Jump to content

MMA & Boxing 17: And NEW


Gears of the Beast

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Gears of the Beast said:

No, the problem is that he's fighting in the UFC. When fans like me see that he has a 85 rating on a UFC game we say 'wow that's ridiculous what a joke'. Then this guy has the gall to deride us for 'getting butthurt over a video game'. Again, we do not have to accommodate this. 

 

He fought in the UFC? I must have missed it. How'd he do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gears of the Beast said:

????????? Are you trying to be funny or did you have a stroke and forget how English works?

Fair enough. He signed a contract with the UFC. Why does that personally offend you? The UFC is free to sign whatever prospects they want. If he fights and wins then he clearly deserved the contract. If he loses then he didn't. If he never fights then it was all a publicity stunt for the UFC. Either way, who cares?

I'm not a rasslin' fan in the least but I don't understand why anyone would care who the UFC signed. It's a business. They make business decisions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ken Stone said:

Fair enough. He signed a contract with the UFC. Why does that personally offend you? The UFC is free to sign whatever prospects they want.

It doesn't personally offend me. The reason it's absurd to me is obvious so I don't even know why you're bothering asking. The UFC represents the highest level the MMA. The UFC is not some regional promotion that signs people with no fighting experience in order to put on a freakshow. Why do you say Phil Brooks is a prospect? In what world is a 37 year old with no fighting experience a prospect to the best MMA promotion in the world? We all know why he was signed; to put on a freakshow and get ratings. Don't pretend like he's a prospect, it's pathetic. 

 If he fights and wins then he clearly deserved the contract. If he loses then he didn't. If he never fights then it was all a publicity stunt for the UFC. Either way, who cares?

Uhhhhhhhhhh no. That's not how this works. You must not have been paying attention. The UFC has brought in two people to fight so the winner can face Brooks. These people are 1-0 and 0-0 respectively. Obviously people who would never ordinarily fight in the UFC. They even made a reality show out of Dana and Matt Serra trying to find someone bad enough to fight Phil Brooks. So what happens if (big if) Brooks beats one of these hand picked nobodies? You think he'll just start fighting actual UFC level competition? Are you that ignorant? So remind me, where's the part where he shows he "clearly deserves the contract" again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2016 at 8:52 PM, Ken Stone said:

Fair enough. He signed a contract with the UFC. Why does that personally offend you? The UFC is free to sign whatever prospects they want. If he fights and wins then he clearly deserved the contract. If he loses then he didn't. If he never fights then it was all a publicity stunt for the UFC. Either way, who cares?

I'm not a rasslin' fan in the least but I don't understand why anyone would care who the UFC signed. It's a business. They make business decisions. 

 

I really don't see the point of this sort of argument by description. 

 

I don't think anyone needs to have the basics of how businesses work explained to them. 

Point is that it's a shitty signing. We're not here to validate whatever  money-grubbing move the UFC decides to make on any given day.

 

------------

Anyways, the damage control on Sage Northcutt was handled perfectly. He had strep throat! He's 19. Everyone who isn't salty as fuck over the fact that he makes more than them was nodding in sympathy and what seemed like a quick tap has totally been flipped.

I don't think he was lying, but it was still well handled.

I think Barberena has a point though though. True or not Sage chose to fight like that, and now because of his higher profile his comments kind of pour water on Barberena's victory.

 

At least when Dana's other blonde prospect VanZant lost no one outright made Namajunas's win illegitimate, they just focused on Page's "heart".

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Castel said:

I think Barberena has a point though though. True or not Sage chose to fight like that, and now because of his higher profile his comments kind of pour water on Barberena's victory.

There's a saying in MMA; if you're sick don't fight and if you fight anyway, don't tell everyone you were sick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gears of the Beast said:

Pretty much everyone makes excuses when they lose, it just comes with having the mentality that you need to compete at a high level in this sport. You don't often hear a fighter just say "yep he was just better than me, not much I could have done different really". 

Eh, it varies. IIRC Gus was quite gracious iirc. I don't think Aldo blamed his loss on something. He clearly wanted to fight again but it's not like he said: "I was ill, it doesn't count". He even defended the combo that got him knocked out. 

 

Besides, there's "I could have done X differently" and this sort of illness talk, which permanently casts a shadow over someone else's W. 

 

I like Chael's explanation best; this is partly a result of the model these guys use. They want a rematch or to maintain their image so, "it starts with a lie". It's a great cynical explanation (though I don't know that Sage lied so much as put something out there for his own sake)

 

Quote

 

Sonnen:Every rematch is the exact same recipe. A member of the camp or the athlete starts with a lie -- my ankle hurt, my rib hurt -- there's always a lie and then the lie gets followed up with, 'I'm back to my roots, I have a new team around me.' The rematch between these two is nothing but a cash grab. This fight was not competitive in the least. The rematch will do big numbers that one night but it's not the best long term play for Ronda. The long term play is to let Holly go fight and see if she can drop that strap to someone else, then come back and pit it up. She's not going to have any more luck in her rematch than Anderson Silva did against Chris Weidman. There's a big gap and that gap just doesn't get closed in a short period of time. I would never count Ronda completely out but I want to be realistic about it. Ronda might win that strap back but it won't be from Holly.

 

 

There was even that sort of subtle PR around Rousey.

 

I think some of these guys (especially champions) go home and the gravity of it hits them and they start thinking they need to do this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note, I'd like to see more female fighters like Holly Holm.

She really impressed me against Rousey, some proper strikes there.

I feel a lot of the women's game is grappling and pushing, Rousey is always going for that armbar.

Not that I didn't care for Rousey, I like her and her style but  I'd just like to see more of Holm's style. I could see her destroy Tate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gears of the Beast said:

Pretty much everyone makes excuses when they lose, it just comes with having the mentality that you need to compete at a high level in this sport. You don't often hear a fighter just say "yep he was just better than me, not much I could have done different really". 

To be honest I spend too much time on Sherdog and the UG, where anti-Brazilian myths are par for the course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Calibandar said:

On another note, I'd like to see more female fighters like Holly Holm.

She really impressed me against Rousey, some proper strikes there.

I feel a lot of the women's game is grappling and pushing, Rousey is always going for that armbar.

Not that I didn't care for Rousey, I like her and her style but  I'd just like to see more of Holm's style. I could see her destroy Tate.


She's not 'like Holly Holm', but Joanna Jedrzejczyk is a proper vicious striker. Hopefully the whole TUF thing gets her some exposure (and then she beats Gadelha, which isn't a given obvs). 


In a different sport, because I can't be bothered to find the standalone boxing topic for this, Canelo Alvarez' May fight is with Amir Khan. Which is kind of crazy and shows that whatever his many, many flaws, Amir Khan has a big pair of nuts on him. Whereas Canelo kind of looks a tit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...