UFC 125 Discussion **SPOILERS**

Niall0

Interview with Dana after the fights
http://www.mmafighting.com/2011/01/02/dana-white-changes-mind-books-immediate-rematch-between-edgar-m/

Gray is to get an immediate rematch.

Disco Volante

Jayo_M wrote: »

Just watching it now...

Was anyone else really annoyed by Guida's 'gameplan' last night? As obnoxious as Anderson Silva at 112. His style reminds me of that saying "you talk alot without really saying anything". Bouncing around the outside, jabbing from four foot away and refusing to engage on the feet for the majority of the time - fair enough he was trying to set up the takedown, but it still seriously got on my nerves.

Edit: In saying that, he did win, so I doubt he cares what I think

A very odd man to watch with the way he was moving... Gomi looked a little annoyed that he wouldn't just sit still and play ball with him but then again Guida came out on top as you said.

Fair play to Brian Stann really enjoyed that fight I honestly thought before it started that Leben was going to walk through Stann and out the other side of the octagon and on home.

Great card in my opinion from Silva bitch slapping Vera to the amazing recovery of Edgar!

Here's hoping that the rest of the year will be as entertaining as this card was! Happy new year to you all too!

Niall0

Niall0 wrote: »

Interview with Dana after the fights
http://www.mmafighting.com/2011/01/02/dana-white-changes-mind-books-immediate-rematch-between-edgar-m/

Gray is to get an immediate rematch.

Thank god for that! i was actually gutted when they said pettis was next up at the post fight press conference.

I scored this fight a draw too i think frankie just edged the 5th so 47-47, i was fuming though one judge actually scored it 48-46 edgar! i dont see any possible way edgar got more than a draw out of this fight! the first round was key, i think there is more than a fair case for it being scored 10-7, it would have been 10-6 in boxing!

Rhamiel

baz2009 wrote: »

It's a loss, just as it would be in soccer.

Nope its void!!

Tones69

Edgar won rounds 2-5 imo, he got an awful beating in the first yeah but otherwise he kept tagging gray and he landed takedowns and stuffed any of grays attempts, whatever about the draw i dont see how Gray won that fight to be honest

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Rhamiel wrote: »

Nope its void!!

Yeah just after realising that there now.
Paddy Power's live help is siht, they told me that all boxing and MMA draws go down as a loss just as in any other sport.

Oh_Noes

Bad night for betting last night really. I had an accumulator on Diaz, Gomi, Leben, Vera, Maynard.

Dunno what I was thinking :pac:

mailburner

happy enough to get my money back on edgar points

what a war though

rivalius13

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Bad night for betting last night really. I had an accumulator on Diaz, Gomi, Leben, Vera, Maynard.

Dunno what I was thinking :pac:

If it's any consolation my Dad had similar picks. Of course, he doesn't have a clue what's going on half the time, so not sure if that's much good...

Sid_Justice

rivalius13 wrote: »

If it's any consolation my Dad had similar picks. Of course, he doesn't have a clue what's going on half the time, so not sure if that's much good...

them accumulators should pay out if they all lose or all win that be a bit fairer.

Minstrel27

Maynard was robbed imo.

sonic.trip

yeah if you bet on either of them on the bookies or put them in accumulators then it could be down the pan, it's like the poxy green bit in roulette! what happened everyones bet on these?

I had 2 seperate bets on edgar on betfair totalling 14euro, one said i won the other said i lost which i was baffled by. Thought it would of just been void on betfair as your betting against another person and not the bookies.

sonic.trip

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Maynard was robbed imo.

not really, he won round 1, 10-8 and another. edgar won 3 rounds. draw was probably a fair result. should make for an interesting rematch either way

Mr. CooL ICE

Decent card I thought. I actually LOL'd when they announced it was a draw.

Although I don't like the guy's attitude, I wished Nate Diaz won as I believe he is one of the few WWs with the skill set to eventually give GSP a run for his money.

Disco Volante

LordChessington wrote: »

Decent card I thought. I actually LOL'd when they announced it was a draw.

