No Apologies From Georges St. Pierre
by Michael Rome on Feb 3, 2009 3:09 PM EST
in MMA News
Email
Print
Josh Gross has been all over this story, so it's no surprise that he landed the first major interview with GSP. The whole thing is must-read, but here are some of Georges' best excerpts:
I was training when his legs come up to posture up. And when he got the position to keep my head always over his head. By staying in a vertical position his leg was naturally going to go down. If I stayed flat, he would have been able to bring his leg up. But I stayed in a vertical position...
B.J. Penn, you were talking about his guard, he has very flexible legs. Another thing is, because he has very flexible hips, it made his thoracic cage more susceptible to being weak. That's why I was working a lot of elbows to the body. On the ground I was putting my elbow in his stomach to make him tired. And a lot of knees. It was my game plan...
When I lose, I always try to figure out why I lose. But the problem with B.J., he tries to figure out why he loses, but he doesn't focus on himself. He focuses on the other person. When I lost the fight I focused on what I did wrong. I didn't focus on what I cannot change. B.J., instead of focusing on things he can change to make himself better, he tries to focus on things he doesn't have any control over, and tries to find some excuse that it's not up to him. It's really an excuse. He should focus on things that he can change about himself in the fight to make himself better. That would be a better approach for him...
St. Pierre's approach to MMA is astonishingly complex compared to most other guys. I heard BJ Penn on the Jim Rome show this week talking about how he had no strategy, he would just go with what worked. That might be okay against most guys, but against an athlete like St. Pierre it just doesn't cut it.
238 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As a BJ fan...
This explains BJ doing pretty much nothing in the fight. He went with what worked…nothing.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
I don’t understand how everyone is thinking that BJ is making an excuse for his loss. He has not directly said that his loss was attributed to the vaseline.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
Really?
He deleted that entry from Facebook? It does not matter to me because I have already seen it.
No one knew for sure if the Facebook comments were really from BJ to begin with. I am referring to the comments I read from Rudy and JD.
If BJ were going to make any comments I would assume they’d be posted on his website and not on Facebook.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
BJ’s got a lot of pride. He called out GSP, he’s the one that wanted both belts, and in return, he got a four round beat down where he couldn’t do anything. (I would like to see the fight metric stats of that fight). It will probably be a while before he officially says it publically. Kind of a bitter pill to swallow.
http://www.fightmetric.com/fights/GSP-PennII.html
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Feb 3, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
GSP
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 Feb 3, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Looking at my beard? That’s a spankin’.
Bitching about Vaseline? Oh, you better believe that’s a spankin’.
by Derek Suboticki on Feb 3, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
Paddlin’.
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
That’s a paddlin’.
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
Luckily, the beard will be stuck in the pencil sharpener before long.
by Derek Suboticki on Feb 3, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
No problem – that is my favorite site for stats on fights.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
Great read, thanks Rome.
Good to know GSP isn’t phased by all this controversy. BJ doesn’t want another fight anyway. If he does, there may be some brain damage there.
Great interview.
This is why GSP is such a brilliant fighter. He breaks down opponents, finds weaknesses in their strengths, and most of all, isn’t afraid to be honest with himself and face his own weaknesses. Not a lot of people can take a good hard look at themselves and be completely honest. I also like how he didn’t apologize for anything.
When I lose, I always try to figure out why I lose. But the problem with B.J., he tries to figure out why he loses, but he doesn’t focus on himself. He focuses on the other person. When I lost the fight I focused on what I did wrong.
Translation: I’ll kick your ass again if it makes you feel better.
Why is it a big deal that he makes no apologies?
Does that mean that if he apologized he would be admitting that it happened?
It happened whether he apologizes or not, but the constant push to make this about BJ using it as an excuse to say that he would have won is way off base.
For the good of the sport, no lubricating substances should be applied to a fighters body in MMA. It gives an unfair advantage, straight up.
Ok, we heard you the first…and last 300 times buddy. :) lol
Actually I’m with you man. Maybe its just a blessing in disguise and they makes some much needed changes.
by xFenixKnightx on Feb 3, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I mentioned on another page that maybe NSAC should change who can actually apply vaseline – for example only the cutman can apply vaseline – something like that.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
You would think
this was already the rule. It should be now.
by xFenixKnightx on Feb 3, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
My main problem with
this discussion is that it seems everyone commenting simply falls in one of two columns for the most part-GSP or BJ complete lover or hater. Personally, I like GSP much more than I do BJ but it would not matter to me who these accusations were alleged against. I find it very disheartening that the same complaint has been made by five independent prior GSP opponents (one of which was made in 2005) & the only thing people talk about is that it did not for sure affect the outcome. In my mind I have no doubt that other than catching GSP in a quick sub BJ had no answer for anything GSP was giving him, but subs happen in a flash all of the time. And I know that the letter of the law only states a fighter cannot have loads of vaseline on their body so even if this was true it would not technically be breaking the rules, but it is way too damn close for my liking & is a complete/blatant violation to the spirit of that rule. Just my thoughts so if you want to reply as a logical fight fan & not a hater/lover of either fighter then please respond.
It just seems like everyone is upset with BJ thinking that he is making an excuse for his fight – when in reality the other fighters who have said that GSP was slippery should have taken action but they didn’t.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
The reaction to this complaint, one where there is actual video evidence that the public can actually see, and where the other camp actually fesses up to it, is so overwhelmingly negative that I can imagine what went through the other fighters mind when they were contemplating whether to pursue a formal complaint based only on what they felt in the Octagon.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Very true. Mayhem has footage as well, he was telling Big John during the fight that GSP was slippery and Big John said make it work (paraphrasing)
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
All right, our first ’you’re not an MMA fan unless x’ comment!
by Derek Suboticki on Feb 3, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
I’d be saying the exact same thing. There is a clear regulation here and NSAC abided by the rules. The regulation is against “excessive” greasing and says if it happens NSAC needs to wipe it off. That’s what they did. The real story is we need a new rule, and it’s being lost in paranoid BJ fan insanity.
by Michael Rome on Feb 3, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Just for clarity's sake:
I LOVE GSP. He is the most exciting & talented fighter in my opinion other than Silva.
dnevil001
you love gsp. we get it. you dont have to keep saying that to clarify your point. didn’t you pick bj to win by 2nd rnd sub though? are you sure your opinion wasn’t a little biased? yes a fan can like 2 fighters and still pick one to win, but gsp was the favorite going in and a 2nd round sub by bj seems a little lopsided.
by bdw on Feb 3, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
So is it okay with you that BJ is making a complaint? Does his complaint have anything to do with his integrity? If it was another fighter would it make a difference?
I ask because even thought there are other fighters saying the same thing about GSP they did not file a complaint – so should their voice count?
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
I have no idea what you’re asking here.
Claiming someone greased when you can’t get anything on the ground is a pretty common whiner’s complaint in MMA. Tito Ortiz said it about Rashad Evans, Florian even said it about Huerta later, and TONS of guys say it in private without coming forward.
And this is precisely
why they do not come out & say it publicly. Which is pretty much what Miller wrote.
So Tito and Kenny are also whiners?
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
If a guy is slippery, it does not mean he greased. Unless you have actual evidence of it it’s a meaningless charge. In this case you have a small amount to the back, wiped off “very hard” and twice to make sure. The vast majority of slipperiness (word?) by that point in the fight is going to come from sweat, not from gasoline.
But in this case, come to find out, BJ’s camp was warned to watch for it, Fighters have said it in the past about GSP and he was said to have lube on his back intended or not. Fighters at ringside saw him get lubed. The NSAC said any lube is too much lube.
Kizer can say that but it’s not true under their rules. And even if it is, they did exactly what the reg calls for, they wiped it down. Nothing in the regs calls for any kind of penalty or procedure if this happens. Again, maybe we should be advocating for a rule change.
And again, this language about saw him get lubed when it was remaining vaseline from the face that was rubbed in a small circle on the back for breathing purposes is misleading language just to make your point.
by Michael Rome on Feb 3, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Lube got on his back, and the NSAC interpretation is that any lube is too much. I.E. a rule violation. They took corrective action in the ring, but the fact remains it was a violation. Not only should they reveiw the rule, but they should at least look into punishment on the corner men and maybe GSP. Penn still got his ass beat, but Drunk driving is a crime even if you don’t kill someone. Ok, thats a little over dramatic, but a violation occured intended or not.
This analogy stuff is ridiculous. Not every crime has the same culpability standard. That is the complete point of having criminal justice statutes. This is why accidental statutory rape is a crime, but a number of other actions if done by accident are not crimes. Bringing up some other standard and claiming the standard applies here is completely wrong. The only standard that applies here is what is in the code. It tells what to do. There is a reason why Kizer says he doesnt think there is anything else they can do.
Yeah,
lets not care until someone is actually smart enough to figure out the rule needs to be changed.
Changing the rule won’t change the result of this fight.
You are having an aneurysm for no reason. Rome has said numerous times that the rule should probably be changed, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is nothing that Kizer can do about the BJ GSP fight.
A rule was broken, the proper action was taken by the commission, that’s it. Period.
Personally,
I do not care about the outcome of this fight BJ was beatdown period. If these complaints were lodged about Penn from multiple fighters this place would be shut down from all of the entries. Call me crazy, but I actually expect rules/laws to be followed by those governed by it.
It’s a terribly worded rule. But we cannot go back in time to fix the rule. Under the current code, everything was taken care of during the fight. I know it sucks, but you can only police what the rule covers. And by their own code definitions, everything was taken care of.
by pud333 on Feb 3, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And you know what? Kizer is the head of the NSAC so what he says goes. He handled the violation. A firm scolding is enough. They did towel GSP off and the fight continued. They will have a hawk eye on GSP next time. This was a first offence. They let him off with a warning. And I think you are leaning a little heavy on YOUR interpretation of the rules when it is the commisions interpretation that matters. They can DQ a fighter, ban a cornerman, suspend a fighter or conerman, issue a warning, ect. In this case it was a warning, but it was a clear violation and action was taken.
This is the crux of the whole discussion right here. People are arguing about the shell and not the core. The shell is that GSP, whether intentional or not, had vasaline applied to his back. How much is too much, was it intentional, is he a cheat, etc. it’s all part of the shell. The core is the crappy NSAC rule. By their own rules, the commission did was was supposed to be done in a situation like this. This losely worded rule should be changed and made more definite.
In my mind, GSP did nothing wrong, as we cannot prove his intent and the NSAC itself has nothing to investigate because they dealt with the situation at the time according to their rules.
Well, who knows right?
GSP has shown that he is doing all kind of stuff that flies over the heads of other fighters. It might be easier for Jason Miller & co. to think that GSP greased when really he was positioning himself in the right way to make them slip.
I find it hard to believe that there isn’t video from all these fights of them greasing him if he was habitually doing it. 5 fights, lots of cameras, and the only time its on tape is now? More evidence of GSP getting rubbed down with contaminated hands before we start acting like he had a habit of doing this.
You have seen videos
of him receiving the exact same rubdown for each of these fights? I agree GSP’s mental & even physical approach is phenomenal, but you cannot train to make yourself feel “greasy” to other fighters & how many times have we seen a fighter in someones guard who is basically vertical get submitted? All of the time. GSP’s talent or skills are not in question to me. But as a diehard MMA fan I cannot overlook all of this nor do I believe that 5 men are all lying and/or sore losers.
Yes, it is a common practice. The “Witch Doctor” is a well respected person in the MMA circles and a lot of people use his stuff.
The witch doctor technique
is not what I am talking about. The point is who is performing this technique. The answer is they guy with the vaseline on his hands.
That’s a great conspiracy theory, but people throwing out the Miller or Sherk fights are hearkening back to before Phil Nurse or Steven Friend were even part of GSP’s camp.
Maybe Victor Vargotsky, GSP’s old corner man, channeled Phil Nurse from the future, and amazingly did the same greasing tactics, yet none of this was ever captured on the numerous TV cameras filming the fighters between rounds.
I am not throwing anything out.
I am simply reading. Who the corner person was does not really matter to me.
It matters when you are citing specific rub down rituals from a specific corner man who wasn’t even GSP’s corner man during several of the fights you use as “evidence”.
I, unlike most,
am not blaming Nurse for this. So no, the cornerman in those fights does not mean anything to me.
I am beginning to question if the rule books should have something in there on witchcraft – the Jackson camp is using it to win the majority of their fights with the exception of Jardine.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
good point
greg jackson wasn’t even in gsp’s corner back then.
by bdw on Feb 3, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
Bottom Line: Sportsmanship in the sport is highly valued, being a man and accepting defeat is highly valued as well.
When it appears that someone is not being sportsmanlike and not accepting defeat some fans get all upset and say terrible things.
Why is so bad that someone noticed a flaw in the rules and is making a complaint about it? Does that directly correlate to being a sore loser and unsportsmanlike?
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
2 Completely Different Issues are getting mixed as one.
Let’s look at a foul in basketball… this will relate if you read it.
A foul in basketball during a shot occurs when a player of the other team makes contact with a part of the shooters body. If this happens, a foul is called. The foul is called regardless of the outcome of the shot, a foul was committed and it is called.
If the shot goes in, they get one extra shot, if the shot doesn’t they get two.
My point is, there are two separate issues here getting mixed as one.
1.) Was vaseline spread onto GSP’s back?
I think everyone agrees that there was vaseline spread on his back, it’s not possible to wipe it off with a towell and this was illegal and action needs to be taken.
2.) Did this effect the outcome of the fight?
This is where everyone is arguing whether or not action should be taken. In my personal opinion, we can’t know whether or not it effected the outcome… it is all speculation because you can’t quantify these effects no matter how many times you watch the videos. The answer to this lies in the answer to the first question. If there is vaseline on a fighter’s back, can it effect the outcome of a fight? That answer is a yes…. there is no point in over speculating this… People will argue that BJ was capable of slapping a triangle or an oomaplata, maybe BJ would have been able to reduce the damage he was taking to get it back up on to his feet and be in better condition…. it’s all specualation… so you have to just look at it whether rules were broken or not.
I like that analogy,
kind of like a player being fouled while chunking the ball from the other end of the court. For sure he probably would not have made it, but he still gets 3 shots none the less.
1.) Was vaseline spread onto GSP’s back?
I think everyone agrees that there was vaseline spread on his back, it’s not possible to wipe it off with a towell and this was illegal and action needs to be taken.
… or maybe not illegal.
It’s more like the play where the whistle does not get blown and then, afterward, there is endless debate about whether the shooter was fouled or was not fouled, whether it should have been called or should not have been called, whether it can be isolated from the rest of the game as a decisive factor or not, etc.
The basketball analogy is an interesting one, except that it’s not clear that there was a “foul” in this situation. There might have been, but that issue alone needs to be discussed and determined first, in light of the rules.
