Rogan and Yamasaki

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Rogan and Yamasaki
« Previous Page | Next Page »
Kpro
1/16/12 1:13:04AM
ohhhhh, I see what you did there Kpro. Jump in on both sides of the argument. Can't fool me.
Poor_Franklin
1/16/12 2:59:39AM
i just think the ref shouldnt be questioned until all the fights are done. not saying he shouldnt be asked after. he should be forced to explain it. no replay to help him. he HAD to make a call.

i thinking questioning him might make him second guess the next fight he refs. that's my only reasoning.
warglory
1/16/12 10:37:42AM

Posted by Aether


Your logic is so badly flawed, man. Every comparison you make lacks any logical foundation. A fighter lay and praying is not comparable to a referee making the wrong call. Lay and praying is one valid method of winning a fight, it is not contrary to the fighter's job description. A ref making a bad call is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he is being paid to do. The fighter is being paid to fight, lay and praying is a style of fighting, a ref is being paid to enforce the rules correctly, enforcing the rules incorrectly is not a valid method of enforcing the rules correctly. Do you not see how your comparisons are not relevant? The context is so dramatically different that the one thing that is similar no longer has the same meaning.



Wow, that's a strawman if I'd ever read one. You assume that Yamasaki made the wrong call, but that's completely based on your perception. By making my comparison out to be incorrect because, based on the assumed fact that Yamasaki made the wrong call, is fallacious. My point is quite clear, Rogan can have an adverse opinion to the ref, just as hr\e can to the style of a fighter, but he is not a ref, nor is he a fighter, so calling out either to their face based on their respective performance is wholly unprofessional. My comparison is apt.



warglory
1/16/12 10:41:20AM

Posted by Geoffo

Rogan is no BS. Everyone knows Silva won the fight.
Shit call for Yamasaki, even if there were blows to the head, Yamasaki should have stopped it mid-fight and gave Silva a warning.

The thing that bothers me most is that... Blows to the head weren't the deciding factor to ending the fight. Silva knee'd that mofo hard as hell.



It doesn't matter the end result of the outcome, the point is the downed fighter clearly could not continue, and Silva landed foul shots in the same instance. We don't know how much consulting Yamasaki did at the end of the fight with Prater and the medical staff, because it wasn't discussed on air, or shown. You are making baseless assumptions here.
grappler0000
1/16/12 10:46:29AM

Posted by warglory


Posted by Geoffo

Rogan is no BS. Everyone knows Silva won the fight.
Shit call for Yamasaki, even if there were blows to the head, Yamasaki should have stopped it mid-fight and gave Silva a warning.

The thing that bothers me most is that... Blows to the head weren't the deciding factor to ending the fight. Silva knee'd that mofo hard as hell.



It doesn't matter the end result of the outcome, the point is the downed fighter clearly could not continue, and Silva landed foul shots in the same instance. We don't know how much consulting Yamasaki did at the end of the fight with Prater and the medical staff, because it wasn't discussed on air, or shown. You are making baseless assumptions here.



We actually do know...not enough.
warglory
1/16/12 10:49:27AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by warglory


Posted by Geoffo

Rogan is no BS. Everyone knows Silva won the fight.
Shit call for Yamasaki, even if there were blows to the head, Yamasaki should have stopped it mid-fight and gave Silva a warning.

The thing that bothers me most is that... Blows to the head weren't the deciding factor to ending the fight. Silva knee'd that mofo hard as hell.



It doesn't matter the end result of the outcome, the point is the downed fighter clearly could not continue, and Silva landed foul shots in the same instance. We don't know how much consulting Yamasaki did at the end of the fight with Prater and the medical staff, because it wasn't discussed on air, or shown. You are making baseless assumptions here.



We actually do know...not enough.



Do you have evidence of this?
grappler0000
1/16/12 10:56:25AM

Posted by warglory

My point is quite clear, Rogan can have an adverse opinion to the ref, just as hr\e can to the style of a fighter, but he is not a ref, nor is he a fighter, so calling out either to their face based on their respective performance is wholly unprofessional. My comparison is apt.




I don't know what you said previously, as I didn't read all of your statements, but you don't need to be a ref or a fighter to be able to read a set of rules and understand due diligence. Just sayin'.