Although I don't like the guy's attitude, I wished Nate Diaz won as I believe he is one of the few WWs with the skill set to eventually give GSP a run for his money.

With a performance like the one he just gave I wouldn't be so sure about that!

TechnoPool

if DHK can take him and down and keep him down ( more or less) he has no chance vs GSP alas

Rhamiel

baz2009 wrote: »

Yeah just after realising that there now.
Paddy Power's live help is siht, they told me that all boxing and MMA draws go down as a loss just as in any other sport.

Yeah would have thought that but I had a feeling that because they sometimes dont even offer odds on draws that they'd have to call it void!
Went to check anyway and my money was in so

the_doctor199

Big shock - GSP v Shields will headline the Toronto card. Link

Fozzy

I had it 48-46 Edgar. I'm not outraged at the decision, there were some close rounds and all three judges' scores were valid to me. Nothing wrong with a rematch before Pettis's shot, but Pettis could be waiting a long time for that fight now. Edgar's got to be the favourite in the rematch I think, Maynard couldn't finish him after that first round beating and did lose at least a couple of rounds

MMA is far from the only sport in America that goes full on with their support for the troops. Also, given that the UFC have an event based on the military in a few weeks, hyping up a former Marine on this show made sense

Baroni and Vera have got to be walking on thin ice in the UFC. I'd expect them both to be released this week

TheProdigy

Fozzy wrote: »

I had it 48-46 Edgar.

It definately wasn't that and the judge who scored that was off aswell imo, that means you had Gray losing every round after the 1st? Gray definately took the 3rd round, he got a takedown near the end and landed the better shots on the feet. The 5th was close aswell I prob would have had it 10-10, I was glad Frankie kept his belt because he came back so well but he didn't win that fight.

Fozzy

TheProdigy wrote: »

It definately wasn't that and the judge who scored that was off aswell imo, that means you had Gray losing every round after the 1st? Gray definately took the 3rd round, he got a takedown near the end and landed the better shots on the feet. The 5th was close aswell I prob would have had it 10-10, I was glad Frankie kept his belt because he came back so well but he didn't win that fight.

I do think that Edgar won the third. He didn't take any damage on those takedowns and he got back up from both, and going by what it says on Fightmetric.com, Edgar landed more strikes and more significant strikes in that round

Two judges gave round 3 to Edgar

If you're saying that the 5th round was close enough for you to score it a draw, then you can't really argue against someone picking either fighter if they have to pick one (which the judges do)

rivalius13

You can't score a round 10-10 can you? The round winner scores 10, the opponent 9 or less, Goldy says it at every PPV people!

Fozzy

rivalius13 wrote: »

You can't score a round 10-10 can you? The round winner scores 10, the opponent 9 or less, Goldy says it at every PPV people!

Technically you can, but the judges are strongly discouraged from doing it

TheProdigy

Fozzy wrote: »

I do think that Edgar won the third. He didn't take any damage on those takedowns and he got back up from both, and going by what it says on Fightmetric.com, Edgar landed more strikes and more significant strikes in that round

Two judges gave round 3 to Edgar

If you're saying that the 5th round was close enough for you to score it a draw, then you can't really argue against someone picking either fighter if they have to pick one (which the judges do)

Ok I just watched the 3rd again, Frankie most definately didn't land the more significant shots, he had 2/3 leg kicks and 2/3 jabs but Gray connected with a few hard shots around 1:30 and then took him down twice, 1 of which Edgar got up from the other he didn't and the round ended with Edgar attempting a guillotine. I honestly don't understand how the judges could give that to Edgar or an unbiased viewer could.

The 5th was close but on what basis could you give it to Edgar? The only thing I recognised was that he stuffed slightly more takedowns than Gray did tbh.

Why are the judges against/discouraged towards giving 10-10 rounds? If a round is a draw surely the just thing to do is score it a draw.

riffmongous

TheProdigy wrote: »

Why are the judges against/discouraged towards giving 10-10 rounds? If a round is a draw surely the just thing to do is score it a draw.

I presume because other than having a 'feel' for what a drawn round is, and we can all imagine it, 'technically' its quite hard to come up with a set of criteria for what a draw is, unless 2 two guys spend the entire round circling each other in a perfect circle while constantly being the exact same distance from each other how else could it be a draw? If one of the guys takes a step towards the center of the ring and then steps back again he has controlled more of the octagon than his opponent and should be given the round.

I hope this doesn't sound too ridiculous, I just spent the day doing physics and this explanation just popped into my head:D

sonic.trip

I posted the other day about betting on the fight with betfair, 2 seperate bets and one came up as a win and the other a loss. Anyway I contacted them about it as betair is completely different than betting with a bookies.

For anyone interested here is there response:

[HTML]When there is a dead heat you need to divide the stake by the number of winners. This is because when betting on an exchange market we can only pay out on a set number of winners; so in a winners market we only pay out on one winner. In a golf top five market for example we can only pay out on five winners. The reason for this is that the market is created as a whole and the odds reflect the possible outcomes for each selection. If a market was able to have more than the preset number of winners then it would be impossible for customers to set the odds.

As a result, if you have a bet on a horse involved in a two way dead heat then we would divide your stake by the number of winners which would be two in this case. Therefore the stake is halved and only half of your stake is a winning portion and the other half a losing portion. The calculation is then dependant on whether you have backed or layed the selection.

If you have backed the selection:-

Then you would win half the stake multiplied by the odds and we would deduct half of the stake (losing portion) to give you your net return/loss.

If you layed the selection:-

Then you would win half your stake and we would deduct half your stake (losing portion) multiplied by the odds to give you your net return/loss.

Example (back bet)

If you place a back bet for £5 at odds of 3 and the event was a two way dead heat then £2.50 of your stake is a winning bet and settled at odds of 3. Therefore your winnings on this part of the stake are £5.00. However your losing stake (£2.50) is then deducted giving you a £2.50 return less commission.

Example 2

With a top 5 golf market the principle is the same. In the scenario of 6 golfer's tied for 4th place:-

As already mentioned we can only pay out on 5 winners so the 6 golfers have to share 2 places.

You would therefore divide the number of available places by the number of winners = 2/6 = 1/3

Therefore one third of each stake for the tied golfers is a winner and two thirds of the stake is a loser.

So in this example if you placed a back bet for £15 at odds of 5 on one of these golfers then £5 of your stake is a winner and settled at odds of 5. Therefore your winnings on this part of your stake is £20 . However your losing stake (£10) is then deducted giving you a £10 return less commission[/HTML]

That_Guy

Finally got around to watching this. Main event was epic but what happens now? Does Pettis fight Edgar or does Maynard get a rematch?

Personally I think the rematch would be the fairer option.

MrStuffins

That_Guy wrote: »

Finally got around to watching this. Main event was epic but what happens now? Does Pettis fight Edgar or does Maynard get a rematch?

Personally I think the rematch would be the fairer option.

Originally Craig Borsari (who took the Press Conference in Dana'a absence) said Pettis was up next.

But Ariel caught Dana afterwards and he had changed his mind. Gray gets his rematch first.

DeVore

Great fight in the end, I was really hoping Edgar would bounce back and wow... how about that!

I think the result was fair. Maynard didnt finish and didnt look like finishing in the remaining 4 rounds. Edgar dominated him in the 2nd and that could have been a 10/8 round too, though I suspect not...

In the end... did Maynard do enough to deprive Edgar his belt? I certainly didnt think so.

Did Edgar deserve to win? No.

The fairest outcome was a draw leaving Edgar with his belt as a result. You couldnt say he was beaten could you... ?

DeV.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

In the end... did Maynard do enough to deprive Edgar his belt? I certainly didnt think so.

I agree, hate to quote them but after Diaz-Noons II the commentators said you have to do more than just grind out a win to take the belt.

TheProdigy

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree, hate to quote them but after Diaz-Noons II the commentators said you have to do more than just grind out a win to take the belt.

But Nick Diaz won 4/5 rounds of that fight, so I'm not sure if or why they actually said that or could you provide a link? Even KJ didn't protest the decision, he was outclassed/outboxed.

