We have talked about control, which is disputable. I think even you would admit Guida was not in control on the ground. We can talk about takedowns, I give Guida credit for those. But counter to the takedowns, were the sub attempts. Sub attempts being those things guys do to try to end a fight. Ending a fight is supposed to be what fighters do. These are the counter levers of a fight in which nobody won.
Well, you do not have to make anymore points if you don't want to, but submissions, like wrestling involves getting control of your opponent before you can sub him, should getting at least partial control not be counted as well?
If you had just joined an organization, would you go spewing on about how you got robbed? Here is an example, although in this case he said this for different reasons, it was still basically to keep his job: http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-ufcmain111409
:tiredpatsch save your excuses, Im not interested, I watched him get controllrd, hr said he was controlled, end of story
You talk about it as if he has some sort of authority about the situation. We are talking about things as concepts and breaking them down into logical sets of things and how scoring is flawed in the things that it doesn't account for. He is talking about his perception and how he feels.
I haven't watched the fight but I never understood why top position is so important when your not getting the best of the other guy. I just hope it wasn't like Torres last fight where he clearly should have won but didn't get the decision because the other guy was getting beaten while on top
So I guess when someone gets hit with a leg triangle and choked out, they were in control. What Stoo is saying is that Top Position equates to control. I guess BJJ is a lie because it claims the Rubber Guard and the ability to, "control" someones wrists are paramount in controlling someone when using the guard offensively.. Okay.. I'm done. atsch
So you are saying the takedowns alone were what won the fight? Seems like he was controlled on the ground and didn't take any notable damage. I really saw it as a stalemate.. Guida got the takedowns and had control of where the fight took place. But Pettis controlled the Guida's choice of where the fight took place/grappling and was able to attempt multiple submissions which are fight enders.. That's just how I look at it.. If Guida had some sub attempts and inflicted damage I would say he won.. But, he didn't.
Koa - Since when don't takedowns and top position don't earn judges decisions in the UFC? You're acting all surprised or something. If it was Pride, Pettis might have had a better showing with the judges because he tried to finish, but couldn't. You don't have to like Guida either. That was a boring ass performance from Mr Energiser.
No what I was saying was Guida was in control of the fight,was more effective and won. I though Torres beat MM, and he was on the bottom, go figure :roll: Im not making bold generalisations like top control = win. Torres was better on the bottom than Pettis was. EDIT http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=315443&page=2
I'm not surprised. I'm just the squeaky wheel as usual. I'm talking about the ideology of watching a fight. I'm writing it like this rather than writing it in terms of UFC scoring ideology becoming the hegemony which it is.. But if I type it out like that people would probably be more confused about what I'm talking about. I understand fights in my own terms, I'm sharing the rationale of my own ideas to try to help people understand fighting in a different way. I don't have a general dislike for Guida in favor of Pettis. I just didn't think either guy won the fight/match..