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

rovert

cowzerp wrote: »

Rovert Baaa's opinion is just as relevant of yours and in my opinion is more realistic anyway so lay off him for disagreeing with you, It's clear you like fighters who run and fold up and he does not, thats fine and your perogative, If you feel Lesnar won due to anything other than Carwin gassing thats fine but you wont convince me otherwise, your fine to disagree with me and baaaa and anyone else but dont keep telling people to give it breaks etc because they don't share your opinion.

it's not like he's on his own in the beliefs or is saying anything crazy or unrealistic.

It has nothing to with him disagreeing with me read baaa's posts he has already been warned and he is still doing the exact same thing he was doing Sunday and Monday.

MrStuffins

Seriously?

rovert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Brock won because of something his opponent didn't have. He doesn't deserve the praise he is getting because anyone could have beaten Carwin in the second, he did nothing to defend.

Except defend inteligently.

Mark Hamill

rovert wrote: »

I didnt claim that.

You claimed in a previous post (either in this or the fedor thread) that most of Carwins shots hit Brocks arms, that Brock actually took relative little damage.

rovert wrote: »

You are asking for me to simulate a fight where Carwin has effectively unlimited cardio. Sorry but Id prefer to leave that stuff to UFC Undisputed. :pac: I would prefer to deal with reality here.

You are disagreeing with the notion that Carwins cardio (or lack thereof) won the fight for Brock. What do you think would have happened just in the second round, had Carwin not completely gassed?

MrStuffins

baaaa wrote: »

He paniced and got lucky with Carwin's sloppiness.
There are fighters that can do what Carwin did but they can finish it also and have cardio.

You could be right, but until they step in against Brock and beat him, Brock stays the UFC Champ and the No.1 HW in the World!

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What do you think would have happened just in the second round, had Carwin not completely gassed?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Step away from the "ifs" and get with the facts!

What would've happened if Hitler won WWII?

What would've happened had Travis Lutter been able to finish Anderson Silva whilst in mount?

What would've happened had Thierry Henry not handled the ball v Ireland?

Who cares? None of this happened! We're dealing with reality here!

rovert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You claimed in a previous post (either in this or the fedor thread) that most of Carwins shots hit Brocks arms, that Brock actually took relative little damage.

Re-read what I said.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are disagreeing with the notion that Carwins cardio (or lack thereof) won the fight for Brock. What do you think would have happened just in the second round, had Carwin not completely gassed?

Is this before or after you put in the unlimited ammo code?

Mark Hamill

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yeah, his wrestling isn't a skill, an Arm-Triangle isn't a skill!

Not when they are being done against a Carwin so gassed that he might as well be a training partner. Carwin did nothing at all to try to stop Brock finishing the sub. Brock showed that he knows the technique for pulling off the arm triangle, but he has yet to show if he has the skill to pull it off someone actively defending. You do know the difference between technique and skill, right?

MrStuffins wrote: »

And you can write another long-winded post trying to pick holes in this and that, but you're being ridiculous! Why aren't you analysing any other fights so closely?

Seriously, this is just you saying why am I picking on Brock?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Why aren't you telling us how Gerald Harris would never have won had it not been for a giant slam?

I only watched the Lesnar fight, why would I comment on a fight I didn't see?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Tha fact is, it was a fight, and Brock won the fight!

Where have I said contrary? I am arguing against the idea that it was a good fight from Brock, and that it somehow cements him in as number heavyweight.

Mark Hamill

billymitchell wrote: »

Fwiw, and I am not a massive UFC fan, but I seen the fight and Brock won it fair and square. I think how he won it is irrelevant, you can only beat whats in front of you and he did. He may not be the best heavy weight in the world in some peoples opinions, but somebody has to come along and beat him to prove that he isnt.
It was an enthralling fight none the less, and a great card over all.

I dont think anyone is saying he shouldn't have won it, the issue is how good of a win it was and that means examining the way it was won.

Mark Hamill

MrStuffins wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

Do you thin Brock would have won if Carwin hadn't gassed?

MrStuffins wrote:

Step away from the "ifs" and get with the facts!

Fine then:
Brock won because Carwin gassed-Fact

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Where have I said contrary? I am arguing against the idea that it was a good fight from Brock, and that it somehow cements him in as number heavyweight.

Fine, then instead of telling us who is NOT the No.1 HW, why dont you tell us who IS the No.1 HW and why?

rovert

I must say dont remember people saying this about GSP after the GSP-Penn fight.

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fine then:
Brock won because Carwin gassed-Fact

This is debatable! The gassing certainly contributed!

Brock won because he made Carwin tap with a submission-Fact

Mark Hamill

rovert wrote: »

Except defend inteligently.

I meant Carwin did nothing to defend the pass and the arm triangle.
As for Brock defending intelligently, while running away is the most intelligent defense on the street, its not particularly impressive.

cowzerp

OK lads, no claims of fixing, im 100% sure nobody was fixing the fight-in my opinion ref let it go when he should have stopped but thats his perofative, Baaaa thats aimed at you-disagree with anyone you want but keep it clean, trolling will not be tolerated and thats regardless of wheter i agree with you or not..

Let's start from fresh now lads, it's a decent debate if the personal edge can be left out,,, Thanks

MarkFairman

Whats the point of arguing "if Carwin had better cardio he would of won!"

Its ridiculous! why are you not laying into Leban because Sexyama gassed??

Its a fight, whoever lasts longer wins. Whoever has better cardio or conserves there tank better wins! Its a part of the fight game, you could be the most skilled fighter in the world, if you gas you loose.

Would you not be happy with a win if your opponent gassed and you won?? If anything you would be happy what your hard work in the gym paid off! or even if your opponant makes himself tired, thats his lack of experience which is again a part of the fight game!

Look I dont like Brock at all! but Carwin only has himself to blame, and Brock has beaten an undeafted heavyweight and is still the champion.

Thats really all there is to say on the matter so get over it!

MrStuffins

rovert wrote: »

I must say dont remember people saying this about GSP after the GSP-Penn fight.

Probably because GSP was never "managed" by Paul Haymen!

Mark Hamill

MrStuffins wrote: »

What would've happened if Hitler won WWII?

What would've happened had Travis Lutter been able to finish Anderson Silva whilst in mount?

What would've happened had Thierry Henry not handled the ball v Ireland?

Who cares? None of this happened! We're dealing with reality here!

The "ifs" are incredibly important in MMA. If Brock goes away from this fight and ignores the "what if Carwin hadn't gassed question" he could well ignore what is a big hole in his game (that he panics when getting hit) and leave himself open to losses from fighters with cardio or simply better accuracy in gnp.
I actually dont think he will ignore that question. He made some major improvements after fighting Mir the first time, and destroyed him the second time and I think he is intelligent enough to at least try to work on his stand up and his reactions to getting hit.

rovert

MrStuffins wrote: »

Probably because GSP was never "managed" by Paul Haymen!

ECW never would have died if they had money

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As for Brock defending intelligently, while running away is the most intelligent defense on the street, its not particularly impressive.

But obviously effective, because instead of getting punched and KOd on his feet, he backed off and went on to win the fight!

Seems you think he should've stood in front of a KO Machine like Carwin instead of back off, whether that be running away and stepping away. Silly IMO!

Mark Hamill

rovert wrote: »

Is this before or after you put in the unlimited ammo code?

Your insistence on avoiding my question speaks volumes to what you actually think the answer would be.

Mark Hamill

MrStuffins wrote: »

This is debatable! The gassing certainly contributed!

Brock won because he made Carwin tap with a submission-Fact

Brock caught the sub (and prior takedown) because Carwin gassed- Fact

seadnamac

cowzerp wrote: »

Rovert Baaa's opinion is just as relevant of yours and in my opinion is more realistic anyway so lay off him for disagreeing with you, It's clear you like fighters who run and fold up and he does not, thats fine and your perogative, If you feel Lesnar won due to anything other than Carwin gassing thats fine but you wont convince me otherwise, your fine to disagree with me and baaaa and anyone else but dont keep telling people to give it breaks etc because they don't share your opinion.

it's not like he's on his own in the beliefs or is saying anything crazy or unrealistic.

Seriously, you're a mod?

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your insistence on avoiding my question speaks volumes to what you actually think the answer would be.

There is literally an infinate amount of answers to your question!

I'm guessing if someone was to step up and say "Well i think Brock would have still won the fight" you wouldn't be happy.

It seems you're fishing for some sort of scrap so you can feel vindicated in your opinion that Brock isnt the current No.1!

rovert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The "ifs" are incredibly important in MMA. If Brock goes away from this fight and ignores the "what if Carwin hadn't gassed question" he could well ignore what is a big hole in his game (that he panics when getting hit) and leave himself open to losses from fighters with cardio or simply better accuracy in gnp.
I actually dont think he will ignore that question. He made some major improvements after fighting Mir the first time, and destroyed him the second time and I think he is intelligent enough to at least try to work on his stand up and his reactions to getting hit.

I must say the concept of Lesnar improving last week was very controversial for some posters on here. As Heyman and others have said he has the most expensive fight camp in MMA. I share your opinion.

rovert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your insistence on avoiding my question speaks volumes to what you actually think the answer would be.

Im not avoiding the question I just think it is silly thats all. You asking how would a fight turn out it a fighter had the biggest hole in his game removed overnight.

MarkFairman

I agree with you Mark, if Carwin had better cardio he would of won the fight.

But the fact is he didnt! and Brock won.

Im sure Brock will realise he was in a hell of alot of trouble in that fight and will go away and work on things.

Mark Hamill

rovert wrote: »

I must say dont remember people saying this about GSP after the GSP-Penn fight.

When he spent four round dominating Penn, who threw in the towel because he couldn't keep up with GSP? Yeah, cant imagine how that some people would see that as different to Brock gassing Carwin out by letting him use him as a punching bag in the first round.

There is a world of difference between GSP dominating someone so much they are too tired to go on after four rounds, and Brocks usage of the Homer Simpson method of boxing.

Noffles

I was VERY surprised the way Brock handled the 1st round, he really didn't fancy a good belt to the face did he.... fair enough he stayed clear headed and protected himself at all time and made it through the 1st round. It was also very clear to his own corner men that what he was doing was a bit worrying, with them telling him not to cover up and work backwards.. jab and move, jab and move as they said. Which was fairly irrelevant really as Brock knew Carwin had gassed...

Not a fan of Brock but I'm sure he'll have to improve, his stand up was fairly non existent, he will need that, sure heavyweights knock each other out ALL the time in the 1st round, you can't ignore that fact.

Overall, I enjoyed the night, worth the download.

rovert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When he spent four round dominating Penn, who threw in the towel because he couldn't keep up with GSP? Yeah, cant imagine how that some people would see that as different to Brock gassing Carwin out by letting him use him as a punching bag in the first round.

There is a world of difference between GSP dominating someone so much they are too tired to go on after four rounds, and Brocks usage of the Homer Simpson method of boxing.

IF BJ DIDNT GAS HE WOULD HAVE WON

or something

Mark Hamill

MrStuffins wrote: »

But obviously effective, because instead of getting punched and KOd on his feet, he backed off and went on to win the fight!

Seems you think he should've stood in front of a KO Machine like Carwin instead of back off, whether that be running away and stepping away. Silly IMO!

While standing in front maybe the first thing that comes to your mind, I have already pointed out (twice) that between running away the first time and the second, Brock had double unders (not particularly deep, mind) on Carwin and even got a knee in. Brock should have clinched up. Gotten into a range he was comfortable with to stop the strikes. Running away and curling up, while it may have let him survive, is not exactly the type of thing I would attribute to a number one heavyweight.

Mark Hamill

MrStuffins wrote: »

There is literally an infinate amount of answers to your question!

I'm guessing if someone was to step up and say "Well i think Brock would have still won the fight" you wouldn't be happy.

It seems you're fishing for some sort of scrap so you can feel vindicated in your opinion that Brock isnt the current No.1!

No not really. I'm curious as to how people think it would have gone down, if even Carwin lasted a round longer. Brock couldnt take him down in the first round, and he couldn't stand with him. Would he have been able to survive another round? Its a valid question to those who dont think that Carwins gassing played a big part in Brocks win.

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

While standing in front maybe the first thing that comes to your mind, I have already pointed out (twice) that between running away the first time and the second, Brock had double unders (not particularly deep, mind) on Carwin and even got a knee in. Brock should have clinched up. Gotten into a range he was comfortable with to stop the strikes. Running away and curling up, while it may have let him survive, is not exactly the type of thing I would attribute to a number one heavyweight.

Yet, he IS the No.1 Heavyweight, how ABOUT that eh?

rovert

What should have been Carwins gameplan: Up, Down, Left, Right, A+B+Start

MarkFairman

I dont think anyone is arguing that Carwins gassing didnt influence the result of the fight...........whats the point here? :rolleyes:

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No not really. I'm curious as to how people think it would have gone down, if even Carwin lasted a round longer. Brock couldnt take him down in the first round, and he couldn't stand with him. Would he have been able to survive another round? Its a valid question to those who dont think that Carwins gassing played a big part in Brocks win.

But the fact of the matter is, it's humans in there fighting. And EVERYONE has a limited gastank, whether it allows them to fight 1 round like Carwin, or more than 5 rounds like a Diego Sanchez.

Also, i don't think there are many people who will argue that Carwin's gassing wasnt a major factor

rovert

MarkFairman wrote: »

I dont think anyone is arguing that Carwins gassing didnt influence the result of the fight...........whats the point here? :rolleyes:

To discredit Brock's win completely it seems.

billymitchell

rovert wrote: »

What should have been Carwins gameplan: Up, Down, Left, Right, A+B+Start

Sonic Boom??

rovert

billymitchell wrote: »

Sonic Boom??

More Hegdehog than boom

Change Carwin to Super Carwin

Mark Hamill

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yet, he IS the No.1 Heavyweight, how ABOUT that eh?

According to who? What criteria are they measuring it with?

Mark Hamill

MarkFairman wrote: »

I dont think anyone is arguing that Carwins gassing didnt influence the result of the fight...........whats the point here? :rolleyes:

It questions wether the Brocks win should be considered anything but mediocre and wether he should be considered number 1 heavyweight in the world.

baaaa

Noffles wrote: »

Not a fan of Brock but I'm sure he'll have to improve, his stand up was fairly non existent, he will need that, sure heavyweights knock each other out ALL the time in the 1st round, you can't ignore that fact.

This is an important point,his chin and stand up will be tested(more than Carwin tested him) and they are glaringly weak(well the stand up anyway).
I don't see much difference between an Anderson Vs Sonnen matchup and Brock Vs Overeem.

rovert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

According to who? What criteria are they measuring it with?

Most if not all rankings online at least.

RECENT fights, quality of competition, was it for the title, on how big of a stage.

baaaa wrote: »

This is an important point,his chin and stand up will be tested(more than Carwin tested him) and they are glaringly weak(well the stand up anyway).

Once again you are neglecting the fact he was up against Carwin, hopefully not deliberately this go around.

Was Brock defence pretty or technical standing? No. Ultimately was it effective? yes

baaaa

rovert wrote: »

Was Brock defence pretty or technical standing? No. Ultimately was it effective? yes

Effective stand up defense?Really?Running away and ending up in the foetal position against the cage on your 3rd warning to move?
This is not effective defense.This is lucky.

Fall_Guy

rovert wrote: »

I must say dont remember people saying this about GSP after the GSP-Penn fight.

To be fair, after the first fight plenty of people were trying to argue that BJ would have won had he not gassed, and his winning of round one in that fight was nowhere NEAR as dominant as Carwins opening round against Lesnar.

Likewise, I'm sure plenty felt that Lesnar would have beaten Mir the first time round IF he hadn't made a rookie mistake and given up his leg.

In that case Lesnar improved his fight IQ to the point where he was well prepared for Mir's ground game in the second fight and won.

Is it that crazy to suggest that Carwin would come into a rematch with better cardio and better discipline (so that he doesn't blow his load trying to finish when he clearly has the better stand-up and seems to have parity in wrestling), and dominate Lesnar as the opening round suggests he is capable of? It's not fantasy to suggest that. It's not much of a stretch at all really.

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It questions wether the Brocks win should be considered anything but mediocre and wether he should be considered number 1 heavyweight in the world.

Well i've asked you already and you havent answered.

If you don't think Brock is No.1, who do you think IS and why?

Mark Hamill

rovert wrote: »

RECENT fights,

How recent is recent? Before Carwin his last fight was a year ago.

rovert wrote: »

quality of competition,

He has only had six fights. Randy was his highest quality competitor, but it was a bit of a mismatch size wise, he was a good 40-50 pounds lighter than Brock (still managed to pick him up though). Mir I dont count as being particularly good, Herring is tough but hasn't had many good fights himself in a while.

rovert wrote: »

was it for the title,

I suppose this ties into the quality of competition (best guys get to fight for the belt)

rovert wrote: »

on how big of a stage.

Dont see the relevence.

baaaa

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well i've asked you already and you havent answered.

If you don't think Brock is No.1, who do you think IS and why?

It's very hard to say who's the best unless you've got someone who's miles ahead.
Id imagine you'd be graphing the fighters ability on many many different aspects.
You would need a fighter with an extensive record,a considerable body of credible work so you could rule out luck and chance.
Brock isn't that fighter.

rovert

baaaa wrote: »

Effective stand up defense?Really?Running away and ending up in the foetal position against the cage on your 3rd warning to move?
This is not effective defense.This is lucky.

Effective as in he ultimately got the win.

Lucky in the way that it inadvertently lead to Carwin exposing his greatest flaw.

MrStuffins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Mir I dont count as being particularly good

Yawn!