Sarah Kaufman: No nerves for Ronda Rousey armbar ahead of Strikeforce title fight

Sarah Kaufman has a pretty good idea of how Ronda Rousey would like their Saturday fight to go.

Including three amateur fights, Rousey (5-0 MMA, 3-0 SF) has finished all eight of her MMA opponents with first-round armbars. That little bit of MMA math (Rousey + Fight = 100 percent armbar finish) is one of the sport's easiest equations.

It's certainly not lost on Kaufman (15-1 MMA, 6-1 SF). But she has a way around what has arguably become the most feared finish in the sport these days – just snap the streak.

Kaufman, a former champion, challenges Rousey for her Strikeforce bantamweight title in the main event of "Strikeforce: Rousey vs. Kaufman," which takes place Saturday at Valley View Casino Center in San Diego. The main card airs on Showtime at 10 p.m. ET. Prelims air on Showtime Extreme at 8 p.m.

"I don’t think that it’s unstoppable," Kaufman said of Rousey's armbar on a recent call with media members. "… It doesn’t make me nervous. It’s something that could happen. It’s also something that I’m prepared for. It’s an armbar and people can have a mystique behind someone because they’ve had the same submission over and over and over again. And it does create kind of an aura of, 'Whoa, she’s won every fight by the same thing.' I did the same thing when I had eight knockouts in a row...


Full Story

I think Sarah is fibbing shit I'm not even fighting Ronda and I'm nervous about her arm bars

i think if sarah keeps ronda away she can tee off on her. we all saw rondas lack of standup in the tate fight. im sure she has gotten better but kaufman has stayed active and probably knows its her weakness. im predicting that ronda wins but she's gonna be ugly by the end of it.

I think Kaufman wins this fight rather easily. Outside of Rousey's judo, she doesn't have very much going for her. Her standup is pretty basic. Her defense is questionable and we have no idea what her bottom game is like.

I guess I have a hard time seeing why one of the best female fighters in the world is being written off against a bronze medalist with 5 MMA fights.

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I think Kaufman wins this fight rather easily. Outside of Rousey's judo, she doesn't have very much going for her. Her standup is pretty basic. Her defense is questionable and we have no idea what her bottom game is like.

I guess I have a hard time seeing why one of the best female fighters in the world is being written off against a bronze medalist with 5 MMA fights.

---

who is writing off Kaufmann? are you trying to set a record for the most strawman arguments in a day or something?

Kaufman should be just as nervous about an arm bar as anyone fighting Cody MacKenzie should be about a Guillotine or anyone fight Sass should be about a triangle.

Nobody is saying Kaufman can't or won't win, just that she should be very concerned about her arms, especially since Rousey has won 100% of her fights that way and her only loss came by the same submission.

---

Posted by FlashyG

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I think Kaufman wins this fight rather easily. Outside of Rousey's judo, she doesn't have very much going for her. Her standup is pretty basic. Her defense is questionable and we have no idea what her bottom game is like.

I guess I have a hard time seeing why one of the best female fighters in the world is being written off against a bronze medalist with 5 MMA fights.

---

who is writing off Kaufmann? are you trying to set a record for the most strawman arguments in a day or something?

Kaufman should be just as nervous about an arm bar as anyone fighting Cody MacKenzie should be about a Guillotine or anyone fight Sass should be about a triangle.

Nobody is saying Kaufman can't or won't win, just that she should be very concerned about her arms, especially since Rousey has won 100% of her fights that way and her only loss came by the same submission.

---

Dude, just stop. Seriously, it's getting annoying. You do realize I use other places to discuss MMA, right? Like my conversations are somehow relegated to the Playground? Check twitter or Facebook. Kaufman has been written off by the majority of fans I've seen tweeting and facebooking about it.

I don't think you grasp the concept of a strawman argument because you've been using the term incorrectly all morning.

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

---

Posted by FlashyG

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I think Kaufman wins this fight rather easily. Outside of Rousey's judo, she doesn't have very much going for her. Her standup is pretty basic. Her defense is questionable and we have no idea what her bottom game is like.

I guess I have a hard time seeing why one of the best female fighters in the world is being written off against a bronze medalist with 5 MMA fights.

---

who is writing off Kaufmann? are you trying to set a record for the most strawman arguments in a day or something?

Kaufman should be just as nervous about an arm bar as anyone fighting Cody MacKenzie should be about a Guillotine or anyone fight Sass should be about a triangle.

Nobody is saying Kaufman can't or won't win, just that she should be very concerned about her arms, especially since Rousey has won 100% of her fights that way and her only loss came by the same submission.

---

Dude, just stop. Seriously, it's getting annoying. You do realize I use other places to discuss MMA, right? Like my conversations are somehow relegated to the Playground? Check twitter or Facebook. Kaufman has been written off by the majority of fans I've seen tweeting and facebooking about it.

I don't think you grasp the concept of a strawman argument because you've been using the term incorrectly all morning.

---

Then make your comment about people writing off Kaufmann on Facebook or Twitter. HERE, where this discussion is taking place, nobody has written off Kaufman, you're arguing against a position that nobody here has taken. Its a strawman argument.

---

Posted by FlashyG

Then make your comment about people writing off Kaufmann on Facebook or Twitter. HERE, where this discussion is taking place, nobody has written off Kaufman, you're arguing against a position that nobody here has taken. Its a strawman argument.

---

No, I'm offering up an observation based on what I have read on the PG, Twitter, & Facebook.

Does this work for you?

Why don't you go ahead and read that thread then get back to me.

In order for a strawman argument to take place, a claim has to have been made and then I attack its weakest point. That is a strawman argument. Since I didn't respond to anyone or offer up a "CLAIM," there is no argument to be made.

I only offered up my opinion on the fight and posed a rhetorical question. None of which is the same as making a logical argument.

Thus, you're using the term incorrectly.

Ill friendly av bet anyone who truely thinks Sarah will beat Ronda if Sarah wins u send me what u want to be my av and ill switch it myself whoever wants in on this bet PM me cuz I have completely written off Kaufman and I'm not scared to say it Rousey by Armbar

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

In order for a strawman argument to take place, a claim has to have been made and then I attack its weakest point. That is a strawman argument. Since I didn't respond to anyone or offer up a "CLAIM," there is no argument to be made.

I only offered up my opinion on the fight and posed a rhetorical question. None of which is the same as making a logical argument.

Thus, you're using the term incorrectly.

---

There is more than one way to build a strawman, 1 is the way you described it can also be in a situation like this

---

when person a claims X, then Person B presents Person A's claim as Y, then argues against that instead.

---

Or in the context of this thread when someone makes up a position that nobody has taken and argues against it, rather than what has actually been said.

In fairness though, since our discussion has been going on someone has now written off Kaufman in the thread, so by all means argue away with Sparky.

---

Posted by FlashyG

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

In order for a strawman argument to take place, a claim has to have been made and then I attack its weakest point. That is a strawman argument. Since I didn't respond to anyone or offer up a "CLAIM," there is no argument to be made.

I only offered up my opinion on the fight and posed a rhetorical question. None of which is the same as making a logical argument.

Thus, you're using the term incorrectly.

---

There is more than one way to build a strawman, 1 is the way you described it can also be in a situation like this

---

when person a claims X, then Person B presents Person A's claim as Y, then argues against that instead.

---

Or in the context of this thread when someone makes up a position that nobody has taken and argues against it, rather than what has actually been said.

In fairness though, since our discussion has been going on someone has now written off Kaufman in the thread, so by all means argue away with Sparky.

---

I didn't offer up a claim as much as I offered up an opinion. If we are using your logic, then anytime a person presents any opinion that hasn't already been stated, then they are committing the strawman argument.

In this case, multiple users of the Playground have dismissed Sarah's chances on multiple different threads. Since all of those arguments took place on the Playground, they hold water in here too. Just because someone hasn't said it here, does not mean it hasn't been said about 10 times over on other threads.

You know damn good and well you've seen them, but you're trying to poke holes in my argument by saying that it hasn't been said in here....yet. THAT is a strawman argument. Attacking the weakest point of a person's claim.

Damn everyone is writing Kaufman off and stuff.

I love lamp

No nerves for Ronda?!
She ain't gonna have nerves in her arm after Saturday Night

Just for clarification purposes....

A strawman argument is neither:

1) When a person argues against an argument that no one else is making AT ALL. (Which is sort of what Flashy is accusing BlueSkies of because nobody in this thread, at that point, had written off Ronda.)

2) When you attack the weakest point of a persons argument (Which is what BlueSkies is accusing Flashy of.)

#2 is just good argumentation. If you can attack the weak point in an argument, the whole thing often falls apart.

A strawman argument IS:

When you repeat someone's argument in an exaggerated way that makes it easier to knock down.

For example:

I say, "I think Fedor is the greatest HW in the history of MMA. In his prime he was unstoppable."

My opponent responds, "That's a ludicrous thing to say. There are several fighters in the UFC today that could beat Fedor. Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos would both crush that old Russian."

Note that in my original argument I wasn't saying that Fedor was the best CURRENT heavyweight in MMA. I stated that I believed his past accomplishments made him the HW GOAT. Almost no one would argue that the Fedor that's fighting today could beat the best guys in the UFC today.

Rather than dealing with my real argument though, my opponent chose to act like I was saying something else so that I would be easier to dispute.

i actually have Kaufman winning this bout..it's not hard to defend against a single attack submission..as Belcher has shown against Palhares..Kaufman will advoid falling into that position and letting Rousey clinch up and use her judo on Kaufman..as i remember Tate land' some nice punches on Rousey, who imo has no striking abilities..and if Tate didnt try to wrestler Rousey, she wouldnt have been caught..i think Kaufman will advoid the TD's and clinching up, find a home for the punches and end it with a tko late in the match..