+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Jon Jones urges 'idol' Anderson Silva to retire after two 'flukish losses'

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ont. Canada
    Posts
    2,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasha K View Post
    It is the truth. Weidman dominated Anderson in both fights. We can argue about how the fights ended (specially the second one), but we can not argue that Weidman was anyway beating the hell out of Silva, specially in the second fight.

    As for Jones and his comments, lol, it is not his business
    When i think of a person dominating another fighter, the result of the fight shouldnt have a * next to it - weather it belongs there or not. fight one - Anderon gets TKO'd ***** clowning. Yes he does it all the time we get it, but the * is still there. The second fight DEFINITELY has an * next to based solely on the leg break. A W is a W and im not trying to say weidman didnt win, but when a fight ends like that im sorry theres no real 'winner' in that fight. It was a fluke. Insert * #2.

    As for the Jones commenting part, you do know he was asked this question by someone. Its not like Jones popped on twitter one day and just decided to give his point of view on the subject. He simply answered the question with how he honestly felt on the subject. Cut the guy some slack.

    Whatcha gonna do Brother, when the New World Order destroys you?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orion_damage View Post
    No he didn't. The first fight Chris capitalized on a moment where Anderson was being overly confident. Up until that point I fully expected Anderson to win the fight. I do agree that Chris was clearly winning the second fight.
    Took him down, gnp, almost submitted gim and out struck him then KTfO in the first fight.
    Second knocked him down from the clinch, more gnp outstruck him AGAIn and broke his leg exposing his poor technique on leg kicks.

    DOMINATION.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IceCold48 View Post
    Took him down, gnp, almost submitted gim and out struck him then KTfO in the first fight.
    Second knocked him down from the clinch, more gnp outstruck him AGAIn and broke his leg exposing his poor technique on leg kicks.

    DOMINATION.
    I agree he dominated in the second so there's no need for a recap of that fight.

    Are you forgetting how Anderson popped up from Chris's submission attempt? He certainly didn't keep him down like he did in the second fight. I wouldn't say he outstruck Anderson. Anderson at that point was playing with him and Chris took advantage. It's that cut and dry for the first fight.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    18,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonesKnows View Post
    When i think of a person dominating another fighter, the result of the fight shouldnt have a * next to it - weather it belongs there or not. fight one - Anderon gets TKO'd ***** clowning. Yes he does it all the time we get it, but the * is still there. The second fight DEFINITELY has an * next to based solely on the leg break. A W is a W and im not trying to say weidman didnt win, but when a fight ends like that im sorry theres no real 'winner' in that fight. It was a fluke. Insert * #2.
    If you got KTFO, you got KTFO... clowning or not, Anderson got his ass beat by Weidman. No astrix, no explaination needed. Anderson attempted to utilize a game plan which included him 'clowning' Weidman as he did to most other fighters in the past. Anderson himself said this was a strategic part of his game plans, not only does it frusterate his opponents but it also allows him to hold his hands down low to defend a possible take down attempt. Anderson chose the wrong game plan for Weidman and got his ass beat, no fluke, no astrix. With your logic, any fight Anderson loses would be a fluke or need to have an astrix beside it as that is his style (to 'clown').


  5. #16

    Default

    I don't think Weidman dominated either fight. When I think of domination, I think of Georges vs. Fitch, or something where absolutely nothing works for one fighter. But hyperbole is so common in MMA, I can understand how the term is being thrown around, even if I don't agree with it.

    But anyone who calls either fight a fluke or "flukeish" or whatever is either:
    a) an unreasonably biased Anderson fan who can't deal with reality
    b) an unreasonably biased hater of Weidman who can't deal with reality
    c) a fucking idiot who would be prevented from procreating in the best of all possible worlds

    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?

  6. 02-05-2014, 05:20 PM


  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orion_damage View Post
    I agree he dominated in the second so there's no need for a recap of that fight.

    Are you forgetting how Anderson popped up from Chris's submission attempt? He certainly didn't keep him down like he did in the second fight. I wouldn't say he outstruck Anderson. Anderson at that point was playing with him and Chris took advantage. It's that cut and dry for the first fight.
    It was good defense but it was also a good attempt. If the highlight of the fight is escaping one submission attempt in which he wasn't even able to do anything from the feet besides get knocked out that's pretty indicitive how how badly he was getting beat.


    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    I don't think Weidman dominated either fight. When I think of domination, I think of Georges vs. Fitch, or something where absolutely nothing works for one fighter. But hyperbole is so common in MMA, I can understand how the term is being thrown around, even if I don't agree with it.

    But anyone who calls either fight a fluke or "flukeish" or whatever is either:
    a) an unreasonably biased Anderson fan who can't deal with reality
    b) an unreasonably biased hater of Weidman who can't deal with reality
    c) a fucking idiot who would be prevented from procreating in the best of all possible worlds

    rh
    yes I was kind of exaggerating just because of the fact that the disrespect pisses me off but I do think Anderson Silva proved to be the inferior fighter in every element of MMA in their two fights. he was clearly losing both fights .

