UFC 93: Surprisingly Interesting
by mma_dude on Jan 19, 2009 10:01 PM EST
28 comments
Well, here it is Monday and I finally got around to watching UFC 93. I just couldn't get too excited about this one. The card, on paper, was uninspired, and I have no particular loyalty or even fanaticism for any of the fighters featured on this card. After watching it, however, I have to admit that I was wrong -- this was a pretty interesting card, as it turns out.
Chris Lytle vs. Marcus Davis
After all the talk about not going to the ground, there was this tremendous buzz about how the fight amounted to some sort of collusion. What was perceived as collusion was really just hype. This fight was unlikely to go to the ground from the outset -- partly the reason it was always the most compelling fight on the card. What I was expecting to see (collusion or no) was exactly what I got to see: A very interesting stylistic contrast in the stand-up. Lytle going for the knock out, and Davis willing to simply pick him apart. Lytle came very close to achieving his goal, but Davis's style proved to be more robust. DEFINITELY, FOTN!
Alan Belcher vs. Denis Kang
Alan Belcher, despite having a bizarre game plan, proved that he is legit. I remember the last time he fought, I was thinking that he would get killed against someone who could take it to the ground -- he proved me wrong. Belcher has gotten rounded in a hurry. I hope he finds a new camp because his stand-up looked like it had gotten worse even if his BJJ has gotten good. That's right, his BJJ was better than Kang's, and that's impressive. Keep your eyes on this kid, 'cause he's only gonna get better.
Jeremy Horn vs. Rousimar Palhares
Is the UFC trying to tarnish Palhares? Are they afraid of this fighter because he's "not exciting," or because he has the best chance in the division of beating Anderson Silva? Why on earth did they pair him with Gumby? If they don't like Palhares and they want to burry him, then they did a good job in paring him with someone that was just gonna turtle for 3 rounds. I wonder if the UFC gave Horn a "Survival Bonus," cause that's what Horn was fighting for. IMO, Toquinho has the best chance of beating The Spider.
Thomas Egan vs. John Hathaway
Obviously a fight for the british crowd. Neither fighter is a real contender in the division.
Mark Coleman vs. Mauricio Rua
This fight was actually alright for 1.5 rounds. I have a hard time saying that one fighter is much better than the other, considering that they BOTH gassed after the first round. Coleman's wrestling was adequate, and Shogun's stand-up was adequate as well. This could have easily been traded for an undercard fight (I wanted to see Kampmann) but I guess there was a Coleman draw that pulled it up to the main card.
Dan Henderson vs. Rich Franklin
I really liked this fight because it provides another example of how wrestlers get favoritism in the UFC. The bottom line is that Hendo won because of the takedowns. He was unable to do damage on the ground, and was bested in the stand-up. Minus the head butt and eye poke, he did far less damage than Franklin overall (presumably the illegal strikes aren't counted by the judges). Why did he win? Cause of the takedowns. For christ sake, this isn't a wrestling match, this is the UFC. I feel like ranting, but I won't.
The funny thing is that I'm starting to become brain washed by the UFC scoring system. I kept telling myself that Franklin was in trouble every time he got taken down -- even though he was doing just fine off his back. The scoring system has to change -- a takedown shouldn't be worth anything if it doesn't lead to damage!!
Over all this was an adequate card. No worse than UFC 89 or 90. It may not have had any big names, but it had some interesting outcomes.
Why all the hate?
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
0 recs |
28 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Belcher’s BJJ was not better than Kang’s. Kang is just a careless fighter. Watch his fight against Mousasi, it was the same thing (almost).
Kang is a great 185-pound fighter. He’s just so damn careless at times that it’s insane. Belcher is not well-rounded at all either. I love Belcher but one guillotine choke doesn’t show all-around ability.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill
by FlyByKnight on Jan 19, 2009 10:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
He was doing very well off his back… and ended up getting the submission. Kang has better wrestling, but not better Jiu Jitsu — he couldn’t pass guard or do any damage from the top position. It’s pretty clear that Belcher has better BJJ, given what we saw.
