View Single Post
Old 11-25-2013, 10:39 PM
Chuck Chuck is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 100

Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
the true Tragedy of UFC 167 was that GSP made a choice to perpetuate a myth against his own honour and that of the UFC title itself. It was the 20th Celebration, He was the main event, and the commission wrongly awarded him the championship. He knew it, The Organisation knew it, his opponent knew it. If he had removed that belt, there and then, and handed it to Johny Hendricks.....think of what he might have achieved. If He valued being a Champion, as much as holding a meaningless trophie, not only would he have erased a reign full of accusations, he would have forever gained the heart of the mob. He gained his piece of Gold...but he didnt leave The Champion.
I would like to formally nominate this post for the "Stupidest crap Dave has ever said" Hall of Fame.

Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
Is this a bromance?

Absolutely. ;)

Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
And comparing what's been said about GSP not finishing fights to Johny and this particular fight isn't really "apples to apples" in my humble opinion. I'm not sure why you're saying Johny "deserved" to lose the fight?
Johnny is known for finishing his fights... most power in the UFC etc. If the "fans" are quick to jump on GSP when he doesn't finish a fight where is the criticism when "hardest hitting guy in the division" can't? And JH deserved to lose that fight because by his own admission in the post fight PC he was only using "70%" of his power... he admitted to not trying his hardest in some of the rounds to prove to everyone he could go 5. What an idiot. It's a CHAMPIONSHIP fight moron... how about you try your hardest???

Just because some of us believe Johny won doesn't mean we're haters. Just because some don't root for GSP doesn't make them haters. Everybody likes who they like.
You went all "girl" here and started talking about something totally off topic. Who said anything about anybody being a hater??

Did you see what Ariel Halwani said in the Post Fight Show about hearing GSP's trainer tell him during the break after round 3 going into 4, "You're down 2-1." That means GSP's team thought he'd already lost 2 rounds which had to be 1 & 2, right, because everyone agrees he won 3. We know Johny won round 4 so that would mean GSP's own team thought Johny won 1, 2 & 4.
I completely disagree. A coach would much rather his fighter have a mindset of he's behind than he's ahead. And even IF for the sake of argument they did believe he was losing... who cares? I've heard plenty fo things come out of a corner in a fight.. "you're doing great" "stick to the plan it's working" "you got this"... just because they say it doesn't make it true.

Johny's team is telling him, "You've probably got two.", then GSP's team is telling him, "You're down 2-1"...sounds like both corners were on the same page and had Johny leading by 2 rounds going into the 4th.
Georges corner said......
Johny's team said......
Ariel said....
Goldy said.......
Sunshine none of that means crap. At the end of the day all that matters is what is done in the cage and what the judges say. GSP won the fight. Period. It wasn't a bad decision and it sure as hell wasn't this robbery everybody is whimpering about.

Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
Chuck and others bring up "damage", how that's not a factor, but is that really true?
This is a combat sport after all, opponents are trying to inflict injury.
No, they are trying to win. It's a sport, not a fight. Fights don't have rules and judges.
When a guy gets a cut that's bad enough for the fight to be stopped, that's from damage.
No it's not. We've seen TONS of fights with HUGE cuts that are never stopped. They are stopped for fighter safety not damage inflicted.
When a guy gets KO'd or the ref stops it due to a TKO, that's from damage inflicted.
No. It's because a TKO or KO is one of the ways the rules define a stoppage. Damage is not.
So why shouldn't these judges be using damage as a criteria? Doesn't that go to "effective" striking? What are they basing effective striking on, just the number of strikes they see landing? What if they don't see every strike landed due to bad positioning or due to the ref blocking their view?
You have exceed your allocation of hypothetical scenarios. ;) How do you judge damage? Bruising? Welts? Cuts? Red marks? Lot's of fighters have had all of these things and dominated a fight and won the decision. Would you like to see those reversed? What about fighters with scar tissue that cut easier? What about black fighters? A black fighter won't show bruising, redness and welts as easy. Neither will a fighter with a big beard. Unfair advantage? What do you do then?
Originally Posted by BradW View Post
the fight was won by GSP as decided by the judges.
do I think it was the right decision ?...maybe...maybe not.

but here is the thing Bonnie...if Johny wanted to win the fight he should
have knocked GSP out instead of only using 70% of his power.
he said he tried not to knock out GSP just to see if he could make the distance in a 5 round championship fight.
if that's really true then he got what he deserved...maybe next time he will try a little harder.

Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post

jeez, you thought me and chuck had a bromance????? you two get a room!!!
RNC I wish I could quit you........
Reply With Quote