UFC 142

Shazbot · 17-01-2012 5:57pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

It's got to be damn near impossible not to land a shot to the back of the head in that situation with a fighter turtling up.

This is when the attacking fighter needs to pick his shots carefully and not just flurry. Just because the fighter turtles doesn't give you an excuse to strike the back of the head. If you can't hit a clean target then don't throw the punch.

Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?

It wasn't a single shot in this case. There were multiple shots to the back of the head but Rogan was calling alot of illegal shots as legal ones.

DeVore · 17-01-2012 6:02pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

But no fighter throws a flurry of 8-10 legs kicks within a few seconds.

It's got to be damn near impossible not to land a shot to the back of the head in that situation with a fighter turtling up.

Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?

Yes, if its an illegal move. The fighters should be more careful.

Put it this way, if it was a poke in the eye, the fight is stopped and the fighter given time. If its a kick to the groin, the same happens.

If a poke in the eye happened during or at the start of a KO... people wouldnt think twice about calling for a DQ.

Fighters should pay more attention cos at the moment, they dont see to give a damn.

DeV.

El Guapo! · 17-01-2012 6:03pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?

Only if the blow to the back of the head is the one that put him away.....which is obviously what Yamasakis reasoning behind it was. He probably thought that the blows to the back of the head were the most damaging and they were the ones that caused the end of the fight.

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 6:11pm

Watching the fight again, it's a tough one.

There was definitely at least 1 flush shot to the back of the head. So it can be argued that it's the right call. But a lot of those shots were to the side of the head too.

It could also be said that Silva smashed Prater with a big knee, hit him with a lot of hammer-fists and lost on the technicality that 1 (or a couple) of the shots were poorly aimed and hit the back of the head.

I don't think the outcome of the fight would've been any different had none of those shots been illegal. i think Silva was always gonna be finishing Prater in that position and once Prater was finished he complained he's been hit in the back of the head and chose to take his win on a technicality.

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 6:13pm

DeVore wrote: »

Yes, if its an illegal move. The fighters should be more careful.

Put it this way, if it was a poke in the eye, the fight is stopped and the fighter given time. If its a kick to the groin, the same happens.

If a poke in the eye happened during or at the start of a KO... people wouldnt think twice about calling for a DQ.

Anthony Johnson v Kevin Burns.

DeVore · 17-01-2012 6:18pm

By the way, I think it was fine for Rogan to question the ref too... we cant have a situation where decisions cant be questioned. They should be questioned and defended. If its the right call, no one should be ashamed to say "I called it that way and I'm happy I'm right".

Yamasaki should have been shown the video footage before the decision. It should have been made with plenty of time and perhaps a trinity of referees to consider it. This isnt Soccer here, the fight is over and there is plenty of time. A snap decision isnt required so let the contemplate it with full information.

Rogan was right to question what he saw as a bad decision, he's given a special place in UFC and he represents the fans. Muzzling him because we dont want to embarrass someone or offend someone leads to very bad things imho...

DeV.

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 6:24pm

DeVore wrote: »

By the way, I think it was fine for Rogan to question the ref too... we cant have a situation where decisions cant be questioned. They should be questioned and defended. If its the right call, no one should be ashamed to say "I called it that way and I'm happy I'm right".

Yamasaki should have been shown the video footage before the decision. It should have been made with plenty of time and perhaps a trinity of referees to consider it. This isnt Soccer here, the fight is over and there is plenty of time. A snap decision isnt required so let the contemplate it with full information.

Rogan was right to question what he saw as a bad decision, he's given a special place in UFC and he represents the fans. Muzzling him because we dont want to embarrass someone or offend someone leads to very bad things imho...

DeV.

How does Rogan represent the fans exactly? He's a commentator and an in-ring interviewer?

What WILL lead to very bad things is allowing the commentator to question the referee in the middle of the cage with a hostile audience breathing down his back. The refs are under enough pressure as it is without having to second guess themselves next time just in case the interviewer starts questioning him and having everyone turn against him.

it wasn't Rogan's place to question him. Rogan completely understands the fact that it is a split second decision and the decision was made.

Also, wasn't it a case that he DID see the replay? Because, when watching again, he stopped the fight and waved Prater out of it. Was it Prater/Prater's corner that influenced him into changing his mind?

Shazbot · 17-01-2012 6:28pm

DeVore wrote: »

By the way, I think it was fine for Rogan to question the ref too... we cant have a situation where decisions cant be questioned. They should be questioned and defended. If its the right call, no one should be ashamed to say "I called it that way and I'm happy I'm right".

Yamasaki should have been shown the video footage before the decision. It should have been made with plenty of time and perhaps a trinity of referees to consider it. This isnt Soccer here, the fight is over and there is plenty of time. A snap decision isnt required so let the contemplate it with full information.

Rogan was right to question what he saw as a bad decision, he's given a special place in UFC and he represents the fans. Muzzling him because we dont want to embarrass someone or offend someone leads to very bad things imho...

DeV.

Rogan was out of line questioning Yamasaki. When's the last time someone questioned a ref immediately after the fight? Why doesn't he do it when there is a bad judges decision? Rogan got ahead of himself.

What made it worse was when he was showing Yamasaki the replay and saying "that's legal, that's legal, that might be illegal". When clearly the shots where illegal.

You're right, decision should be questioned but by the proper authority. Then again, Rio don't have an athletics commission to overturn the decision. Maybe the UFC itself could but certainly not by Rogan.

DeVore · 17-01-2012 6:35pm

True, perhaps right after the fight wasnt the right time in retrospect. But decisions should be scrutinised.

I can see Rogans point of view though, he's passionate about the sport and felt he had an unrepeatable opportunity.

DeV.

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 6:40pm

DeVore wrote: »

True, perhaps right after the fight wasnt the right time in retrospect. But decisions should be scrutinised.

I can see Rogans point of view though, he's passionate about the sport and felt he had an unrepeatable opportunity.

DeV.

Just because he had the opportunity, doesn't make it right.

If Rogan is allowed do this then what? He criticises a ref for stopping a fight to early right afterwards. So next time the ref decided to let it go a little longer, putting the fighters is danger. All because he all of a sudden Rogan "represents the fans".

Well, if it's a case that Rogan represents the fans then get Rogan out of there. Because the fans have no right to jump into the cage after a fight and tell the ref how to do his job.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 6:49pm

Shazbot wrote: »

DrPhilG wrote: »

It's got to be damn near impossible not to land a shot to the back of the head in that situation with a fighter turtling up.

This is when the attacking fighter needs to pick his shots carefully and not just flurry. Just because the fighter turtles doesn't give you an excuse to strike the back of the head. If you can't hit a clean target then don't throw the punch.

Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?

It wasn't a single shot in this case. There were multiple shots to the back of the head but Rogan was calling alot of illegal shots as legal ones.

If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems

cowzerp · 17-01-2012 6:51pm

The thing Is Rogan is not representing the fans anyway-I'd say he's quite out of touch to be honest.

Definitely putting himself on a pedestal of late and his opinions on mma are wacky, that spin heal kick causes a knock out and suddenly he's been saying for years how it's effective in mma, well guess what? If ya hit someone hard enough with your arrse you will knock them out.

Not saying it should not be used but it's not high on my list of training priorities, just like the front kick silva and machida done, sometimes unusual stuff works.

cowzerp · 17-01-2012 6:53pm

Hococop wrote: »

If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems

Turtling up does not cover everything, all them blows could have been legal if he had picked his shots, if you cower too much the ref will or should stop it anyway.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 6:54pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

DeVore wrote: »

True, perhaps right after the fight wasnt the right time in retrospect. But decisions should be scrutinised.
I can see Rogans point of view though, he's passionate about the sport and felt he had an unrepeatable opportunity.
DeV.

Just because he had the opportunity, doesn't make it right.
If Rogan is allowed do this then what? He criticises a ref for stopping a fight to early right afterwards. So next time the ref decided to let it go a little longer, putting the fighters is danger. All because he all of a sudden Rogan "represents the fans".
Well, if it's a case that Rogan represents the fans then get Rogan out of there. Because the fans have no right to jump into the cage after a fight and tell the ref how to do his job.

Joe has commented on many fights and said if they were bad stoppages, it was different here. Here we thought one fighter won but actually the other fighter did this is why he questioned Mario.

Shazbot · 17-01-2012 6:55pm

Hococop wrote: »

If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems

There's turtling and intelligently defending yourself. You can pick you shots on a turtled opponent. GSP vs Serra 2 comes to mind. If you just lay turtled, yes your defended but your not intelligently defending.

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 6:56pm

Hococop wrote: »

Joe has commented on many fights and said if they were bad stoppages, it was different here. Here we thought one fighter won but actually the other fighter did this is why he questioned Mario.

No, that's not why he questioned Mario. He questioned mario because, and I quote, "I think he made a mistake here".

Also, there's a difference between saying it's a bad stoppage into his mic from his commentary position and what he did on Saturday. It's not on and it shouldn't happen again.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 7:05pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems

Turtling up does not cover everything, all them blows could have been legal if he had picked his shots, if you cower too much the ref will or should stop it anyway.