Surprisingly, Kang had much better stand-up. Still confused about that one.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Jan 19, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I remember correctly, Kang (at one point) was able to pass completely to side control. Belcher just caught him in a guillotine. That’s all it was. If Kang wasn’t such a moron with all those single leg attempts where he shoved his head completely under Belcher’s arm a bagillion times, Kang would have easily won. Kang has very accomplished jiu-jitsu skills for his weight class. He’s a decorated black belt. He has better jiu-jitsu than Belcher. He just got careless. That’s all that was.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill
by FlyByKnight on Jan 19, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He passed to side control briefly and did no damage while there.
This is cut and dry — you are just making excuses for your boy Kang. Belcher completely neutralized him off his back AND got the submission via a beautiful guillotine. Kang had many opportunities and couldn’t capitalize. He has good wrestling, which is why he was able to maintain top position, but his BJJ was “careless”.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Jan 19, 2009 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As a general rule, if your comment disagreeing with another commenter makes reference to the other commenter in any way, you’ve crossed over a line you shouldn’t have.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jan 19, 2009 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to clarify, this wasn’t a particularly bad example, but it is heading in the wrong direction.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jan 19, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My boy Kang? I actually like Alan Belcher more. So I’m of an unbiased view here. Don’t try to go down that road.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill
by FlyByKnight on Jan 19, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to jump in here
Belcher did an excellent job off his back. On first viewing I was mad that Kang hadn’t done more damage when he had dominant position, but on 2nd viewing I could see what a great job Belcher did of neutralizing Kang’s attacks. Kang was thoroughly frustrated by Belcher’s defense. Why he went for that take down in the end still baffles me, he was winning the stand up and had racked up more than enough points to win a decision.
I think Belcher’s fearless stance in the final intimidated Kang. He must’ve felt like he had landed his best shots on the feet without hurting Belcher and had done everything he could on the ground without finishing or really damaging Belcher. Kang freaked out IMO.
by Kid Nate on Jan 20, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kang has excellent guard passes. The fact that he only passed guard a few times says a lot about Belcher’s improving guard game.
by Rundownloser on Jan 20, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Richard...
Am I allowed to tell you that I love you.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Jan 19, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can I tell you that I love you?
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Jan 19, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I said “generally.” Also, no. You can’t say that.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jan 19, 2009 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FlyByKnight...
What did you think of the card?
I agree with you that he soundly dispatched Coleman, but you can’t believe that Rua is a contender? Can you?
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Jan 19, 2009 10:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I thought the card was alright. They picked the worst main event of all to be the main event, though. That was the main problem. That and they try to market two guys on a rivalry when one hasn’t fought in a year-and-a-half while the other hadn’t fought in two-and-a-half years. They need something else with drawing power to make it more interesting. If they had saved Rampage-Silva for this, it would have been better but oh well. Rua is not a contender right now because of what he’s shown so far in the UFC. But if he dispatches of Liddell, no matter how he does it, he’ll be put right up at the top of the list. He’d probably get a fight against Rampage depending on if Rampage beats Jardine. I feel bad for Shogun because of his injuries and the lack of slack he gets for it. Mir got some slack for a long time after his injuries. If you really think about it, Shogun is following the same path Mir set forth. Mir, in his first fight back from his leg injury, lost a fight he had no business losing and he showed up in bad shape. Shogun did the same thing. Mir, in his second fight back, won a very lackluster decision against an average fighter. Shogun was on his way to doing the same exact thing. In Mir’s third fight back, he got beaten by Vera pretty easily. Now here’s where it gets interesting because if the same thing happens to Shogun, he has to do some soul searching and come back stronger than ever, much like Mir did against Hardonk in his “win or go home” fight.
To be honest, losing to Liddell could do Shogun a ton of good. But beating Liddell would do him even more good. Rua needs all the confidence he can get.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill
by FlyByKnight on Jan 19, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent article, but I still find your hatred of wrestlers puzzling. It’s not like a solid slam even gets the same point value than a flash knockdown – the last time I saw a 10-8 round in favor of a wrestler was Lesnar-Herring, and that was only because Brock broke his face with a punch. Basically, it’s as in bar fights as in the cage – if I can put you on your ass and hold you there, then I win, and if you don’t like it, defend it/take me down/punch me in the face/quit bitching.
by subo on Jan 20, 2009 12:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
a takedown shouldn’t be worth anything if it doesn’t lead to damage!!
I gotta disagree. If you are making a descriptive claim, you are wrong.
© Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.
(f) Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
(g) Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
If, on the other hand, you are making a prescriptive claim, I still disagree with you. A successful takedown should count for something. A successful takedown establishes positional dominance. The guard is not a neutral position outside of submission grappling. Ground and pound is a term for a reason.
I don’t mean that a takedown should count as much as a knockdown or near submission, but they should factor into judging. Just like a sweep or reversal.
Disclaimer: I think that Franklin won. It’s real close and don’t fault anybody for thinking differently , but I feel Franklin was superior in the fight.
by Rundownloser on Jan 20, 2009 12:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The red font indicating a link is more accusatory than I would like. :-)
by Rundownloser on Jan 20, 2009 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I was offering an opinion on how I’d like to see scoring changed. That being said, I find your scoring criteria interesting:
Examples of factors to consider are take downs to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
According to this, Henderson should NOT have scored for his wrestling!
I know that Henderson gets points simply for taking the fight to the ground, but that’s what I would like to see changed. Forcing the fight to the ground, just to show that you can do it, should not be rewarded unless the fighter can show that they can do damage once it goes there.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Jan 20, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, that’s the part regarding effective grappling. Read:
Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are…taking down an opponent to force a ground fight
Additionally, you should be rewarded for taking somebody down. No matter where you end up, as long as you are on top, you are in a dominant position. Sweeps and reversals are awarded, and really that is what a takedown is: a technique by which one gains a dominant position in relation to his opponent on the ground. Even if no damage is done, one has put the opponent in a deficient position.
by Rundownloser on Jan 20, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If a position is dominant, then damage should follow, otherwise it’s not really dominant is it? I don’t mean to engage in semantics, but I do believe that the ability to inflict damage should determine the winner in mma.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Jan 20, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, certainly damage and threatening submissions should be weighed more. However, in terms of deciding where the fight takes place and controlling the other fighter, takedowns are critical and should be weighed accordingly. It should mostly come into call when other factors are roughly equal.
For example, in the grappling tournament that we use, a near submission lands you a point or “catch”. Sweeps, reversals, takedowns and other positionally significant maneuvers net you an advantage point. Those advantage points don’t count for anything unless the number of catch points is equal between both competitors. I think that takedowns should essentially be advantage points in MMA too.
by Rundownloser on Jan 20, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
rundown – mmadude clearly was making a prescriptive statement because his line before that was
bq. The scoring system has to change
But having said that I agree with rundown – a successful takedown establishes positional dominance. In MMA guard is not a neutral position.
mma_dude I liked your post and everyone has their own opinion but I have to say you come across as not being into MMA for that long. There are various reasons and i’ll give you a few:
1. Davis-Lytle definitely was not fight of the night. If for no other reason then the stupid agreement to stand and bang (which Davis did not do).
2. Shogun-Coleman would be on the main card of any UFC prior to this fight. Shogun may not be a huge draw but the UFC knows that the ‘hardcore’ fan will hype Shogun to the ‘casual’ fan. I don’t see Coleman being a big draw at all.
3. Belcher is not good at BJJ. Kang is just like that. He’s careless.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 20, 2009 1:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
for some reason the block quoted paragraph didn’t work
by rainmaker6 on Jan 20, 2009 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I figured he was being descriptive, but I’m kind of an idiot.
by Rundownloser on Jan 20, 2009 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1. Very exciting contrast in stand-up style. Definitely FOTN!
2. Not a fan of either Shogun or Coleman, but yeah, certainly the fight was there due to some hard core, action figure collecting, fanatics.
3.Belcher showed that he is good and BJJ — did you watch the fight? Maybe Kang is better and just had an off night? It’s amazing how I was able to see Belcher working for a guillotine the entire fight and then finally get it — and everybody is saying that it was blind luck. Who’s new to mma? Me or you? Against a “careless” wrestler, grabbing a hold on the neck seems like a smart BJJ technique to use.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Jan 20, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
