Ref Josh Rosenthal Explains Why He Didn't Stop Lesnar-Carwin

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Ref Josh Rosenthal Explains Why He Didn't Stop Lesnar-Carwin
emfleek
7/9/10 2:35:01PM
In the days since Brock Lesnar came back from being absolutely brutalized in the first round of his fight with Shane Carwin to winning the fight in the second, some have questioned whether referee Josh Rosenthal should have ever permitted the fight to get out of the first round, or whether Rosenthal should have stopped the fight and given Carwin a first-round technical knockout win.

LINK
Jackelope
7/9/10 2:39:29PM
I'm not even sure why this has to be explained. The fact that Lesnar was able to answer the bell coherently in Round 2 and then proceed to take the fight to Carwin and finish it completely vindicates Rosenthal.

There are very few people who wanted Carwin to win that fight more than I did. And I still feel this way.
jiujitsufreak74
7/9/10 2:41:34PM

Posted by Jackelope

I'm not even sure why this has to be explained. The fact that Lesnar was able to answer the bell coherently in Round 2 and then proceed to take the fight to Carwin and finish it completely vindicates Rosenthal.

There are very few people who wanted Carwin to win that fight more than I did. And I still feel this way.



+1. Not only was Brock intelligently defending himself the whole time, but he was able to go on and win. that alone is proof that the non-stoppage was justified.
emfleek
7/9/10 2:41:50PM

Posted by Jackelope

I'm not even sure why this has to be explained.



Because no matter how much it *is* explained, there are still a ton of people out their that are so blinded by their own opinion and their hatred towards Brock that they're failing to see what actually happened in the fight.

Blatant anti-nuthuggerism.
bojangalz
7/9/10 3:23:45PM

Posted by emfleek

Because no matter how much it *is* explained, there are still a ton of people out their that are so blinded by their own opinion and their hatred towards Brock that they're failing to see what actually happened in the fight.

Blatant anti-nuthuggerism.



I think it's equal parts of this... And the fact that the average MMA fan is so used to seeing garbage stoppages when guys are gorilla punching the arms of a fallen opponent that they simply expected this fight to be in line with the status quo.

emfleek
7/9/10 3:28:55PM

Posted by bojangalz

And the fact that the average MMA fan is so used to seeing garbage stoppages when guys are gorilla punching the arms of a fallen opponent that they simply expected this fight to be in line with the status quo.




Yep. It's easy to complain about a non-stoppage when you don't like the guy on the receiving end of the punches
D0wnUnd6e6r
7/9/10 3:37:05PM
doesnt even need explaining imo. im with fleek on this one. I personally am not a fan of brock, there's a fine line between not a fan and hating and i'll admit that the line is almost crossed. I always liked carwin, and picked him to win the fight also, and had a lil money on him. the fact that people are still questionning the un-stoppage is beyond me really. Brock never turtled up, never stopped defending himself, maybe not as intelligently as people wouldve liked to see but still pretty good. When the round ended he got up without any kind of wobbling and walked over straight to his corner without a problem. Yes his face was quite smahed up but a f*cked up face doesn't meen a fight has to be stopped. Came out without a problem at the begining of the 2nd and took it straight to shane o' mac. I put this on carwin more than anyone else, if he wanted the fight to be stopped he shouldved pounded on brock with all his might and power before the bell rang, granted he was on him for a good while but as I said previously, didn't give it his all in order for rosenthal to stop it.

That being said, the nuthuggery has to stop at some point. I don't like brock at all, but i'll admit when i'm wrong and i was wrong on that night, Lesnar was the better man.
theruler_
7/9/10 4:01:26PM

Posted by Jackelope

I'm not even sure why this has to be explained. The fact that Lesnar was able to answer the bell coherently in Round 2 and then proceed to take the fight to Carwin and finish it completely vindicates Rosenthal.

There are very few people who wanted Carwin to win that fight more than I did. And I still feel this way.



i like to see the fights allowed to continue in the fashion we saw in that fight. however, i don't think the fact that lesnar answered the bell for round two and won the fight fairly necessarily vindicates rosenthals decision to allow the fight to continue. the rules state that the ref may stop a fight if "a fighter becomes dominant to the point where the opponent is unable to intelligently defend himself". this is an entirely separate issue from how much damage a fighter has taken. so someone with a great chin may be able to survive long periods of sustained damage comfortably while not showing defense of any kind. in that case the fight could still be stopped despite the fighter not being in any serious trouble, according to the rules . that's my take on why an explanation is a good idea.
personally i'd like to see fights in general allowed to continue a little longer.
Giant_Ochai
7/9/10 4:02:14PM
Rosenthal deserves bonus money. One of the best refereeing performances in the history of the sport.
bjj1605
7/9/10 4:20:16PM

Posted by theruler_


Posted by Jackelope

I'm not even sure why this has to be explained. The fact that Lesnar was able to answer the bell coherently in Round 2 and then proceed to take the fight to Carwin and finish it completely vindicates Rosenthal.

There are very few people who wanted Carwin to win that fight more than I did. And I still feel this way.



i like to see the fights allowed to continue in the fashion we saw in that fight. however, i don't think the fact that lesnar answered the bell for round two and won the fight fairly necessarily vindicates rosenthals decision to allow the fight to continue. the rules state that the ref may stop a fight if "a fighter becomes dominant to the point where the opponent is unable to intelligently defend himself". this is an entirely separate issue from how much damage a fighter has taken. so someone with a great chin may be able to survive long periods of sustained damage comfortably while not showing defense of any kind. in that case the fight could still be stopped despite the fighter not being in any serious trouble, according to the rules . that's my take on why an explanation is a good idea.
personally i'd like to see fights in general allowed to continue a little longer.



Then you don't understand the logic behind the statement you're making. It's a clear contradiction. If a fighter wins a fight then it is clear that at every point up until the moment of victory that they were able to defend themselves.

If you break it down and think about it there is really no way to argue here.

The fact that Brock won necessitates the fact that the fight should not have been stopped prior to that point.
Wolf
7/9/10 4:46:39PM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by theruler_


Posted by Jackelope

I'm not even sure why this has to be explained. The fact that Lesnar was able to answer the bell coherently in Round 2 and then proceed to take the fight to Carwin and finish it completely vindicates Rosenthal.

There are very few people who wanted Carwin to win that fight more than I did. And I still feel this way.



i like to see the fights allowed to continue in the fashion we saw in that fight. however, i don't think the fact that lesnar answered the bell for round two and won the fight fairly necessarily vindicates rosenthals decision to allow the fight to continue. the rules state that the ref may stop a fight if "a fighter becomes dominant to the point where the opponent is unable to intelligently defend himself". this is an entirely separate issue from how much damage a fighter has taken. so someone with a great chin may be able to survive long periods of sustained damage comfortably while not showing defense of any kind. in that case the fight could still be stopped despite the fighter not being in any serious trouble, according to the rules . that's my take on why an explanation is a good idea.
personally i'd like to see fights in general allowed to continue a little longer.



Then you don't understand the logic behind the statement you're making. It's a clear contradiction. If a fighter wins a fight then it is clear that at every point up until the moment of victory that they were able to defend themselves.

If you break it down and think about it there is really no way to argue here.

The fact that Brock won necessitates the fact that the fight should not have been stopped prior to that point.



Go back and watch Herring/Nog. Tell me Nog was able to intelligently defend himself. He was KTFO'd. Technically, by the rules, it should have been stopped, but because Herring didn't follow up it wasn't. That allowed Nog to get his senses back and come back and win.
theruler_
7/9/10 4:46:47PM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by theruler_


Posted by Jackelope

I'm not even sure why this has to be explained. The fact that Lesnar was able to answer the bell coherently in Round 2 and then proceed to take the fight to Carwin and finish it completely vindicates Rosenthal.

There are very few people who wanted Carwin to win that fight more than I did. And I still feel this way.



i like to see the fights allowed to continue in the fashion we saw in that fight. however, i don't think the fact that lesnar answered the bell for round two and won the fight fairly necessarily vindicates rosenthals decision to allow the fight to continue. the rules state that the ref may stop a fight if "a fighter becomes dominant to the point where the opponent is unable to intelligently defend himself". this is an entirely separate issue from how much damage a fighter has taken. so someone with a great chin may be able to survive long periods of sustained damage comfortably while not showing defense of any kind. in that case the fight could still be stopped despite the fighter not being in any serious trouble, according to the rules . that's my take on why an explanation is a good idea.
personally i'd like to see fights in general allowed to continue a little longer.



Then you don't understand the logic behind the statement you're making. It's a clear contradiction. If a fighter wins a fight then it is clear that at every point up until the moment of victory that they were able to defend themselves.

If you break it down and think about it there is really no way to argue here.

The fact that Brock won necessitates the fact that the fight should not have been stopped prior to that point.



it's not my logic that should be in question here, believe me lol.
i'll have one more try but if you can't grasp it by now it's probably not going to happen.

if a fighter puts his hands by his waste and allows his opponent to bash him in the face for 5 minutes that is not intelligently defending himself and the fight could/should be stopped. however, if he also has a great chin and doesn't sustain any serious damage from the attack. he is able to continue without any problem.
now, despite the fact that he is okay to continue he was not intelligently defending himself for 5 straight minutes and the ref should have stopped it during the attack.
what happens after that point is irrelevant to the fact that the fighter was not intelligently defending himself, which could or should have led to a stoppage.


BlueSkiesBurn
7/9/10 5:37:31PM
Allow me to chime in with something....

This is subjective, nobody will ever be right. Human "error" (even though I feel there was no error), is a part of the game. It seems to me that people will complain about anything, no matter what. It was stopped too early, it wasn't stopped early enough, they shouldn't have stood them up, they should have stood them up, the list goes on and on...how about this...It was a great fight, probably the best HW title match we've seen in a very long time. As long as Carwin keeps winning, there WILL be a rematch. Let it go.
BigIP
7/9/10 7:39:37PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Allow me to chime in with something....

This is subjective, nobody will ever be right. Human "error" (even though I feel there was no error), is a part of the game. It seems to me that people will complain about anything, no matter what. It was stopped too early, it wasn't stopped early enough, they shouldn't have stood them up, they should have stood them up, the list goes on and on...how about this...It was a great fight, probably the best HW title match we've seen in a very long time. As long as Carwin keeps winning, there WILL be a rematch. Let it go.



Carwin is already 35 and according to Machida's father at the age when a fighters ability starts to decline. This may have been his last shot at the title. That I think is a bitter pill for some people to swallow.
theruler_
7/9/10 8:35:01PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Allow me to chime in with something....

This is subjective, nobody will ever be right. Human "error" (even though I feel there was no error), is a part of the game. It seems to me that people will complain about anything, no matter what. It was stopped too early, it wasn't stopped early enough, they shouldn't have stood them up, they should have stood them up, the list goes on and on...how about this...It was a great fight, probably the best HW title match we've seen in a very long time. As long as Carwin keeps winning, there WILL be a rematch. Let it go.



absolutely true. there is no right or wrong in many decisions that are made during a fight as they are left up to the referees discretion. i was happy with the call to let the fight continue also. the only real issue is consistency, but i would prefer that this be the benchmark as opposed to a stoppage in the same situation.
i just think it's important that people can differentiate between the physical act of intelligently defending oneself vs the ability to take punishment and continue. these are independent of each other.
bjj1605
7/10/10 1:33:35AM

it's not my logic that should be in question here, believe me lol. i'll have one more try but if you can't grasp it by now it's probably not going to happen. if a fighter puts his hands by his waste and allows his opponent to bash him in the face for 5 minutes that is not intelligently defending himself and the fight could/should be stopped. however, if he also has a great chin and doesn't sustain any serious damage from the attack. he is able to continue without any problem. now, despite the fact that he is okay to continue he was not intelligently defending himself for 5 straight minutes and the ref should have stopped it during the attack. what happens after that point is irrelevant to the fact that the fighter was not intelligently defending himself, which could or should have led to a stoppage.


I'm not going to keep arguing this with you either. It has nothing to do with my or your opinion on the fight. This is the last time I'll try to explain it.

Intelligent:
–adjective
1.
having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals: an intelligent student.
2.
displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment: an intelligent reply.
3.
having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence: intelligent beings in outer space.
4.
Computers . pertaining to the ability to do data processing locally; smart: An intelligent terminal can edit input before transmission to a host computer. Compare dumb ( def. 8 ) .
5.
Archaic . having understanding or knowledge (usually fol. by of ).

Defense: –noun
1.
resistance against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.
2.
something that defends, as a fortification, physical or mental quality, or medication: This fort was once the main defense of the island.
3.
the defending of a cause or the like by speech, argument, etc.: He spoke in defense of the nation's foreign policy.
4.
a speech, argument, etc., in vindication: She delivered a defense of free enterprise.

Sports .
a.
the practice or art of defending oneself or one's goal against attack, as in fencing, boxing, soccer, or football.


If you look at what the term you are using means and then look at the statement you are making it is a logical contradiction. I'm a Political Science Major now but my original field of study was Philosophy. I've taken several logic classes (the actual science and study of logic, as in the Language of Logic). If Lesnar was not intelligently defending himself then the fight would've been stopped. Because if he was not intelligently defending himself Shane Carwin would have been able to finish the fight (this is clear by the mere definition of the term). Therefore, the fact that he won the fight, or hell even the fact that he survived and stood up with over a minute left, LOGICALLY PROVES AND NECESSITATES that he was intelligently defending himself at every point in the fight prior to the time he stood up or won the fight.



Allow me to chime in with something.... This is subjective, nobody will ever be right. Human "error" (even though I feel there was no error), is a part of the game. It seems to me that people will complain about anything, no matter what. It was stopped too early, it wasn't stopped early enough, they shouldn't have stood them up, they should have stood them up, the list goes on and on...how about this...It was a great fight, probably the best HW title match we've seen in a very long time. As long as Carwin keeps winning, there WILL be a rematch. Let it go.


I absolutely agree with what you're saying and the general point you're making. However, it is an invalid argument in this case.

What I am discussing has nothing to do with opinion and is not therefore subjective.

People have come to believe that the words "logic" and "common sense" are synonymous. I am not using them in that way. I am using logic in the correct sense. It is a science of sorts (if a neglected one in our age and culture) that I believe can reveal truths about our lives that we might other wise miss because we are blinded by subjectivity.

This is one of those cases. Whether or not you believe that the fight should have been stopped is irrelevant. The science of logic can prove you wrong and determine a definite answer.

edit: Removed the legal terminology from the definition of defense to shorten my post.
theruler_
7/10/10 1:43:55AM


one more chance for you to graduate.

the unified rules of mma definition;

“Intelligent Defense”: An active defense that effectively neutralizes an opponent’s attack, particularly when the defender is mounted, either from the front or the back. An intelligent defense minimizes the potential for damage while providing the opportunity for taking back the offense.

any time the referee deems this not to be happening the fight can be stopped regardless of fighters physical condition or his ability to continue fighting.

what would daniel dennett say about your floored logic
BigBadAl
7/10/10 7:51:45AM

Posted by theruler_


Posted by bjj1605


Posted by theruler_


Posted by Jackelope

I'm not even sure why this has to be explained. The fact that Lesnar was able to answer the bell coherently in Round 2 and then proceed to take the fight to Carwin and finish it completely vindicates Rosenthal.

There are very few people who wanted Carwin to win that fight more than I did. And I still feel this way.



i like to see the fights allowed to continue in the fashion we saw in that fight. however, i don't think the fact that lesnar answered the bell for round two and won the fight fairly necessarily vindicates rosenthals decision to allow the fight to continue. the rules state that the ref may stop a fight if "a fighter becomes dominant to the point where the opponent is unable to intelligently defend himself". this is an entirely separate issue from how much damage a fighter has taken. so someone with a great chin may be able to survive long periods of sustained damage comfortably while not showing defense of any kind. in that case the fight could still be stopped despite the fighter not being in any serious trouble, according to the rules . that's my take on why an explanation is a good idea.
personally i'd like to see fights in general allowed to continue a little longer.



Then you don't understand the logic behind the statement you're making. It's a clear contradiction. If a fighter wins a fight then it is clear that at every point up until the moment of victory that they were able to defend themselves.

If you break it down and think about it there is really no way to argue here.

The fact that Brock won necessitates the fact that the fight should not have been stopped prior to that point.



it's not my logic that should be in question here, believe me lol.
i'll have one more try but if you can't grasp it by now it's probably not going to happen.

if a fighter puts his hands by his waste and allows his opponent to bash him in the face for 5 minutes that is not intelligently defending himself and the fight could/should be stopped. however, if he also has a great chin and doesn't sustain any serious damage from the attack. he is able to continue without any problem.





I'm sure I've seen Leben do that before
BlueSkiesBurn
7/10/10 9:15:03AM
It is subjective. Saying that someone is intelligent, in ANY fashion, is a subjective opinion. I agree that he was intelligently defending himself, but you're wrong about this not being a subjective subject. The simple fact that you think he WAS, and others think he WASN'T, makes it subjective.
Aether
7/10/10 11:04:43AM
I picked Carwin, I would probably pick him in a rematch as well, and I think Rosenthal made a good call.

Shane needed to calm down and pick his shots, work the body to open up the head etc. because for the most part he was just going donkey kong on Brock's arms as he covered up and blowing all of his energy.
telnights
7/10/10 4:06:34PM
Rosenthal shouldn't have to explain anything. I picked Carwin to win and I thought the ref did a great job of not stopping the fight. Lesnar was doing what he needed to do. It might not have been the best defense we ever have seen but it worked for him. Carwin made the mistake not thinking about his shots and just going for the finish. Now I don't think it was Lesnar's game plan but it ended up working for him to let Carwin punch himself out.
bjj1605
7/10/10 4:34:30PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It is subjective. Saying that someone is intelligent, in ANY fashion, is a subjective opinion. I agree that he was intelligently defending himself, but you're wrong about this not being a subjective subject. The simple fact that you think he WAS, and others think he WASN'T, makes it subjective.



I can see the concept is lost on you guys. Logic is sort of a dead science, as most of philosophy is. But what I'm saying isn't that people don't have different opinions, it's that by using logic you can determine a definitive right and wrong.

The dude keeps responding to my comments with the same sort of thing and fails to understand the implications of his statements.

edit: you know what? I said I was done trying to explain this to him but you're a poster I respect a lot so I'll try and explain it to you once more.

Logic does not mean common sense. Logic is a science. In a logic class you have equations. These equations have right and wrong answers. On tests you will be given a situation in English which you then have to translate into a logical equation (the simplest of these being if A then B situations, but they get far more complex such as symbolic logic and many forms of predicate logic).

If you put his statement into a logical equation you end up with a logical contradiction. An "invalid argument" they call it in logic, or more simply a false statement.

What he is trying to say is if not C than B, but A if not C. The logically correct way to form the statement would be If C than A, and if not C than B.

A- Fighter wins
B- Fighter Losses
C- Intelligent defense
BlueSkiesBurn
7/11/10 1:59:18PM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It is subjective. Saying that someone is intelligent, in ANY fashion, is a subjective opinion. I agree that he was intelligently defending himself, but you're wrong about this not being a subjective subject. The simple fact that you think he WAS, and others think he WASN'T, makes it subjective.



I can see the concept is lost on you guys. Logic is sort of a dead science, as most of philosophy is. But what I'm saying isn't that people don't have different opinions, it's that by using logic you can determine a definitive right and wrong.

The dude keeps responding to my comments with the same sort of thing and fails to understand the implications of his statements.

edit: you know what? I said I was done trying to explain this to him but you're a poster I respect a lot so I'll try and explain it to you once more.

Logic does not mean common sense. Logic is a science. In a logic class you have equations. These equations have right and wrong answers. On tests you will be given a situation in English which you then have to translate into a logical equation (the simplest of these being if A then B situations, but they get far more complex such as symbolic logic and many forms of predicate logic).

If you put his statement into a logical equation you end up with a logical contradiction. An "invalid argument" they call it in logic, or more simply a false statement.

What he is trying to say is if not C than B, but A if not C. The logically correct way to form the statement would be If C than A, and if not C than B.

A- Fighter wins
B- Fighter Losses
C- Intelligent defense



You and I are on the same page. I believe he was intelligently defending himself and I see your problem with the way that he's structuring his argument. I am saying, however, this topic lends itself toward the subjective category just in its very nature. Logically, rationally, and normally, you would be/are right. HOWEVER, people are not logical, rational, or normal. What should be, in this case, is not what is. Everything you're saying is correct....there's just one problem, we're trying to talk to human beings. They see things in their own way and, for the most part, will not back off of the way they saw it.

What I am trying to get at is this...human beings, for the most part, are irrational creatures. They do things they ought not, they think things that are irrational and frustrating, and they argue points that have no business being argued. The simple fact that you're even having to explain rudimentary logic to another human shows the subjective nature of this topic.

I am not saying it SHOULD be subjective, or that, logically, it IS subjective...I am just accounting for "human error." It's a fallacy, I know, but human beings are walking contradictions.
bjj1605
7/11/10 2:19:00PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by bjj1605


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It is subjective. Saying that someone is intelligent, in ANY fashion, is a subjective opinion. I agree that he was intelligently defending himself, but you're wrong about this not being a subjective subject. The simple fact that you think he WAS, and others think he WASN'T, makes it subjective.



I can see the concept is lost on you guys. Logic is sort of a dead science, as most of philosophy is. But what I'm saying isn't that people don't have different opinions, it's that by using logic you can determine a definitive right and wrong.

The dude keeps responding to my comments with the same sort of thing and fails to understand the implications of his statements.

edit: you know what? I said I was done trying to explain this to him but you're a poster I respect a lot so I'll try and explain it to you once more.

Logic does not mean common sense. Logic is a science. In a logic class you have equations. These equations have right and wrong answers. On tests you will be given a situation in English which you then have to translate into a logical equation (the simplest of these being if A then B situations, but they get far more complex such as symbolic logic and many forms of predicate logic).

If you put his statement into a logical equation you end up with a logical contradiction. An "invalid argument" they call it in logic, or more simply a false statement.

What he is trying to say is if not C than B, but A if not C. The logically correct way to form the statement would be If C than A, and if not C than B.

A- Fighter wins
B- Fighter Losses
C- Intelligent defense



You and I are on the same page. I believe he was intelligently defending himself and I see your problem with the way that he's structuring his argument. I am saying, however, this topic lends itself toward the subjective category just in its very nature. Logically, rationally, and normally, you would be/are right. HOWEVER, people are not logical, rational, or normal. What should be, in this case, is not what is. Everything you're saying is correct....there's just one problem, we're trying to talk to human beings. They see things in their own way and, for the most part, will not back off of the way they saw it.

What I am trying to get at is this...human beings, for the most part, are irrational creatures. They do things they ought not, they think things that are irrational and frustrating, and they argue points that have no business being argued. The simple fact that you're even having to explain rudimentary logic to another human shows the subjective nature of this topic.

I am not saying it SHOULD be subjective, or that, logically, it IS subjective...I am just accounting for "human error." It's a fallacy, I know, but human beings are walking contradictions.



That's actually a perfect response. The reason logic never caught on the way other mathematics and sciences do is because people don't like the results it often produces and refuse to accept them.

For most people they can't take opinion out of the equation. It's one of the most frustrating parts of studying logic. They can take what you though was a self evident truth and prove it false.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/11/10 7:09:12PM
Haha, I sort of look at it like this...my roommate, being completely awesome, saw a USC bedset and called me and asked if I wanted it. Naturally, I said hell yeah. She opened the bed set, of which there were two remaining, and found a snag in one of the pillowcases. That being said, she didn't purchase me the bedset. I didn't think much of it until we began discussing it when she got home. I found out one bedset was a twin and the other was a queen. The snag on the pillowcase happened to be on the one that I needed, which was the queen. My immediate question to her was, why didn't you just take the twin bedset's pillowcase out and swap it for the ruined queen set's.

She looked like I hit her in the face with a ton of bricks when I asked her this question. She said "I guess that would have made too much sense." The simplest explanation to resolving her problems wasn't even one that she thought of or considered. It was TOO simple. We had a laugh about it, but at the end of the day, I don't have my USC bedset.
Related Topics