrior, never gonna win titles but sure will win fans with performances like last nights

MrStuffins

scudzilla wrote: »

Lovin Stephan Bonner, the guy is a total warrior, never gonna win titles but sure will win fans with performances like last nights

And he was hilarious at the press conference too!

Plastikman_eire

MrStuffins wrote: »

Wait.... you mean that all fights aren't the same? And that addressing a former fight isnt the answer to the problem in a more recent fight?

I'm stunned!

Ya lost me here man, rovert made a perfectly reasonable comparision.(He was hoping I would claim that allowing Nog continue was ok, because of his rep for being durable)

Personally I feel that Nog took more punishment from Tim then should have been allowed, the only reason it wasnt stopped was because Nog was standing when the punishment was being delivered, and when tim did put him down he didnt commit enough on the ground the finish him.

However there are undeniable similarities between how Brock was defending himself last night and how finney defended herself, which is why I bring it up. Im not just pulling random examples of fights lol.

rovert

MrStuffins wrote: »

And he was hilarious at the press conference too!

Lewd too :pac:

scudzilla

Wonder what would have happened if he had lost, Dana has said many times that he has a job wit UFC for life after what he's done (TUF1 Finale)

Whats next, i can see him being the gatekeeper for a lot of up and coming LHW's

rovert

The press conference is up in individual fighter form on: http://uk.ufc.com/


@cowzerp what ever went on today check out Brocks comments at the press conference. I think you will find them interesting.

MrStuffins

scudzilla wrote: »

Wonder what would have happened if he had lost, Dana has said many times that he has a job wit UFC for life after what he's done (TUF1 Finale)

Whats next, i can see him being the gatekeeper for a lot of up and coming LHW's

It's a very important win for him. He will have at least another 3 fights now.

If he loses all 3, he's still in the same position as last night (3 on the bounce) and they'll give him a 4th against someone else on the slide!

cowzerp

rovert wrote: »

The press conference is up in individual fighter form on: http://uk.ufc.com/


@cowzerp what ever went on today check out Brocks comments at the press conference. I think you will find them interesting.

Watched it there, but as i said-i've no hate for Lesnar-he done what he had to do, i just feel the ref done a bad job and thats my opinion on the matter, and by that reasoning there should have been no 2nd round.

If they rematched next week who would you pick to win? honestly

To me Carwin knows he can beat Brock now and Brock also knows that he needs to bring carwin into the 2nd, 3rd round to win.

Why Should I

cowzerp wrote: »

Why should i? so i'm not allowed to have an opinion

You know what they say,

opinions are like a@@holes everyone has one

With that in mind.
There is a difference between an opinion and blowing out of you're backend! ( not that i am saying thats what you are doing :rolleyes: )

But the fact is, After every event there is at least 1 ref that is getting a going over, For one reason or another. What about the new ref in 115?
That stopped the Welterweight bout: Mike Pyle vs. Jesse Lennox at 4:44 of round 3 for a " Hug " triangle choke. Lennox neck was clearly out and his airflow was clearly not blocked!


It happens.

baaaa wrote: »

There have been fixed fights in MMA before,where there is big money involved we have seen fixing in many sports,particularly boxing.
It's naive to think that MMA is any different.
This was a huge money fight and Brock is the ufc's biggest financial asset by far.

Do you really think that the UFC would blacken its name with " match fixing" Don't you think it would cost them ALOT more in the long term?

Please think before you post!

MrStuffins

Why Should I wrote: »

Do you really think that the UFC would blacken its name with " match fixing" Don't you think it would cost them ALOT more in the long term?

Please think before you post!

edited out troll talk

rovert

cowzerp wrote: »

Watched it there, but as i said-i've no hate for Lesnar-he done what he had to do, i just feel the ref done a bad job and thats my opinion on the matter, and by that reasoning there should have been no 2nd round.

If they rematched next week who would you pick to win? honestly

To me Carwin knows he can beat Brock now and Brock also knows that he needs to bring carwin into the 2nd, 3rd round to win.

I dont want to go back to the cattiness of this thread but here is a lazy c&p

Ive ran out of ways to say this but yet again Carwin was throwing a lot of punches but most of them were being blocked and the ones that landed were not fully connecting. Cawin must have landed 4-5 really good punches. Most of Carwin's punches were hitting Lesnar's arms and they were losing speed and power fast. Brock meanwhile was always moving, trying to pick a better spot and kept trying to kick Carwin away. The ref made the right call.

Isnt the fact that Brock looked better than Carwin even thought Carwin was pounding on him for 3 1/2 minutes not absolute proof that the ref made the right call. I dont want to sound intolerant as I do try to be reasonable on these things as people's careers and bodys are at stake but I dont see how you can say it was a bad call, I really dont.

I dont know what the point you are making with the if they fought next week line. Obviously both would have to change things up namely Brock's striking and Shane's cardio.