"it’s not possible to wipe it off with a towel"
Actually, it does come off very easily with a dry towel. Try it.
when you wiped it off… after the first wipe… you checked with your hands right to see how much was still on their? You felt it and wiped it and then felt it and wiped it till you made sure none was there. When the commission wiped him off, no one sat their with their hand and checked how much was still on there… it was more or less wiping and hoping it was sufficient.
Action WAS taken about the Vaseline on his back. The commission stepped in, reprimanded the corner, and wiped it off. They also wiped him off again the next round while watching very closely and seeing nothing happening then.
by them wiping even more after the third...
It’s an admission that they didn’t possibly wipe it all the way off after the 2nd… causing the 2nd round to have been possibly tainted.
So when my boss double checks that I did someone’s taxes correctly it’s an admission that I don’t know what I’m doing?
apples to oranges
If you want to make a tax analogy then you have to say….
You do your taxes and submit them april 15th, but on the 20th you realize you did them all wrong, you are late and tax penalties may occur… (i’m not a tax accountant).
Being thorough would be scrubbing him right when they noticed it and checking him before sending him out there to fight. They could have taken an extra 10 to 20 seconds to do it thoroghly the first time.
"I find it very disheartening that the same complaint has been made by 5 independant prior GSP opponents"
Name them? What org, UCC, TKO, or UFC? Were they formal compaints, if not STFU. What you write here , without reference, can be viewed as slander. So at the least, back it up. That’s not to say, I’m not interested, but give some credible evidence.
Slander, what?
These guys are all on record. This is not something I made up. You should read or do research before you result to the very intelligent “STFU” response.
The entries were made on BE,
look it up yourself man. You can start by looking up Mayhem Miller’s complaint in 2005.
Without going back & looking
it was Mayhem Miller, Sherk & BJ. There were two other fighters that I cannot remember right now, but I just read it on BE yesterday.
We have Sherk making an off hand comment that he was so hard to grab on to, must have been oil or something. This has been confused for an actual accusation of greasing. Serra has also not made any public claim.
So NSAC actually having to come up
during the fight & forcibly making his corner towel him off is nothing? They did this why, exactly?
Because they noticed a single incident of a cornerman being careless. They did what their rules tell them to do, and the matter is taken care of.
They did this more than once after they
witnessed this happening more than once. It really is not even worth arguing this. Flip the fighters in this scenario & then tell me which side you come down on.
And that’s fine. But the fact is they had to come into the ring more than once to stop the greasing.
They came into the ring once when they saw the violation. Afterwards even with no violation, they did it again just to make sure.
Here’s what Kizer said:
“The first round, one of the inspectors that was on the outside of the cage came over to me and said it looked to him that when the cornerman, who I think in that case was Phil Nurse, put the Vaseline on Georges’ face then rubbed his shoulders — which you see the guys rubbing the other guy’s shoulders to help him out — he didn’t wipe off his hands between doing that. I said, ‘Well, I’m going to watch very closely after this round.’”
“At the end of the second round I watched, and then another cornerman who I believe was Greg Jackson, he put the Vaseline on Georges’ face, and then he put his hand on his back to do the breathing thing they always do,” Kizer said. "As soon as I saw that, it looked like there was still some Vaseline on his hand. Not a lot, but still some.
“Tony Liano and I immediately yelled at him, and I don’t think he heard us because of the noise. So I actually went into the octagon, and I said, ‘Take your hand off of his back. What are you doing?’ We wiped it down. We made sure it was wiped down after the third round as well. This was after the second when I was in there. I was very upset. I don’t know if they were doing it intentionally or not. Either way, they shouldn’t have done it.”
So Phil Nurse and Greg Jackson both were doing it according to Kizer’s account.
And that’s fine. But the fact is they had to come into the ring more than once to stop the greasing.
No, they didn’t. The game of telephone has ended.
Hello? Oh, it's for you-
“Tony Liano and I immediately yelled at him, and I don’t think he heard us because of the noise. So I actually went into the octagon, and I said, ‘Take your hand off of his back. What are you doing?’ We wiped it down. We made sure it was wiped down after the third round as well. This was after the second when I was in there. I was very upset. I don’t know if they were doing it intentionally or not. Either way, they shouldn’t have done it.”
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
I notice it says, “We made sure it was wiped down after the third round as well. This was after the second when I was in there.” You know, the part you highlighted – I didn’t notice that it said vaseline was applied.
Oh shit thats right, you’re willing to twist and turn anything to make your meritless point. That’s why you’ve been infesting this entire site with your ridiculous circular logic and made-up realities these past couple of days.
Since I still don’t know why the hell I got a warning, I would love to say more to you but am afraid to get banned – so please shut the fuck up and don’t reply to me.
I can’t tell if you’re just trying to argue in circles or what. There’s a regulation on this. They followed it.
It boils down to
would you blow this off if BJ was the one accused of this. And Rome, I think we all know your answer for that.
I can’t speak for Rome. But I would. I guess I’m just a stickler for actually basing allegations of rules-violations on, you know, actual rules and what they say. Call me crazy.
by Kierkegaard on Feb 3, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The rules were clearly broken
that is not an allegation, it is a fact. This one fight is not my argument. This maybe happening previously & not even a towel being brought in is what bothers to me. But I am a stickler for you know even playing fields.
O.k., then you show me the rule that was ‘clearly broken.’ So far all I’ve seen is the huge group of people saying that the rule was broken because there was vaseline on his back. But that’s not the rule. You show me what rule was clearly broken, and we can go forward from there. You just saying it happened does not = “it is a fact.”
NSAC-Kizer said it was!
Are you kidding me? The commission actually entering the cage during a fight to stop something does not mean a rule was broken to you?
Actually, what Kizer said was “it did not appear to be an excessive amount.” Read the rule and then tell me how “not an excessive amount” means there was “clearly” a violation of the rule. So far you just seem to be another person assuming that the fact that “any” vaseline was on the hand that touched his back means that there was a violation.
No, entering the ring and wiping him down with a towel does not mean to me that the rule was broken. It means any of a million things, such as the commission was concerned about the potential scandal or potential complaint later so better safe than sorry, etc. And, more importantly, the fact that the rule specifically says that if there is excessive grease the remedy is to have it wiped off — exactly what they did — further shows me that there was, in fact, not a problem in this fight.
The other complaints don’t mean there was a violation, either. All they mean is that people have found him to be slick before — but that doesn’t “clearly” mean there was a violation of any rule.
I give up.
You are right. The athletic commission routinely enters the cage in between rounds & other people saying the exact same thing is not “clear”. Do you really believe that not having an “excessive amount” of vaseline on his body (not face) it truly not a rules violation? That is really the only question for me.
LOL at you?
You just asked whether not having violated the rule is actually NOT a rule violation.
Of course it isn’t. By definition.
BTW, there are NSAC officials right next to each fighter and his corner during every round, watching what goes on in the corner.
They do not
normally go running toward a fighter/corner yelling at them & having to towel them off. And my point was if you think having vaseline period, on a fighters body (not face) should be a violation or is in line with the spirit of that rule.
Fighters are routinely wiped off by the red coat guys, for water or whatever. That’s why those guys are there.
No, having a non-excessive amount of vaseline on the face or body is not a violation, as is stated in the rules.
Like I said,
if GSP lodged this same complaint about Penn you would be all over it. I am a GSP fan & even I can be impartial about this.
Those redcoats in the ring never do a thing except stand by the corners & walk them to the middle for the meeting. The ref calls for excess water to be wiped up.
Please don’t pretend to tell another person what they think.
I certainly would not support GSP complaining about something that wasn’t a violation to begin with and had zero bearing on the smashing that occurred.
GSP killed Penn & I am glad,
the fight has nothing to do with this. You would kill Penn if these were alleged of him is what I said.
Do you really believe that not having an "excessive amount" of vaseline on his body (not face) it truly not a rules violation?
Yes, I really believe that not having an “excessive amount” of vaseline on his body is truly not a rules violation.
This is the last time I’ll ask you this — have you even bothered to read the rule? Do you have any clue what it actually says? Can you point me to any rule that says a non-excessive amount of vaseline on the body is a violation?
I’m guessing the answer to all three is, “no.” I’m glad you give up. So do I. Read my fanpost if you want to see what the rule actually says, because your responses so far seem to me to clearly indicate that you do not have any idea what the rule says.
I read your post,
that is why I actually said the excessive amount line, get it? The rule is worded that way to be vague.
Obviously this is a rule that needs to be changed somehow or maybe someone will say BJ did this so you will change your mind. Tell a BJJ fighter that having any “vaseline or lubricating substance” on their opponents body is ok.
I’ve said from the beginning that the rule should be changed. I don’t disagree a bit with that.
In the end, it may even be that there was an excessive amount. I don’t know. My problem is simply that so many people are starting with the notion that GSP violated the rule and moving on to intent or sanctions or whatever else. The discussion should start with whether the rule was even violated in the first place. That’s all I’m saying.
I’m sure if you tell any fighter that it’s ok they’ll disagree. I don’t argue with that, either. It doesn’t mean it is a violation of the rules, though. That’s the point you seem to keep skirting around.
I just believe
that just because NSAC has not corrected this, does not mean it couldn’t hugely impact a fight. Not this one, let me be clear that I thought GSP was going to kill Penn. My point is that anything to make a fighter slippery is complete bullshit & I have no idea about GSP’s true intent. From my point of view is just hard to completely ignore the same response from multiple people. Good discussions though, thanks.
And I would pretty much agree with everything you said in that post. Just recognize that what you said in that post is far different than where you started in this discussion.
