Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > MMA Related > UFC

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321  
Old 04-21-2009, 09:19 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,673
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
You wanna know something else about chuck, he will never fight in the UFC again. Silva on the other hand will.

The point JB and I were trying to make, at least the point I was trying to make, was that Silva is a counter fighter. He has never been the one to push the action in a fight. He waits for people to come to him and he exposes their weaknesses. I gave the example in another post that asking Silva to be an aggressive striker, like Wandy, would be like asking Matt to stop using his wrestling to take people down and start pulling guard. Sure if he wanted to do it he could but thats not who he is. It would be one thing if Silva came in the UFC fighting like Wandy and then all of the sudden switched into a counter fighter. That is not what happened though, he came in as a counter striker and picked apart fighters when they came at him. Now his opponents know this and they do not engage him, they keep their distance and try and force Silva to come to them.

Dave may not understand the comparison I am going to make but a lot of other people will.

You would not ask the Pittsburgh Steelers to throw the ball 40 times a game, you would not ask your lead off hitter in Baseball to hit 60 HRs, You are not going to ask Shaq to be your 3 point shooter, You are not going to ask a quarterback to be your leading rusher, you are not going to ask your best defender to become your leading scorer so why would you ask Silva, a counter puncher, to become an aggressive fighter.
I get it! I really do! He's never going to be the leading man!

No, seriously, Max, I do get what you've been saying all along, JB too. But, like others have stated, I feel Anderson could have done more "standing on his feet". I've read all the posts that you three have been exchanging. I understand what you've been saying about his "fighting" style; I understand there are wrestlers, strikers, submission artists, etc... and they all come into the cage with "their" gameplan. Leites had his, Anderson had his and never the two shall meet....

hopefully ever again!
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 04-21-2009, 09:48 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,673
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake
I didn't miss your point, but I just thought it was funny that you were so happy he went in "fighting gangbusters" considering what the outcome was.

I agree with you that it's great to see a fighter show heart and press the action, but at the same time it can also be incredibly stupid. Do you think in retrospective that Chuck would go back and do the same thing in his recent if he could go back in time? Probably not.

I am sure Silva did not intend to pussyfoot around, but a fight can be like a game of cat and mouse at times. You can't just go wild the entire time, or run in head first every time, thats how you lose. In fact I have a lot of respect for fighters who are tactical and execute a well thought out game plan. That shows great skill in my opinion.

I agree that the fight was boring, I never said it wasn't. I just think it was Leites fault. I don't think Silva went out there and said "I'm just gonna jab and leg kick my way to a victory". Nobody does that.
What I said was, "Chuck had everything to lose and he knew it and still went in fighting gangbusters."

You say, you got my point which was he was going into the "fight" with everything he had, his whole being, his whole heart.

You defend Anderson's gameplan/strategy. Y'all keep telling us that he is a "counter" fighter not the "aggressor" and we shouldn't expect him to change his fighting style. Well, Chuck is a striker, he is aggressive and, yes, he did lose. From what you said, you act like he should have "changed" things so maybe he would have had a different outcome. Is it one way for Anderson and another for Chuck? (I'm not being a smartass, I'm honestly asking you )

I'm sure, in retrospect, maybe there are some things Chuck would do differently. In retrospect, knowing what I know now having watched the fights, I probably wouldn't have spent my money on the PPV. But...

on the other hand, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have the pleasure of "talking" with you about it JB.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 04-21-2009, 10:20 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie
What I said was, "Chuck had everything to lose and he knew it and still went in fighting gangbusters."

You say, you got my point which was he was going into the "fight" with everything he had, his whole being, his whole heart.

You defend Anderson's gameplan/strategy. Y'all keep telling us that he is a "counter" fighter not the "aggressor" and we shouldn't expect him to change his fighting style. Well, Chuck is a striker, he is aggressive and, yes, he did lose. From what you said, you act like he should have "changed" things so maybe he would have had a different outcome. Is it one way for Anderson and another for Chuck? (I'm not being a smartass, I'm honestly asking you )

I'm sure, in retrospect, maybe there are some things Chuck would do differently. In retrospect, knowing what I know now having watched the fights, I probably wouldn't have spent my money on the PPV. But...

on the other hand, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have the pleasure of "talking" with you about it JB.
The difference is Chuck got KO'd for the third time in his last 5 fights. That's no good. When I said Anderson should not have to change his strategy I was referring to him not going to the ground to fight Leites. If you are in a fight and your opponent is a jiu jitsu champion, and you are known for dominating people with stand up fighting, then you are not just going to take the bait and drop to the ground to fight a guy who just lays down. Thats why they make the fighters stand back up in the first place.

I actually never said that Silva should not be aggressive. There is nothing wrong with being aggressive when the time is right, and being a counter striker also does not mean you ONLY wait until your opponent starts swinging. Good counter strikers also work to set up big combos of their own by peppering the opponent with jabs to find their range and circling around them to set up openings so they can land huge shots of their own. Thats old school.

I understand what you are saying, but you cannot assume that Silva did not give it his all. I'm not saying he could not have done better, but the fact is that there is a pecking order in this sport and winning does matter. It's not to say that Silva would not have liked to have KO'd him quickly and stunningly, but that don't always happen.

I know we expect fighters and athletes to go into every single match and give the best performance they can, and it's okay to be critical to a certain degree, but we should remember that these people ARE human beings. They have bad days like the rest of us, but obviously something got them to where they are or we would not be talking about them. So when they let us down it's easy to dump all over them, but I think it gets way out of hand too fast sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 04-21-2009, 10:27 PM
Max
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.compustrike.com/stats_fil...lva-Leites.HTM

There it is, the compustrike stats for the fight

Silva threw 179 punches and landed 83

Leites threw 93 and landed 22
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 04-22-2009, 12:11 AM
kevint13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
You would not ask the Pittsburgh Steelers to throw the ball 40 times a game, you would not ask your lead off hitter in Baseball to hit 60 HRs, You are not going to ask Shaq to be your 3 point shooter, You are not going to ask a quarterback to be your leading rusher, you are not going to ask your best defender to become your leading scorer so why would you ask Silva, a counter puncher, to become an aggressive fighter.
You wouldn't have the Steelers go into prevent defense early in the game either. You wouldn't bring in your closing pitcher in the 4th inning to protect your lead. Why? Because you have confidence in your offense to do their part.

My opinion is Silva fought not to lose and NEVER made an attempt to finish the fight.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 04-22-2009, 12:15 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce13
My opinion is Silva fought not to lose and NEVER made an attempt to finish the fight.
mine also
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 04-22-2009, 01:07 AM
maxumII
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie
What I said was, "Chuck had everything to lose and he knew it and still went in fighting gangbusters."

You say, you got my point which was he was going into the "fight" with everything he had, his whole being, his whole heart.

You defend Anderson's gameplan/strategy. Y'all keep telling us that he is a "counter" fighter not the "aggressor" and we shouldn't expect him to change his fighting style. Well, Chuck is a striker, he is aggressive and, yes, he did lose. From what you said, you act like he should have "changed" things so maybe he would have had a different outcome. Is it one way for Anderson and another for Chuck? (I'm not being a smartass, I'm honestly asking you )

I'm sure, in retrospect, maybe there are some things Chuck would do differently. In retrospect, knowing what I know now having watched the fights, I probably wouldn't have spent my money on the PPV. But...

on the other hand, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have the pleasure of "talking" with you about it JB.
The difference is Chuck has been figured out and his strategy no longer works. Whereas ASs style does.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 04-22-2009, 01:10 AM
maxumII
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie
You know what I respect about Chuck?

I saw his fight with Rashad and I saw his fight with Rua Saturday. You know what he was doing when he got KTFO in both fights, he was going for it, he was risking it, he was (to quote Nezzar) "FIGHTING"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For those of you who saw the fight, did you see Chuck's face after the fight, he was devastated! Did you see Anderson when he "walked off" when Joe was interviewing him; did you see his expression in the post-fight interview clip that someone linked?

You tell me who fought with heart! You tell me who laid it on the line! Tell me who the real fighter was that night, the guy who went for it and lost or the guy who pussyfooted around for five freaking rounds and, yeah, he won, if you want to call that "winning".

Chuck had everything to lose and he knew it and still went in fighting gangbusters.

If Anderson's mindset is/was the same as Max's and JB's (this is what I took from their posts) "why risk it, why take the chance of losing" by going after Leites when I can just countdown the clock for 25 minutes with a few kicks, a few jabs, dance around a bit, not get touched and still keep my belt plus make history.....

Maybe he should be the one thinking of retiring.

Oh, btw, I wonder how many people were first-timers to the sport and this was the first Anderson Silva fight they saw. You know what they say about "first impressions"....
What I think a "first-timer" will think is what the hell is that guy doing constantly falling to ground like a little b1tsh. They probably would think the crowd was him booing TL as well.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 04-22-2009, 01:23 AM
Max
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sport or spectacle
By Greg Savage (greg@sherdog.com)

I have this internal debate just about every day: Is MMA a sport or is it purely entertainment?

Now I donít want to hear the copout about it being a combination of the two; all sports are a form of entertainment. What I am getting at is the way they are run.

In traditional sports, premier athletes command the top billing as well as the top dollar. The best teams and individuals, no matter how they get the job done, are heralded as the best. While they may not be as popular as the ďmore excitingĒ players in their sports, their ability is recognized.

Enter mixed martial arts, a sport where you can win again and again and still not get a crack at the title because of how you win. This ridiculous fact seems to be lost on the fans as much as the promoters.

My favorite fighters growing up were Tommy Hearns and Pernell Whitaker. If that is not a paradox, I donít know what is. Hearns was the go-for-broke puncher who delivered his share of knockouts and memorable fights. Whitaker, on the other hand, was like a ghost in the ring, nearly unhittable.

In my opinion, there is room for both kinds of fighters in todayís MMA. Unfortunately, I donít think many fans, or fighters for that matter, share that opinion.

Being raised playing and watching traditional sports, I just canít fathom a world where pitching and defense, goaltending, the running game and shot blocking are looked down upon.

I would be lying if I said I didnít have some serious misgivings about the direction of MMA, not so much because of where it is being steered but instead over whom it appeals to. The ugly reality is that this is a product for consumption, and the people lining up to consume would much rather watch home run derby than a perfect game.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 04-22-2009, 01:30 AM
Max
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce13
You wouldn't have the Steelers go into prevent defense early in the game either. You wouldn't bring in your closing pitcher in the 4th inning to protect your lead. Why? Because you have confidence in your offense to do their part.

My opinion is Silva fought not to lose and NEVER made an attempt to finish the fight.
very true, but the Steelers might start running the ball at the start of the came to control ToP and a team might be built around their pitching winning games instead of big hitters. Just because a team chooses to win a game with defense and not by racking up the points does not mean they are not trying to win.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.