TheProdigy

TheProdigy wrote: »

But Nick Diaz won 4/5 rounds of that fight, so I'm not sure if or why they actually said that or could you provide a link? Even KJ didn't protest the decision, he was outclassed/outboxed.

Yeah I agree that Diaz won I was just quoting the commentators, they were just spectating before the decision came to light.

Fozzy

Yeah, Miletich said that to become the champion you have to beat the champion. Except that's not true (it is in the literal sense, but not what he was implying). If you win a fight against a champion by the smallest of margins then you deserve to be champion

Poccington

Oh_Noes wrote: »

I just don't like how there's so much hyping up of the American military in American MMA. The jury is still out on the actions of the American military in the recently passed decade, they introduced Stann as "An American Hero", they usually only announce champions like that. I'm just not into it and I like Chris Leben so would like to have seen Stann being beaten.

Capt. Stann won the Silver Star when, while serving in Iraq he led a platoon during Operation Matador which was ambushed and then held out for 6 days while under constant enemy attack. He got all 42 of his Marines out of there alive. The Silver Star is the United States third highest award for valor in combat.

That's a bit more heroic than being a UFC champion.

Poccington

Poccington wrote: »

Capt. Stann won the Silver Star when, while serving in Iraq he led a platoon during Operation Matador which was ambushed and then held out for 6 days while under constant enemy attack. He got all 42 of his Marines out of there alive. The Silver Star is the United States third highest award for valor in combat.

That's a bit more heroic than being a UFC champion.

Lt. Stann I think. It's a great life achievement and his calmness can be seen in his fights too, he's a very level headed and humble guy too.

Poccington

Deleted User wrote: »

Lt. Stann I think. It's a great life achievement and his calmness can be seen in his fights too, he's a very level headed and humble guy too.

While he won the Silver Star as an Lt. he left the Marine Corps as a Captain.

I was delighted to see Stann KO Leben, Leben just isn't a very likeable person.

Mellor

Fozzy wrote: »

If you're saying that the 5th round was close enough for you to score it a draw, then you can't really argue against someone picking either fighter if they have to pick one (which the judges do)

No they don't??

Fozzy

Mellor wrote: »

No they don't??

They are told that they do, even if it isn't written in stone. When was the last 10-10 round you can remember?

Mellor

Even if some is marginally better, a tiny amount, its 10-9
You said that they have to pick a winner. They don't.

NJSAC wrote:

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/sacb/docs/martial.html

(b) The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

NAC wrote:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-467.html
(b) If the round is even, each unarmed combatant receives 10 points.

There's the rules. Written in stone, as you put it. 10-10 rounds are perfectly acceptable.
They are rare obviously, but you said (or implied) they they weren't allow to give 10-10.

Oh_Noes

Poccington wrote: »

Capt. Stann won the Silver Star when, while serving in Iraq he led a platoon during Operation Matador which was ambushed and then held out for 6 days while under constant enemy attack. He got all 42 of his Marines out of there alive. The Silver Star is the United States third highest award for valor in combat.

That's a bit more heroic than being a UFC champion.

That's not relevant to my point that you were responding to. Fair enough, the guy has done things to be applauded in his military service, I don't think it has any business being part of his introduction in a professional MMA fight.

You can decide whether X or Y is more heroic than A and B, but it's an MMA show and in that context, you should only be "decorated" with what you have achieved in that particular arena. Leave the military stuff to the military arena and decorate champions in the sport.

Leben, like him or not, has achieved far more as an MMA fighter than Stann.

Mellor

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Fair enough, the guy has done things to be applauded in his military service, I don't think it has any business being part of his introduction in a professional MMA fight.

You have heard of America, right?

MrStuffins

Oh_Noes wrote: »

That's not relevant to my point that you were responding to. Fair enough, the guy has done things to be applauded in his military service, I don't think it has any business being part of his introduction in a professional MMA fight.

While I kinda agree with you, because his former occupation involved actual combat and shows him to be a "hero", i can understand why they put that into his intro.

