Re-Watching UFC 86

by Luke Thomas on Jul 6, 2008 11:34 AM EDT in News Comment 18 comments

I'm about to do it. I want to take a second look at the Cote - Almeida and Griffin-Jackson fights. My initial inclination is that both decisions were appropriate and I'm a little surprised to see some of the reactions about Rampage's loss. While the judging on the scorecards might be cause for concern, it seems absolutely clear to me Rampage was very flat last night. His trademark explosiveness was virtually gone and it seemed as if in trying to become more technical he has lost the overwhelming attack he used to lord over opponents. And Rampage seriously, seriously needs to start checking leg kicks.

As much as it pains me to say it, Griffin won fair and square. Now, there is some debate over how to judge the second round and I also think this fight resembled Horodecki vs Palaszewski in that you had a stand up fight where the winner was busier and the loser the harder hitter all amidst a barrage of leg kicks. But even here Griffin didn't absorb much damage outside of the initial uppercut. And to his credit, Griffin kept his composure and came right after him again in the subsequent rounds.

But this is all my initial impression. I watched the event last night at a shindig, but there was no sound. I want to see how much the UFC broadcast set the narrative for the evening.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the almaida fight….. i thought that ricardo’s jab was much more accurate in the third and then he got a takedown…. i gave him the third round and therefor the fight but that last round was super-close… so i had no qualms with the decision

by robnashville on Jul 6, 2008 11:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There were 2 ways you could score the third...

one is like you said, he landed the jab decently and there was a takedown. Or you could give it to Cote based off of his coming forward and forcing Ricardo backward and I thought the few shots he landed were a bit more meaningful than Almeida’s jab. I honestly could have seen the decision going either way and not have felt like it was a bad call.

Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

"The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like hard work." -- Thomas Edison

by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 6, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is what irritates me. Perhaps they scored the round for Cote for more meaningful shots, and that is fine with me, but then the Rampage fight is judged completely differently.

"They said you was hung!!"

"And they was RIGHT!"

by BJJDenver on Jul 6, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Were they the same judges for both fights?

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on Jul 6, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah… i see your point….. i guess my thing with cote is that he is certainly aggressive but his stand-up isn’t very clean…... i remember the cote leben fight and wondering how they were gonna score that thing because while there was a lot of swinging, it wasn’t the cleanest of stand-up… i can see cote getting the fight…... he looked a lot fresher in the third….which the judges take into consideration, speaking form all the past fights i’ve seen in boxing (and this extends over into MMA, go read Cecil peoples and his thoughts on the judginf of bisping hamill)

by robnashville on Jul 6, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with your assessment.

1st rd.- Almeida. Clearly, he dominated the round in all facets.

2nd rd.-Cote. Mainly due to Almeida’s inactivity and Cote defending the takedowns pretty well.

3rd. rd-Almeida. Thought it was even all the way and the takedown shifted it to Ricardo.

"They said you was hung!!"

"And they was RIGHT!"

by BJJDenver on Jul 6, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And you know, Almeida was somewhat more willing to strike with Cote, than Cote was to be on the ground with Almeida.

I think this was just a bad match up for engaging. Almeida would have been foolish to stand and trade with Cote and Cote would have been crazy to stay on the ground when he had a chance to get up.

"They said you was hung!!"

"And they was RIGHT!"

by BJJDenver on Jul 6, 2008 12:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"Classic matchup of grappler vs. striker"

usually means “classic match-up of two guys avoiding fully engaging because they don’t want to fall into the other guy’s strength” which in turn usually means “kind of ugly fight that isn’t a whole lot of fun to watch.”

Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

"The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like hard work." -- Thomas Edison

by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 6, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You got that right..

by Johann on Jul 6, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I gave the first round to Almedia and the second to cote. The 3rd to Cote. I think Almedia just ran out of gas. I was thinking during the fight Almedia could be interesting against Silva. I just dont think Cote is ready quite yet and Silva isnt a good match up for him but then again no one matches up well with Silva. Cote is one tough dude though.

by mlzybaby on Jul 6, 2008 12:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What in the fuck does it “pain you to say it”?

by MrNiceGuyMMA on Jul 6, 2008 1:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

the sherdog forums are that way-—>

how about putting some thought into your postings instead of just hurling obscenities at other people

by robnashville on Jul 6, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What he said!

(formerly TheFightJournal)

by Lucas2 on Jul 6, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought you’re Mr. Nice Guy?

by Johann on Jul 6, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you meant “Why,” but I’m not sure.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on Jul 6, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But this is all my initial impression. I watched the event last night at a shindig, but there was no sound. I want to see how much the UFC broadcast set the narrative for the evening.

I watched Liddell vs. Wand with no sound, and thought “good fight.” To my surprise, when I went online that night, everybody seemed to be hailing it as “fight of the year,” and “instant classic,” etc. I suspected that the commentary played a large part in that. I still haven’t seen the fight with commentary, but I can picture Rogan and Goldberg screaming the entire time. Incidentally, I didn’t really hear the commentary last night, either, as I was watching in a crowded bar, so I wonder if peoples’ interpretation of what went down was effected by the broadcast itself.

by Popetastic on Jul 6, 2008 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I was honestly more surprised by the Almedia – Cote decision than by the Rampage -Forest one. I had Almedia winning that fight based on takedowns and the fact very little seemed to be connecting for either of them on the feet. I would have given Cote the third round, and I supose you can make an argument that he got the second round by virtue of that late knockdown. However, he’d seemed entirely ineffective up until that point. I wanted Cote to win, but I was expecting him to lose the decision.

by ChrisBat on Jul 6, 2008 4:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought both decisions were appropriate. I really didn’t see much to be too concerned about in the end, because I believe both fighters that won deserved to win. I’m just so glad Forrest won, and I’m glad my gut pick was right for a change, haha.

by pud333 on Jul 7, 2008 3:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs