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

Diaz........OUT!!!!

THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN LOCKED Print  
  Page 3 of 3     1     2     3  
Posted By Message

jakewalters

BJ PENN FOREVER

jakewalters Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,581
Career:919-578
Joined:Jan 2012
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
692

Posted by Aether


Posted by Kpro


Posted by Aether

2 and 5 as I've said many times, and I see a clear argument for either fighter winning round 5.



3 was the only round that more than one judge gave to Diaz and they're professionally trained. So there's your argument for a different round and here's an actual picture of the scorecards for proof.

Diaz/Condit - Official Scorecard Picture


/thread



You need to go back to grade 4 and learn how to read, because your understanding of basic English is pretty poor.



"You need to go back to grade 4 and learn how to read." Have you seriously not learned an insult since fifth grade?

What I love about this website is the maturity most people have on the forums. Most people. Whether or not you agree with him, when you take it to such a petulant level its hard to take your posts seriously.

Last edited 2/5/12 4:06AM server time by jakewalters
Edit note/reason: n/a

_______________________________________
Twitter @TheMMApodcast

Post #31   2/5/12 4:04:08AM   

Bubbles

Come at me bro

Bubbles Avatar
5




 
 
 


 
 
Posts:9,368
Career:1,153-681
Joined:Oct 2009
Chips:
1,462

Posted by Aether

You're being a little baby, grow up a little bit, it's sad. I've said pretty clearly many times that while I don't see the argument for 3 rounds for Diaz, I could easily be made to see the reasoning if someone presented it to me, it's a pretty simple statement, you're raging like a little infant, and it's completely pathetic.



round 1 and 2: strikes landed about even. Diaz was the aggressor and had octagon control
round 3 and 4: Condit won
round 5: strikes about even, Diaz gets TD, back mount, and a RNC attempt

now add in Condit turning his back and running away at least a couple dozen times

Diaz wins 48-47

simple enough?

Last edited 2/5/12 4:12AM server time by bubbles
Edit note/reason: n/a

_______________________________________
The best cure for insomnia is a lot of sex. Even if it doesn't end up putting you to sleep, you don't mind so much

Men be careful, female sexual predators are using a date rape drug called a Blowjob to trap men into scams called relationships.

Post #32   2/5/12 4:10:34AM   

Aether

Heavyweight Champ

Aether Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,068
Career:946-505
Joined:Apr 2007
Chips:
1,039

Posted by jakewalters


Posted by Aether


Posted by Kpro


Posted by Aether

2 and 5 as I've said many times, and I see a clear argument for either fighter winning round 5.



3 was the only round that more than one judge gave to Diaz and they're professionally trained. So there's your argument for a different round and here's an actual picture of the scorecards for proof.

Diaz/Condit - Official Scorecard Picture


/thread



You need to go back to grade 4 and learn how to read, because your understanding of basic English is pretty poor.



"You need to go back to grade 4 and learn how to read." Have you seriously not learned an insult since fifth grade?

What I love about this website is the maturity most people have on the forums. Most people. Whether or not you agree with him, when you take it to such a petulant level its hard to take your posts seriously.



Well I've stated pretty clearly about 10 times or so that I never said that I think it's impossible for someone to score the fight for Diaz I said that "I don't see" their reasoning, I don't see the reasoning because I am not an omnipotent being who can see every possible interpretation of every scenario. For about the 12th time, if someone gave me their logical interpretation, then I would see.

It's a pretty simple statement, and yet 2 pages later he is STILL basing arguments off of the idea that if he shows me any person who scored the fight differently than me that my statement will be invalidated, this makes no sense. You can all jump onboard with your buddy, but the beginning of this entire argument was him telling me that I was a biased poster unwilling to see the viewpoints of others, because I said that I "didn't see" the argument, not that the argument didn't exist, not that it was impossible, that I personally did not see what it was. To accuse me of being biased and unwilling to accept others' opinions because I don't see what the argument is before it is ever presented to me is ludicrous, and an insult, so I am perfectly within my rights to be rude. Since I've corrected the mistake about 10 times and he persists with an argument founded on a fabricated quotation, yeah, I would say he needs to learn how to read what is being written and understand it.

I was misquoted and insulted based on that complete misquote, then when I explained how my statement is not remotely biased or closed minded, he went on a huge circular logic trip.

Post #33   2/5/12 4:18:17AM   

jakewalters

BJ PENN FOREVER

jakewalters Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,581
Career:919-578
Joined:Jan 2012
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
692

Posted by Aether


Posted by jakewalters


Posted by Aether


Posted by Kpro


Posted by Aether

2 and 5 as I've said many times, and I see a clear argument for either fighter winning round 5.



3 was the only round that more than one judge gave to Diaz and they're professionally trained. So there's your argument for a different round and here's an actual picture of the scorecards for proof.

Diaz/Condit - Official Scorecard Picture


/thread



You need to go back to grade 4 and learn how to read, because your understanding of basic English is pretty poor.



"You need to go back to grade 4 and learn how to read." Have you seriously not learned an insult since fifth grade?

What I love about this website is the maturity most people have on the forums. Most people. Whether or not you agree with him, when you take it to such a petulant level its hard to take your posts seriously.



Well I've stated pretty clearly about 10 times or so that I never said that I think it's impossible for someone to score the fight for Diaz I said that "I don't see" their reasoning, I don't see the reasoning because I am not an omnipotent being who can see every possible interpretation of every scenario. For about the 12th time, if someone gave me their logical interpretation, then I would see.

It's a pretty simple statement, and yet 2 pages later he is STILL basing arguments off of the idea that if he shows me any person who scored the fight differently than me that my statement will be invalidated, this makes no sense. You can all jump onboard with your buddy, but the beginning of this entire argument was him telling me that I was a biased poster unwilling to see the viewpoints of others, because I said that I "didn't see" the argument, not that the argument didn't exist, not that it was impossible, that I personally did not see what it was. To accuse me of being biased and unwilling to accept others' opinions because I don't see what the argument is before it is ever presented to me is ludicrous, and an insult, so I am perfectly within my rights to be rude. Since I've corrected the mistake about 10 times and he persists with an argument founded on a fabricated quotation, yeah, I would say he needs to learn how to read what is being written and understand it.

I was misquoted and insulted based on that complete misquote, then when I explained how my statement is not remotely biased or closed minded, he went on a huge circular logic trip.



It wasn't a complete misquote. If I told someone "I just dont see how anyone scored this for Condit" I would be suggesting that I don't think anyone else can reasonably think Condit won.

You did mean something else, and after the initial confusion we all understood when you clarified but since then you've been running in circles while accusing other people of doing the same thing. And about these people being my "buddies"? I've never talked to anyone on this thread man, sorry I don't agree with you but it's not personal.

_______________________________________
Twitter @TheMMApodcast

Post #34   2/5/12 4:35:57AM   

Aether

Heavyweight Champ

Aether Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,068
Career:946-505
Joined:Apr 2007
Chips:
1,039

Posted by jakewalters


Posted by Aether


Posted by jakewalters


Posted by Aether


Posted by Kpro


Posted by Aether

2 and 5 as I've said many times, and I see a clear argument for either fighter winning round 5.



3 was the only round that more than one judge gave to Diaz and they're professionally trained. So there's your argument for a different round and here's an actual picture of the scorecards for proof.

Diaz/Condit - Official Scorecard Picture


/thread



You need to go back to grade 4 and learn how to read, because your understanding of basic English is pretty poor.



"You need to go back to grade 4 and learn how to read." Have you seriously not learned an insult since fifth grade?

What I love about this website is the maturity most people have on the forums. Most people. Whether or not you agree with him, when you take it to such a petulant level its hard to take your posts seriously.



Well I've stated pretty clearly about 10 times or so that I never said that I think it's impossible for someone to score the fight for Diaz I said that "I don't see" their reasoning, I don't see the reasoning because I am not an omnipotent being who can see every possible interpretation of every scenario. For about the 12th time, if someone gave me their logical interpretation, then I would see.

It's a pretty simple statement, and yet 2 pages later he is STILL basing arguments off of the idea that if he shows me any person who scored the fight differently than me that my statement will be invalidated, this makes no sense. You can all jump onboard with your buddy, but the beginning of this entire argument was him telling me that I was a biased poster unwilling to see the viewpoints of others, because I said that I "didn't see" the argument, not that the argument didn't exist, not that it was impossible, that I personally did not see what it was. To accuse me of being biased and unwilling to accept others' opinions because I don't see what the argument is before it is ever presented to me is ludicrous, and an insult, so I am perfectly within my rights to be rude. Since I've corrected the mistake about 10 times and he persists with an argument founded on a fabricated quotation, yeah, I would say he needs to learn how to read what is being written and understand it.

I was misquoted and insulted based on that complete misquote, then when I explained how my statement is not remotely biased or closed minded, he went on a huge circular logic trip.



It wasn't a complete misquote. If I told someone "I just dont see how anyone scored this for Condit" I would be suggesting that I don't think anyone else can reasonably think Condit won.

You did mean something else, and after the initial confusion we all understood when you clarified but since then you've been running in circles while accusing other people of doing the same thing. And about these people being my "buddies"? I've never talked to anyone on this thread man, sorry I don't agree with you but it's not personal.



My exact point is that we all didn't understand when I clarified, because Kpro continued making the same argument repeatedly after I clarified the meaning of my statement, which is the EXACT reason I made the "learn to read" comment, because I had clarified what I meant MANY TIMES, yet the argument was still that "Dana White gave X score, thus you are wrong" this statement obviously assumes that I meant that no one could possibly score the fight this way, despite having repeatedly explained the meaning of my statement.

Read his posts, it's very obvious that when I clarified what my statement was intended to mean, it was completely ignored and he continued arguing based on the assumptions based off of words that were never written.

Any sentence starting with "I don't see" is pretty much automatically self critical, and the exact opposite of closed minded, because I am offering that I don't understand something, to say "I don't see X argument" or "I don't understand X argument" is to invite clarification, not to block it out, the entire last 2 pages is based on that one sentence, and my clarification was absolutely not understood by everyone, or at very least not acknowledged.

Post #35   2/5/12 4:44:45AM   

Aether

Heavyweight Champ

Aether Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,068
Career:946-505
Joined:Apr 2007
Chips:
1,039
Also, it was a complete misquote. That's what a "quote" is, you repeat the exact words that the other person said to the letter, otherwise it's paraphrasing, not quoting. People can say "oh semantics" if they like, but it's pretty important when you base an argument off of a quote to write literally what they wrote and not change it. He even put quotation marks around it, it was a blatant misquote and the misquoted words implied a hugely different meaning, which was the entire foundation of the argument to begin with.

I'm being perfectly logical, calm, and sober, as far as I'm concerned.

Post #36   2/5/12 4:48:15AM   

jakewalters

BJ PENN FOREVER

jakewalters Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,581
Career:919-578
Joined:Jan 2012
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
692

Posted by Aether

Also, it was a complete misquote. That's what a "quote" is, you repeat the exact words that the other person said to the letter, otherwise it's paraphrasing, not quoting. People can say "oh semantics" if they like, but it's pretty important when you base an argument off of a quote to write literally what they wrote and not change it. He even put quotation marks around it, it was a blatant misquote and the misquoted words implied a hugely different meaning, which was the entire foundation of the argument to begin with.

I'm being perfectly logical, calm, and sober, as far as I'm concerned.



_______________________________________
Twitter @TheMMApodcast

Post #37   2/5/12 5:05:25AM   

Aether

Heavyweight Champ

Aether Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,068
Career:946-505
Joined:Apr 2007
Chips:
1,039

Posted by jakewalters


Posted by Aether

Also, it was a complete misquote. That's what a "quote" is, you repeat the exact words that the other person said to the letter, otherwise it's paraphrasing, not quoting. People can say "oh semantics" if they like, but it's pretty important when you base an argument off of a quote to write literally what they wrote and not change it. He even put quotation marks around it, it was a blatant misquote and the misquoted words implied a hugely different meaning, which was the entire foundation of the argument to begin with.

I'm being perfectly logical, calm, and sober, as far as I'm concerned.






Your previous post said very clearly

"It wasn't a complete misquote."

You're the one who just brought that point up, so I responded to it, if you bring up a point in a discussion and someone responds to the point that YOU MADE how are they beating a dead horse? Lmao. What a ridiculous argument.

Post #38   2/5/12 5:12:48AM   

jakewalters

BJ PENN FOREVER

jakewalters Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,581
Career:919-578
Joined:Jan 2012
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
692

Posted by Aether


Posted by jakewalters


Posted by Aether

Also, it was a complete misquote. That's what a "quote" is, you repeat the exact words that the other person said to the letter, otherwise it's paraphrasing, not quoting. People can say "oh semantics" if they like, but it's pretty important when you base an argument off of a quote to write literally what they wrote and not change it. He even put quotation marks around it, it was a blatant misquote and the misquoted words implied a hugely different meaning, which was the entire foundation of the argument to begin with.

I'm being perfectly logical, calm, and sober, as far as I'm concerned.






Your previous post said very clearly

"It wasn't a complete misquote."

You're the one who just brought that point up, so I responded to it, if you bring up a point in a discussion and someone responds to the point that YOU MADE how are they beating a dead horse? Lmao. What a ridiculous argument.




_______________________________________
Twitter @TheMMApodcast

Post #39   2/5/12 5:18:12AM   

Poor_Franklin

Slight Reach Advantage

Poor_Franklin Avatar
9
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,248
Career:1,658-951
Joined:Jun 2011
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
1,420
early vote for thread of the year lol

_______________________________________
Never Trust A Man Who Does Not Make All Of His Picks

Post #40   2/5/12 4:19:57PM   

fullfighting

MMA Regular

fullfighting Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:217
Career:151-94
Joined:Jun 2007
Chips:
21
Diaz got screwed. Condit ran all night. Weak

Post #41   2/5/12 4:28:29PM   

lohmann

A Black Belt in Jiu-Jitsu

lohmann Avatar
7
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,929
Career:1,700-926
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
365

Posted by Kpro

Dana at the presser that "Diaz won the first two rounds without a doubt" and the judges gave Diaz the 5th. That qualifies as 3 rounds that people with more qualified opinions than yours gave Diaz I don't see any way you could think 'there's no way anyone can find 3 rounds to give Diaz'. That shows a very poor understanding of MMA judging on your part. And if it's not the understanding of MMA judging then I always thought you were a less biased poster than this to not be able to see others opinions.



Judging is broken. I think most MMA fans would agree with that, and if we can agree not to argue about that point, I have a question about your statement:

Why would you accept a judge's opinion that Diaz won the fifth round, which I would say he did not, when you're arguing against their calls altogether? The very nature of this thread is that the judges were either right or wrong - which I would argue they were both right in the end and wrong in the means - about their decision, so cherrypicking parts of their scorecards to support the claim Diaz won the fifth round seems contradictory on the part of somebody that is arguing against their final scorecard. There has been a lot of wasted time if we accept the statement that judges are more qualified than the audience; if they have some sort of secret recipe to calling a round or two, than there's no point in thousands of wasted hours by hardcore fans across MMA's internet community in even bothering with discussions like this.

(Yes, I know you did not actually claim Diaz won round five or the fight. I just wanted to spend less time writing so I skipped trying to make that point clear.)

And a more simple question, just for the sake of clarity: who do you think won the fight and which rounds would you give to the loser?

