Fedor wasnt knocked out-Herb Dean's premature stoppage robbery-Dana compliments Heb

Discussion in 'MMA Forum' started by monaroCountry, Aug 2, 2011.


  1. horst

    horst Guest

    Couldn't possibly agree more. Bunch of boring, childish, out-of-date cretins.
     
  2. horst

    horst Guest

    The guy does well in one or two UFC events, and he's been shouting about it in virtually every post since. If he had a brain, he'd be embarrassed. Pitiful to witness. I genuinely think he must be about 13 or something. No-one else would be so bursting with pride and joy after calling a handful of fights right. :oops::oops::oops:
     
  3. Haggis McJackass

    Haggis McJackass Semi-neutralist Overseer Full Member

    5,126
    1
    Jul 20, 2004
    Here are some plain ****ing facts for you.

    Fedor has been stopped three times in three different ways in his last three fights.

    In only one of those fights was he physically outmatched. And in one of them he was fighting a 40 year old smaller man.

    Two of these were VERY winnable for him, he was the favourite to win, and as the fight played out, he SHOULD have won.

    He didn't lose them because he had lost his speed and power.

    He lost them both because he abandoned all technique and had no respect for his opponent's capabilities. His fighting was crude and arrogant. This lack of respect opened the door for both of them to stop him. And they did. This reflects badly on Fedor's legacy.

    :hat
     
  4. Haggis McJackass

    Haggis McJackass Semi-neutralist Overseer Full Member

    5,126
    1
    Jul 20, 2004
    Werdum, Bigfoot and Henderson don't count as part of Fedor's career? :huh

    If he had beaten Werdum and Henderson, as was entirely within his ability, would you have counted that in his plus column, and used those fights to elevate Fedor even higher?

    Of course you would have.

    So, when he fights poorly and is stopped because of sloppy mistakes brought on by neglecting any kind of defence or respect for his opponent's ability, why does that not count against him? :huh

    Very, very simple difference there, which I believe you already understand, but I'll spell it out anyway.

    Robinson was in his mid-40s, was nowhere near the title, and was taking those fights because he was broke.

    Fedor had not even reached the midpoint of his 30s and was taking those fights because he was regarded as the greatest heavyweight on the planet and the man for all other heavyweights to beat. I can't find anything that suggests he was anything less than a heavy favourite to win ALL his Strikeforce tournament fights, Bigfoot included. He was -500 against Bigfoot. Nobody figured he was shot, because he WASN'T shot. He just lost.

    :hat
     
  5. horst

    horst Guest

    There is some truth to what you are saying, I don't deny that.
     
  6. horst

    horst Guest

    The point where we stop agreeing is your obsession with age, as if all fighters must be measured against the same scale:

    - age 30 (all fighters should still be prime)

    - age 35 (fighters should be past-prime but still capable maintaining great performance)

    - age 40 (fighters should be past-prime but not shot)


    You see, I don't subscribe to this at all. As I keep saying, all fighters decline at different rates, it doesn't make a guy superior to another because he is still great at 40 and another is shot by 35.

    Is Vladimir Matyushenko a greater mixed martial artist than Wanderlei Silva or Chuck Liddell because Vladdy can perform effectively at 40 and those guys seemingly cannot? No, no and no IMO.

    Because if you evaluate their whole careers, Wandy and Chuck were vastly superior overall.

    Age is just a number. All fighters decline at one point or other, and you need to recognize whenever they are no longer capable of performing to a similar standard as they could in their primes, and evaluate their fights accordingly.

    JMHO. :good
     
  7. horst

    horst Guest

    PS: Robinson was 30 when he lost to Randy Turpin, 31 when he lost the famous fight with Maxim, and 33/34 when he lost to Ralph Jones (32-13-3 coming off a 5-fight losing streak).

    What with Robinson being the GOAT in boxing, this surely conflicts with your theory on Fedor Emelianenko, no?
     
  8. Haggis McJackass

    Haggis McJackass Semi-neutralist Overseer Full Member

    5,126
    1
    Jul 20, 2004
    And that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that Fedor was a bum, I'm not saying that his undefeated streak means nothing, I'm not even saying that he isn't a top 3 MMA ATG.

    All I'm saying is that his losses can't be ignored. They DO count against him. They are not the same as Ali losing to Berbick or SRR losing to Memo Ayon.

    It was his own fault that he lost those fights (with the possible exception of Bigfoot). Not only that, but if it was a fighter like Chris Leben, he would have been SLAUGHTERED for his effort against Henderson. It would have been nothing but people talking **** about what a wild, crude brawler Leben is, and how he has no brains in the cage, and how the win was there to be taken, and how his arrogance cost him the fight and he deserved it.

    But since it isn't Leben, it's Fedor, what happens?

    "Oh that one doesn't count, he lost that fight by stoppage and the two before that as well, but he was sort of getting old-ish, a little bit, so we can just pretend that those THREE FIGHTS never happened."

    Not ONE fight, but THREE fights.

    Is there any other fighter you can think of who can:

    * Be stopped 3x in a row (in 3 different ways no less) before his 35th birthday,

    * All 3 stoppages by men he was a heavy betting favourite against, with

    * One of them being a much smaller 40 year old,

    and it DOESN'T negatively impact his legacy AT ALL? :huh

    Or is it just Fedor who has this privilege? :huh :good

    :hat
     
  9. horst

    horst Guest

    I believe Fedor is the GOAT irrespective of his late career losses, much like I still think Roy Jones is the best fighter of his generation despite his late career losses. Fedor has let himself down in his last 3 fights, but that doesn't overshadow a decade of extreme dominance, much like Jones's last few years don't overshadow his own decade of brilliance. Fedor wasn't getting knocked senseless by Matt Serra in his prime or submitted by flying scissor heel hooks in his prime like his two closest rivals for the GOAT throne were. He's still ahead of GSP and Anderson as things stand IMO, because the only fight where I think he ever looked like **** was Henderson, and the evidence strongly suggests Fedor's punch resistance had gone by that point, possibly due in large part to the beating he received from Bigfoot.
     
  10. Haggis McJackass

    Haggis McJackass Semi-neutralist Overseer Full Member

    5,126
    1
    Jul 20, 2004
    Are you serious?

    This is the first time you mention Turpin, Maxim or Jones. In your initial post, the one I responded to, you mentioned 3 nobodies who SRR fought in his mid-40s. Which is why I agreed that they were completely irrelevant. :patsch

    And if you want to talk about those fights, well:

    * He avenged the Turpin defeat by KO, which is VERY important.

    * Maxim was somewhat of a special circumstance, how often do you see a referee unable to finish the fight because of the heat? That's a one-off, but he should have rematched and yes, losing this fight does count against him. There should have been a rematch, but I don't know why that rematch never happened.

    * Jones he certainly should have beaten. However, there's a difference between badly underestimating a mediocre opponent who brings his A-game against you, and looking bored and uninterested when you have the opportunity to add an ATG like Dan Henderson to your resume. Robinson gets more of a pass for underestimating Jones than Fedor gets for phoning in his effort against Henderson.

    :hat
     
  11. horst

    horst Guest

    :lol: So in other words, Robinson's 3 defeats between 30 and 34 can all be written off, but Fedor's cannot? How convenient.
     
  12. horst

    horst Guest

    So losing to a mediocre fighter on a terrible run of form is somehow not as bad as the disgrace of losing to a highly motivated ATG on a great run.

    Yet again, how convenient. Come on man! Be objective!!
     
  13. Haggis McJackass

    Haggis McJackass Semi-neutralist Overseer Full Member

    5,126
    1
    Jul 20, 2004
    That's fine.

    Fedor didn't lose against either Werdum or Henderson because of his age. Physically he was VERY capable of winning those fights, and he showed us that during the fights. His age was irrelevant to the result. When he wanted to pull the trigger, he had enough speed and accuracy to find Dan Henderson's chin, and enough power to drop him heavily. If he was badly physically declined, he never would have gotten himself in a position where he was on top of a curled-up Henderson, bouncing power punches off his head. :good

    :hat
     
  14. MetalMandible

    MetalMandible Chinchecker Full Member

    7,260
    0
    Jun 9, 2011
    Still arguing your nonsensical and fanboy-oriented logic, Poppykins?:rofl:patsch
     
  15. horst

    horst Guest

    You've already been laughed off this thread by numerous posters you troll, Haggis and I are having a discussion, go back to making a chincheckers video or whatever trolls do when they're not posting.

    This content is protected