None of this is originating
from me. I am reading what the NSAC/Kizer have said, what Miller, Sherk, BJ & others have said. Their integrity and believability is up for debate, but it gains credence in my mind when the same response comes from multiple independent sources.
because they didn’t wipe it all off after round 1… they had to work at it more… admitting it was there for round 2.
that’s an assumption you’re making. Not that it’s impossible to have small leftovers during round2, but so far everybody who was close to the action and commented on the situation said it was wiped off or completely wiped off.
apparently not the guy that was touching him…. BJ felt he was a little slick, that’s why he said something. He didn’t know the greasing thing had gone on… he just made the comment to his corner he felt like he was extra slick. The assumption is that if someone has an illegal substance on them, it should have been wiped off so thoroughly that there would be no need to wipe it a second time. They could have called a timeout and given him a damn bubble bath for all I care… don’t send someone out greased.
Holy CRAP!
Round and round we go with this! You guys will not drop it even when you hear what happened DIRECTLY FROM KIZER HIM-FRICKEN-SELF!
If this was CP I’d go off on you! lol!
Sounds very familiar,
hmmm? Didn’t we hear this from the Florida Commission as well? We have concluded our investigation & nothing wrong was done. End of story because we say so.
So, lets request an investigation on the place that does investigations for not investigating properly! Brilliant!
:P
by xFenixKnightx on Feb 3, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
bubbafat, stop posting at the bottom. Use the reply button.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 3, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
Alright, I am done with this. I have tried very hard to argue for facts and the NSAC rules and regulations.
The commission followed their own rules and regulations for the violation done by GSP’s corner during the fight. They took care of the matter then and there. Case closed for that one.
BJ Penn’s complaint is most likely arguing intent, which is an entirely different matter.
However, as for the article above, I am extremely impressed with the gameplanning of GSP’s corner and camp for this fight.
my only question is why doesnt every fighter go to Greg Jackson’s camp, its clearly head and shoulders abover everyone else right now
This thread – like about a half dozen others right now – is so filled with circular arguments that I could use the responses to do calculus.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
wow @ all these internet lawyers arguing their case.
Think I’ll stay off MMA blogs for a few days, let this hysteria settle down as it’s making me ill.
You know what...
You’re absolutely right. I’m getting sick of this as well. It’s time to disconnect the internet and do something a little more productive.
Like...
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
My comment is this: GSP (and Gross) are saying that BJ is using the vaseline as an excuse for his loss – BJ has not done that – all BJ has done is file a complaint on the use of the vaseline during the fight.
Does anyone have actual quotes or audio of BJ saying the vaseline is the cause of his loss?
What is the big deal over BJ filing a complaint about the proper use of vaseline during a fight?
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
Let’s not pretend that BJ is new to the excuse game, or that it wasn’t predicted that there would be some new excuse used to obfuscate the fact that Penn got crushed.
Yet he has not made any excuses.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
he hasn’t said anything really. he’s too busy in hiding. why hasn’t he said anything?
by bdw on Feb 3, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
His camp has.
BJ’s only comments so far are that he may tap out of his entire career due to the beating GSP administered.
that is so wrong and untrue
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
Hey Corky,
maybe read it next time. He said if he beat GSP he was thinking about retiring. This was not after the fight.
Yeah, but you could say that any day of any week and it would be true. It just doesn’t spread into BE that often, but this particular bit of wrong seems to be of the California wildfire variety.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Feb 3, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
No argument neccessary
The rules of the NSAC and UFC do not permit use of lubricants anywhere but the face, and it is inspected between every round, and excess is wiped off. You cannot remove vaseline with a towel, you can remove excess. What you are left with after the towel wipe is still very slick. GSP’s corner story is BS. There was only one reason to rub GSPs shoulders neck and chest and that was to skirt the rules to give him an advantage. I also call MAJOR BS on GSP if he says he did not know he was been rubbed with lubricant. Anybidy here ever had a rubdown with and without lubricant and could not tell the difference? Outcome of the fight can’t be determined at this point if GSP had not cheated. Fact of the matter is HE DID CHEAT, THERE IS UNDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE! ANY LUBRICANT TO THE BODY IS ILLEGAL. Now comes the test for GSP, is he a liar as well???? BJ Should be given 1st option on GSP’s Next fight, and be allowed to select location, if he wants a rematch, in an above board fight.
While we’re at it, why not have it so GSP is not allowed any cornermen, or water, or protective cup too. C’mon, be realistic: no way in hell BJ wants to fight GSP again. He’ll get destroyed, vasaline or no vasaline.
by pud333 on Feb 3, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Like the early UFC – I likey
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
Read my sig. You’ll know where I stand!
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Feb 3, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
What I can’t believe is that people are stating over and over that the commission saw it and they handled it, as if that is the whole story.
People are purposely ignoring the commissions own words.
The attempt at wiping off of the Vaseline started between the 2nd and 3rd rounds, but, and this is important, the greasing started between the 1st and 2nd rounds and nothing was done!
Keith Kizer, the executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission, said an inspector assigned to monitor St. Pierre’s corner noticed after the first round that one of the cornermen applied the substance to the fighter’s face and then rubbed his shoulders.
“Whether it was intentional or not, it was improper to do so,” Kizer said Monday.
Kizer said he saw a similar action after the second round and shouted to the corner to wipe it off. His commands could not be heard over the roar of the crowd, so he hastily and emphatically entered the octagon to make sure the Vaseline was rubbed off St. Pierre.
A slippery fighter is harder to control, making positioning and certain submission attempts much more difficult.
Kizer said Penn had not filed a protest as of Monday afternoon but that a reversal of the outcome is not likely.
Grounds for a result being reversed generally include a positive drug test, scoring error, referee misinterpretation of rules or some kind of collusion.
“This doesn’t necessarily take away his victory, but it takes away from his victory, and that’s unfortunate,” Kizer said, adding that he spoke with St. Pierre’s camp immediately after the fight. “I told them unfortunately, because of their actions, they have probably tarnished St. Pierre’s victory in the eyes of the fans.”
Kizer said he was informed Monday that Penn had complained during the fight that St. Pierre was slick.
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/38849287.html
and
“The first round, one of the inspectors that was on the outside of the cage came over to me and said it looked to him that when the cornerman, who I think in that case was Phil Nurse, put the Vaseline on Georges’ face then rubbed his shoulders — which you see the guys rubbing the other guy’s shoulders to help him out —he didn’t wipe off his hands between doing that. I said, ‘Well, I’m going to watch very closely after this round,’” Kizer told MMAjunkie.com.
"At the end of the second round I watched, and then another cornerman who I believe was Greg Jackson, he put the Vaseline on Georges’ face, and then he put his hand on his back to do the breathing thing they always do. As soon as I saw that, it looked like there was still some Vaseline on his hand. Not a lot, but still some.
“Tony Liano and I immediately yelled at him, and I don’t think he heard us because of the noise," continued Kizer. "So I actually went into the octagon, and I said, ‘Take your hand off of his back. What are you doing?’ We wiped it down. We made sure it was wiped down after the third round as well. This was after the second when I was in there. I was very upset. I don’t know if they were doing it intentionally or not. Either way, they shouldn’t have done it.”
http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/03/grease-gate-clouds-st-pierres-dominant-win/
So after the first round GSP got greased, nobody wiped it down, no one. What happened at the beginning of rd 2? BJ on his back attempting high guard.
People are purposely ignoring the commissions own words.
… convenient, kind of like you continuing to ignore both Kizer’s comment that it did not appear to be an excessive amount and the language of the rule itself, which, Kizer’s belief or not, is what controls whether there was a rules violation.
“This doesn’t necessarily take away his victory, but it takes away from his victory, and that’s unfortunate,” Kizer said, adding that he spoke with St. Pierre’s camp immediately after the fight. “I told them unfortunately, because of their actions, they have probably tarnished St. Pierre’s victory in the eyes of the fans.”
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
Good response — it completely ignores everything that I noted you are ignoring, but … well, it’s an interesting quote I guess.
You only use one line from Kizer
that it did not appear to be excessive & since you hate Penn your brain stops working right there.
by dnevil001 on Feb 3, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
… no, I suggest that you need to start with the rule itself. Everyone wants to talk about what should happen because GSP broke the rules, he violated the rules, he blatantly cheated — but the discussion needs to start with figuring out if he did violate the rule. There is nothing so far to clearly suggest he did. And despite Kizer’s statements that dualdiagnosis keeps repeating suggesting that it should not have been done, he also basically said the rule wasn’t broken. That’s the point I’ve been making.
Did he break the rule? Maybe. Hard to tell. But don’t just assume he did and then point to statements that don’t even show a violation of the rule to support this assumption that there was blatant cheating. That’s disingenuous.
I can agree with that,
but this relates to actual criminal law where the letter of the law is not final. The spirit of the law is often interpreted & enforced.
… well, we reached some agreement above, so I won’t get into a whole other debate about criminal law with you. Judging by this post I’m going out on a limb and guessing you are not actually an attorney — in criminal law in most jurisdictions crimes are statutory and defined by the statutes. It is what is in the statute that matters, not what the “intent” of the statute might have been, as an initial matter; spirit may come into play at some point, but it’s not where you start, and it rarely is a basis for making something “illegal” that is not illegal by the letter of the law — it might absolve liability where the letter of the law would otherwise result in a conviction, but not usually the other way around.
I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do have a law degree.
Maybe with your law degree you could parse this
http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/03/grease-gate-clouds-st-pierres-dominant-win/
Kizer said he felt an "avoidable incident" has cast a negative cloud on arguably the biggest night in the sport’s history.
"I think it definitely hurts St. Pierre a little bit because people will always wonder if it had any impact or not," he said.
"I don’t think it had much of one, but it shouldn’t have happened at all. Obviously it’s illegal and definitely unfortunate to Penn and also unfortunate to St. Pierre."
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 10:02 PM EST up reply actions
Did GSP get Vaseline applied to his upper body between rds1 and 2?
Did the commission catch it and wipe it down?
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe. But for about the one millionth time, there is no rule against having vaseline on the body. There is a rule against having “excessive amounts” of vaseline on the body.
I don’t understand why the concept of the rule not prohibiting all vaseline on the body is so hard for you to grasp. I give up. You clearly have no interest in what the rules actually say and prefer to just stick with what you wish they said or what you think the “spirit” of them might be.
Maybe you could work on convincing Kizer of your point of view
Kizer said he felt an "avoidable incident" has cast a negative cloud on arguably the biggest night in the sport’s history.
"I think it definitely hurts St. Pierre a little bit because people will always wonder if it had any impact or not," he said.
"I don’t think it had much of one, but it shouldn’t have happened at all. Obviously it’s illegal and definitely unfortunate to Penn and also unfortunate to St. Pierre."
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
There is no way for anyone to tell from the stands how much Vaseline was applied between the 1st and 2nd rds. Only that it was applied.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
You don’t need someone from the stands. There are NSAC red coat guys standing right there for that express purpose -to watch the corners between rounds.
So why did they
come over after people from outside the ring brought it up if they are watching so intently? You are hopeless man. Every official always sees everything & if they do not it did not happen, right? lol
And what is your evidence that Chuck Liddell or some other random fan 30 feet further away actually saw something the people up close didn’t? LOL at you calling anyone hopeless, with your consistent disregard for the facts or the ability to assess the situation logically.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that Vaseline wasn’t applied to GSP’s upper torso?
Because Greg Jackson, Phil Nurse and Keith Kizer are saying something different.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
No, miniscule amounts were, which is why it was described as non-excessive.
You do realize that it’s not illegal to have non-excessive amounts of vaseline on a fighter’s body, don’t you?
How are you able to assess the amount that was applied and then to be able to describe it as “minuscule”?
I understand that the rule is vague sounding, but I think a reasonable interpretation of “excessive” could be found to be any that is applied to a fighters body.
I believe most fans and fighters would agree that applying Vaseline to your upper body is an unfair advantage.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
That’s absurd.
The term “excessive” is used to describe grease use on the face or body.
If the presence of “any” amount is “excessive”, then having “any” grease on your face would also be excessive, and that is obviously not the case.
If there was to be absolutely no grease, the rule would state it’s complete prohibition.
I’m going to move on, obviously you are unaware that the face and the body are treated differently.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 3, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
The 2nd round was the decisive round
I am not a BJ Penn Homer. Im looking at this from a pissed of MMA fan, that a fight that could have been epic, and that I paid to see in my home was tainted. The fact of th matter is that we will never know the extent of advantage GSP had in this situation, just that he had an advantage. Round 1 was very cose, Penn took a beating in round 2 when he could not hold guard. BJ Penn has fought many times against sweaty stronger fighters. He was complaining in the corner about GSP being slippery. Not sweaty, before they knew about NSAC assertions. I am pissed as a fan, I wanted to see to great warriors fight at the prime of their careers in an even match. GSP says he makes no apologies pisses me off. You broke the rules, man up and admit it. And when you did you cheated us, the fans, the people shelling out the bucks for your 1m dollar payday. I don;t care if you apologize to Penn, apologize to us!!!!!!
I just hope that BJ doesn’t get blamed for all this – all he is trying to do is get clarity on the rule.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
yeah it is too late. reading gsp makes no apologies just pisses me off as a fan
the nsac should read that and use it when they consider what actions to take. if any action is taken it should be against trainers and gsp alike. i think a 1 or 2 year ban from fighting in nevada would remind arrogant gsp that the fans were the ones he cheated. would not stop him from fighting, but would be a black mark on his legacy. i would not have felt the same way if he came out and said it was a mistake, even if he did not think it helped him when the fight. fact of the matter is it happened, and has apparently allegedly happened in the past. I love the technical aspect of the sport, and his statement that he postured up every time bj pulled rubber guard was not true, bj had guard around his shoulders many times, but just slipper right off. i cant say it was due to lubricant for sure, just as no one else can say it was not. it just was and gsp just leaves me as a fan feeling like i shoulda been lubricated after gettin screwed out of a clean fight.
I have been wary to comment on this topic at all, like many others, due to the fact that I am not nor will I ever be a professional fighter.
I would like to state that I was an objective fan for this fight, meaning I am a fan of both and did not root one way or another in this fight, and was concerned to see either lose.
However, it is CLEAR that there was an infraction here. GSP is a phenomenal fighter, and I do believe he does NOT need the lube to win his fights. STILL, there were amounts of vaseline applied to his body that MAY or MAY NOT have affected Penn’s High Guard. Yet, he completely dominated Penn as he did in his fights prior in which his competitors have made allegations similar(be it now or in the past).
What really needs to happen of all this?
I think it needs to be regulation that if you are cornering your fighter and responsible for any kind of applications to the face, there can be no contact below the CHIN.
Also, I wish GSP would come out and tell the fans truthfully that this is an unfortunate situation and apologize to them accordingly.
As well, I hope penn & camp can come to terms that his fighter was utterly outclassed and severely dominated.
sigh
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