Oh, and by the same logic, if he were to have questioned Paul Daley about his actions after the Kosheck fight, Joe would also have been unprofessional in that situation, since he is not a fighter. You don't always need to have studied a particular trade or profession to realize when someone f*cked up. Sometimes, it's pretty obvious when the f*ckup is big enough.
grappler0000
1/16/12 11:04:05AM

Posted by warglory


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by warglory


Posted by Geoffo

Rogan is no BS. Everyone knows Silva won the fight.
Shit call for Yamasaki, even if there were blows to the head, Yamasaki should have stopped it mid-fight and gave Silva a warning.

The thing that bothers me most is that... Blows to the head weren't the deciding factor to ending the fight. Silva knee'd that mofo hard as hell.



It doesn't matter the end result of the outcome, the point is the downed fighter clearly could not continue, and Silva landed foul shots in the same instance. We don't know how much consulting Yamasaki did at the end of the fight with Prater and the medical staff, because it wasn't discussed on air, or shown. You are making baseless assumptions here.



We actually do know...not enough.



Do you have evidence of this?



Yes. Prater wasn't able to continue as a result of an injury not related to the strikes to the head. For a disqualification to even be considered, the injury would have to be a result of illegal strikes. Therefore, Mario did not follow the rules/protocol. This isn't rocket surgery.
warglory
1/16/12 11:05:36AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by warglory

My point is quite clear, Rogan can have an adverse opinion to the ref, just as hr\e can to the style of a fighter, but he is not a ref, nor is he a fighter, so calling out either to their face based on their respective performance is wholly unprofessional. My comparison is apt.




I don't know what you said previously, as I didn't read all of your statements, but you don't need to be a ref or a fighter to be able to read a set of rules and understand due diligence. Just sayin'.

Oh, and by the same logic, if he were to have questioned Paul Daley about his actions after the Kosheck fight, Joe would also have been unprofessional in that situation, since he is not a fighter. You don't always need to have studied a particular trade or profession to realize when someone f*cked up. Sometimes, it's pretty obvious when the f*ckup is big enough.



You can read up all you want, but it doesn't matter until you're in the cage making split second decisions. In a nutshell, you're not a ref.

It's not part of Paul Daley's job to blatantly punch people after the bell, so I'm not sure how that is the same as Rogan interviewing a fighter about a bad performance while on the clock.
warglory
1/16/12 11:18:13AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by warglory


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by warglory


Posted by Geoffo

Rogan is no BS. Everyone knows Silva won the fight.
Shit call for Yamasaki, even if there were blows to the head, Yamasaki should have stopped it mid-fight and gave Silva a warning.

The thing that bothers me most is that... Blows to the head weren't the deciding factor to ending the fight. Silva knee'd that mofo hard as hell.



It doesn't matter the end result of the outcome, the point is the downed fighter clearly could not continue, and Silva landed foul shots in the same instance. We don't know how much consulting Yamasaki did at the end of the fight with Prater and the medical staff, because it wasn't discussed on air, or shown. You are making baseless assumptions here.



We actually do know...not enough.



Do you have evidence of this?



Yes. Prater wasn't able to continue as a result of an injury not related to the strikes to the head. For a disqualification to even be considered, the injury would have to be a result of illegal strikes. Therefore, Mario did not follow the rules/protocol. This isn't rocket surgery.



That's not true. If a foul is recognized and the offending fighter is penalized, the doc has to deem the fighter worthy to continue, and the fight must immediately start again. Unlike groin strikes, there is no 5 minute stop in action, therefore if a fighter is unable to continue, the fight is over.

Now, whether or not this should be a DQ or a no contest, I think that is totally up for a healthy discussion, but I don't think there's conclusive enough proof that it should be considered a no contest, since there was fouling involved right after the knee strike.

"For a foul other than a low blow, the fouled fighter is not guaranteed 5 minutes of recovery time. If deemed not fit to continue by the referee or ringside physician, the referee must immediately call a halt to the bout. If the fighter is deemed not fit to continue by the referee or ringside physician but some of the five minute foul time is still remaining, the fighter cannot avail himself of the remaining time."

http://www.abcboxing.com/unified_mma_rules.html
grappler0000
1/16/12 11:26:11AM

Posted by warglory

That's not true. If a foul is recognized and the offending fighter is penalized, the doc has to deem the fighter worthy to continue, and the fight must immediately start again. Unlike groin strikes, there is no 5 minute stop in action, therefore if a fighter is unable to continue, the fight is over.

Now, whether or not this should be a DQ or a no contest, I think that is totally up for a healthy discussion.

"For a foul other than a low blow, the fouled fighter is not guaranteed 5 minutes of recovery time. If deemed not fit to continue by the referee or ringside physician, the referee must immediately call a halt to the bout. If the fighter is deemed not fit to continue by the referee or ringside physician but some of the five minute foul time is still remaining, the fighter cannot avail himself of the remaining time."

http://www.abcboxing.com/unified_mma_rules.html



It doesn't seem that you understand the rules completely. There can be up to a 5 minute stop in action for any foul. The difference with a groin shot is that the 5 minutes is totally at the discretion of the fighter, whereas all other fouls are at the discretion of the referee/doctor.

And still the debate between DQ and NC assumes that the reason for stoppage is illegal strikes. Again due diligence was not performed by Yamasaki. That doesn't change.
warglory
1/16/12 11:32:34AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by warglory

That's not true. If a foul is recognized and the offending fighter is penalized, the doc has to deem the fighter worthy to continue, and the fight must immediately start again. Unlike groin strikes, there is no 5 minute stop in action, therefore if a fighter is unable to continue, the fight is over.

Now, whether or not this should be a DQ or a no contest, I think that is totally up for a healthy discussion.

"For a foul other than a low blow, the fouled fighter is not guaranteed 5 minutes of recovery time. If deemed not fit to continue by the referee or ringside physician, the referee must immediately call a halt to the bout. If the fighter is deemed not fit to continue by the referee or ringside physician but some of the five minute foul time is still remaining, the fighter cannot avail himself of the remaining time."

http://www.abcboxing.com/unified_mma_rules.html



It doesn't seem that you understand the rules completely. There can be up to a 5 minute stop in action for any foul. The difference with a groin shot is that the 5 minutes is totally at the discretion of the fighter, whereas all other fouls are at the discretion of the referee/doctor.

And still the debate between DQ and NC assumes that the reason for stoppage is illegal strikes. Again due diligence was not performed by Yamasaki. That doesn't change.



Right, but a fighter is not guaranteed 5 minutes for anything other than a groin shot, per the unified rules which I quoted above. If a doc deems a fighter okay to continue, the fighter must continue immediately, in this case, the fighter was not able to continue, therefore the fight was called. Yamasaki stopped the fight due to the illegal strikes, whether or not Prater actually was hurt because of the illegal strikes is completely irrelevant. Prater could not continue after Yamasaki stopped the fight due to fouling, thus the DQ was involved.

EDIT: Okay, you're right, I read the above passage wrong. It doesn't state a fighter must continue immediately, but in the case of Prater that was irrelevant, because he couldn't continue.
State_Champ
1/16/12 11:49:26AM

Posted by Aether

Your logic is so badly flawed, man. Every comparison you make lacks any logical foundation. A fighter lay and praying is not comparable to a referee making the wrong call. Lay and praying is one valid method of winning a fight, it is not contrary to the fighter's job description. A ref making a bad call is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he is being paid to do. The fighter is being paid to fight, lay and praying is a style of fighting, a ref is being paid to enforce the rules correctly, enforcing the rules incorrectly is not a valid method of enforcing the rules correctly. Do you not see how your comparisons are not relevant? The context is so dramatically different that the one thing that is similar no longer has the same meaning.



grappler0000
1/16/12 11:57:53AM

Posted by warglory


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by warglory

That's not true. If a foul is recognized and the offending fighter is penalized, the doc has to deem the fighter worthy to continue, and the fight must immediately start again. Unlike groin strikes, there is no 5 minute stop in action, therefore if a fighter is unable to continue, the fight is over.

Now, whether or not this should be a DQ or a no contest, I think that is totally up for a healthy discussion.

"For a foul other than a low blow, the fouled fighter is not guaranteed 5 minutes of recovery time. If deemed not fit to continue by the referee or ringside physician, the referee must immediately call a halt to the bout. If the fighter is deemed not fit to continue by the referee or ringside physician but some of the five minute foul time is still remaining, the fighter cannot avail himself of the remaining time."

http://www.abcboxing.com/unified_mma_rules.html



It doesn't seem that you understand the rules completely. There can be up to a 5 minute stop in action for any foul. The difference with a groin shot is that the 5 minutes is totally at the discretion of the fighter, whereas all other fouls are at the discretion of the referee/doctor.

And still the debate between DQ and NC assumes that the reason for stoppage is illegal strikes. Again due diligence was not performed by Yamasaki. That doesn't change.



Right, but a fighter is not guaranteed 5 minutes for anything other than a groin shot, per the unified rules which I quoted above. If a doc deems a fighter okay to continue, the fighter must continue immediately, in this case, the fighter was not able to continue, therefore the fight was called. Yamasaki stopped the fight due to the illegal strikes, whether or not Prater actually was hurt because of the illegal strikes is completely irrelevant. Prater could not continue after Yamasaki stopped the fight due to fouling, thus the DQ was involved.

EDIT: Okay, you're right, I read the above passage wrong. It doesn't state a fighter must continue immediately, but in the case of Prater that was irrelevant, because he couldn't continue.



Mario did the right thing by stopping the fight. What he did not do was assess the foul and condition of Prater, as stated by the rules.




If a foul is committed, the referee shall:
1. call time;
2. check the fouled mixed martial artist's condition and safety; and
3. assess the foul to the offending contestant, deduct points, and notify each corner's seconds, judges and the official scorekeeper.



There's no way around it. To say that there's no need to have a connection between the fight-stopping injury and the disqualification is laughable. Read that out loud to yourself. Mario didn't do his job. It's clear as day.

To use your logic again for a moment. Fighter A inadvertently strikes fighter B to the spine. The ref stops the fight so that the ringside physician can inspect fighter B. On the way to the corner, fighter B slips on some blood/sweat/tears/whatever. As a result, he injures himself in a manner that he can't continue to fight. Fighter B wins by disqualification. Nonsense.
Aether
1/16/12 10:00:33PM

Posted by warglory


Posted by Aether


Your logic is so badly flawed, man. Every comparison you make lacks any logical foundation. A fighter lay and praying is not comparable to a referee making the wrong call. Lay and praying is one valid method of winning a fight, it is not contrary to the fighter's job description. A ref making a bad call is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he is being paid to do. The fighter is being paid to fight, lay and praying is a style of fighting, a ref is being paid to enforce the rules correctly, enforcing the rules incorrectly is not a valid method of enforcing the rules correctly. Do you not see how your comparisons are not relevant? The context is so dramatically different that the one thing that is similar no longer has the same meaning.



Wow, that's a strawman if I'd ever read one. You assume that Yamasaki made the wrong call, but that's completely based on your perception. By making my comparison out to be incorrect because, based on the assumed fact that Yamasaki made the wrong call, is fallacious. My point is quite clear, Rogan can have an adverse opinion to the ref, just as hr\e can to the style of a fighter, but he is not a ref, nor is he a fighter, so calling out either to their face based on their respective performance is wholly unprofessional. My comparison is apt.






Firstly, this does not assume that he made a mistake, since the very fact that it is debatable is enough to warrant questioning. It only assumes that there is a legitimate debate about whether he made a mistake Whether lay and praying falls within the confines of appropriate conduct for a fighter is not being called into question by anyone.

Secondly, it has been firmly established that Yamasaki did not follow procedure numerous times, so the above point is not even a necessary distinction in this case.

Thirdly, " he is not a ref, nor is he a fighter, so calling out either to their face based on their respective performance is wholly unprofessional."

This is another random assertion with no logic to support it. Especially given that Joe's profession within the UFC is that of a commentator and interviewer, which would seem to contradict the idea that interviewing the referee about a stoppage which most people obviously had questions about and commenting on the decision is "unprofessional". Sounds sort of like his "profession" to me.

Your comparison is not apt. Your arguments are almost entirely made up of assertions full of nebulous terms like "unprofessional", which ultimately rely on a personal code of ethics for definition (in the context which you use them.) No logical foundation is present. "he is not a ref" has no relevance to the argument, no matter how much you would love it to. Even if it did you would have to extrapolate on this incredibly insightful 5 word argument in order for it to make any kind of sense.

I'm going to stop talking about this now, seems pointless and repetitive.
Kpro
1/16/12 11:01:35PM

Posted by eltdown

Aether: may I address some of your points directly if I get the time? I didn't want to de-lurk then immediately post some frank counter-points, don't know if you're a sensitive soul.



He's not sensitive at all.. I feel like those that have weighed in have barely scratched the surface and a new viewpoint would be great to hear.
KungFuMaster
1/17/12 12:07:31AM
I said I may put up a post but now I am afraid to do it - simply because what I really want to say may earn me a ban.

The material I have brainstormed in my head would be crushing and debilitating to its intended victim and that would be inappropriate on my part and I would be unbecoming of a Playgrounder.

So instead of attacking, I'll say this:

Discussion is the method by which adults learn from one another. And as so conceived, it differs quite strikingly from that sort of learning in which an older person teaches a younger person.

Real discussion consists of two or more persons talking to one another, each asking questions, each answering, making remarks and counter-remarks. Such conversation is at its best when the parties to it tend to regard each other as equal. That is the heart of the difference between learning by discussion and learning by instruction. In adult learning by discussion, each party to the discussion is both a teacher and a learner. Just as in the political republic, each citizen is ruler and ruled in turn, so in the adult republic of learning, each adult is both teacher and student.


Aether
1/17/12 12:52:01AM
TheBlackChip
1/17/12 2:27:14AM
I agree that he shouldn't have done it right there on the spot like that. Asking Yamasaki to elaborate or to clarify his ruling is one thing, but asking him loaded questions with the sole intent of making him look stupid is unacceptable. It would be unacceptable for any pro sport. Could you ever imagine an NFL analyst interview a ref after a game about all of their horrible calls??? I know it's happened before in boxing, but it wasn't right then, and it isn't right now.
KungFuMaster
1/17/12 11:21:56AM

Posted by TheBlackChip

I agree that he shouldn't have done it right there on the spot like that. Asking Yamasaki to elaborate or to clarify his ruling is one thing, but asking him loaded questions with the sole intent of making him look stupid is unacceptable. It would be unacceptable for any pro sport. Could you ever imagine an NFL analyst interview a ref after a game about all of their horrible calls??? I know it's happened before in boxing, but it wasn't right then, and it isn't right now.



Thank you for voicing your opinion. The opinions regarding Rogan's action is more divided than what some like to think.
Pookie
1/17/12 5:44:15PM

Posted by tn_rebel


Posted by Pookie

I think Erick landed about 4-5 more shots to the back of the head than Shogun did.



You should probably watch those fights again.



No. You. It's debatable how many really landed in either, but i definitely think Erick landed quite a few to the back of the head. It's just Prater also turned his head a direction that makes it harder to hit him anywhere but it.

Shogun v. Liddell was mostly hammerfists, from my point of view, to the side of the head.

Soooo..... You should probably watch those fights again.
warglory
1/17/12 7:06:54PM

Posted by grappler0000

If a foul is committed, the referee shall:
1. call time;
2. check the fouled mixed martial artist's condition and safety; and
3. assess the foul to the offending contestant, deduct points, and notify each corner's seconds, judges and the official scorekeeper.



There's no way around it. To say that there's no need to have a connection between the fight-stopping injury and the disqualification is laughable. Read that out loud to yourself. Mario didn't do his job. It's clear as day.

To use your logic again for a moment. Fighter A inadvertently strikes fighter B to the spine. The ref stops the fight so that the ringside physician can inspect fighter B. On the way to the corner, fighter B slips on some blood/sweat/tears/whatever. As a result, he injures himself in a manner that he can't continue to fight. Fighter B wins by disqualification. Nonsense.


1. Yamasaki called time.
2. Fighter's condition was checked.
3. This is all well and good...IF the fighter has a chance to continue. How is Yamasaki supposed to deduct a point when the fight has ended?

And your challenge to my logic doesn't make any sense, because this slip was not a result of the opposing fighter. Prater HAD illegal blows landed to him, he even stated that he felt a sharp pain like he'd never felt before course through his body. Now whether or not that was from the strikes to the back of the head, or the knee to the body is irrelevant, because Yamasaki doesn't have time to make that determination. The only thing Yamasaki needs to know to make his assessment is that Prater could not continue following illegal blows.
warglory
1/17/12 7:11:24PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by warglory


Posted by Aether


Your logic is so badly flawed, man. Every comparison you make lacks any logical foundation. A fighter lay and praying is not comparable to a referee making the wrong call. Lay and praying is one valid method of winning a fight, it is not contrary to the fighter's job description. A ref making a bad call is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he is being paid to do. The fighter is being paid to fight, lay and praying is a style of fighting, a ref is being paid to enforce the rules correctly, enforcing the rules incorrectly is not a valid method of enforcing the rules correctly. Do you not see how your comparisons are not relevant? The context is so dramatically different that the one thing that is similar no longer has the same meaning.



Wow, that's a strawman if I'd ever read one. You assume that Yamasaki made the wrong call, but that's completely based on your perception. By making my comparison out to be incorrect because, based on the assumed fact that Yamasaki made the wrong call, is fallacious. My point is quite clear, Rogan can have an adverse opinion to the ref, just as hr\e can to the style of a fighter, but he is not a ref, nor is he a fighter, so calling out either to their face based on their respective performance is wholly unprofessional. My comparison is apt.






Firstly, this does not assume that he made a mistake, since the very fact that it is debatable is enough to warrant questioning. It only assumes that there is a legitimate debate about whether he made a mistake Whether lay and praying falls within the confines of appropriate conduct for a fighter is not being called into question by anyone.

Secondly, it has been firmly established that Yamasaki did not follow procedure numerous times, so the above point is not even a necessary distinction in this case.

Thirdly, " he is not a ref, nor is he a fighter, so calling out either to their face based on their respective performance is wholly unprofessional."

This is another random assertion with no logic to support it. Especially given that Joe's profession within the UFC is that of a commentator and interviewer, which would seem to contradict the idea that interviewing the referee about a stoppage which most people obviously had questions about and commenting on the decision is "unprofessional". Sounds sort of like his "profession" to me.

Your comparison is not apt. Your arguments are almost entirely made up of assertions full of nebulous terms like "unprofessional", which ultimately rely on a personal code of ethics for definition (in the context which you use them.) No logical foundation is present. "he is not a ref" has no relevance to the argument, no matter how much you would love it to. Even if it did you would have to extrapolate on this incredibly insightful 5 word argument in order for it to make any kind of sense.

I'm going to stop talking about this now, seems pointless and repetitive.



I made completely logical arguments, I'm not sure how I am making any assertions, but I'll leave it be if you are no longer interested in debating.
grappler0000
1/18/12 1:10:24AM
Playground_Samurai
1/18/12 1:21:02AM

Posted by grappler0000




end thread
grappler0000
1/18/12 1:26:26AM

Posted by warglory


Posted by grappler0000

If a foul is committed, the referee shall:
1. call time;
2. check the fouled mixed martial artist's condition and safety; and
3. assess the foul to the offending contestant, deduct points, and notify each corner's seconds, judges and the official scorekeeper.



There's no way around it. To say that there's no need to have a connection between the fight-stopping injury and the disqualification is laughable. Read that out loud to yourself. Mario didn't do his job. It's clear as day.

To use your logic again for a moment. Fighter A inadvertently strikes fighter B to the spine. The ref stops the fight so that the ringside physician can inspect fighter B. On the way to the corner, fighter B slips on some blood/sweat/tears/whatever. As a result, he injures himself in a manner that he can't continue to fight. Fighter B wins by disqualification. Nonsense.



1. Yamasaki called time.
2. Fighter's condition was checked.
3. This is all well and good...IF the fighter has a chance to continue. How is Yamasaki supposed to deduct a point when the fight has ended?

And your challenge to my logic doesn't make any sense, because this slip was not a result of the opposing fighter. Prater HAD illegal blows landed to him, he even stated that he felt a sharp pain like he'd never felt before course through his body. Now whether or not that was from the strikes to the back of the head, or the knee to the body is irrelevant, because Yamasaki doesn't have time to make that determination. The only thing Yamasaki needs to know to make his assessment is that Prater could not continue following illegal blows.



I noticed you left out this for some reason:


Posted by warglory

whether or not Prater actually was hurt because of the illegal strikes is completely irrelevant.



Also, Mario DID NOT assess the foul to the offending contestant. If he had, we wouldn't be in this predicament. You can talk in circles all you want. Mario didn't do his job. No amount of illogical arguments will ever change that...ever.

So, we'll use your logic once again...but we'll adjust it to your ever-changing argument. Fighter B gets the shit kicked out of his leg in round 1 by fighter A. Fighter A inadvertently strikes fighter B to the spine in round 2. The ref stops the fight to check the condition of fighter B's spine. Fighter B wishes not to continue the fight, due to leg pain suffered from round 1. Fighter B wins by DQ. That's not how it works. That's not how the rules are written. That goes against all that is logical.

I'm also done here. I have a feeling you'll hold onto you position with your dying breath. There's no point in discussing it further. You are the only one who believes that your argument holds any water. Good day!
mrsmiley
1/18/12 4:27:37AM
I went back and was watching UFC I believe it was 47 last night. I laughed so hard when Joe was questioning Yamasaki's stoppage of the Arvloski and Cabbage fight.
KungFuMaster
1/18/12 11:17:54AM

Posted by mrsmiley

I went back and was watching UFC I believe it was 47 last night. I laughed so hard when Joe was questioning Yamasaki's stoppage of the Arvloski and Cabbage fight.



I don't know if you're mocking Yamasaki's call or not - it's difficult to tell, but for the record, I thought it was a very good stoppage. Cabbage was not able to muster any offense and was literally taking a horrible beating from Arvloski.

After the fight was called, Cabbage did not contest at all and he actually looked relieved the fight was over - of course, IMO.
warglory
1/18/12 11:21:57AM

Posted by grappler0000




Even if it's true that one illegal blow was landed, are you saying that since it was only one blow that it should be disregarded? Do we have this attitude about knees to the head, or kicks to a grounded opponent? Not only that, but hindsight is 20/20, and there was no instant replay available to Yamasaki at the time to go back and analyze.

You all have cried foul that Yamasaki messed up, but you're admitting right here that illegal blows were landed.
warglory
1/18/12 11:29:33AM

Posted by grappler0000


I noticed you left out this for some reason:


Posted by warglory

whether or not Prater actually was hurt because of the illegal strikes is completely irrelevant.





And? Is this statement contradictory to anything I've written?



Also, Mario DID NOT assess the foul to the offending contestant. If he had, we wouldn't be in this predicament. You can talk in circles all you want. Mario didn't do his job. No amount of illogical arguments will ever change that...ever.



Can you elaborate on how he didn't assess the foul?



So, we'll use your logic once again...but we'll adjust it to your ever-changing argument. Fighter B gets the shit kicked out of his leg in round 1 by fighter A. Fighter A inadvertently strikes fighter B to the spine in round 2. The ref stops the fight to check the condition of fighter B's spine. Fighter B wishes not to continue the fight, due to leg pain suffered from round 1. Fighter B wins by DQ. That's not how it works. That's not how the rules are written. That goes against all that is logical.

I'm also done here. I have a feeling you'll hold onto you position with your dying breath. There's no point in discussing it further. You are the only one who believes that your argument holds any water. Good day!



Once again, your challenge makes no sense and does not apply, at all, to my argument. Your example contains completely unrelated engagements, but in the Prater Silva fight, the knee and the illegal blows happened in the same flurry. Can you say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Prater not being able to continue was not the result of the illegal blow? Especially if you were in Yamasaki's shoes mere moments after the fight ended with prater telling you that he suffered immense pain, but had no idea what blow landed caused the pain?

My argument has been steady throughout the debate, I'm not sure what you don't understand. Your examples challenging mine make absolutely no sense, which leads me to believe you don't understand my point.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Related Topics