Fair enough but one person said s few comments ago he had to pick shots carefully, by taking you time to pick shots carefully you allow the other fighter to recover. This is why many fighters throw a flurry of punches to not allow the fighter to recover from being hurt

Hococop · 17-01-2012 7:05pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems

Turtling up does not cover everything, all them blows could have been legal if he had picked his shots, if you cower too much the ref will or should stop it anyway.

Fair enough but one person said s few comments ago he had to pick shots carefully, by taking you time to pick shots carefully you allow the other fighter to recover. This is why many fighters throw a flurry of punches to not allow the fighter to recover from being hurt

Shazbot · 17-01-2012 7:08pm

Hococop wrote: »

Fair enough but one person said s few comments ago he had to pick shots carefully, by taking you time to pick shots carefully you allow the other fighter to recover. This is why many fighters throw a flurry of punches to not allow the fighter to recover from being hurt

That was me. You can throw a flurry of punches but that doesn't mean you can throw them inaccurately.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 7:09pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

Joe has commented on many fights and said if they were bad stoppages, it was different here. Here we thought one fighter won but actually the other fighter did this is why he questioned Mario.

No, that's not why he questioned Mario. He questioned mario because, and I quote, "I think he made a mistake here".

Also, there's a difference between saying it's a bad stoppage into his mic from his commentary position and what he did on Saturday. It's not on and it shouldn't happen again.

Lets be honest it's a 50/50 call people were going to be mad if he did or did no question Mario

Hococop · 17-01-2012 7:13pm

Shazbot wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems

There's turtling and intelligently defending yourself. You can pick you shots on a turtled opponent. GSP vs Serra 2 comes to mind. If you just lay turtled, yes your defended but your not intelligently defending.

Haha I knew that fight was going be mentioned I suppose it would depend on the attackers position if he moves his position he could risk being on his back.

Shazbot · 17-01-2012 7:13pm

Hococop wrote: »

Lets be honest it's a 50/50 call people were going to be mad if he did or did no question Mario

Not really. I've never seen people give out about the fact that Rogan never questioned any official for a controversial decision. The reason people are annoyed is that he had no right to question Yamasaki yet "he spoke for the fans". He sure as **** didn't speak for me. As Cowzerp said, he put himself on a pedestal and forgot what his job is.

Raekwon · 17-01-2012 7:15pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Some insane finishes on the card though...Pyle getting knocked out was insane...absolutely beautiful kick.

You mean Etim. Pyle stopped Ricardo Funch in the first round of their fight.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 7:15pm

Shazbot wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

Fair enough but one person said s few comments ago he had to pick shots carefully, by taking you time to pick shots carefully you allow the other fighter to recover. This is why many fighters throw a flurry of punches to not allow the fighter to recover from being hurt

That was me. You can throw a flurry of punches but that doesn't mean you can throw them inaccurately.

True haha I am really enjoying this discussion as opposed to other conversations ending in people insulting each other

Hococop · 17-01-2012 7:17pm

Shazbot wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

Lets be honest it's a 50/50 call people were going to be mad if he did or did no question Mario

Not really. I've never seen people give out about the fact that Rogan never questioned any official for a controversial decision. The reason people are annoyed is that he had no right to question Yamasaki yet "he spoke for the fans". He sure as **** didn't speak for me. As Cowzerp said, he put himself on a pedestal and forgot what his job is.

Not on boards but I have seen it on other MMA sites. I agree speaking for the fans was stupid to say

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 7:18pm

Hococop wrote: »

Lets be honest it's a 50/50 call people were going to be mad if he did or did no question Mario

Of course they wouldn't have been mad had he questioned Mario. What are you basing this on?

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 7:20pm

Hococop wrote: »

Not on boards but I have seen it on other MMA sites. I agree speaking for the fans was stupid to say

Oh no! If you're talking about Sherdog then you'll be shocked to discover that reasoned arguments are welcomed and encouraged here.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 7:21pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

Lets be honest it's a 50/50 call people were going to be mad if he did or did no question Mario

Of course they wouldn't have been mad had he questioned Mario. What are you basing this on?

Again on other sites

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 7:22pm

Hococop wrote: »

Again on other sites

Which sites?

Hococop · 17-01-2012 7:23pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

Again on other sites

Which sites?

I will have to check again but I think bloody elbow

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 7:26pm

Hococop wrote: »

I will have to check again but I think bloody elbow

So, what you're saying is, before this incident you have seen people on Bloody Elbow criticise the fact that Joe Rogan doesn't jum into the cage and question the decisions of the referees?

Are you sure?

DeVore · 17-01-2012 8:07pm

I've seen people on twitter accuse Rogan of being a "company man" and doing their PR for them. I dont make comment on that, I'm just saying I've seen quite a bit of it.

Admittedly in this case he's not criticising the UFC but many wouldn't know the subtle difference and certainly he didnt seem to consider how it might look for UFC/FOX. I believe his intention were good.

ASIDE: One of the nicest things about this forum is that the signal to noise is high. We dont get the haters and the idiocy of other forums. Agree or disagree, I dont have a problem as long as people are civil. Long may that continue, its the best thing about here.

DeV.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 10:13pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

I will have to check again but I think bloody elbow

So, what you're saying is, before this incident you have seen people on Bloody Elbow criticise the fact that Joe Rogan doesn't jum into the cage and question the decisions of the referees?
Are you sure?

No what I meant to say was with this incident and what Joe Did you were never going to keep everyone happy sorry about the way I worded it

Hococop · 18-01-2012 12:04am

DeVore wrote: »

I've seen people on twitter accuse Rogan of being a "company man" and doing their PR for them. I dont make comment on that, I'm just saying I've seen quite a bit of it. Admittedly in this case he's not criticising the UFC but many wouldn't know the subtle difference and certainly he didnt seem to consider how it might look for UFC/FOX. I believe his intention were good.
ASIDE: One of the nicest things about this forum is that the signal to noise is high. We dont get the haters and the idiocy of other forums. Agree or disagree, I dont have a problem as long as people are civil. Long may that continue, its the best thing about here.
DeV.

Yeah even though alot of people are disagreeing with me I really appreciate the way people don't insult me for my opinion

Logical Fallacy · 18-01-2012 2:25am

Raekwon wrote: »

You mean Etim. Pyle stopped Ricardo Funch in the first round of their fight.

D'oh! Spot on.

Jimmy Bottlehead · 18-01-2012 2:24pm

Thing is, even if Rogan DID want to "speak for the fans" or whatever, he could have done so in a neutral, impartial manner. The way he went about it was very confrontational to Mario Yamasaki, pretty much defying him to explain the decision.

I know some don't, but I like Rogan, and I can excuse his occasionally daft commentary because he's quite easy to listen to. However, even when watching, I asked myself "what the **** are you doing, Joe?" when he did that interview in the Octagon.
Just not how it should be done.

DeVore · 18-01-2012 3:18pm

Yes, I must admit I had a bit of a "wtf?!" moment when he did it (after all, I think the ref was right!) but its mixed with a certain amount of respect that when he felt injustice had been done to a fighter, he wasnt afraid to confront it. The way he did it wasnt good perhaps, but I can see where he's coming from. I'd rather someone be passionate and occasionally wrong then someone who toes the line in order not to offend anyone.
The arguments here persuade me that the heat of the moment wasnt the time to do so, though.

DeV.

MrStuffins · 20-01-2012 2:50pm

Silva losses his appeal.

Erick Silva's controversial disqualification loss to fellow Brazilian welterweight Carlo Prater at UFC 142 won't be overturned.

UFC Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs Marc Ratner today issued a statement regarding the fight.

In it, he stated the referee's verbal warning and his determination that the blows were intentional leave him unable to overturn the decision.

Silva (13-2 MMA, 1-1 UFC), who rocked Prater (30-10-1 MMA, 1-0 UFC) with a knee before unloading the illegal blows just 29 seconds into the fight, ultimately suffered a DQ loss at the event, which took place Jan. 14 at HSBC Arena in Rio de Janeiro. It was one of five main-card bouts that aired live on pay-per-view.

"Based on the referee's verbal warnings and his determination that the blows were intentional and a disqualifying foul, this is not the type of decision that can be reviewed," Ratner stated. "Therefore, the decision stands.

"Recently, Zuffa has decided to implement the use of instant replay at all international events that are self-regulated, and to encourage all regulators to consider the feasibility and effectiveness of instant replay in the sport of MMA. While instant replay would not have reversed the call in the Silva-Prater bout, we believe that it could be valuable to referees and the sport in the future."

Despite the loss, Silva was awarded his "win" bonus. (Because the UFC acts as its own regulatory body for events in Brazil, official fighter paydays were not disclosed, so the amount of the win bonus isn't known.)

After the fight, referee Mario Yamasaki told UFC commentator Joe Rogan that he made the ruling due to Silva landing strikes to the back of the head, which are illegal under the unified rules of MMA. Replays of the stoppage appeared to show at least one strike landing illegally.

Earlier this week, Silva's manager, Wallid Ismail, told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) they planned to appeal the decision.

"Erick didn't lose the fight," Ismail said. "No way he lost the fight."

For more on UFC 142, stay tuned to the UFC Events section of the site.

UFC 142

Comments