Page 5 of 10

Posted: 20 Oct 2006, 20:01
by Latuch!
Didn't read the whole thread, but clearly boxing is the most beautifull art of fighting and top boxers skills are so good you really enjoy watching it...

As for MMA, I watch only PRIDE and ino the main reason for its popularity are:

- best guys fight each other (this is rare in boxing)
- most fights end by KO or submission, so not too much place for questionable decisions
- once the fight is decided by judges, somehow not too many decisions are questionable, and even if some of them are, PRIDE fans do not care that much imo. They just think a decision win is close to a draw and expect a remach. This is my opinion anyway. So controversial decisions are not such an issue as they are in boxing.
- personally i don't like PRIDE fighters to fight in stand up (sorry my english), yes there is more action if they do, but their boxing skills are so poor compared to A level professional boxers, it is disgusting...

Posted: 21 Oct 2006, 09:34
by nfc90210
It is possible though that in order to reach a wider and wider audience, the sport will begin to resemble stand up fighting forms more, and that the format will evolve into more shorter rounds, and less time on the matt.
I don't see it going that way. Grappling, and the mat work, is what makes MMA unique. MMA without grappling is, basically, bad kick boxing. For me, as some who likes boxing and MMA, if I want to watch a purely stand-up fight I will watch boxing or K-1. If MMA were to modify it's current format it would lose what makes it so unique.

I think the preconceived idea of what a real fight looks like is a barrier to some. Most people understand stand-up fighting, and the UFC audience does tend to get more into the stand-up fights. They are though becoming, on the whole, more educated to the ground work. I have heard accounts from people who watched Penn/Hughes II in bars of the whole place exploding when, at the end of round two, Penn locked in the choke.

I think the audience can appreciate ground work when it’s good. Diaz/Sanchez from the Spike TV special back in December was a fight that went over well, even with causal fans, despite the fact that fight was mostly a ground affair. The reason was that it was good ground work.

Posted: 21 Oct 2006, 11:35
by TerribleTerry
nfc90210 wrote:
It is possible though that in order to reach a wider and wider audience, the sport will begin to resemble stand up fighting forms more, and that the format will evolve into more shorter rounds, and less time on the matt.
I don't see it going that way. Grappling, and the mat work, is what makes MMA unique. MMA without grappling is, basically, bad kick boxing. For, as some who likes boxing and MMA, if I want to watch a purely stand-up fight I will watch boxing or K-1. If MMA were to modify it's current format it would lose what makes it so unique.

I think the preconceived idea of what a real fight looks like is a barrier to some. Most people understand stand-up fighting, and the UFC audience does tend to get more into the stand-up fights. They are though becoming, on the whole, more educated to the ground work. I have heard accounts from people who watched Penn/Hughes II in bars of the whole place exploding when, at the end of round two, Penn locked in the choke.

I think the audience can appreciate ground work when it’s good. Diaz/Sanchez from the Spike TV special back in December was a fight that went over well, even with causal fans, despite the fact that fight was mostly a ground affair. The reason was that it was good ground work.
Good post. I agree on all points.

Groundwork, when done well i.e looking to advance position, pull off subs etc is fantastic to watch.

A wrestler who is looking to 'lay and pray' in someones guard will bore audiences because of the lack of action but a ground wizard using rubber guard, sacrificial positioning etc to advance his cuase and win through submission or by overwhelming the other fighter can be as exciting as a free flowing stand up exchange.

Its a case of audiences becoming more eduated/savy and refs not tolerating stalling on the mat which will improve MMAs lot.

Posted: 22 Oct 2006, 15:52
by TerribleTerry
Anyone seen Pride's Real Deal card yet?

I watched some files of the fights earlier and in a distinct buck of MMA trends the matches were by and large fairly predictable in nature. I suppose on their US debut Pride were keen for matches to finish early and by and large that what the got.

Great highlight reel KO by Robbie Lawler, some good leg submissions by Shogun Rua and a punishing beat down by Fedor but all in all some what of a damp squib.

Butterbean got a quick KO, despite weighing close to 400lbs (how can anyone who trains weigh in at such an obese level?..)

The excellent Josh BArnett met a tough Judoka in a good scrap and only scrapped through.

IF anyone wants some links to the downloads just PM me.

Posted: 22 Oct 2006, 16:17
by Lefthookhappy19
It was ok. It was better on paper than it turned out.

Posted: 22 Oct 2006, 16:40
by ebeneezer
Did Belfort look as bad as they say? How dominant was Henderson?

How did Coleman look against Fedor?

Posted: 22 Oct 2006, 17:41
by Lefthookhappy19
Hendo schooled Vitor. Vitor is just way too passive. He's takes forever to get set to throw a punch. Vitor just sat back looking to land the perfect counter, which of course would never come. Hendo would throw his right followed by a takedown and get it every time. If this was under full Pride rules Hendo might have stopped Vitor.

Coleman was getting destroyed by Fedors punches everytime Fedor got space to throw. So Coleman clung on for dear life and pushed him against the ropes for the majority looking to secure a takedown. Colemans face was bashed up. He finally got the takedown at the start of the second only for Fedor to sub him from the bottom with an armbar, just like he did the first time they fought.

Posted: 22 Oct 2006, 20:06
by Expug
TerribleTerry wrote:Anyone seen Pride's Real Deal card yet?

I watched some files of the fights earlier and in a distinct buck of MMA trends the matches were by and large fairly predictable in nature. I suppose on their US debut Pride were keen for matches to finish early and by and large that what the got.

Great highlight reel KO by Robbie Lawler, some good leg submissions by Shogun Rua and a punishing beat down by Fedor but all in all some what of a damp squib.

Butterbean got a quick KO, despite weighing close to 400lbs (how can anyone who trains weigh in at such an obese level?..)

The excellent Josh BArnett met a tough Judoka in a good scrap and only scrapped through.

IF anyone wants some links to the downloads just PM me.
Did Nastula almost beat Barnett? I heard he was working a submission but got stood up by the ref.
Im a judoka and an instructor I like to see the Judoka do well.
One of my training partners is from Poland he told me about working out with Nastula but Ive never seen him in MMA.
Fedors toughness doesnt surprise me , he is a former Russian judoka as well as Samboist.
Ive trained with some Russian Judo players and they are very, very tough.
Also very stoic and calm, it can be unnerving at first.

Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 00:00
by registered
disappointing show... still better than what we usually see in the ufc.
but compared to what pride usually comes up with. (in japan).

the "real deal" wasn't amazing. It was "good". and that's it.
it was nice to see fedor's return too.
and bringing coleman's daughters was a bad idea...they were traumatised.
fedor was even embarrassed by the situation.

Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 08:18
by Mr Boogaloo
Vitor looked awful - in the second round he and Dan were 50/50 in the clinch and Vitor pulled guard. Nightmare decision, there are very few fighters who can get away with that in modern MMA.

Fair play to Shogun for chasing after the leg submission against Randleman. I thought he must have seriously hurt Kevin with the anklelock, but for sure something must have popped due to the kneebar. Very brave to not tap sooner.

Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 09:18
by TerribleTerry
4playfights wrote:im doing mma careers now
i have

CHUCK “ICEMAN “ LIDDELL 21 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 8 DISCS £45 (£40 with loyalty award)
MIRKO CROCOP 27 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 6 DISCS £40 (£35 with loyalty award)
FEDOR EMELIANKO 27 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 6 DISCS £40 (£35 with loyalty award)
KAZUSHI SAKURABA 31 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 8 DISCS £45 (£35 with loyalty award)
IGOR VOVCHANCHYN 46 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 10 DISCS £50 (£40 with loyalty award)
TITO ORTIZ 22 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 8 DISCS £45 (£40 with loyalty award)
BJ PENN 19 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 5 DISCS £35 (£30 with loyalty award)
MATT HUGHES 23 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 4 DISCS £30 (£25 with loyalty award)
WANDERLAI SILVA 41 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 8 DISCS £45 (£40 with loyalty award)
MAURICIO SHOGUN RUA 14 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 3 DISCS £25 (£20 with loyalty award)
GEORGES ST PIERRE 13 FIGHTS PLUS EXTRAS 5 DISCS £35 (£30 with loyalty award)
As opposed to just advertising your wears why dont you give us your thoughts on the Pride card?? :o

Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 11:21
by Loftgroov
jamesmcdonnell wrote: Whereas someone might say that Floyd Mayweather is the best P4P boxer in the world, the top men in MMA can probably claim rightly they are the best fighters in the world full stop. As they have picked the best from the various martial disciplines to create the most effective fighting styles, it would be hard to argue otherwise.
I’m not so sure. Martial arts is of course primarily for self defence so I would imagine that many of the world’s top practitioners simply aren’t interested in the concept of “MMA fighting”. Does the list of top MMA fighters correspond with the list of various disciplines world champions? I don’t know, but I suspect not.

There are probably plenty of 10th Dan practitioners out there who have been approached and told the various MMA organisers to do one.

Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 11:54
by Mr Boogaloo
Loftgroov wrote:I’m not so sure. Martial arts is of course primarily for self defence so I would imagine that many of the world’s top practitioners simply aren’t interested in the concept of “MMA fighting”. Does the list of top MMA fighters correspond with the list of various disciplines world champions? I don’t know, but I suspect not.
There are probably plenty of 10th Dan practitioners out there who have been approached and told the various MMA organisers to do one.
Rickson by armbar!

To be fair, masters of Kung Fu generally can't defend takedowns...

Olympic freestyle wrestlers generally can't strike...

Pure jiu-jitsu fighters often have problems with being punched whilst grappling on the floor... it goes on and on.

You need a mixed set of skills in order to be effective in MMA. If a tenth dan Aikido fighter - or whatever - were to get invited to fight on an MMA show, they are best off refusing, unless they have an extensive training in martial arts other than the one they excel at.

LOL maybe loftgroov is trolling :(

Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 12:16
by TerribleTerry
Mr Boogaloo wrote:
Rickson by armbar!
WAR Rickson!

Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 04:15
by Loftgroov
Mr Boogaloo wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:I’m not so sure. Martial arts is of course primarily for self defence so I would imagine that many of the world’s top practitioners simply aren’t interested in the concept of “MMA fighting”. Does the list of top MMA fighters correspond with the list of various disciplines world champions? I don’t know, but I suspect not.
There are probably plenty of 10th Dan practitioners out there who have been approached and told the various MMA organisers to do one.
LOL maybe loftgroov is trolling :(
What is "trolling"?

Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 05:31
by TerribleTerry
Loftgroov wrote:
Mr Boogaloo wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:I’m not so sure. Martial arts is of course primarily for self defence so I would imagine that many of the world’s top practitioners simply aren’t interested in the concept of “MMA fighting”. Does the list of top MMA fighters correspond with the list of various disciplines world champions? I don’t know, but I suspect not.
There are probably plenty of 10th Dan practitioners out there who have been approached and told the various MMA organisers to do one.
LOL maybe loftgroov is trolling :(
What is "trolling"?
Get out from under that bridge loftgroov!! :D

Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 10:20
by Mr Boogaloo
Loftgroov wrote:
LOL maybe loftgroov is trolling :(
What is "trolling"?
haha you spotted me a mile off, these noobs will bite at anything :)

Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 13:02
by Tony Lumb
I thought Real Deal was a good event, but not great. I think it was designed more to showcase the top guys like Fedor and Shogun and Barnett, rather than put on great fights.

Nestula was putting a real beating on Barnett for 99% of their fight, then Barnett got the sub out of nowhere. But given Barnett only had 5 weeks to recover from the OWGP, where he fought 2 very tough fights in one night, any win is a good win.

UFC are planning 5 events in the UK next year, I'm planing on going if it comes off.

Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 16:27
by Kilburn
I see Shamrock didn't do so well aganst Ortiz again, wasn't able to catch the fight but I didn't understand the point in it anyway. Shamrock really shouldn't have been in there at this stage.

Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 17:01
by TerribleTerry
Kilburn wrote:I see Shamrock didn't do so well aganst Ortiz again, wasn't able to catch the fight but I didn't understand the point in it anyway. Shamrock really shouldn't have been in there at this stage.
THat fight was a 'loss leader' - a free giveaway to fans of The Ultimate Fighter TV show who were disatisfied with the premature ending of the remach.

Airing two 'big names' battling on free cable gave Zuffa a good base from which to promote the PPV which followed not far behind.

They are cute operators and have a winning formula at the moment - the money is just rolling into the bank..

Posted: 27 Oct 2006, 10:57
by kevo
Kilburn wrote:I've become a big fan of UFC. The fights you want to see happen, happen. And they happen quickly. Look at Anderson Silva for example - comes across from Pride and absolutely smashes rock chinned Chris Leben in a round. Everyone is left thinking "shit I wonder if Rich Franklin fancies any of that..". So what is coming up at the next UFC event? Silva v Franklin for the middleweight title. It's no nonsense stuff.

Also the reality show on Bravo is 10 times the quality of The Contender. Elimination fights shown in full with no commentary (or sound effects), so refreshing not to feel patronised as a viewer.
I couldn't agree more, plenty of quality matchups, with more to come ( Hughes - GSP II, and Silva - Monson in November.) And if you're a newcomer to the sport like me, Bravo are showing loads of past shows, as well as the TUF series (which shits all over te Contender).

Talking of the Ultimate fighter, any news on michael Bisping? Havn't heard anything frm himsince he won TUF

Posted: 27 Oct 2006, 11:43
by nickd
Bisping is due to fight on the next Ultimate Fight Night - the season 4 finale. November 11th I believe.

Posted: 27 Oct 2006, 12:12
by kevo
Any word on his opponent?

Posted: 27 Oct 2006, 12:17
by nickd
He is fighting Eric Schafer.

Posted: 31 Oct 2006, 11:39
by Mr Boogaloo
Feeding your latent addiction to MMA :)

- article on Bisping (written by Ant Evans from secondsout)

http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=news.detail&gid=3663

Vote for Bisping! BBC sports personality of the year!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tv_and_ ... 080190.stm