But yeah, they don't ever say for other guys "The former 3 time salesperson of the year at hasselbaink Insurance...."

America has a whole lot of patriots that will buy an event if a "hero" is on the card.

Kent Brockman

MrStuffins wrote: »

But yeah, they don't ever say for other guys "The former 3 time salesperson of the year at hasselbaink Insurance...."

Lol!:D

hisholinessnb

I wonder if Brian Stann fights outside the USA would they announce him as a war criminal?

Not getting into the whole right or wrong of the war thing, but given how divided the worlds (and Americas) people are on this war, I don't think its a good move hyping what he did in Iraq as a good or heroic thing considering one of their main aims is to broaden the appeal of the UFC to more and more countries.

SanoVitae

hisholinessnb wrote: »

I wonder if Brian Stann fights outside the USA would they announce him as a war criminal?

Not getting into the whole right or wrong of the war thing, but given how divided the worlds (and Americas) people are on this war, I don't think its a good move hyping what he did in Iraq as a good or heroic thing considering one of their main aims is to broaden the appeal of the UFC to more and more countries.

In that case, they'll have to stop calling Wanderlai Silva "The Axe Murderer" - he might be jailed for his barbaric past...

hisholinessnb

SanoVitae wrote: »

In that case, they'll have to stop calling Wanderlai Silva "The Axe Murderer" - he might be jailed for his barbaric past...

Its not really the same as Wanderlei never actually killed anyone with an axe ( i think!), its just a nickname.
What they are hyping Stann over are incidents that actually happened and that many people around the world see as an act of terrorism and not heroism.
I'm not preaching over the war here, just saying that many of the so called target audience globally who they are trying to win over may find this distasteful.

Poccington

hisholinessnb wrote: »

I wonder if Brian Stann fights outside the USA would they announce him as a war criminal?

Not getting into the whole right or wrong of the war thing, but given how divided the worlds (and Americas) people are on this war, I don't think its a good move hyping what he did in Iraq as a good or heroic thing considering one of their main aims is to broaden the appeal of the UFC to more and more countries.

What war crimes has Stann committed?

He was introduced as a hero because while serving in the Marines, he was awarded the nations third highest award for valor in combat. By definition, the man is a hero, add in the fact the pride that the USA as a whole takes in their armed forces, he was always going to be introduced like that.

The fact he KO'd Leben, makes him a double hero.

hisholinessnb

It could be argued, and would be by many that by participating in an unjust and illegal war he is by definition a war criminal.
Look I'm not getting into whether he is or isn't a hero, or whether the war was or was not just, my opinions on that are best kept to a more suitable thread.
My point is that one mans hero is another mans terrorist / war criminal. And the "another man" could be a potential UFC fan of the future.
The UFC is an American organisation, and therefore they are quite entitled to label him a "hero", but when they want to spread to other countries they must realise how distasteful this may be to people of other nations.
Its a bit like the controversial GAA threads where clubs names after "nationalist heroes" are blasted by people who see these people as "terrorists" only on an international scale.

Mellor

hisholinessnb wrote: »

It could be argued, and would be by many that by participating in an unjust and illegal war he is by definition a war criminal.
Look I'm not getting into whether he is or isn't a hero, or whether the war was or was not just, my opinions on that are best kept to a more suitable thread.
My point is that one mans hero is another mans terrorist / war criminal. And the "another man" could be a potential UFC fan of the future.
The UFC is an American organisation, and therefore they are quite entitled to label him a "hero", but when they want to spread to other countries they must realise how distasteful this may be to people of other nations.
Its a bit like the controversial GAA threads where clubs names after "nationalist heroes" are blasted by people who see these people as "terrorists" only on an international scale.

I suggest you look up what war crimes actually are. And an "illegal war" is non-sense.
Unjust does not equal illegal.

Regardless of your opinion on the war, what he did was heroic.

UFC, and its US fans in general are pro-military. not something I agree with it. But i'm smart enough to ignore it and move on. Making a big deal out of it just makes you look like a person that is making a stand for the sake of it, rather than actually having those convictions.