Last edited 2/5/12 10:49PM server time by lohmann
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #42   2/5/12 10:48:31PM   

jakewalters

BJ PENN FOREVER

jakewalters Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,581
Career:919-578
Joined:Jan 2012
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
692

Posted by lohmann


Posted by Kpro

Dana at the presser that "Diaz won the first two rounds without a doubt" and the judges gave Diaz the 5th. That qualifies as 3 rounds that people with more qualified opinions than yours gave Diaz I don't see any way you could think 'there's no way anyone can find 3 rounds to give Diaz'. That shows a very poor understanding of MMA judging on your part. And if it's not the understanding of MMA judging then I always thought you were a less biased poster than this to not be able to see others opinions.



Judging is broken. I think most MMA fans would agree with that, and if we can agree not to argue about that point, I have a question about your statement:

Why would you accept a judge's opinion that Diaz won the fifth round, which I would say he did not, when you're arguing against their calls altogether? The very nature of this thread is that the judges were either right or wrong - which I would argue they were both right in the end and wrong in the means - about their decision, so cherrypicking parts of their scorecards to support the claim Diaz won the fifth round seems contradictory on the part of somebody that is arguing against their final scorecard. There has been a lot of wasted time if we accept the statement that judges are more qualified than the audience; if they have some sort of secret recipe to calling a round or two, than there's no point in thousands of wasted hours by hardcore fans across MMA's internet community in even bothering with discussions like this.

(Yes, I know you did not actually claim Diaz won round five or the fight. I just wanted to spend less time writing so I skipped trying to make that point clear.)

And a more simple question, just for the sake of clarity: who do you think won the fight and which rounds would you give to the loser?



The guy isn't allowed to partly agree with people? I didn't realize you had to either completely agree or disagree with people around here. I think the point that he is making is that Dana apparently agrees with the judges' decsion, which awards the 5th round to Diaz. Dana also said Diaz won the 1st & 2nd. So Dana saying he believes Condit won is a bit of a head-scratcher. I could see people scoring the fifth either way, apparently Dana thought CC won the 5th. I do credit the judges for scoring the 5th to Diaz, but giving the first four to Condit is as laughable as giving the first four to Diaz. It was a close fight and there's no way any of the judges should have had it 40-36 either way going into the fifth.

Here's how I see it (if you care at all).. Diaz won the first two rounds. If he hadn't been he wouldn't have been taunting Carlos. Even Carlos'es own corner told him he had to ratchet it up after the second. The third was close but I give Condit the nod in that one and in the fourth. At the end of the very close fifth round, which had been controlled by Condit keeping the distance, Diaz stole the round and subsequently the fight. He took Condit's back and gained the most advantageous position in the match.

_______________________________________
Twitter @TheMMApodcast

Post #43   2/6/12 1:07:22AM   

Kpro

I STAB WATERBEDS!

Kpro Avatar
19
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:7,158
Career:2,631-1,351
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,879

Posted by lohmann

there's no point in thousands of wasted hours by hardcore fans across MMA's internet community in even bothering with discussions like this.



Yes, which is why i'm skipping the first part of your post because based on your response and what you quoted and put in bold, then asked, you must not have read the entire thread or just didn't understand the reasoning why it was referenced. No big deal, this entire thread is one big clusterfuck. I didn't even know it was still alive until a forum search, but as you said there's no point in bothering with discussions like this.


Posted by lohmann

And a more simple question, just for the sake of clarity: who do you think won the fight and which rounds would you give to the loser?



There's no real clarity I can give you as the fight was not clear cut by any means, but if it's for the sake of curiosity go to the 6th post down on This page as ncordless and I happened to have the exact same thoughts on the fight.


EDIT: Thank you Hippy, I thought this would never end. It's not even a spoiler thread.

Last edited 2/6/12 8:11AM server time by Kpro
Edit note/reason: n/a

_______________________________________
If I was 50 years younger I'd kick your ass!

Post #44   2/6/12 2:31:17AM   

hippysmacker

Boondock Saints Mod

hippysmacker Avatar
7
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,237
Career:2,025-1,145
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: Nutthuggers Suck
Chips:
612
Okay time to chill guys. Here are some things to think about .


