TUF 19 - Penn, Edgar + Pendred & Fields! **Spoilers**

Gumbi

thirdtime wrote: »

Is he was that injured he wouldn't have fought

That's up to him not you.

raze_them_all_

thirdtime wrote: »

Is he was that injured he wouldn't have fought

Yeah, not as if it's a once in a life time oppertuninity.....

Dtp1979

thirdtime wrote: »

Is he was that injured he wouldn't have fought

What a ridiculous statement. I'd say most fighters are carrying an injury going into most fights

thirdtime

Dtp1979 wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement. I'd say most fighters are carrying an injury going into most fights

So to my original question how good is Fields??

Dtp1979

thirdtime wrote: »

So to my original question how good is Fields??

Good enough to be an Irish champ and a feared fighter. Time will only tell how he gets on in the US

raze_them_all_

thirdtime wrote: »

So to my original question how good is Fields??

Good enough, he is also like cathal fighting a weight class above himself ( should be in the division cathal is competing in tuf) Doen't have the sheer strength that cathal has (not many do) so won't rely on over powering his oppenent like cathal did in his fight. Expect him to use his range, using a **** load of kicks to destroy an oppenents leg and take advantage of it. If he wins his fights it will imo be on points. either way he will get a shot in the ufc.

darced

This post has been deleted.

csallmighty

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Good enough, he is also like cathal fighting a weight class above himself ( should be in the division cathal is competing in tuf)

Why is he in LHW? Did all the MW spots get filled before him so he tried his luck up a weight class? or something like that.

Gumbi

csallmighty wrote: »

Why is he in LHW? Did all the MW spots get filled before him so he tried his luck up a weight class? or something like that.

It's hard to make weight multiple times over the course of a few weeks which is what you have to do if you fight on the ultimate fighter and end up fighting multiple times. Also, it can be a matter of slots too, often times fighters must fight at a higher weight class, for example Lima fights at WW, but needs to jump up to MW in order to compete at this TUF.

Ush1

Been a very boring and season with all fairly poor fights so far. Only interest I have keeping me watching is the Irish lads.

That_Guy

If the Irish lads weren't in this season's TUF I'd be giving up after this episode. Pretty dreadful stuff in fairness.

"Oh my god, Team Penn are eating sweets on Halloween. Grrr"

That fight must be embarrassing for Penn's guy. Zero takedown defence against a guy who has been training for 7 months or so??

Non entity of an episode really.

Roar

Lol, that was an absolute clusterfcuk. "Circle the guy who you think won"??? Fcuking hell.

Also, Mazagatti deducting the point was a disgrace.

Funny episode!

raze_them_all_

****ing hell

dave1982

Haha when Mazgatti said he must announce again, I thought he had announced wrong winner

Davei141

That lived up to the hype! WTF was going on, between mazagatti's stupid deduction to the even worse judging. Glad Zapatta won though as your man was awful, way too many wrestlers winning doing feck all damage this season.

ASOT

Mazagatti is such a bad referee but how they came to the conclusion that Zapata won sudden death is hilarious! :pac:

Zapata won the fight overall in my opinion and there shouldn't have even been a second round, Ian won the grappling but done absolutely nothing with it just laid there it was horrible to watch.

darced

This post has been deleted.

raze_them_all_

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Any professional should of forced the fight to be stopped after 15 mins of being on someones back tbh

That_Guy

Bwahaha. What the hell was that judging? In one way I agree with the point deduction as Zapata was warned countless times to stop grabbing the fence/watch the downward elbows.

Ok, it was a wrong decision when the point was taken because he was coming in at an angle but how Zapata even won that fight with the point deduction is mental.

I'm not usually a fan of fighters who lay on top of somebody for long periods of the fight but Stephens dominated him there and I'm amazed it even went to a third round tbh.

In the eyes of the judges I thought scoring is based on control so in that regard, Stephens was in control and gets points and so Zapata was defending for large parts and shouldn't be given any points only until the very end of the fight when he was in top position and landing clean shots. Even then both rounds in my eyes anyway were 10-9 to Stephens.

For a minute I thought Mazagatti had announced the wrong fighter at the end. :pac:

John_D80

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair point and 99% of the time I would agree but in fairness, it became a stalemate on the ground when Stephens couldn't push the advantage after taking Zapata's back. Zapata was the only one doing any sort of damage at all. IMO he took both rounds easily.

