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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-19-2009, 01:38 AM
Chuck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh the Penn huggers are't going to like that!!!! There is no room for logic or fact in the "grease" debate.....

BJ was a victim and GSP is a big 'ol cheater!!!!

And a much better fighter but hey... that's irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-20-2009, 04:39 AM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDPARKASH
Really good post on www.bjpenn.com by one of the members. So good, that I thought i would post here to our community.

What a furor has been raised by the events of UFC 94. As the sport of mixed martial arts continues its trek towards mainstream legitimacy, one of the markers of its true arrival will be when it is covered with the same depth and attention to detail as other sports. In the wake of events such as this, or the violent Lindland knockout at Affliction, it is important that the MMA community has strong central voices to turn to and rely on for information that is both timely, but moreover probing and accurate.

It is in the light of these above considerations that I felt compelled to write. A digital letter to the editor, as it were. The key to this entire controversy is that very few people seem to have actually considered the rules in question. Allegations of "cheating" are being bandied about, and official proclamations of impropriety dispensed without a reference to what codes have actually been violated. In this context without law, the discussions have been reduced to vitriol and speculation. These kinds of discussions even now overrunning popular fan-based discussion forums are I think, harmful to the community. They are polarizing. Where instead there could be healthy debate about the relative merits of the rules and their importance to the success and ascendancy of MMA, we have bickering and misinformed hysteria. I think the MMA press is an essential ingredient in the future success of the sport, and can have a role in crystallizing its fanbase into a positive mouthpiece for the sport and advocate for its success. That it be well-informed is key to this.

The Nevada Athletic Commission regulations are in fact readily accessible online, and I query why more hasn't been said of them in the MMA press? We've seen Mr. Kizer quoted on several MMA reporting sites, and perhaps most disturbingly, even the NSAC executive director seems unclear about the actual content of the Commission regulations.

He appears to have been confirming that there has been impropriety on the part of the fighter's corner, without specifying the basis for this claim, thereby fueling rampant speculation that somehow, merely the application of a greasing agent to any area but the face is in and of itself a punishable violation. Whether or not this is an accurate reading of the regs should not be left to speculation.

The regulation in question, at NAC 467.598(2) prohibits the "excessive use of grease [...] on the face or body." The remedy for a breach of this requirement, which is incorporated under the "physical appearance" heading of the regulations, is the removal of the excess grease.

In this whole controversy so far, it seems to have been lost the apparent fact that the actions of the fighter's corner are not in and of themselves prohibited. Reading the reg it seems a cornerman can put vaseline anywhere he wants. There is only a violation if it constitutes "excessive use." What constitutes excessive use? Actually an interesting journalistic question. A comparative analysis of other in-ring fouls and their relative consequences to this violation of "appearance" standards. Interesting journalistic question. These are the questions that need to be addressed by a respected voice in the community.

At any rate, as this mini-controversy has exploded over the course of the day, I've been shocked about the lack of clarity on what the rules actually are. As a fan of the sport, and someone who appreciates quality journalism, I just wanted to drop a note to commend you for the job already being done, and to say that indeed fans have a hunger for coverage with even more depth. Some fans are just in it for the clobbering, but some of us want to see in depth analysis of the rules, crediting the sophistication of the sport. What the community needs is less speculation, and more concrete commentary on what the rules are, and what violations of them actually mean. I would implore you to take up this torch.
when UFC cutman "Stitch" showed the proper application of vaseline to the face and then how much was left over. any doubts as to how that could be beneficial to the greased fighter should have been answered. it was a lot more than what i thought would be left over.


the NSAC wiped GSP twice because they felt he was doing something illegal, ie, "excessive use" of vaseline. the NSAC better than anyone, should know their rules and be able to determine what is "excessive." the rules have been changed because they felt something like this could happen again, something illegal and adventagious. thus, they changed the rules to prevent this in the future.

so to answer the question of "what constitutes excessive use?" the NSAC decides that.....and has decided it was, in fact, excessive.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-20-2009, 06:14 AM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.bjpenn.com/video/greasegate-1

even Frank "Mur" Mir was saying it was illegal.

'NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer: "It definitely wasn't fair to Mr. Penn"
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-20-2009, 12:20 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,845
Default

I want to know how they are going to Punish him
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-20-2009, 12:43 PM
TDPARKASH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nothing, the corner already admitted that they said it was a mistake.

I feel sorry for all of GSP's next opponents. BJ is not being classy about this at all.

GSP will literally beat him down if they fight again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
I want to know how they are going to Punish him
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-20-2009, 12:53 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,845
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDPARKASH
Nothing, the corner already admitted that they said it was a mistake.

I feel sorry for all of GSP's next opponents. BJ is not being classy about this at all.

GSP will literally beat him down if they fight again.
Admitting youve done wrong, doesnt mean you dont face the consequences for your action.

I aggree that Penn is trying to save face by milking it for all its worth. But this should be between the SAC and GSP

The point is they thought he'd used to much even before Penn complained, so they have the right to lay punative sanctions down regardless of a formal complaint. If the quote above is true they SHOULD do something.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-20-2009, 02:13 PM
TDPARKASH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I guess they are going to have to review tape of his old fights to see if this is a reoccuring theme, if there is factual evidence of this in the past, then I will no longer support GSP. As I will find it hard to believe, that he didn't know that they were greasing more then once.

I am sure GSP uses body lotion regularly, aside from other things, to have good skin (don't know if prolonged use can have long term effects on slipperiness of skin). He seems of the type.


"Excessive" is a very subjective word, and can have many intrepretations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
Admitting youve done wrong, doesnt mean you dont face the consequences for your action.

I aggree that Penn is trying to save face by milking it for all its worth. But this should be between the SAC and GSP

The point is they thought he'd used to much even before Penn complained, so they have the right to lay punative sanctions down regardless of a formal complaint. If the quote above is true they SHOULD do something.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-20-2009, 02:29 PM
Max
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDPARKASH
Nothing, the corner already admitted that they said it was a mistake.
so I guess the way to get around cheating is to say it was a mistake.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-20-2009, 02:37 PM
rearnakedchoke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
so I guess the way to get around cheating is to say it was a mistake.
man, these BJ fans still crying ... like it was a mistake when BJ poked GSP and Matt in the eyes (even though he still lost the fight), or when he kneed Joe Daddy's head on the ground ... come on ... jon fitch supposedly had an impassable guard and great high guard and gsp was able to get out of it in the first round ... BJ got tooled plain and simple and he knows he isn't getting a rematch, so he is talking crap as usual ...
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-20-2009, 02:46 PM
TDPARKASH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

But i realy really want to see the re-match, i think it will do better then the first one in terms of numbers.

This one should really go to the deaths.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke
man, these BJ fans still crying ... like it was a mistake when BJ poked GSP and Matt in the eyes (even though he still lost the fight), or when he kneed Joe Daddy's head on the ground ... come on ... jon fitch supposedly had an impassable guard and great high guard and gsp was able to get out of it in the first round ... BJ got tooled plain and simple and he knows he isn't getting a rematch, so he is talking crap as usual ...
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 05:55 AM.


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