Posted by Kpro
Maybe a fighter should do his job properly if he expects a ref to do his job properly.
Posted by 40ouncetpkid
Because that's fair?
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment so I'm not even implying the ref `didn't` do his job properly. But yeah, that does sound fair to me. You reap what you sow.
1) If a fighter on the bottom doesn't allow his opponent to mount an offense from full guard (a neutral position), while outstriking him from the bottom, while top opponent makes no attempt to improve position or outwork the fighter on the bottom. The ref calls for the break after the bottom fighter has just attempted the last half dozen strikes. is that not a fair standup?
2) When a fighter stuffs a takedown against the cage and the one who attempted the takedown almost completely stops his workrate against the cage and is unable to, or doesn't attempt to, even grasp his hands around a single leg, let alone the body. Thus leaving a fighter who successfully defended a takedown, also not having to defend any offense from the fighter who failed on the takedown attempt. Is that not a fair break?
3) Obvious early stand-up. Even though he wasn't in a dominant position or attempting to get to one, Anthony was active enough that it should not have been stood up. It'd be hard for anybody who has watched enough MMA to not disagree with this stand-up.
Those are the three breaks, and it all depends on the person. I personally don't like stand-ups as I like to see the fighter work if he can get it there, however when a fighter fails to work, or uses top position as a breather, who am I to armchair quarterback the refs call. If you're staying in full guard (again a `neutral` position), you better be dropping some ground and pound or attempting a pass, not getting outstruck from the bottom and/or using it as a breather.
Some will agree with none, some with all 3, some with 1 or 2. It's all personal opinion and interpretation of the unified rules or bias towards certain styles.
Fact is there were no breaks in this fight where Johnson had a positional advantage or was attempting to get to one when the fight was restarted. Two of the three breaks involved Belfort outworking Anthony leading up to the break, and then the third one that was obviously early. Who am I to criticize a refs judgment when all breaks were in a neutral position, and 2 of the 3 while Belfort was outworking Johnson and at no positional disadvantage?
Long story short, one definitely shouldn't have been a break if we are going by the wording in the unified rules, or at least my interpretation of them. Maybe if that stand-up didn't happen Rumble would've won, unfortunately we'll never know. As a fight fan I wish that last stand-up hadn't happened, it was completely uncalled for. But I don't see it as unfair that Anthony misses weight for the 3rd time by 11 pounds (most in the UFC ever?) after being forced to move up in weight so it wouldn't happen again and he gets a single bad stand-up. Not saying I find the last stand-up right, I'd prefer it hadn't happened. But in the context of Anthony Johnson's inability to do his job description, yes I find it fair. That's karma.
Source for my analysis of the 3 breaks: With the 24 hour free replay on Xbox 360, I've watched the fight a half dozen times.
for not showing bias as a big fan.