MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted by rampage9712

Its more impressive for a less talented fighter to get the belt from a top fighter vs. a top talent fighter getting the belt and dominating. This site always seems to take the feel good stories over talent...

good for him the fight was postponed. He can hold on to the belt for a couple more months.

Why isn't that more impressive, a guy who has everything stacked against him still managing to win the title. Anyways, the thread was about who had the toughest challenge in winning the belt. Serra had the hardest title fight, and I think Edgar had the toughest road.

[Death Beast]

Originally Posted by rivethead

Personally, I think Penn is the best LW on the planet, so props to Frankie for beating him [the second time, anyway] but he'd never faced a solidly-ranked opponent before getting the first title shot [you know, the one he actually lost, but was awarded the win on, for "staying busy"].
Uhm, he didn't actually beat him both times. The first fight was a travesty of judging.


rh

So Sherk wasn't a solidly ranked opponent? Or Franca coming off the title shot?

[mulefloyd]

Originally Posted by rivethead

he didn't actually beat him both times. The first fight was a travesty of judging.
rh

Wrong. The ONLY "travesty" was the 50-45 score. It was a very close fight that neither (despite what fans may claim) could call a robbery. It had to be a moral victory for Edgar because of how little chance he was given.

And he also beat Tyson Griffin, Mark Bocek, and Hermes Franca on his way to the title shot. Any of these 3 are at least as good as Soko. Sometimes you have to realize that we made a mistake in rankings. But there is absolutely no way to downplay his victory over Sherk.

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by Death Beast

So Sherk wasn't a solidly ranked opponent? Or Franca coming off the title shot?

No, Sherk wasn't top 10 at that point, or if he was, it wasn't a solid ranking. The LW division is too deep and volatile across orgs to carry his ranking.

I'm not saying Frankie didn't have any good wins, I'm saying he didn't beat any solidly ranked top 10 fighters.

Originally Posted by mulefloyd

Wrong. The ONLY "travesty" was the 50-45 score. It was a very close fight that neither (despite what fans may claim) could call a robbery. It had to be a moral victory for Edgar because of how little chance he was given.

Again, I'm not saying Edgar didn't perform incredibly beyond expectations. Nobody gave him a snowballs chance in hell of even getting out of the fight without getting finished, and his performance shocked the world.

That being said, he didn't come close to winning that fight. Anything else is a bad decision or revisionist history. Penn won the first three rounds clearly and convincingly, without a doubt. He landed a higher percentage of strikes, he stuffed every takedown Edgar attempted, and kept the fight where he wanted it. Edgar came on stronger in the 4th, and was as effective striking, but still got stuffed on all three takedown attempts, so you could--if you were an Edgar fan--call the round dead even. The only round Frankie won was the fifth.

Yes, it's a moral victory for a guy who nobody even guessed would be able to stand with Penn to win the fifth round. But there is no way in hell that he could be said to win that fight by any sane viewer.

And he also beat Tyson Griffin, Mark Bocek, and Hermes Franca on his way to the title shot. Any of these 3 are at least as good as Soko. Sometimes you have to realize that we made a mistake in rankings. But there is absolutely no way to downplay his victory over Sherk.

Again, Frankie had nice wins, but none of them were solidly ranked before facing Penn. Bocek wasn't even top 50 when he faced Frankie. Griffin is a great win, but he wasn't top 10. Franca was a great win, but he wasn't top 10. And while Soko was the very definition of softly ranked when Machida destroyed him, he was only one of the fighters I mentioned on his path to the title. Ortiz was at that point perennially ranked between top 9 and 15 and considered a threat to any LHW, and Thiago would probably still be on the cusp top 10 if he hadn't pissed hot. At the time he faced Machida, he was softly ranked as high as 4, and would have gotten the title shot if he didn't get KTFOd. That one win by itself is a bigger accomplishment than anything Frankie did before his title shot.

rh

[mulefloyd]

I completely agree with you about Thiago Silva. But in my opinion, a "robbery" is when the judges see it one way and at least 75% (or so, the point being a big majority) of the (impartial) viewers see it the other. I don't remember what the poll results were after that fight but I'd bet it was a lot closer to 50/50.

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by mulefloyd

I completely agree with you about Thiago Silva. But in my opinion, a "robbery" is when the judges see it one way and at least 75% (or so, the point being a big majority) of the (impartial) viewers see it the other. I don't remember what the poll results were after that fight but I'd bet it was a lot closer to 50/50.

Well, for me a robbery is when one fighter clearly and convincingly wins 3 out of 5 rounds and doesn't win the fight without being stopped or losing any 10-8 rounds.

I still have yet to see any valid argument that could possibly support Frankie winning the first fight. The thing I heard the most was "he was more aggressive" and "he stayed busier." He wasn't effective in his aggression till the 5th round, and staying busy isn't a criteria for scoring fights.

I honestly don't think I'm letting bias dictate the perception here...Frankie clearly and convincingly beat Penn in the second one, without a doubt. But the first fight decision was bullshit.

rh

[Kimbo> Rampage]

completely agree. The first fight was a bs decision. Penn won that fight. The second frankie clearly won, even though he was far from ever having bj in trouble. I hate that gameplan by fighters where they will stand with somebody for a while but get a takedown when they are done wanting to stand with their opponent and doing nothing on the ground. Reminds me of how gsp has fought sometimes. I still say bj has better striking than frankie.

[mulefloyd]

Agree that Frankie didn't damage, take down, or threaten BJ with a sub through the 1st 4 rounds but remind me again how much damage BJ did to Edgar? Oh but he took him down or threatened with a sub or controlled him in the clinch right? No? Then how did he "clearly" win? Yes as a Penn fan or even as BJ himself it had to be frustrating but he did nothing to alter his game plan, he just kept swinging and missing. I knew as I was watching the fight that Frankie was winning, was amazed by it, but figured there was no way he'd get the decision. The rematch was the correct thing to do and with how the 2nd one turned out it wouldn't have mattered. If BJ had won, it would've been almost as controversial and the rematch should've happened anyway.

[goodtimes]

I thought Edgar won the last 3 rounds, don't see why there would be no argument about it. He was slipping and moving away from almost all of Penn's punches while closing Penn's eyes with short hooks. It was a very close fight, it shouldn't be considered a robbery when a fight is that close. Anyways, they had an immediate rematch because the fight was so close and Edgar dominated.

[Sakara=Excitement]

On a side note, WHERE THE FUCK did all the Jake Shields fans go?