+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Dana White believes doing more damage wins fights

  1. Default Dana White believes doing more damage wins fights

    http://www.mmamania.com/2013/11/17/5...-wants-rematch

    "Did you see Georges get smashed and hurt in the first round? It's about damage. This is a fight. It's about whoever inflicts the most damage. He got hurt, he got wobbled, he got dropped. Yeah, I'm blown away that Georges St. Pierre won that fight. And listen, I'm a promoter. He's the biggest pay-per-view star on the fucking planet for me and I still don't think he won that fight. I want what's fair and that wasn't fair."
    Does anyone else find it odd that the most known face for MMA doesn't even know what the judging criteria is?
    There are many paths to freedom....not all are peaceful.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Muskoka, ON
    Posts
    1,633

    Default

    Not at all, Dana sees money and sometimes I wonder if he knows much about the fights as he lets on.
    FW-Hominick
    LW-Stout, Cerrone, Jim Miller
    WW-GSP, Fitch, Goulet, Rory
    MW-Shlemenko
    LHW-Jones
    HW-Carwin, Barry, Russow

    RRR=the Rhonda Rousey Resistance

    classic - "this is the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. thats like me having a picture of Hitler posted, and saying "I dont believe in his politics, but I like to hear him talk" W.Silva>C.Norris

    HOSS-Bork, you should spend more time brushing up on your MMA history, and less time complementing guys on how young their penises taste.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Deep down the rabbit hole.
    Posts
    7,069

    Default

    Thread idea!

  4. Default

    As disappointed as I am in the outcome of this fight, I cant say I feel it was a travesty of judging, or an embarassment. I felt hendricks won rounds 2, and 4, GSP won 3 and 5. Round 1 could have been scored for either fighter. Personally, I gave it to Hendricks, but to say that it was unquestionably Johnnys round is not accurate.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W.Silva>C.Norris View Post
    As disappointed as I am in the outcome of this fight, I cant say I feel it was a travesty of judging, or an embarassment. I felt hendricks won rounds 2, and 4, GSP won 3 and 5. Round 1 could have been scored for either fighter. Personally, I gave it to Hendricks, but to say that it was unquestionably Johnnys round is not accurate.
    I agree 100%.

    This fight was not a robbery, or the worst decision ever. Fight was very close, with the first 2 rounds being coin tosses. I thought rounds 3-4 were clear cut. I personally had it for GSP, but easily coulda seen Hendricks winning it all. It was a good fight, both guys should what they are made of, but this was no where near close to the worst decision in MMA history.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement View Post
    Does anyone else find it odd that the most known face for MMA doesn't even know what the judging criteria is?
    I've always found it odd that people give dana ANY credibility at all.

    But that's a good litmus test to see if I think their opinion is worthwhile, whenever I talk to new people about MMA.

    rh
    All manner of men came to work for the News: everything from wild young Turks who wanted to rip the world in half and start all over again -- to tired, beer-bellied old hacks who wanted nothing more than to live out their days in peace before a bunch of lunatics ripped the world in half.

    Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
    The Rum Diary

    wait....did you just say Genki Sudo unretired?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    18,442

    Default

    I understand you cant judge a fight by the overall damage inflicted.

    But are strikes not given more weight in judges eyes if they are 'significant strikes'.

    Significant strikes would be those which are more likely to cause more damage than a regular strike?

    Seems kind of a shitty system that judges the opportunities for damage over actual damage inflicted ... In a round about way.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    GSP has been in A LOT of battle tested fights. He has taken some shots here and there to his face, and that must definitely weakened his scar tissue to this face. Might not take much to cut his face at this point. Hendricks has not fought as much as GSP, his face has not gone through the battles that GSP has, nor has he fought the strikers that GSP has over the years.

    Take JDS for instance. His face was abused by Cain for 10 rounds. His scar tissue is easily not as it once was. If he were to fight someone and JDS just completely outstruck his opponent, and took a few measly shots to the face, which opened up some cuts...would anyone still give the fight to his opponent based on damage?

  9. Default

    We can put to rest this whole GSP has a weak chin argument now.
    There are many paths to freedom....not all are peaceful.


  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    I've always found it odd that people give dana ANY credibility at all.

    But that's a good litmus test to see if I think their opinion is worthwhile, whenever I talk to new people about MMA.

    rh
    Couldnt agree with this more. Dana is a promoter, not an analyst or a former mma fighter. He has as much knowledge as everyone on this board.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •