Gabriel Gonzaga to challenge ruling on fight with Travis Browne

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Gabriel Gonzaga to challenge ruling on fight with Travis Browne
Next Page »
FastKnockout
4/14/13 9:37:45PM
Gonzaga gave up a TKO Loss to Browne after a series of elbows that put him into unconsciousness. Gabriel's team now intends to challenge the conclusion, arguing that the fight ending blows landed illegally.

Link
george112
4/14/13 9:41:48PM
for some reason, i feel like he might actually get it over turned
FastKnockout
4/14/13 9:48:32PM

Posted by george112

for some reason, i feel like he might actually get it over turned



Hope not. Those elbows were legal except for one. Big John thought so too.
jae_1833
4/14/13 11:05:52PM
When I watched it I thought there was going to be a controversy too...let them rematch at worst.
Shawn91111
4/14/13 11:10:10PM
Meh no different than when a fighter is out via punches and gets a few to the back of the head in the process of slumping/ turning over etc.
Playground_Samurai
4/14/13 11:41:59PM
Here's a pretty good slow motion replay of the shots.
tcunningham
4/14/13 11:56:34PM

Posted by Playground_Samurai

Here's a pretty good slow motion replay of the shots.



after watching that video it does look like they were in the back of the head. im not 100% sure on the details of "12-to-6" elbow rule, but that last elbow looked like it came almost straight down. i didn't think it was controversial when it happened but not i think gonzaga has a case to get it overturned. i guess we'll wait and see. i think brown has a much brighter future in the ufc than gonzaga
Budgellism
4/15/13 12:52:19AM
I counted 1, maybe 2 in total but the ones that initially put him out seemed pretty legal to me.
FastKnockout
4/15/13 12:55:58AM

Posted by Playground_Samurai

Here's a pretty good slow motion replay of the shots.



The elbows in the video are only the last two elbows thrown. There are 2-3 before that point. The guy says the one to back of the head was the one to put him out but it wasn't. The last elbow was to the back of the neck, which I'm not sure is illegal or not. Either way though, he was out before the final two.
FlashyG
4/15/13 1:59:27AM
I think its pretty clear that at least some of those elbows are illegally hitting him int he back of the head (the Back of the neck is off limits as well)

I don't think they were 12-6 elbows though and I can't tell if it was an illegal elbow that ultimately knocked Gonzaga out.

To me this reminds me of Cote vs Sakara, except the referee made the opposite call this time. Who knows if it will be overturned but I'm glad I got the 11 pts.
Tyzzler
4/15/13 2:33:26AM

Posted by Shawn91111

Meh no different than when a fighter is out via punches and gets a few to the back of the head in the process of slumping/ turning over etc.



Actually it makes a HUUUUGE difference in my opinion. I haven't rewatched this particular fight to see how many (or if any) were illegal, so won't go one way or another on this particular occasion.
However, in general I think it makes a huge difference for the 1, sole reason that "comebacks" are even possible. Think of ANY fight, ever, where a particular fighter seemed to be completely 100% out, yet the ref let it continue & that fighter came back to win. Just a recent example off the top of my head is Kongo vs Pat Barry...Kongo looked out, so you're saying if there had been a few (OR EVEN 1) shot to the back of the head that made ALL THE DIFFERENCE in him, subsequently, reaching a state of unconsciousness, that it would be of absolutely no consequence...since he was "already out & done anyway" (as we, the public may have seen it)??

.....EDIT TO SAY.....
In a fight that ends via KO because of a gnp onslaught, it is practically impossible to pinpoint the ONE SINGLE SHOT that put the opposing fighter out, so if there are 99 completely legitimate strikes & 1 illegal, there's still a chance that the illegal shot made all the difference & can subsequently be argued that the losing fighter, in the absence of that illegality, could/would have come back & racked up the W.
tattflash
4/15/13 4:42:43AM
There was one illegal blow after Gonzaga was already out,and there was no way he would of been allowed to carry on like Kongo was as he was limp, so it would of made no difference to the outcome of the fight. He should take his loss like a man instead of moaning after the event
aussiemma
4/15/13 6:15:22AM

Posted by Shawn91111

Meh no different than when a fighter is out via punches and gets a few to the back of the head in the process of slumping/ turning over etc.



if gonzaga gets his decision overturned i want my av bet overturned.
BeeR
4/15/13 6:16:26AM
I saw 1 land as the fight was being stopped, and 1 after.
challenge denied.

Shawn91111
4/15/13 9:04:35AM

Posted by Tyzzler


Posted by Shawn91111

Meh no different than when a fighter is out via punches and gets a few to the back of the head in the process of slumping/ turning over etc.



Actually it makes a HUUUUGE difference in my opinion. I haven't rewatched this particular fight to see how many (or if any) were illegal, so won't go one way or another on this particular occasion.
However, in general I think it makes a huge difference for the 1, sole reason that "comebacks" are even possible. Think of ANY fight, ever, where a particular fighter seemed to be completely 100% out, yet the ref let it continue & that fighter came back to win. Just a recent example off the top of my head is Kongo vs Pat Barry...Kongo looked out, so you're saying if there had been a few (OR EVEN 1) shot to the back of the head that made ALL THE DIFFERENCE in him, subsequently, reaching a state of unconsciousness, that it would be of absolutely no consequence...since he was "already out & done anyway" (as we, the public may have seen it)??

.....EDIT TO SAY.....
In a fight that ends via KO because of a gnp onslaught, it is practically impossible to pinpoint the ONE SINGLE SHOT that put the opposing fighter out, so if there are 99 completely legitimate strikes & 1 illegal, there's still a chance that the illegal shot made all the difference & can subsequently be argued that the losing fighter, in the absence of that illegality, could/would have come back & racked up the W.




The hell are you rambling on about
Goatenstein
4/15/13 9:39:43AM

Posted by Tyzzler


Posted by Shawn91111

Meh no different than when a fighter is out via punches and gets a few to the back of the head in the process of slumping/ turning over etc.



Actually it makes a HUUUUGE difference in my opinion. I haven't rewatched this particular fight to see how many (or if any) were illegal, so won't go one way or another on this particular occasion.
However, in general I think it makes a huge difference for the 1, sole reason that "comebacks" are even possible. Think of ANY fight, ever, where a particular fighter seemed to be completely 100% out, yet the ref let it continue & that fighter came back to win. Just a recent example off the top of my head is Kongo vs Pat Barry...Kongo looked out, so you're saying if there had been a few (OR EVEN 1) shot to the back of the head that made ALL THE DIFFERENCE in him, subsequently, reaching a state of unconsciousness, that it would be of absolutely no consequence...since he was "already out & done anyway" (as we, the public may have seen it)??

.....EDIT TO SAY.....
In a fight that ends via KO because of a gnp onslaught, it is practically impossible to pinpoint the ONE SINGLE SHOT that put the opposing fighter out, so if there are 99 completely legitimate strikes & 1 illegal, there's still a chance that the illegal shot made all the difference & can subsequently be argued that the losing fighter, in the absence of that illegality, could/would have come back & racked up the W.

Pretty easy to pinpoint one shot a lot of the time.
BillsNewAccount
4/15/13 10:41:57AM
Mohawk rule Brown is safe. Headphones rule he might be in a little trouble.

Personally I think both the back of the head and 12-6 rule should be abolished.
airkerma
4/15/13 10:52:59AM

Posted by BillsNewAccount

Mohawk rule Brown is safe. Headphones rule he might be in a little trouble.

Personally I think both the back of the head and 12-6 rule should be abolished.


I would like knees to not so grounded opponents legalized and possibly the 12-6, but allowing donkey punches has always been considered too dangerous. Spinal injuries are no joke.
Bubbles
4/15/13 11:26:45AM
I counted 3 illegal elbows (the last 3 he threw) every time the replay was shown. This should get overturned
kopower
4/15/13 11:41:14AM

Posted by Budgellism

I counted 1, maybe 2 in total but the ones that initially put him out seemed pretty legal to me.



This
Theoutlaw08
4/15/13 12:12:49PM
He was hit in the back of the head for sure. It should be over turned to a no contest, only because I dont think they will over turn it to a DQ.
He may have hit him with clean shots first that did the damage, but the ones to the back make a huge difference. Same thing happen when Jones fought Hamil and dropped one illegal elbow, he was pretty much done from the clean shots, but it was the one or two illegal shots that finished it. Should be overturned to a NC.
george112
4/15/13 12:15:42PM
i think it should be overturned as well and i wanted browne to win. but that just didnt seem fair
Svartorm
4/15/13 12:16:37PM

Posted by Bubbles

I counted 3 illegal elbows (the last 3 he threw) every time the replay was shown. This should get overturned



Same here. I counted six all together. 3 fair, 1 directly to the back of the head, which is the one that dropped him, and 2 12-6.
Manak
4/15/13 2:24:28PM
the whole he was already out argument so illegal strikes are whatever is very bad argument agreement in my view. so just because he is out is he allowed to just drop a knee in his crouch and be like so what he was already out so I can do whatever now. there are rules for a reason and guy already concussed could face serious life threating injury with a blow to the back of the head. just cause you have a the guy closes to being finished and are going for the kill does not mean you get to get away with illegal shots because it was an accident. these are professional athletes, every sport has rules and you do not get a pass because you were in the heat of the moment otherwise what is the point of rules.

now back to the actual fight I think it should be turned into a NC if it is proven that there were multiple illegal shots with a rematch.
BillsNewAccount
4/15/13 3:53:05PM

Posted by Manak

the whole he was already out argument so illegal strikes are whatever is very bad argument agreement in my view. so just because he is out is he allowed to just drop a knee in his crouch and be like so what he was already out so I can do whatever now. there are rules for a reason and guy already concussed could face serious life threating injury with a blow to the back of the head. just cause you have a the guy closes to being finished and are going for the kill does not mean you get to get away with illegal shots because it was an accident. these are professional athletes, every sport has rules and you do not get a pass because you were in the heat of the moment otherwise what is the point of rules.

now back to the actual fight I think it should be turned into a NC if it is proven that there were multiple illegal shots with a rematch.



You got it all wrong homie. If I hit a last minute 3 point shot to win a basketball game and then I kick the guy who was guarding me in the balls, I'll get fined for the ball kick but the win should stand because the infraction happened after the game was over. Same principle here.
bjj1605
4/15/13 3:56:53PM
I think he still pretty clearly had his balance and was working for a takedown prior to the illegal blows. The other shots were doing damage, sure, but Gonzaga was still in the fight prior to the spinal shot.

I got ambushed and punched in the back of the head once. Very disorienting. Those need to stay illegal.

I think if it weren't for that shot Gonzaga would have remained in the fight. It shouldn't be a DQ since the shots were accidental but this should be a no-contest.
Sir_Karl
4/15/13 6:37:04PM
The two most devastating blows were illegal blows to the back of the head. It should be ruled a NC or a DQ.
Bubbles
4/15/13 8:19:18PM
definitely agree it should be changed to a NC, not necessarily a DQ
frizzzlecake
4/16/13 2:25:07AM
If this is overturned, I've lost all respect for the athletic commission.

Do you see baseball overturn every close call? To me this was legal, the ref didn't stop or even warn Browne(at least I don't remember a warning), so why should he be penalized?

Hell even Golfer's who cheat are more protected then MMA fighter's doing there job.

That's just me though.



Imagine all the travels in the NBA we could catch with slow mo..........
Bubbles
4/16/13 9:09:02AM

Posted by frizzzlecake

If this is overturned, I've lost all respect for the athletic commission.

Do you see baseball overturn every close call? To me this was legal, the ref didn't stop or even warn Browne(at least I don't remember a warning), so why should he be penalized?

Hell even Golfer's who cheat are more protected then MMA fighter's doing there job.

That's just me though.



Imagine all the travels in the NBA we could catch with slow mo..........


except that fighters' careers basically hang in the balance every single fight. Baseball players and other athletes in their sports have guaranteed money even if they get injured.

In MMA, you don't fight you don't get paid. In other sports you still get paid while on the DL or IR. Other sports have a defined length of game in a defined season where one play ultimately does not affect the outcome of the season. One non-travel call or one blown strike very rarely changes the outcome of the game, let alone where the team finishes in the standings. If each game was 2 quarters or 3 innings or 2 periods, then your argument would be stronger.

In MMA, a couple illegal blows can greatly hinder and effect the outcome of that fight and will change their career path. GG is now that much further away from a title contenders fight and might be one KO away from being cut again. You can't say that about Tony Romo if he throws 3 picks in back to back games.

If you are referring to the 2-stroke penalty Tiger had at the masters, under the rules he could not get disqualified as the committee had initially deemed it legal before further review. Had that initial ruling not been made, there would not have been a Tiger Woods shot on the weekend. How many times to we see fence grabbing or nut shots and no points are deducted?
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics