Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

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

Print  
  Page 1 of 2     1     2  
Posted By Message

emfleek

FA-Q

emfleek Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:18,755
Career:2,276-1,203
Joined:Nov 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,253
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

_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

Post #1   7/9/10 2:35:01PM   

Jackelope

Go ahead, MOD my day

Jackelope Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:7,224
Career:864-486
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
1,202
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.

Post #2   7/9/10 2:39:29PM   

jiujitsufreak74

,,[],, *******,,[],,

jiujitsufreak74 Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,256
Career:1,056-572
Joined:Sep 2007
Chips:
1,150

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.

Post #3   7/9/10 2:41:34PM   

emfleek

FA-Q

emfleek Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:18,755
Career:2,276-1,203
Joined:Nov 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,253

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.

_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

Post #4   7/9/10 2:41:50PM   

bojangalz

The Original Playground Bully

bojangalz Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,811
Career:1,553-840
Joined:May 2007
Chips:
670

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.

_______________________________________
And as El Guapo always says- "God speed, and party on. Whoap!"

Post #5   7/9/10 3:23:45PM   

emfleek

FA-Q

emfleek Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:18,755
Career:2,276-1,203
Joined:Nov 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,253

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

_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

Post #6   7/9/10 3:28:55PM   

D0wnUnd6e6r

Don't Eat The Yellow Snow

D0wnUnd6e6r Avatar
7
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,535
Career:1,996-1,112
Joined:Sep 2007
Camp: Dark Horse
Chips:
311
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.

Last edited 7/9/10 3:39PM server time by D0wnUnd6e6r
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #7   7/9/10 3:37:05PM   

theruler_

MMA Regular

theruler_ Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:118
Career:47-28
Joined:Apr 2010
Chips:
12

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.

Last edited 7/9/10 4:04PM server time by theruler_
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #8   7/9/10 4:01:26PM   

Giant_Ochai

BANNED

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:705
Career:433-278
Joined:May 2009
Chips:
60
Rosenthal deserves bonus money. One of the best refereeing performances in the history of the sport.

Post #9   7/9/10 4:02:14PM   

bjj1605

Heavyweight Champ

bjj1605 Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,205
Career:1,512-891
Joined:Oct 2007
Camp: Dark Horse
Chips:
678

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.

Post #10   7/9/10 4:20:16PM   

Wolf

MMA Regular

Wolf Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:190
Career:378-248
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: Team Bullshido
Chips:
38

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.

Post #11   7/9/10 4:46:39PM   

theruler_

MMA Regular

theruler_ Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:118
Career:47-28
Joined:Apr 2010
Chips:
12

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.


Post #12   7/9/10 4:46:47PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710
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.

Post #13   7/9/10 5:37:31PM   

BigIP

Standup Guy

BigIP Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:312
Career:43-35
Joined:Apr 2008
Chips:
50

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.

Post #14   7/9/10 7:39:37PM   

theruler_

MMA Regular

theruler_ Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:118
Career:47-28
Joined:Apr 2010
Chips:
12

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.

Post #15   7/9/10 8:35:01PM   
 
  Page 1 of 2     1     2