MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[Clark80]

I have seen this mentioned in various threads and usually after a fight where we believe someone has been robbed etc.

Some people mentioned that Forrest was cruising for a W against Rampage and didn't agree with it because it resulted in the title changing hands.

It cropped up again with the Clay and Mac fight recently where Clay admits to looking for the W and holding Mac down. (see espn video on this forum)

Don't get me wrong I like Forrest and Page and would say if you leave it to the judges then do so at your own risk.

What do you guys think? Is it acceptable to cruise for a W without the intent to finish?

[rivethead]

I don't know about "acceptable" or not...I'd say is it "respectable."

I don't think Griffin's win over Jackson was really comparable to Guida/Danzig...Griffin mounted an actual offense [winning a 10-8 round] where Guida literally clinched Mac to death. For the record, I thought Jackson/Henderson was a much closer fight than Griffin/Jackson as well.

I think people are going to find different perspectives to view each fight and you aren't going to get a consensus. Off the top of my head:

I thought Chuck literally checking the clock and then taking Wandi down to ride out the last round was weak...but when viewing the rest of the fight, it was a great fight. But it could fall into the same category, and I'm sure a ton of fans would disagree with me.

I thought GSP refusing to strike with Kos and then holding on to a failed kimura for two minutes was weak, but I've actually seen fans write that he dominated Koscheck, so even more fans disagree with me there.

A lot of [idiots who don't understand MMA] think that Machida ran from Tito rather than exchange; but I thought it was a tremendous illustration of skill...and a lot of fans disagree with me [but they're idiots who don't understand MMA].

A lot of people are on Rashad's bandwagon right now about his great game plan in KOing Chuck...but for the first round, he ran from him. So a Chuck fan could compare him to Starnes, but they'd be wrong because he was able to turn it around with one punch.



Would I have liked to have seen Guida exchange more? Sure. Would it probably have cost him the fight? There is a very good possibility. But that's why fighters have game plans.

I don't think it's up to fans to decide what's acceptable or not; a win is pretty much a win 99.9% of the time [A.Johnson's eye poke comes to mind]. And as for whether it's respectable or not, I have to respect anyone with the dedication to get into the ring or cage and test themselves, particularly at the elite level. Maybe not respect them as individuals, but respect their skills and dedication.

rh

[thumper]

It happens in every sport, in every possible spot.

Baseball teams play conservative defense to win games once ahead.
football teams stop throwing and use running plays to win once ahead
racers slow down on tight corners and make sure they don't crash once ahead
fighters don't open themselves up as much and are more cautious once ahead

I don't see how it's a problem.

[Badluck33]

Originally Posted by thumper

It happens in every sport, in every possible spot.

Baseball teams play conservative defense to win games once ahead.
football teams stop throwing and use running plays to win once ahead
racers slow down on tight corners and make sure they don't crash once ahead
fighters don't open themselves up as much and are more cautious once ahead

I don't see how it's a problem.

true that. I was thinking the same thing.

In soccer you'll see a lot more long field kicks just to absorb up time
In Basketball you'll see when teams ahead will hold on to the ball a lot longer and even attempt more threes with more men under the basket.

Your right its in every sport.

Its an aspect of the sport.

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

[the_dark_angel_4ever]

Yes I'd rather see someone push to try and win the fight by stoppage BUT I'm never going to fault someone who's winning and playing it conservative so secure the W. I've trained for years but never actually competed and I'm not going to knock ANYONE who does this. When you spend several months training your not going to take the risk.

That being said I think it's much different than the old Rashad and KOS fights where they would lnp through the whole fight for a win.

[thumper]

I think it also really matters who you're fighting too.

For instance, every second guida fought danzig hard he risked submission or a KO. He even said he realized it. So it makes sense to do it.

With someone less dangerous from instant loss I think it'd be a lot different. Someone who wasn't a submission threat? he's have GnP much longer. At least that's what I think

[Clark80]

It's a good debate and I think it will vary based on each fight. I don't think it is possible to choose one way or the other.

Then you get jokers in their own categories like Starnes

[Mac]

Obviously as a fan I want to see guys go for the finish, but I understand doing whatever it takes to win. The way the UFC goes anymore, you lose too many and your out, so you gotta win.

Laying on someone or being elusive and not engaging for 3 or 5 rounds will help you win fights, just not fans. But hey, it's a business so do what you gotta do.

[TheKidInside]

it depends strictly on the fight. There are some fights that I wanted to go on for 5 rounds because they were so action packed and even. While, some others are terrible fights that just literally drag on.

[flagstar12]

A win is a win and as Mac said with the UFC if you lose too many you're out!