1. You both are entitled to your own opinions.

2. The argument that either one of yours ,mine, any random mma judge , Dana White, anyone the hell else carries more weight is irrelevant. They are all just the opinion of one individual. Personally the opinion that matters most to me is ME.

3. It was a really tough fight to call for many people and which criteria you particularly value more will sway that outcome.If you value strikes landed and damage dealt then i would guess you think Condit won. If you think Diaz was not only the aggressor but Condit was running then you probably think Diaz won. If you highly value back points, sub attempt , take downs , reversals, ground control over strikes etc, etc...

4. Personal bias can cause not only clouded judgement but also a different kind of bias( i.e. the guy we pick losing pisses us off) and emotions can run high for any of us. I happen to like both Aether and Kpro a lot. That doesn't mean either one of you doesn't have biases, can be swayed by them or can't be wrong. I know I have been guilty of all these in my time as well. That doesn't mean i am accusing either one of you , just saying it's worth thinking about.

5. I personally loathe the personality of Nick Diaz. I can't think of any fighters I like less off the top of my head except Tito and Koscheck because in my mind neither one of them fights hard enough and I don't like their personalitys to boot . Diaz is impossible for me to accuse that of. So I love watching him fight but I am always rooting for him to lose unless he fights either one those guys. Its possible my judgement is off in this fight but I thought Condit won 48-47. Diaz is Kpros favorite fighter , maybe he is swayed too.Maybe Aether feels the same way about him I do, although I have never asked and don't recall him saying such.

6. I hate the way Condit fought this fight too and think it was not the norm for him. I would have expected him to fight a wrestler with good sub D this way. Someone he needs to avoid a lot of takedown attempts from. It wasn't what i was expecting and I think I realize why he did it. He didn't want Diaz to get -

A. The crowd or judges on his side with flurries , some of which have very little blows landed, and even less damage sometimes. The judges are often too far away or at the wrong angle to see what landed and guess at the damage it did. I actually think they should have to re-watch key exchanges from multiple camera angles after the fact in order to accurately score the fight


B. I can't think of a time Diaz has gassed at all in the last 5 years. Its hard for me to imagine him even doing so. But a frustrated Diaz probably won't fight as well. That had to frustrate him. It would also affect his confidence., I believe he gets more pumped by the crowd noise and more confident when he feels he is imposing his will.


C. I can't think of any good reason for a fighter to fight according to his rivals game plan. It seems that would give his opponent his best chance at victory.

D. While I hate point fighting and have often been critical of people that have done it in the past ( Machida, Bisping, etc) It is a legitimate winning strategy. Stick and move is the hallmark of many all time great boxers according to most. Personally I would rather watch Pacquiao instead of Mayweather because to me Pacquio fights while Mayweather just tries to win.

E. If they both really think they won Dana has already put it out there that they can fight again. If they do I hope to see a more straightforward less technical fight myself.


F. The fights over. Condit got the decision , agree or not. This thread is also over and you all got to say a bunch but it had to degenerated to what I deem beneath you . Since I have a lot of respect for you both (and want to keep my position as driver of the Kpro/Aether tandem bandwagon) I am locking it. I humbly suggest you guys just agree to disagree and avoid any more personal insults and "butthurtness " of any kind. So I'm sorry. If you need to Be mad at me. But remember this when I think of you two I usually feel like this
or this. Please end this here and let me cling to my beliefs and not feel like this. Umkay?

Last edited 2/6/12 11:05AM server time by hippysmacker
Edit note/reason: n/a
4 total post edits

_______________________________________
“Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie ,cheat ,or steal.for selfish gain. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil. Never back away from an enemy. Either fight or surrender. It is not enough to say I will not be evil. Evil must be fought wherever it is found.”
The Iron Code

Post #45   2/6/12 5:07:31AM   
 
  Page 3 of 3     1     2     3