MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by LefthookStcrook

OMG this is one of the studiest things Ive read in a long time. He had TWO chances yanno to prove it wasnt a "fluke" and what did BJ do? He got dominated in a way no one else had since GSP. These are Facts my friend.

Wait...you're going to use fightmetric to "prove" that Penn got "dominated in a way since no one else had since GSP?" in "TWO chances, yanno?"

You realize Fightmetric--along with the rest of the intelligent universe--actually had Penn winning the first fight, right?

I can't see how anyone who isn't a Penn hater felt the second fight was a domination. It was a clear win on points, absolutely. But it wasn't as though Edgar was ever at a point where he was close to finishing, or ever scoring a 10-8, or anything like that.

Bearing in mind that you've established a context that Penn was dominated by Edgar, you go on to talk about Penn's failure to sink any subs or land any big shots after his TDs, illustrating that Penn was far from "owning" Edgar as a result. But wouldn't the reverse have to be true as well? How many subs did Edgar land? How many did he even attempt? did he ever have Penn in danger, or did he win on points?

I'm not making excuses for Penn. I'm not even making excuses for Penn fanboys. I'm not trying to pretend that Edgar didn't clearly win that second bout. But it wasn't domination. It wasn't ownage. It was points fighting. It was the same stuff that people hate on Georges for, or hate on Bisping for, or even Sherk or Guida, but with a little better striking thrown in.

I like Frankie. He seems like a swell guy, and I hope he destroys the world at FW. But he's done nothing in the last 5 years to have his name be used in the same sentence as "dominant."



So please. If you're going to start out a post with "that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard" don't put stupid shit in your post. If you're going to stand on facts, please make sure you have them correct.

rh

[LefthookStcrook]

Originally Posted by rivethead

Wait...you're going to use fightmetric to "prove" that Penn got "dominated in a way since no one else had since GSP?" in "TWO chances, yanno?"

You realize Fightmetric--along with the rest of the intelligent universe--actually had Penn winning the first fight, right?rh

Name ONE other fighter after GSP that took BJ Penn down and won. Go ahead I'll wait for you to dance around the question and not answer it.You love doing that.

Anywho, the answer is no one. Exactly what I wrote.

I can't see how anyone who isn't a Penn hater felt the second fight was a domination. It was a clear win on points, absolutely. But it wasn't as though Edgar was ever at a point where he was close to finishing, or ever scoring a 10-8, or anything like that.

Again, Name me ONE fighter on this planet who took BJ down and won a "convincing decision" not named GSP.

THERE IS NONE!

Kenny Florian/Matt Hughes or Diego? Ah No.
Did Diaz take Bj Penn down and beat him up on the ground FTW? No
Now Jon Fitch certaintly tried, and came close. But fact is he didnt win.

ONLY Edgar and GSP have beat Bj Penn(like that) in recent history. True talk, now get over it.

Bearing in mind that you've established a context that Penn was dominated by Edgar, you go on to talk about Penn's failure to sink any subs or land any big shots after his TDs, illustrating that Penn was far from "owning" Edgar as a result. But wouldn't the reverse have to be true as well? How many subs did Edgar land? How many did he even attempt? did he ever have Penn in danger, or did he win on points?

The comment I was replying to was "Bj Penn would've owned Edgar IF he took him down". I was just stating a fact that Bj Penn DID take him down, Twice, and did NOTHING.

I never once said "Edgar did a helluva lot of damage and came close to finishing". I said no one has beat Penn like that since GSP, which is true.

If Im mistaken please correct me. But please try to stay on topic.

I like Frankie. He seems like a swell guy, and I hope he destroys the world at FW. But he's done nothing in the last 5 years to have his name be used in the same sentence as "dominant."

Ok, GSP dominated him. And Frankie beat him. Still doesnt change the fact that Penn's two worst losses in the last 5 years is GSP 2 and Edgar 2.

And it STILL doesnt change the fact that Bj Penn had Frankie on his back two different occasions and did nothing. (Original Topic)

And STILL(lol) doesnt change the fact that "If he took him down and wasnt so stubborn" is a WEAKASS excuse.

So please. If you're going to start out a post with "that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard" don't put stupid shit in your post. If you're going to stand on facts, please make sure you have them correct.

I replied to "Bj Penn would Own Edgar IF he only took him down". I then posted real facts that disproved that claim. Ex: 2 TD Landed for Penn. 5 strikes landed between both. Nothing else.

Doesnt THAT^^disprove this sentence >--->"Bj Penn would Own Edgar IF he only took him down".

I dont get how you cant see that.

[disposableassassin]

I know he didn't win a convincing decision or anything but I just want to say that Fitch took penn down in the third round and kicked his ass. Just a statement. No real relevance here.

[Sniggles]

Originally Posted by disposableassassin

I know he didn't win a convincing decision or anything but I just want to say that Fitch took penn down in the third round and kicked his ass. Just a statement. No real relevance here.

Not enough for a 10-8 round imo due to lack of damage from Fitch's pillowfisting.

Originally Posted by v3xi

Oh and I will also add that if you were under 10% bodyfat and were in MMA you would gas very fast.

Marathon runners at 5% body fat.

Explain your science...

Actually on second thought I realize that would be like asking Rain Man what kissing a girl is like.

Originally Posted by rivethead

I like Frankie. He seems like a swell guy, and I hope he destroys the world at FW. But he's done nothing in the last 5 years to have his name be used in the same sentence as "dominant."

I would have thought it would be argued that Edgar scored a decisive win against Maynard.

Instead, swiggly lines, underlines and arrows were used to make the case.

Really though, Edgar took BJ Penn and held him down that's all I got out of the counterpost. Big dealio.

Perhaps you should have allowed him to describe what you said as "stupid shit" as that's the only way it could look like he was convincing. When all else fails throw in some ad hominem.

---@?>>>

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by LefthookStcrook

Name ONE other fighter after GSP that took BJ Penn down and won. Go ahead I'll wait for you to dance around the question and not answer it.You love doing that.

I'll answer your question first, because it's apparently uprecedented for me to do so: You're right. In the last 5 years, nobody else has taken Penn down and won.

But then I'll ask you a question: Does that mean it's "dominant?"

Anywho, the answer is no one. Exactly what I wrote.

No. You wrote he got dominated. And he didn't. To put it in perspective, Fitch did more in the third round than Frankie did in the whole 5 rounder. And Fitch didn't even get a 10-8 for it.

Again, Name me ONE fighter on this planet who took BJ down and won a "convincing decision" not named GSP.

Is there any difference between a convincing decision and a dominant win?
I'm under the impression that there is. Maybe I'm wrong. Hang on a second, I'll go check.



















Nope. Still right. There is a HUGE difference between a convincing win--on points--and a dominant win.

ONLY Edgar and GSP have beat Bj Penn(like that) in recent history. True talk, now get over it.

No, it's not true talk.

Georges was a dominant win. He finished Penn. His win over Penn can't really be compared to Edgar's in any terms beyond the most basic. One was dominant, one was convincing. Huge difference.

The comment I was replying to was "Bj Penn would've owned Edgar IF he took him down". I was just stating a fact that Bj Penn DID take him down, Twice, and did NOTHING.

My point--which you've missed--is that you're responding to exaggeration about Penn's ability with more exaggeration, but simply diametrically opposed. That's like Al Franken responding to Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh responding to Michael Moore. All four of them look like assholes, because there is so much hyperbole in all of their statements that they lose what credibility they may have gained.

You could have said "Dude...Penn did take Edgar down. He didn't do anything with it." and you would have been right.

Your failure is in exaggeration, just like his: You tried to make a case that Edgar's win was as dominant as Georges, and they're not even remotely comparable.

Ok, GSP dominated him. And Frankie beat him.

Right, but I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing your exaggeration.

If that had been your post, I wouldn't have bothered with it.

But right now, you're making a distinction between Georges's dominant win, and Frankie's non-dominant win. You not only failed to make the distinction in your initial post, you actually compared them, making it seem as though you thought they were similar. They're not.

Still doesnt change the fact that Penn's two worst losses in the last 5 years is GSP 2 and Edgar 2

I disagree. I think Diaz beat him more convincingly than Edgar did. If the Diaz fight were 5 rounds, I think Diaz could have finished him, or at least would have been closer to finishing him than Frankie was.

And it STILL doesnt change the fact that Bj Penn had Frankie on his back two different occasions and did nothing. (Original Topic)

And STILL(lol) doesnt change the fact that "If he took him down and wasnt so stubborn" is a WEAKASS excuse.

I agree that his initial statment was poorly worded. I feel yours failed just as equally. I'm not trying to support his statement, although I do feel Penn has all the tools to beat Edgar [again].

It's just that for every time you've heard someone "making an excuse" for Penn, I've heard someone ineptly trying to portray him, or calling the Edgar bouts--both of them, which you seemed to be doing, but probably weren't--dominant. Neither bout was dominant. Not even close to dominant.

If posters are going to take the time to try to correct one another, I'd like them to be accurate.

I replied to "Bj Penn would Own Edgar IF he only took him down". I then posted real facts that disproved that claim. Ex: 2 TD Landed for Penn. 5 strikes landed between both. Nothing else.

No, if you'd stopped there, you'd have been accurate. But you threw in a bunch of nonsense which you're clearly backing away from.

Doesnt THAT^^disprove this sentence >--->"Bj Penn would Own Edgar IF he only took him down".

I dont get how you cant see that.

Again, I'm saying if you try to disprove someone and you stray into the realm of nonsense hyperbole--by saying it was a dominant win, by indicating Penn's TD's were useless because he didn't do anything dramatic, while not making the same distinction for Frankie--you're opening yourself to criticism.

So I'm criticizing. You hate excuses. I hate poorly-applied exaggeration.

rh

[LefthookStcrook]

If my choice of words between "Dominant" and "Convincing" is the sole culprit to all of this, then I apologize.

No it wasnt the typical "Domination" like we're use to hearing, Like say GSP2. I wasnt trying to imply that Frankie got 10-8 rounds, or that he came close to finishing the fight. What I was trying to get out was that Frankie "Convincingly" beat Penn like No one else has in recent history not named GSP.

You could make the argument for Fitch or Diaz, but Penn won rounds against both men, And Edgar beat Penn 50-45 all on cards the second time around.


My logic behind it was:

GSP stopped him
Diaz Beat him, but lost a round.
Fitch beat him up for a round, but it was a draw.
Frankie beat him and didnt lose a round.

Going by that it goes GSP>Frankie>Diaz>Fitch. That the reasoning for my statement, next time Ill choose a different word then "Dominant" because I dont want to go through all of this just to get told im mostly right besides one word choice lol.

The word "Owned" is also very subjective, just saying.

[Sniggles]

Yawn. Arguing about hyperbole when there is obvious bias.

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by LefthookStcrook

Frankie "Convincingly" beat Penn like No one else has in recent history not named GSP.

I think that's up for debate as well.

I know the judges didn't give Penn any rounds, but I'd say rounds 1 or 3 could have gone either way or easily been 10/10s. Again, the judges didn't give him the first fight, when I thought he won it pretty obviously. One of the judges actually gave Frankie all 5 rounds in the first bout, so I'm reluctant to take that as worth much.

Penn certainly looked worse at the close of the third in both Diaz and Fitch than he did at the close of the second Edgar bout, in my opinion.

But here's another question, and I'm not even overtly being a dick here: Can you compare 5 rounders to 3 rounders? I think if either of the Diaz or Fitch bouts went another 10 minutes, Penn could have been finished...and that's coming from a Penn fan.

I also think the philosophy forming fight plans for a 3 rounder is different than a 5 rounder.

The word "Owned" is also very subjective, just saying.

The whole concept is subjective.

The original statement that Penn could beat Frankie by taking him down was inaccurately worded, but the philosphy isn't entirely off base. Penn absolutely has the skills to beat Frankie, but he wasn't planning fights at that point. If Penn came in with an actual plan for a third bout, there is absolutely no guarantee that Frankie would win it, is there?

Originally Posted by Sniggles

Yawn. Arguing about hyperbole when there is obvious bias.

And yet you're still compelled to read every word, and then comment on it. Slow day at the clinic?

rh

[Sniggles]

Originally Posted by rivethead

And yet you're still compelled to read every word, and then comment on it. Slow day at the clinic?

rh

Slow day in the asylum that is my mind indeed.

[Luc1an]

kinda a quick guide.