MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » Noob Jack City

[sandywh]

Originally Posted by mulefloyd

Machida, Sherk, and Swick in the Loiseau and Burkman fights were content to win by "points". That sucks. And thank you Sundance, Wanderlei is exactly the type of fighter I prefer.

Didn't Wand / Chuck go to decision?

Look, I'm not bashing you, but watching 2 BJJ black belts going at it but never finding a hole to exploit is also a beautiful thing. I'm all for a nice KO, but face it Shields / Fickett is going to be way more beautiful than Thompson / Slice.

[Dr. MMA]

Let's not forget BJ/GSP... after round 1... it was a stalemate between them. They both minimized damage to each other after that. Pretty much they were scoring points.

What about Fedor/CC... they were obviously trying to get out of positions and minimize damage.

Basically you can't always go out aggressive, balls to the walls style. Even Wand didn't do that against chuck because if he did, he would've got KTFO. Wand went too aggressive against CC at the start in OWGP 06 and he got counterattacked bad.

[2mcgrath]

i voted for aggressiveness/trying to finish much rather see fights like that instead of defensive fight,i know they have their purpose but damn they are boring to watch

[mulefloyd]

Originally Posted by Ubermensch

You assume that Machida is trying to win by points where I would say he fights to his best ability."

Now you're assuming. I said it appeared that way. And saying he fights to the best of his ability is exactly what I disagree with. He clearly outclassed Tito even stuffing his TDs. I just wish he would have tried to engage in more striking even if all it did was mark him up.

" The problem is his best ability is Karate and he just so happens not to have a lot of power. Look at it this way Machida has good BJJ but that isn't his best skill set. Tito has really great GNP and ok stand up. Why the Hell would anyone want to go to their game that they are not best at especially when that is your opponents strong point (being on the ground that is)."

I agree he doesn't have great KO power but although he is known for having a karate background, isn't he a black belt in JJ? I think he's one of the new breed who is very well rounded. Obviously he didn't want to be on the ground with Tito on top, I just think he gave Tito too much respect."

"The assumption that he doesn't want to KO somone is just that an assumption."------obvious statement

" it makes no sense just because you think that is how the game is being played doesn't mean that is what is going on in the fighters game plan. It's not like a Starns fight!

You should run for office. I never said that's how I think the game is being played, I said I prefer fighters whose goal is to finish. In the Nakamura fight, I thought Machida fought great. I think he truly tried to finish him but Nak was just too tough. If he had fought against Tito with the same urgency, I would've been more impressed win or lose. My whole point is I don't like it when it "appears" (notice - not a fact - an opinion) that a fighter is trying not to lose more than trying to win. Maybe that should've been my 2 options.

P.S. The Starnes comment is really the politician move of this post. I NEVER compared Machida to Starnes. But I do think his style is close to Sherk. Neither has KO power. For some reason Machida gets credit for his "elusive" striking but Sherk was called for LnP against Franca when he constantly passed his guard and improved position. I think JJ purists are just mad that he doesn't try to finish with subs but is content to potshot while using his superior wrestling and sub d to win and avoid his weakest area which is his striking no matter what he says.

[Problematique]

I wanna see fighting.
Not boring "fights" like Machida's, or Sylvias Hold and pray.

[mulefloyd]

Originally Posted by Dr. MMA

Let's not forget BJ/GSP... after round 1... it was a stalemate between them. They both minimized damage to each other after that. Pretty much they were scoring points."

I think that was more GSP's doing. BJ obiously outstruck him in the 1st and was able to get up when taken down but in the 2nd and 3rd BJ gassed and GSP was able to keep him down even though he didn't do much damage. Probably a smart gameplan after the 1st. I think BJ would win a rematch assuming he's in shape.

"Basically you can't always go out aggressive, balls to the walls style. Even Wand didn't do that against chuck because if he did, he would've got KTFO. Wand went too aggressive against CC at the start in OWGP 06 and he got counterattacked bad.

No you can't pull a Pete Sell/Scott Smith and completely forget about defense. Serra did a much better job of controlled aggression in finishing St. Pierre. I realize it's a balancing act and you have to have both.

[sandywh]

Originally Posted by mulefloyd

For some reason Machida gets credit for his "elusive" striking but Sherk was called for LnP against Franca when he constantly passed his guard and improved position. I think JJ purists are just mad that he doesn't try to finish with subs but is content to potshot while using his superior wrestling and sub d to win and avoid his weakest area which is his striking no matter what he says.

I'm gonna have to argue with you about this comment. I would consider myself a JJ purist, but I love what Sean Sherk does (did prior to BJ). A fighter should fight to his strengths. I think using Sherk as your LnP example is a very bad one, but Sherk is always advancing and switching up. Sherk fights to his strengths, most GnP. JJ is not all about submissions, and only ignorant, blood thirsty fans would say something like that. JJ is very similar to wrestling. Its about gaining a dominant position and body controls. Submissions are only available once the dominant position has been established or your opponent is transitioning.

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by mulefloyd

Machida, Sherk, and Swick in the Loiseau and Burkman fights were content to win by "points". That sucks. And thank you Sundance, Wanderlei is exactly the type of fighter I prefer.

Swick won the first round handily against Loiseau and then had to change his tactics halfway through the second round because he broke his hand--though he still won the round. Loiseau was able to come back in the third because he realized he didn't have to worry about Swick throwing. And Swick literally apologized for a horrible weight cut--his first ever--in the Burkman fight that left him weaker than he'd ever been.

Should he have deliberately lost that fight so that myopic fans could feel he was aggressive enough? How many fighter apologize after a win? Did you want him to send you a personalized note or something?

rh

[mulefloyd]

Didn't know Swick broke his hand against Loiseau. That would explain that. And yes I know it was more Burkman's fault that the fight was boring.

[mulefloyd]

I also hate the 10 point must system and judging by rounds not the whole fight. Would much prefer something like:

.: Fightmetric.com :: Every Bit of Every Bout :.