As for the decision, the nature at which they arrived at it is not that controversial to me either. In any other fight it would have been a draw but this is TUF so a draw is not an option. As far as I'm concerned, justice was done.

darced

This post has been deleted.

John_D80

darced wrote: »

Makes no difference he was in a dominant position throughout and it is incredibly hard to finish a decent pro from the back or even maintain the position,it was a ridiculous decision.

It's only a dominant position if you capitalise on it, which he didn't in any way. He was floundering throughout. Unable to translate position to any sort of decent striking or a submission attempt.

Worse still he wasn't able to defend even the tamest of strikes without losing position. Unbelievable to me that this guy was first pick.

adamski8

They were both just terrible. How come the fights into the house are always the best ones and then the fighters look so so poor once on the show.

That_Guy

adamski8 wrote: »

They were both just terrible. How come the fights into the house are always the best ones and then the fighters look so so poor once on the show.

Playing it cautious I'd say. They seem content to grind their opponents out and ensure an easy passage into the finals with little damage taken.

Very poor fights this season anyway.

I agreed that the fight should go to a third round, the judges point was a joke too and I think due to the fight being a majority draw the circling a name thing was actually a good way of doing it. If we had gone by Dana's logic, the minority judge's rule would have given Stephens the fight. When have we ever seen a minority decision?

Nappy

Was delighted with decision however nonsensical it was with point deduction. Zapata deserved it. Your man obviously only trained to get into dominant positions and not to actually submit the opponent.

Zero-Cool

Haha great episode and it absolutely flew, felt like 20 minutes where the last episode felt like 2 hours. Beaming zapata won that even though it shoulda kinda went to a 4th round but tuf rules an all I spose.

Stephens said he had zapatas back for 12 minutes like it was a brag. Yeah he had control but did f×ck all with it. Does he expect to get into the ufc and hug his way to a ufc belt? He got a nice slam tho.

Did dana not stay for the 3rd round

Human blanket comment was funny though

MrStuffins

Holy sh*t!!!!

I thought the big mess was the point deduction (which was warranted IMO) but when I heard the decision I was literally shocked! Unreal.

Great TV

darced

This post has been deleted.

Gumbi

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He never did damage and spent all his time holding his opponent down and never came close to a submission.

It comes down to how people like to score things. For example, mount is considered a dominant position because the likelihood of doing damage there is higher than a less dominant position. That doesn't necessarily mean damage will be done from there, though.

amkin25

Gumbi wrote: »

He never did damage and spent all his time holding his opponent down and never came close to a submission.

It comes down to how people like to score things. For example, mount is considered a dominant position because the likelihood of doing damage there is higher than a less dominant position. That doesn't necessarily mean damage will be done from there, though.

I'm all for not giving points to the guys just laying on top,but there is no way you can give that last round 10-8,which it has to be for him to win.
I think what you saw happen was the influence dana has on judges,when he spent the whole fighting whinging and complaing about stephens laying on top they felt the pressure to award zapatta points.Finally when he stormed out they must have panicked and took that as reason enough to give the fight in the other direction.

darced

This post has been deleted.

welchy

Utterly baffling

Regardless of how you'd like a fight to be scored, the judging criteria for picking the winner of a fight are striking, grappling, aggression and control.

Defense, (under the unified rules), scores you a big fat 0, nothing, zilch. If you escape a bad position your reward is no longer being in that bad position. You effectively return to even, assuming nothing whatsoever has happened between the time you hit the ground and stand back up. Having your back taken for 13/14 minutes over 2 rounds means you were utterly controlled and your offense almost totally negated, regardless of whether the guy on the back does squat. You are being controlled in a position of his choosing and it is up to you to escape to a neutral or achieve a dominant position just to even be considered not to be in a losing position

Its not pretty, and it can be argued that its not how a fight should be judged, but these are the rules and criteria for judging as they currently exist. The fight was not exciting and Stephens submission skills were pretty poor, but he held zapatta where he wanted him for 95% of the fight in a manner that is considered to be of significance to the scoring of a round.

amkin25

Think it simply boils down to dana influencing them there is no other explanation,it's impossible for anybody sane,no matter the arguments about no action in other rounds etc,in the deciding round no possible way whatsover can that be a 10-8.

Davei141

amkin25 wrote: »

Think it simply boils down to dana influencing them there is no other explanation,it's impossible for anybody sane,no matter the arguments about no action in other rounds etc,in the deciding round no possible way whatsover can that be a 10-8.

Did you even watch the episode? Nobody scored it 10-8. The fact Stephens was busted up from having Zapatta's back for most of the fight said it all. Reminded me of King Mo vs Mousasi and i am delighted Stephens lost. The fact Mazagatti never once threatened to stand up Stephens stalling or told him to work yet was all over Zapatta for bullshit reasons was equally a farce.

amkin25

Davei141 wrote: »

Did you even watch the episode? Nobody scored it 10-8. The fact Stephens was busted up from having Zapatta's back for most of the fight said it all. Reminded me of King Mo vs Mousasi and i am delighted Stephens lost. The fact Mazagatti never once threatened to stand up Stephens stalling or told him to work yet was all over Zapatta for bullshit reasons was equally a farce.

As i said over the fight i would have swayed for zapatta myself and glad to see stephens lose.
But with the 10 point must system,which is the points system in place,the only way zapatta can win after being deducted a point is with a 10-8 round it's that simple.The judges can't decide that if its a draw to then choose a winner,they are there simply to score the fight on the 10 point must system,they can call it a majority draw or a majority decision or whatever based on the points they picked.
The fight came down to one round and he needs a decision from 2 judges to win the fight,thats the rules its fairly basic stuff,these are meant to be professionals.
To get the decision from 2 judges after deductions he will need 10-8 rounds from 2 judges,dana on about circling the winner since when did judges choose who won a fight when its a draw? they just score the fight on the 10 point system.
As i pointed out before they simply panicked and done this because they felt pressure from the boss.

Davei141

I know what you are saying but the 10-8 thing isn't true, whether they can or cannot circle the winner the fact is they did after scoring it 9-9. The judges obviously hated Stephens style that's why there was a 3rd round i doubt it had anything to do with pressure from Dana White. It was a farce all round no doubt, is there anything that says what must happen in TUF if its a draw after 3 rounds? Extra round would have been the best least controversial thing to do, as awful as another round of Stephens would be.

That_Guy

Davei141 wrote: »

The judges obviously hated Stephens style that's why there was a 3rd round

Even if a judge doesn't like a certain style, they have to judge it under the unified rules.

Points are given based on effective striking, grappling, aggression and control.

Stephens was in complete control for those two rounds. He didn't do anything but was in a dominant position nonetheless. Zapata did damage sure but couldn't get himself out of those compromising positions.

I don't like Stephens but he was in complete control in a dominant position.

A complete clusterfúck of a fight both inside and outside of the cage. Dana is just a... Well, he's a tit. Really threw his toys out of the pram by not even watching the final round.

MrStuffins

That_Guy wrote: »

Even if a judge doesn't like a certain style, they have to judge it under the unified rules.

Points are given based on effective striking, grappling, aggression and control.

Stephens was in complete control for those two rounds. He didn't do anything but was in a dominant position nonetheless. Zapata did damage sure but couldn't get himself out of those compromising positions.

I don't like Stephens but he was in complete control in a dominant position.

A complete clusterfúck of a fight both inside and outside of the cage. Dana is just a... Well, he's a tit. Really threw his toys out of the pram by not even watching the final round.

I agree that the fight was scored wrong.... but.........

Couldn't you put forward the argument that, since Zapata did damage, that was effective striking AND aggression? Stephens then wins on Grappling and Control. It's not how a fight is usually scored, but why shouldn't it be?

Davei141

So Zapatta won the aggression and striking and Stephens got the grappling and control. I have no sympathy for Stephens, completely stalling and should have been stood up numerous times. Don't get me wrong i love watching wrestlers in action but only when they are trying to win the fight through strikes/submissions.

Edit: Stuffins got there just before me!

shrapnel222

Davei141 wrote: »

So Zapatta won the aggression and striking and Stephens got the grappling and control. I have no sympathy for Stephens, completely stalling and should have been stood up numerous times. Don't get me wrong i love watching wrestlers in action but only when they are trying to win the fight through strikes/submissions.

Edit: Stuffins got there just before me!

did anyone else notice that zapatta said his kid was born weighting 6.5 ounces???:eek: he said it in a way where it really seemed like he had no clue and just remembered 6. hopefully he is slightly confused and meant 6.5 pounds?

MrStuffins

shrapnel222 wrote: »

did anyone else notice that zapatta said his kid was born weighting 6.5 ounces???:eek: he said it in a way where it really seemed like he had no clue and just remembered 6. hopefully he is slightly confused and meant 6.5 pounds?

I'd say he meant to say "6 pound 5 ounces" but it came out wrong

welchy

MrStuffins wrote: »

I agree that the fight was scored wrong.... but.........

Couldn't you put forward the argument that, since Zapata did damage, that was effective striking AND aggression? Stephens then wins on Grappling and Control. It's not how a fight is usually scored, but why shouldn't it be?

Then you could end up with scenarios where one guy lands 1 more punch than the other guy but gets taken down 10 times and repeatedly mounted or threatened with submissions, but since he won the striking and aggression (by a slight margin) and the other guy won the grappling and control (by a wide margin) then its a draw. The way I see it in this particular fight, Stephens won the grappling and control far more decisively than zapatta won the striking and aggression.

MrStuffins

welchy wrote: »

Then you could end up with scenarios where one guy lands 1 more punch than the other guy but gets taken down 10 times and repeatedly mounted or threatened with submissions, but since he won the striking and aggression (by a slight margin) and the other guy won the grappling and control (by a wide margin) then its a draw. The way I see it in this particular fight, Stephens won the grappling and control far more decisively than zapatta won the striking and aggression.

Hmmm..... really? Why? Stephens threw almost zero punches (until the end of the third). He got to dominant positions and stayed there. He didn't really offer much by way of submission attempts.

Also, let's not forget that, even though he was back mounted, Zapata was going for submissions of his own in the form of a schoolboy ankle lock when Stephens kept, stupidly, crossing his ankles.

amkin25

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hmmm..... really? Why? Stephens threw almost zero punches (until the end of the third). He got to dominant positions and stayed there. He didn't really offer much by way of submission attempts.

Also, let's not forget that, even though he was back mounted, Zapata was going for submissions of his own in the form of a schoolboy ankle lock when Stephens kept, stupidly, crossing his ankles.

To be honest i'm not one for the wrestlers either,but cathals effort in his fight wasn't a whole pile better than stephens if you ask me,and i didn't like either of their efforts,but as much as i don't love the laying and praying,and even forgetting the point off just on the round on it's own,i find it hard to give zapatta the round,although he cut him and all,he wasnt able to get out of the position so there was a control issue in stephens favour.Also if you consider how the fight finished with stephens on his back raining punches on him,it's completely bizarre how the fight can go against him specially when u consider the point deduction.

Davei141

Cathals effort was weak as hell no complaints here, the only thing is Hector done absolutely nothing while Cathal held him down so nothing for the judges to score for Hector in rounds 2&3. This season has been awful and it started out with so much promise. If Fields ends up getting held down by a wrestler doing nothing i'll have to give this season a miss. Every fight has been complete rubbish.

John_D80

To be honest, in my opinion, it's only indicative of the direction the UFC as a whole is heading. Unless the scoring system is modified to encourage fluidity and variety of offence, or the rules are changed to stand up fighters more often for ineffectivity on the ground, then you're just going to have wrestlers content to grind out monotonous decision after monotonous decision.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching a skilled ground technician as much as anyone, particularly a good BJJ practitioner but some of these so called high level wrestlers are so one dimensional it is almost sleep inducing, yet they advance through the rankings because they play the flawed system.

welchy

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hmmm..... really? Why? Stephens threw almost zero punches (until the end of the third). He got to dominant positions and stayed there. He didn't really offer much by way of submission attempts.

Also, let's not forget that, even though he was back mounted, Zapata was going for submissions of his own in the form of a schoolboy ankle lock when Stephens kept, stupidly, crossing his ankles.

In a fight that takes place almost entirely on the ground, control and grappling has to be weighted more than striking from the bottom, unless that striking is seriously inpacting the outcome of the fight. In the same way that landing 200 unanswered punches on the feet that do very little damage would be weighted more that a single hard take-down where the guy pops right back up.

Utopia Parkway

I think it's fair to say that Stephens won't be getting a UFC contract any time soon.

darced

This post has been deleted.