    Quote Originally Posted by BonesKnows View Post
    When i think of a person dominating another fighter, the result of the fight shouldnt have a * next to it - weather it belongs there or not. fight one - Anderon gets TKO'd ***** clowning. Yes he does it all the time we get it, but the * is still there. The second fight DEFINITELY has an * next to based solely on the leg break. A W is a W and im not trying to say weidman didnt win, but when a fight ends like that im sorry theres no real 'winner' in that fight. It was a fluke. Insert * #2.

    As for the Jones commenting part, you do know he was asked this question by someone. Its not like Jones popped on twitter one day and just decided to give his point of view on the subject. He simply answered the question with how he honestly felt on the subject. Cut the guy some slack.
    Funny how you leave out that Silva broke his leg because Weidman exposed his poor striking technique and that he was getting beat the entire fight and then got knocked out clowning. Silva himself said the knockout was due to poor technique and not clowning. Weidman essentially proved that Silva is not a good technical striker at all just very powerful and fast with great reflexes.




    That's your boy^^^

    PS Weidman knocked out Silva with his weak hand!!!
    Last edited by IceCold48; 02-05-2014 at 05:29 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    georgia
    Posts
    546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IceCold48 View Post
    It was good defense but it was also a good attempt. If the highlight of the fight is escaping one submission attempt in which he wasn't even able to do anything from the feet besides get knocked out that's pretty indicitive how how badly he was getting beat.




    yes I was kind of exaggerating just because of the fact that the disrespect pisses me off but I do think Anderson Silva proved to be the inferior fighter in every element of MMA in their two fights. he was clearly losing both fights .



    Funny how you leave out that Silva broke his leg because Weidman exposed his poor striking technique and that he was getting beat the entire fight and then got knocked out clowning. Silva himself said the knockout was due to poor technique and not clowning. Weidman essentially proved that Silva is not a good technical striker at all just very powerful and fast with great reflexes.




    That's your boy^^^

    PS Weidman knocked out Silva with his weak hand!!!

    Seriously, you think Anderson is not a good technical striker? You are clearly very biased by your love for Weidman, it's insane to me how agitated you get by people who don't bow to the fact that Weidman destroyed Silva. Everyone has a different opinion man, people just go with their gut, just as you are man... let it ride, you can't change their minds anymore then they can change yours... I personally think Weidman clearly won both fights, but would stop short of it being a domination. But he did destroy that leg AM I RIGHT!? Haha, yeah... I'm right.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rspier View Post
    Seriously, you think Anderson is not a good technical striker? You are clearly very biased by your love for Weidman, it's insane to me how agitated you get by people who don't bow to the fact that Weidman destroyed Silva. Everyone has a different opinion man, people just go with their gut, just as you are man... let it ride, you can't change their minds anymore then they can change yours... I personally think Weidman clearly won both fights, but would stop short of it being a domination. But he did destroy that leg AM I RIGHT!? Haha, yeah... I'm right.
    No I always hated Anderson and thought he was not a good technical striker. I've been Criticized on this forums many times for it. My disdain for Silva and his fans dates back to before Weidman was even in MMA.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IceCold48 View Post
    yes I was kind of exaggerating just because of the fact that the disrespect pisses me off but I do think Anderson Silva proved to be the inferior fighter in every element of MMA in their two fights. he was clearly losing both fights .
    But doesn't that exaggeration make you as bad as the people you despise?

    Silva himself said the knockout was due to poor technique and not clowning.
    I haven't seen that. Do you have a link?
    I've seen where Silva said he was trying his hardest to win, that it was part of his strategy and he wasn't clowning. I haven't seen him admit that it was "poor technique."

    Weidman essentially proved that Silva is not a good technical striker at all just very powerful and fast with great reflexes.
    OK, I'm a huge mark for Weidman, but I don't think he proved that at all.
    I don't think Anderson is "not a good technical striker" either. I do think he uses size to his advantage, and that he'd grown accustomed to being able to pick guys apart with his reach, but I also think he's got excellent technique.

    The concern about the leg kicks with the second fight, where he doesn't turn his hips into the kick was pointed out by Bas, and that can certainly be considered a valid criticism from a reputable source...but it's also been pointed out that with the slapping style of kick that Anderson delivered through the bulk of his career he's able to deliver and recover more quickly and it lends itself more readily to combinations. In that light, I'm not sure that I'd call it poor technique, as much as I'd say he was willing to take risks based on the dividends he felt it would pay--and it paid dividends for the last 8 years for him.

    But I don't think Weidman exposed him as being a poor fighter...I don't even think Anderson was on the decline or had lost a step. I just believe that Weidman is that skilled, and had studied film on Anderson. Chris's whole life was aimed at these fights, he grew up dreaming of facing Anderson, he prepared. And he was simply the better fighter.

    But I don't take away anything from Anderson at all. To do so devalues Weidman's accomplishments.

    Other than not turning his hips into the low kicks, where do you find that Anderson is not a good technical striker?

    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?

+ 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
  •