Why Should I

Ok a little off topic! But i am waiting for the UFC16 numbers to come out, here is the 115 ones

• Rich Franklin $140,000 ($70,000 win bonus) def. Chuck Liddell ($500,000)
• Mirko Filipovic $150,000 ($75,000 win bonus) def. Pat Barry ($11,000)
• Martin Kampman $50,000 ($25,000 win bonus) def. Paulo Thiago ($18,000)
• Ben Rothwell $100,000 ($50,000 win bonus) def. Gilbert Yvel ($30,000)
• Carlos Condit $52,000 ($26,000 win bonus) def. Rory MacDonald ($8,000)
• Evan Dunham $26,000 ($13,000 win bonus) def. Tyson Griffin ($28,000)
• Matt Wiman $28,000 ($14,000 win bonus) def. Mac Danzig ($24,000)
• Mario Miranda $12,000 ($6,000 win bonus) def. David Loiseau ($12,000)
• James Wilks $30,000 ($15,000 win bonus) def. Peter Sobotta ($4,000)
• Claude Patrick $12,000 ($6,000 win bonus) def. Ricardo Funch ($5,000)
• Mike Pyle $38,000 ($19,000 win bonus) def. Jesse Lennox ($7,000)

amacachi

If there was a rematch and someone offered me evens for Brock to win I'd tear their hand off.

MrStuffins

Why Should I wrote: »

Ok a little off topic! But i am waiting for the UFC16 numbers to come out, here is the 115 ones

No wonder Chuck wants more fights.

Check out the pay for Strikeforce:

Fabricio Werdum: $100,000
def. Fedor Emelianenko: $400,000

Cung Le: $100,000
def. Scott Smith: $55,000

Cristiane "Cyborg" Santos: $35,000 (includes $15,000 win bonus and $5,000 champion bonus)
def. Jan Finney: $6,000

Josh Thomson: $60,000
def. Pat Healy: $8,000

Chris Cope: $3,000 ($1,000 win bonus)
def. Ron Keslar: $1,500

Bret Bergmark: $3,000 ($1,500 win bonus)
def. Vagner Rocha: $2,500

Yancey Medeiros: $8,000 ($4,000 win bonus)
def. Gareth Joseph: $2,000

Bobby Stack: $2,800 ($1,500 win bonus)
def. Derrick Burnsed: $2,000

When you're paying $100k to Cung Le, $60k to Josh Thompson and $55k to Scott Smith, paying the likes of Thiago, Griffin and others the way they did looks like a bargain!

Why Should I

haha!

rovert

These exclude undisclosed bonuses and percentage points on the PPV gross blah, blah.

Why Should I

rovert wrote: »

These exclude undisclosed bonuses and percentage points on the PPV gross blah, blah.

Yes! and sponsorship deals. So for all we know he poor chuck could have came out with the price of a new house!

MrStuffins

rovert wrote: »

These exclude undisclosed bonuses and percentage points on the PPV gross blah, blah.

Apparently part of the reason Carwin was nowhere to be seen to promote the fight is because UFC refused to give him a cut of the PPV gross

El_Drago

Wow, interesting difference of opinion regarding the Lesnar Vs. Carwin fight. While I agree that some other refs would have stopped the fight earlier,my take is that a stoppage in the first wouldn't have been justified as Brock a)was defending himself and b)stayed busy throughout Carwin's onslaught.Fair ****s to Brock for surviving that and finishing Carwin in the second. He knew coming into the fight that Carwin's cardio had a question mark over it and the ease of that takedown in the second certainly answered that.

Although many obviously see the fight in a different light,I don't think anyone can dispute that Brock Lesnar is a worthy champ. Those who do were the same people who continuously said that he'd be murdered by everyone that he's walked through so far.

Vince135792003

cowzerp wrote: »

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.

I am literally lost for words with that post. On every level, even in terms of purely speculating, it doesn't hold up.

Vince135792003

gimme5minutes wrote: »

As I said, Im not a fanboy but I've watched UFC/MMA for the last 6 years, I've seen hunderds of fights. I have never seen anyone take so much punishment for so long in that kind of situation without the fight being stopped. Please show me some UFC videos of a comparable situation where the ref lets it go on for as long as he did with Brock.




How did I miss your point? Your point was - "If Carwin had finished the fight in the first, he would have been a gigantic money making star for the UFC too." That is absolute nonsense. You say yourself Carwin doesn't have the name value of Lesnar. Carwin is a nobody outside of MMA, Lesnar is a household name and has been for years. Lesnar has something of a Tyson cult of personality about him and would be a big draw even if he wasn't the champ. Personality = cash. I, like the rest of the general public, have never even heard Carwin speak.

The UFC would definitely be taking a substantial hit in revenue if Lesnar had've lost that fight. Mir beat Lesnar and he remains a nobody outside UFC, if Couture beat him he would've remained a nobody/z-list celebrity outside UFC too. Brock has brought a sh*tload of viewers to UFC.

You don't get it. By your logic, the only way UFC can create money making stars is to import them.

Not every ppv draw starts out as Brock Lesnar. It's a gradual process but they all usually have a definnig moment that takes them to another level as a money making main eventer e.g. GSP beating Hughes in their second fight, Ortiz beating Shamrock in their first fight where key moments in both individuals becoming draws. To me if Carwin had won, it would have given the same boost. Would he be the ppv draw of Lesnar instantly? Who knows?

I don't know but to me the first person that crushes Lesnar will instantly be a star that could headline 3 shows a year.

So again this suggestion that UFC is protecting their cash cow is ridiculous on many levels particularly in the last 12 months when without Lesnar they have done phenomenal business (just look at the last few shows).

SDTimeout

I think this has gotten a bit much, let is not forget this was also posted in the thread.

SDTimeout wrote: »

Brock by submission - 14/1