Yves Lavigne: "Koscheck will be eaten alive by GSP"

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » Yves Lavigne: "Koscheck will be eaten alive by GSP"
Next Page »
postman
9/2/10 4:20:59PM
UFC referee, and French-Canadian, Yves Lavigne recently had some choice words for Josh Koscheck, the next opponent for Montreal's own Georges St. Pierre.

SBNation

I know nothing about this website and its translated so take it for what it is worth. Feel free to comment if you know anything about the site.
Twenty20Dollars
9/2/10 4:44:26PM
I didnt know GSP was a zombie.

I'm not a GSP fan anymore and will be pulling for Kos.
postman
9/2/10 4:54:02PM
In a year were Fedor lost, Anderson came as close as you can to losing, BJ lost, Torres gets subbed, I can't belive people continue to talk like guys are going to never lose.
AchillesHeel
9/2/10 5:15:23PM
Assuming the translation is correct - I haven't checked it myself - I think it's unprofessional for a referee to be making comments like this in the media.
grappler0000
9/2/10 5:41:42PM

Posted by AchillesHeel

Assuming the translation is correct - I haven't checked it myself - I think it's unprofessional for a referee to be making comments like this in the media.



Completely agree
emfleek
9/2/10 6:02:12PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by AchillesHeel

Assuming the translation is correct - I haven't checked it myself - I think it's unprofessional for a referee to be making comments like this in the media.



Completely agree



Thirded.
Twenty20Dollars
9/2/10 6:36:05PM
Does this mean Yves isnt going to ref this match? ha
postman
9/2/10 6:39:33PM

Posted by Twenty20Dollars

Does this mean Yves isnt going to ref this match? ha



I would venture to guess this or any other GSP fight.
lohmann
9/2/10 7:03:08PM

Posted by AchillesHeel

Assuming the translation is correct - I haven't checked it myself - I think it's unprofessional for a referee to be making comments like this in the media.



Why?

How does a referee's opinion on how a fight will unfold change their job performance?
postman
9/2/10 7:04:43PM

Posted by lohmann


Posted by AchillesHeel

Assuming the translation is correct - I haven't checked it myself - I think it's unprofessional for a referee to be making comments like this in the media.



Why?

How does a referee's opinion on how a fight will unfold change their job performance?



Your right Yves would get it wrong either way
cowcatcher
9/2/10 7:23:10PM

Posted by postman


Posted by lohmann


Posted by AchillesHeel

Assuming the translation is correct - I haven't checked it myself - I think it's unprofessional for a referee to be making comments like this in the media.



Why?

How does a referee's opinion on how a fight will unfold change their job performance?



Your right Yves would get it wrong either way



AchillesHeel
9/2/10 9:45:02PM

Posted by lohmann


Posted by AchillesHeel

Assuming the translation is correct - I haven't checked it myself - I think it's unprofessional for a referee to be making comments like this in the media.



Why?

How does a referee's opinion on how a fight will unfold change their job performance?


It's hard to know, but that's the point. Referees in anything - umpires, judges, arbitrators - are supposed to be impartial. Aside from knowing the rules of the game, that's essentially their whole job. At the most extreme, a referee caught betting on the sport he works will be arrested. Something like that happened in the NBA a few years back. I don't remember the details, though. And IIRC, referees at the World Cup are never from either of the two countries playing each other, just to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. At the very least, I hope Lavigne can't referee any of Josh Koscheck's or GSP's fights ever again.
BlueSkiesBurn
9/2/10 10:34:11PM
The translation is correct. Also, I see no problem with Yves Lavigne offering his opinion. He can't be impartial in every aspect of his life. I doubt he will be reffing the fight because of these comments, but I see no problem with him saying that he believes that Kos will lose.
postman
9/2/10 10:42:15PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

The translation is correct. Also, I see no problem with Yves Lavigne offering his opinion. He can't be impartial in every aspect of his life. I doubt he will be reffing the fight because of these comments, but I see no problem with him saying that he believes that Kos will lose.



This just in the head lines man of the USC game said that the trojins blow and will be smashed tonight
BlueSkiesBurn
9/2/10 10:48:23PM

Posted by postman


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

The translation is correct. Also, I see no problem with Yves Lavigne offering his opinion. He can't be impartial in every aspect of his life. I doubt he will be reffing the fight because of these comments, but I see no problem with him saying that he believes that Kos will lose.



This just in the head lines man of the USC game said that the trojins blow and will be smashed tonight



McF*ck you. How's Pitt doing? I'm pretty sure that a Pac-12 team is beating them.
BlueSkiesBurn
9/3/10 12:18:11AM
UTAH BABY
Rush
9/3/10 1:39:20AM

Posted by AchillesHeel

It's hard to know, but that's the point. Referees in anything - umpires, judges, arbitrators - are supposed to be impartial. Aside from knowing the rules of the game, that's essentially their whole job. At the most extreme, a referee caught betting on the sport he works will be arrested. Something like that happened in the NBA a few years back. I don't remember the details, though. And IIRC, referees at the World Cup are never from either of the two countries playing each other, just to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. At the very least, I hope Lavigne can't referee any of Josh Koscheck's or GSP's fights ever again.




Just for the sake of argument, a referee can just as easily be biased (as they can impartial) regardless of whether they say anything or not.

I don't think a verbal opinion necessarily reveals putative bias any more than silence. However, it does create the potential for (a higher degree of) controversy if there is any question of impartiality in refereeing the fight.

I don't have any problem with a ref stating their opinion. I can't think of any situation where I thought a ref favoured a particular fighter over another. Bad judgments yes, but not favourtism.
postman
9/3/10 7:16:45AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by postman


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

The translation is correct. Also, I see no problem with Yves Lavigne offering his opinion. He can't be impartial in every aspect of his life. I doubt he will be reffing the fight because of these comments, but I see no problem with him saying that he believes that Kos will lose.



This just in the head lines man of the USC game said that the trojins blow and will be smashed tonight



McF*ck you. How's Pitt doing? I'm pretty sure that a Pac-12 team is beating them.



touché!!!! But their not Pac -12 yet.
AchillesHeel
9/3/10 9:51:47AM

Posted by Rush

Just for the sake of argument, a referee can just as easily be biased (as they can impartial) regardless of whether they say anything or not.


Well, sure, but so long as they keep their opinions to themselves, we give them the benefit of the doubt.


Posted by Rush

I don't think a verbal opinion necessarily reveals putative bias any more than silence.


Er... That's precisely what it does.


Posted by Rush

However, it does create the potential for (a higher degree of) controversy if there is any question of impartiality in refereeing the fight.


Right.
Rush
9/3/10 10:38:22AM

Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

I don't think a verbal opinion necessarily reveals putative bias any more than silence.


Er... That's precisely what it does.




I should have been more precise in my statement. What I mean is that a comment/opinion regarding which fighter the ref believes to be superior does not reveal any bias or favourtism toward that fighter because the comment can be completely impartial itself. Particularly if that opinion is consistent with the consensus of the general population.

BlueSkiesBurn
9/3/10 7:14:53PM

Posted by Rush

I should have been more precise in my statement. What I mean is that a comment/opinion regarding which fighter the ref believes to be superior does not reveal any bias or favourtism toward that fighter because the comment can be completely impartial itself. Particularly if that opinion is consistent with the consensus of the general population.




This.

And I would like to add that it's a referee's job to remain impartial during the fights HE is reffing.

He is not required to remain impartial in every aspect of his life. I think you people are asking the man to be a robot. He, more than likely, will not be reffing the Koscheck-GSP fight. So, why shouldn't he be allowed to have an opinion?

Additionally, every one of YOU and most UFC fighters has had something to say about a ref and you're jumping all over a ref because he finally said something about a fighter? That's a double standard if I've ever heard one. If he's not reffing the fight, I say let the refs voice their opinion. I'm sure they are a fan of the sport just like everyone else.
BustedKnuckle
9/3/10 7:35:23PM
Its a fine line Yves is walking with these comments. I doubt he will ref any fight involving KOs or GSP from here on out! Conflict of interst comes into play. I respect his opinion and agree....but he should have kept his opinion to himself. or at least not givin it ot the media!
AchillesHeel
9/3/10 8:30:19PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

He is not required to remain impartial in every aspect of his life. I think you people are asking the man to be a robot.


I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I'm not asking him to be impartial in every aspect of his life. I'm asking him to be impartial in the one aspect of his life that he's paid to be impartial about.


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Additionally, every one of YOU and most UFC fighters has had something to say about a ref and you're jumping all over a ref because he finally said something about a fighter? That's a double standard if I've ever heard one.


You're darned right, it is. I don't think fighters have any effect on a referee's job, and I certainly don't. I mean, if I _wanted_ to sabotage Lavigne's career (or give him an illegitimate edge over his competition), I don't know how I possibly could. The comparison is absurd.


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I'm sure they are a fan of the sport just like everyone else.


No, they're not. Referees are most unlike other fans of the sport. The judges are the only other people even on the same plane as the referees. No other person has as much influence.

I'm genuinely baffled that anyone has a problem with my calling Lavigne's comments unprofessional.
AchillesHeel
9/3/10 8:42:33PM

Posted by Rush

I should have been more precise in my statement. What I mean is that a comment/opinion regarding which fighter the ref believes to be superior does not reveal any bias or favourtism toward that fighter because the comment can be completely impartial itself.


That doesn't make any sense. Lavigne apparently said - I'm using the author's translation here - that "GSP, just like in the first fight, will dominate" and "after [GSP] beats Koscheck[...]." He's coming right out and saying that he has a preconceived idea of how the fight will go. And not just the one fight, either: "[Lavigne] would not be surprised if after GSP 'cleans house' at 170 lbs[...]" He already has it in his head how these fights are going to go.

At the very least, I would think he's removed himself from ever refereeing one of GSP's fights.


Posted by Rush

Particularly if that opinion is consistent with the consensus of the general population.


He's not the general population, he's a referee. He's not just some guy.
postman
9/3/10 9:14:01PM
I'm with AchillesHeel on this one. What I was trying to point out to you Josh with the USC comment is you never hear Refs in anyother sport give their opinion on the sport they work for. If nothing else it leaves them open every time he refs a GSP fight for speculation. I get why you guys think it should be ok but the reality is that its not ok.


BlueSkiesBurn
9/3/10 9:25:34PM



I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I'm not asking him to be impartial in every aspect of his life. I'm asking him to be impartial in the one aspect of his life that he's paid to be impartial about.


First of all, he's not being paid at this time, nor is he at work. If he'd said these comments during or after a fight you could question it. He made these comments on his own time. His personal time, where he's allowed to have personal feelings about subject matter. By saying he was being unprofessional for saying these things when he wasn't even on the job, you are, in fact, asking him to be a robot.


The comparison is absurd.


No, it is not. There have been instances of fighters or Dana White complaining about a certain ref and the NSAC has subsequently not had that particular ref involved in a fight with that particular fighter. Mazagatti and Lesnar comes to mind. The fighters, in this instance, have affected the ref's ability to work certain fights.


No, they're not. Referees are most unlike other fans of the sport. The judges are the only other people even on the same plane as the referees. No other person has as much influence. I'm genuinely baffled that anyone has a problem with my calling Lavigne's comments unprofessional.


Really? So why is it that Jon McCarthy signed up to fight in the UFC. Perhaps you can explain why Herb Dean has competed in MMA. Maybe Shonie Carter? Surely it wasn't because they are "unlike" everyone else.

Also, isn't Bill Mahood a judge?
Rush
9/3/10 10:03:11PM

Posted by AchillesHeel

That doesn't make any sense. Lavigne apparently said - I'm using the author's translation here - that "GSP, just like in the first fight, will dominate" and "after [GSP] beats Koscheck[...]." He's coming right out and saying that he has a preconceived idea of how the fight will go. And not just the one fight, either: "[Lavigne] would not be surprised if after GSP 'cleans house' at 170 lbs[...]" He already has it in his head how these fights are going to go.

At the very least, I would think he's removed himself from ever refereeing one of GSP's fights.


Posted by Rush

Particularly if that opinion is consistent with the consensus of the general population.


He's not the general population, he's a referee. He's not just some guy.





Now let's not paraphrase the translation. Going by what was translated.

Here he says that the challenge at 170 lbs hasn't evolved for GSP and after he beats Koscheck, there's only two fights left for him there before retirement.

Based purely on the translation this can be interpreted in two ways.
1) Yves is stating hypothetically that after GSP beats Koshcheck there are two more fights left to define his career.
2) He is stating that GSP will beat Koscheck (but this ignores the rest of the statement, which is really the important part of the statement.


Now let's put the French into the google translator verbatim

n fact , 170 pounds , also St- Pierre , I have the impression that the fighters have stopped evolving , "he analyzed. After Koscheck , he will have maybe two fights at welterweight before retiring

Reads differently doesn't it?



According to Lavigne, he would not be surprised if after GSP "cleans house" at 170 lbs, he takes time off to rest and go to 185 to fight Anderson Silva after putting on some muscle the right way.


Saying that he wouldn't be surprised is far from a preconceived notion. To say that a fighter (or athlete) that has been as dominant as GSP will continue to dominate, why wouldn't anyone be surprised that he cleans out the division? In fact this idea has been around for years regarding GSP. This is essentially what I am talking about in my second statement about the general consensus. Once something becomes a common consensus, it becomes more of a group opinion/consensus add evidence supporting that consensus (i.e. history) and opinions are further removed from being pure bias or subjectivity.

I mean, would one question the integrity of the gun man if he said that it is likely Usain Bolt will win the next 100m race and/or even break his old record?

Note- google translation is pretty much the same as the translation in the article.



Bottom line is that I think the refs should be judged by how they perform inside the ring and given the benefit of the doubt.

I mean, God forbid that a referee was born in the same state or city as a fighter. That might mean they favour the fighter and that would be bad [[sarcasm]]

postman
9/4/10 10:14:52AM
This might all be for not as it seems Yves is saying he didn't say any of that. link

LOL sadly its coming from MMABAY but they have refrenced other sites
AchillesHeel
9/4/10 12:03:45PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

First of all, he's not being paid at this time, nor is he at work. If he'd said these comments during or after a fight you could question it. He made these comments on his own time. His personal time, where he's allowed to have personal feelings about subject matter. By saying he was being unprofessional for saying these things when he wasn't even on the job, you are, in fact, asking him to be a robot.


If Lavigne knew he was talking to a reporter on the record, then he was representing himself professionally. If the reporter didn't tell Lavigne that he was quoting him for an article that would be published, or if he didn't know that Lavigne was a professional MMA referee, then the reporter is the one who was behaving unprofessionally, although Lavigne still should have protected himself by being clear and by asking what his comments would be used for. If the reporter deliberately misled Lavigne about the context of their conversation by lying to him, he can expect to be 'black-listed' by all of the referees (and judges and promoters and...).


Posted by postman

This might all be for not as it seems Yves is saying he didn't say any of that. link


So the conversation may be moot, except in a more general, philosophical way.

"David Simon of RingsideReport.net said:

Just got an e-mail from Yves Lavigne with the following 3 statements: 1. 'I NEVER gave an interview to that journalist …' 2. 'I NEVER gave an interview regarding GSP vs Koscheck' and 3. 'My lawyer is taking care of this matter.'"

Good for Lavigne, if so. His lawyer should be taking care of the matter, because libel is criminal. Some people seem to think the Web grants you license to write whatever the @#$% you please. If what he says is true, and the whole story was fabricated, I hope whoever published it gets slammed like Ricardo Arona.

BlueSkiesBurn
9/4/10 5:13:56PM

Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

First of all, he's not being paid at this time, nor is he at work. If he'd said these comments during or after a fight you could question it. He made these comments on his own time. His personal time, where he's allowed to have personal feelings about subject matter. By saying he was being unprofessional for saying these things when he wasn't even on the job, you are, in fact, asking him to be a robot.


If Lavigne knew he was talking to a reporter on the record, then he was representing himself professionally. If the reporter didn't tell Lavigne that he was quoting him for an article that would be published, or if he didn't know that Lavigne was a professional MMA referee, then the reporter is the one who was behaving unprofessionally, although Lavigne still should have protected himself by being clear and by asking what his comments would be used for. If the reporter deliberately misled Lavigne about the context of their conversation by lying to him, he can expect to be 'black-listed' by all of the referees (and judges and promoters and...).




You're right and you're wrong. If he was asked about his personal feelings then he was not representing himself professionally. He was representing himself as Yves Lavigne. Context is everything.

Think about it like this, just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean that I can't comment on cases I'm not working. You see this all the time. Especially in sports. They bring in judges, lawyers, arbiters, etc.. and ask them what they think will happen with a particular legal situation.

All they are doing is offering their opinion. Saying what they think will happen. A judge who says what he or she would/wouldn't do in a particular situation isn't being unprofessional, they're just offering their opinion and expertise on a matter. I don't see anyone throwing a hissy fit over that.

This is actually par for the course in most "professions." Lavigne won't be reffing this fight, so he can comment on what he THINKS will happen all day long. I just don't see this as a big deal when you look at it from the aspect I just mentioned.
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics