View Single Post
  #24  
Old 03-23-2011, 07:51 PM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is offline
MMA, VCU, & Doctor Who
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,313
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
bisping wins that fight 10 out of 10 times .. but in that fight, the knee definitely changed the fight ... rivera shouldn't have continued, got his win bonus (if he has one) and rematched the fight for another paycheque ... but he didn't .. doesn't change the fact that bisping is a slimy prick ...
+4

Quote:
Originally Posted by JavierDLC View Post
Okay I agree with you that the knee was intentional and that Mike shouldn't have thrown the knee.

But come on back in the pride days people would get kneed and soccer kicked in the head an still be able to win fights.

I know that a knee to a downed opponent is illegal but Jorge should protect himself at all times.

I agree Everyone has a punchers chance in this sport.
Yes, in Pride it was legal, and was usually a show-stopper.

As for "he should protect himself at all times", he was protected from a knee to the head. By rule, being down is a protection ,that's why fighters will drop a hand to the mat when caught in a front arm-in headlock.

Besides, trying to blame Jorge's "lack of defense" for Mike's illegal knee is ridiculous. If Mike had eye-gouged him, would Jorge also be at fault for not protecting himself? If Mike had bit him, would Jorge also be at fault for not protecting himself? If Mike had cup-checked him, would Jorge also be at fault for not protecting himself? If Mike had knifed him (ok, hyperbole, I know), would Jorge also be at fault for not protecting himself?
__________________
Reply With Quote