The Five Biggest Flaws in MMA Rankings
by BlueberryMuffin on Jun 29, 2009 1:11 PM EDT
Email
PrintI know, I know. BE represents the meta-rankings, which so far are the best rankings available. I do think there are some major flaws involved in the rankings that compile the meta-rankings. The sum of all stupidity does not necessarily add up to genius. Sorry.
1) There`s no expiry-date on wins. A win 10 years ago simply doesn`t count. That`s like saying that Thomas Enquist (who`s that??) is the greatest tennis-player ever cause he has a 3-0 record over Roger Federer. That would however be silly, since those matches were like ten years ago. Enquist quit a long time ago. He has no ranking at all. Where should Tyson be ranked if he made a comeback? He does have a lot of quality wins? Or even better... Lennox Lewis? Is he still ranked nr 1 if he made a comeback? If Fedor retires and makes a comeback in 10 years, would he still be ranked as nr 1?
2) To much / to little stock is put in HOW you win. If you KO a guy in 10 seconds, why is that considered more impressive than a 3-round-decision win? I give you Junior dos Santos as an example. He basically KO`d Werdum with his first shot and was instantly a top 10 HW! Brett Rogers catches Arlovski in the first 10-seconds and he`s the next big thing... Timmay gets caught and then submitted and he`s suddenly a has-been (talkin bout Fedor, not Mercer) Randy was veeery close to doing the exact same thing to Timmay. My point is, they won, which they should get credit for, but they seem to have gotten more credit than was due, just because it was a TV-friendly way to win. AA-vs Fedor? If AA was to win, he would have to win a desicion. Well? He didn`t.
If Lesnar had clipped Herring and then finished the fight, would he have gotten a title-shot? My guess is no. What he did was show us a skill-set that was impressive.
3) People talk about MMAth and how it doesn`t correspond to reality and then they still use it. If you loose against someone, doesn`t mean that they are better than you. It may just have been a bad stylistic match-up (Rampage vs Forrest). If nr 2 fights against nr 3 and nr 2 loses, I can see how that would make them switch places, but how can you drop 3-4 places by such a loss?
4) People completely disregard the term "developing fighter" when they judge a win. Is Brock Lesnar the same fighter today that he was two years ago? I don`t think so. Was Kenny Florian the same fighter three years ago? No. Is Rich Clementi the same fighter as three years ago? Yes. Matt Serra? Hmm. Chubbier, but basically yes.
My point is that fighters develop A LOT in their first couple of years, not so much after that.
5) How do you count a win in a different weightclass? When people talk about the resume`s of the old-timers they tend to forget what weightclass (or no weightclass) that fight was in. Nowadays, a win at catch-weight doesn`t cound at all. None of those ways seem like the golden path to me...
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
102 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
6) The majority of the MMA community artificially inflates the talent level of the few stars that aren’t in the UFC.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 1:14 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
I agree in most cases. There are a few that genuinely deserve their accolades though (Fedor being the obvious one).
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
Sure – and it’s hard to put Shields very low because he hasn’t lost in so long.
Those two are about it, though.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Except he’s right. The top fighter in a division outside the UFC will usually get a huge bump. A lot of people had Robbie Lawler was at #3 after beating Scott Smith. Just because he was EXC champion.
by Swordslasher on Jun 29, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
There does seem to be a pattern, look at Overeem’s ranking compared to his actual heavyweight fight record. There is also the Fedor bump, if a guy signs to fight Fedor it seems that they go up in the rankings after that.
That “bump” happens to anyone who gets a title shot in the UFC too.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
No, Lawler was ranked highly because he had earned it by beating quality competition (Villasenor, Ninja, Trigg, etc.) in his division. I wouldn’t put him above Franklin, Okami, or Henderson but I could see the argument for doing so.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I think anyone that puts Lawler over any of those three fighters is insane.
Let’s have a vote.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
During the time Lawler was being ranked #3:
-Henderson was fighting at 205 and not looking for anything at middleweight
-Franklin had gotten trashed by Silva and looked lackluster against Okami in the least watched PPV in UFC history
-Okami’s methodical style, dearth of publicity and mediocre opponents kept (keeps) him out of a lot of rankings
Meanhwile Lawler was putting out highlight reel thrashings of well respected opponents in his division. It’s only natural that he’s going to get a push in the rankings.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
So which is it, did he earn it like you said in your first post or did he go up because the other guys slid like you said in your reply?
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Maybe you should re read both and find out!
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
excellent points
people are forgetting that Lawler’s rise in the division happened while the UFC middleweights were pretty much in disarray. Before the PRIDE collapse, that promotion had dominated the middleweight division for virtually its entire history. UFC middleweight stars like Franklin and Evan Tanner hadn’t really gotten to compete against the elite from PRIDE so they were underranked.
Then there was the chaos that the PRIDE mw’s were in — Misaki had just won a GP in controversial fashion, then gone on to lose to Trigg. Trigg’s impressive win over Mayhem Miller (who had beaten Lawler) and then Lawler’s KTFO of Trigg really drove Robbie up the rankings. Basically Misaki got the momentum of everyone in the PRIDE mw division since he won the GP, then Trigg beat him and got all that love. Then Lawler took it from Trigg.
Denis Kang had a long and dazzling run, but then lost to Misaki and went on to drop several more. Henderson moved up and was ignoring the division. Anderson Silva rocketed to the top of the UFC but it took a while before people began to see him as a true #1, he was remembered as a PRIDE washout.
Matt Lindland was highly regarded but was moving up and losing to Rampage and Fedor.
At the time of UFC 72 no one was ranking Okami in the top 10. No body.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Trigg?
I don’t/can’t consider him quality competition.
Wins over Mayhem and Misaki say you’re wrong.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
and you're actually objectively wrong
For his entire career, Trigg has been among the 20 toughest fighters in his division. And he’s been fighting for almost a decade. Sure he’s lost some big fights, and lost a couple badly, but he’s a very formidable athlete.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
an opinion can't be wrong, but it can be stupid
; )
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jun 29, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There are no stupid questions
Just stupid people who ask questions.
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
by ufc4 on Jun 30, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes only non-UFC fighters are ever overrated. Spectacular.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
You ever heard of putting words in someone’s mouth?
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
But it’s so easy when you run it all the time.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Then perhaps you could stick to what I actually say. Or is there not enough there for you to disagree with that you have to make shit up? At this rate, you may have to (gasp) articulate your own position sometime.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
You think there’s a bias against UFC fighters in rankings without substantiating that claim one bit, then get super defensive when someone mocks you. That’s my position.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I said they’re a bias towards non-UFC fighters.
Do you not see the difference?
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
A bias towards non-UFC fighters is a bias against UFC fighters, subo.
I can’t believe I even have to explain that.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Stating it and explaining it aren’t the same thing.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m really confused here. Do you seriously not know what a bias is?
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think people look at UFC fighters and go ‘fuck them’. I do think they look at people succeeding outside the UFC and go ‘fuck yeah’. They’re different.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
But in a ranking system where the two groups compete for space, one comes at the detriment of the other, no?
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely – some UFC fighters are ranked lower than they should be because of the bias. But the bias is for non-UFC fighters. The guys that are devalued are like collateral damage – it’s not that they’re bad, but Robbie Lawler is just so fucking good, you know?
You’re arguing that I can’t believe one without believing the other, and I think you’re wrong. It’s not against UFC fighters, it’s for non-UFC fighters – kind of like Yale’s Legacy program doesn’t count against you if you’re not a descendant of a graduate, but counts for you if it does. That’s a bias in favor of lineages, not against non-lineages – but the effects are the same.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions
some UFC fighters are ranked lower than they should be because of the bias
Which means you think that there is a bias (wait for it)…. against UFC fighters.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
If you can’t understand the analogy, I can’t help you.
One more. I like redheads. I don’t hold it against you if you’re blond or brunette or black, but you get extra points if you’re a redhead. That’s a bias for redheads that negatively affects the rankings of non-redheads (whom I have nothing against).
I cannot make it more clear than that, and most of the people here agree with me.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s a bias for redheads that negatively affects the rankings of non-redheads
Therefore, it is a bias against non-redheads.
I get it. Why don’t you?
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Against UFC fighters and for non-UFC fighters is the same thing, what are you arguing about?
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
That was to George Lucas, not you subo.
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
Ok. I still have nothing more to say. Dude gives me a headache worse than Supremacy.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m the one who understands this. It’s subo who thinks there’s somehow a difference.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Here, I’ll substantiate it- Brock Lesnar and Frank Mir are both UFC HW champs and they are ranked lower than a guy who has won 4 fights in a row against people with 37 combined losses on their record.
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
Clearly being a UFC HEAVYEWEIGHT CHAMP is much more important criteria than actually winning fights.
That must be why the man in your example has beaten five of them.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
When the fights are against nobodies then yes, it is. And how many has he beaten in the last 3 years?
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
He’s beaten 3 UFC heavyweight champions in the last 3 years and will likely beat a 4th in a few months.
Compare that to Mir who in the last 3 years has beaten 2 UFC heavyweight champions and been steamrolled by a mediocre light heavyweight, or Lesnar who is 1-1 against UFC heavyweight champions.
But yeah Fedor only fights nobodies, not like Mir and Lesnar’s epic battles against Min Soo Kim and Dan Christison.
It’s not like this is a big secret or anything.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Min Soo Kim was Lesnar’s first fight – that in no way compares to Fedor fighting Baby Zulu or Hong Man Choi after already being the best HW in the world.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions
The fact that Lesnar is so inexperienced isn’t an argument in favor of ranking him highly.
But I’m glad we agree that Fedor is the best heavyweight in the world, subo.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions
We gotta start somewhere, right? I think it’s silly to argue otherwise – and no, he doesn’t need to come to the UFC to validate himself. All I’ve ever said is, if the winner of Mir/Lesnar can defend four or five times, then it’ll be a question.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions
And Barnett winning would screw everything up.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Word x2
It sure would – although he might sign with the UFC if he pulls it off, and that wouldn’t suck. He could put a beating on my boy Brock :-o
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s another good thing about me – I know that I don’t disagree with anybody on everything. Those that feel differently about my fervent UFC nuthugging at least feel the same way about some things (Fedor, Strikeforce, etc) that I do.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I was under the impression that ufc4 was talking about Barnett, not Fedor.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jun 30, 2009 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree a little with #2
I think being able to stop a fight with a KO or submission almost always shows greater dominance over an opponent than winning by decision. The ideal should be to definitively win the fight and show that you are better than your opponent, and the best way of doing that is to make sure it doesn’t go to scorecards. You can still definitively win a fight even with going to decision, but there is always the little minus that you weren’t able to stop your opponent. Now I said almost always at the beginning since what if a fighter is dominating over 2 3/4 rounds and then gets knocked out or submitted right at the end. Did the winning fighter show complete dominance over his opponent? Probably not, but he still stopped his opponent which is something the other guy couldn’t do.
I think #2 comes into effect for something like Irvin/Alexander. How much can you learn from an 8 second flash knockout?
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Thiago/Koscheck is another good example.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jun 29, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
BE represents the meta-rankings, which so far are the best rankings available.
Not to be a dick, but I think that if anything, the meta-rankings are not the best rankings available, in terms of matching up to the proper placement of many of these fighters. That said, I never took that to be their purpose. I was under the impression that the meta-rankings measure how the mma-community feels about different guys, and they does that extra spectacular like.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
I agree with this. The metarankings are most useful for showing how disconnected the “MMA community” is from actual fight results, when month after month there never fails to be a fighter ranked above someone he just lost to.
by George Lucas on Jun 29, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
frequently when that happens
its because there’s been a huge upset. sometimes those huge upsets are flukes - Serra vs GSP I for example. Sometimes the big upsets indicate a fighter on the rise for real — see the rise of Frank Mir and Brock Lesnar in the last 18 months.
In some cases the jury is still out — Paulo Thiago for example.
The tale of Soukoudjou shows that sometimes a fighter can score some big wins against ranked competition and yet not really be that big a factor in the division. Little Nog is back in the top 10 and Sokou is long gone.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
As usual, I disagree with almost all of this.
1) Most rankers (that I know anyway) definitely have a certain window they look at while weighing more recent stuff heavier.
2) Eh. Your example is pretty poor though. Dos Santos wasn’t ranked because of how he won, but who he beat (that being a top 10 HW). And while I think people should only look at the W’s and L’s, the counter point of your statement is true as well. Some guys get boosted from quality performances in losing efforts.
3) “If you loose against someone, doesn`t mean that they are better than you.” Rankings aren’t a measure of talent.
4) I’m not sure what this means exactly, but I think my response to #3 applies here too.
5) This isn’t really an issue with rankings, it’s more of an issue with catchweight bouts. The new “Independent Rankings” group decide that all catchweight bouts will be considered at the next weight class up. Doesn’t matter to me how people use it as long as they’re consistent.
“I think #2 comes into effect for something like Irvin/Alexander. How much can you learn from an 8 second flash knockout?”
What does this have to do with rankings?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Plus...
I think if lesnar finished herring he would still have got a title shot.
by SouthAlaBamaRampage on Jun 29, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I mostly agree with Fagan here. Too elaborate on #2 a bit more. Some fighters base there style on the quick KO, Some base it on BJJ, some on GnP, some on there chin. Its when fighters do something that is out of there box that we learn something. Like Kos getting KOed, or Alexander getting KOed. Like if Jake O’Brien got a quick KO of Jon Jones his stock would take a big jump. Everyone sees him as a wet blanket, he he showed other tools then its a little bonus, at least in the eyes of some rankers. But nothing out weighs a W.
If o'brien wins.......
and Forrest wins. they will put them together in order to give forrest an easy fight until rampage fights for the title
by SouthAlaBamaRampage on Jun 29, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
3) "If you loose against someone, doesn`t mean that they are better than you." Rankings aren’t a measure of talent.
I think this is one of the biggest problems with the rankings, you are correct that it’s not a rating of talent but unfortuantly that is the way most people view them. If a guy is ranked at 3 then people assume that means that he’s the third best fighter at that weight class in the world. There are times that perception trumps truth and that can be a real issue.
Sadly
too many people think the rankings are meaningful.
by mythbuster on Jun 29, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
As usual, I disagree with almost all of this.
Could not have said it better myself. I’d like to add poorly written complaints too. Every factor mentioned above is taken into ranking considerations and the people ranking fighters are no where as ridged as the author suggests. A victory 10 years ago counts the same? Is Rickson Gracie the #1 ranked Middleweight?
Find a more constructive way to bitch about the rankings you don’t like. You added nothing to the argument.
In the words of Tom Hanks, "I don't get it.."
1.) If somebody retired, and came back in 10 years to MMA… they most assuredly would be ranked at the bottom. I don’t see how ANY ranking would ever not do that, and furthermore, it would depend on who they fought when they came back and if they won. If somebody retires for three years, comes back, and beats the #2 ranked guy in the world… I’m not an advocate of leapfrogging the guy immediately to the top, but a three year window isn’t exactly huge.
As Mike said, most rankers have a window of relevance from past fights.
2.) Seriously? Santos beat Werdum, who was one win away from a title shot. Of course he was thrust into top ten status. Do I agree? I generally don’t like the leapfrogging formula, but I don’t disagree with his ranking being in the top ten. It isn’t based on how they win at all, and I never look at that. I look at who they beat.
3.) I don’t even understand this. MMAth with an example of #2 and #3 fighting each other? So if #2 loses to #3, you have a problem with #2 dropping in the rankings? The reason is because the lower guys are fighting other ranked opponents as well and moving up. That’s how rankings work.
4.) I don’t get it…
5.) I don’t get it….
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
#1 has applied to Vitali Klitschko recently
to use an example from boxing. If a guy goes out on top, and then returns a few years later it is safe to assume he is probably not going to be as good as when he left. However in Vitali’s case it was pretty safe to assume that he was still a lot better than most of the competition out there. It doesn’t always have to be based on recent wins, but also on perceived skill level. The amount of ring rust he would have would never be enough to drop him below a certain ranking, just based on the fact that there aren’t more than a few (2-3) dominant heavyweights out there.
In terms of # 1, I believe he might be referring to guys like Mark Coleman, who has no business being ranked at 205 considering he’s never won a fight there. Not sure though.
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
MMA Rankings
If you loose against someone, doesn`t mean that they are better than you.
In the absence of cheating, that’s actually exactly what it means, if only for a moment in time.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Jun 29, 2009 2:55 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree with the quotation though I can certainly see the argument for the contrary. If Fedor would to fight Brett Rogers tomorrow and get knocked out in a minute and a half, I don’t think anybody would come out and say Brett Rogers is the greatest heavyweight fighter in history. It doesn’t work like that, simply because “better” is a subjective term, so everybody has a slightly different view of what exactly constitutes “better.” Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.
Well, you inserted the historical implication into this equation.
That’s like saying “if the Cardinals had beat the Steelers in Super Bowl XLIII, they would be the greatest franchise in NFL history.” Well, no. The Steelers would have still had five Lombardi trophies, so historically, the Steelers are the superior franchise. But, in terms of the 2008-2009 season, the Cardinals would be better than the Steelers.
Of course, the Steelers actually beat the Cardinals and placed the franchise head and shoulders above all others in the NFL, winning their record-breaking sixth Lombardi trophy. But, that’s another topic for another time.
Also, the comparison between team sports and individual sports is flawed at best, especially with regards to rankings. In this case, though, I think it holds up.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Also, I feel like I need to quote this:
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
I’m actually pretty glad that I don’t like any single fighter enough to say that with a straight face.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 29, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Just because I'm an ass...
I do think there are some major flaws involved in the rankings that compile the meta-rankings.
I think you meant to say compose, comprise or maybe constitute. I compile the meta-rankings.
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
LOL.
There’s nothing much to say that hasn’t been said already.. I disagree with the author, because of the reasons fagan gave and a bit of lelands too..
Especially at the example of dos santos.. And the retiree.
PS
Richard pointing it out makes him an ass, but a funny one at that. ;)
by Anton Tabuena on Jun 30, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe he was trying to say there is a major flaw in you
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
And that I’m a “rankings”?
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 Jun 30, 2009 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Dude.
If Lesnar had clipped Herring and then finished the fight, would he have gotten a title-shot? My guess is no. What he did was show us a skill-set that was impressive.
Uh… Brock DID get a title shot after the Herring fight. Are you talking about the Mir fight?
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.
'09 is the year of the FW's.
He was asking if he had KO’d him instead of a decision would he have still gotten the title shot. But the answer is still yes, because that’s who Randy wanted to fight in his comeback.
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
by ufc4 on Jun 30, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
No, but he owned the true UFC Heavyweight Championship, and they were negotiating his return. If the UFC had wanted him to fight Werdum instead and Randy said no, then the UFC gets killed for trying to hang Randy with a loss. It’s fucking lose lose.
Randy Couture chose Brock Lesnar for his comeback fight. I guess you’re super pissed at Dana for not overriding that??
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 30, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Did Dana White have a hand in it? Probably, I mean he knew it was a license to print money so I doubt he put up much of a fight, but I don’t think anyone really knows for sure whose idea it was originally. And I know this has already been beaten to death but who was there that wasn’t already scheduled for a fight that definitively had a claim to that title fight?
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
It was all about what the guy who left the company and sued them wanted. Clearly he wanted to fight the 1-1 guy to prove umm.. something. And no one, I assure you, realized that Lesnar was a pre-marketed $$$.
Believe that, brother.
So you’re more mad at Randy than Dana for choosing Brock? Or are you still pissed at Brock for not turning down the fight?
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 30, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Fucking Brock
How dare he accept a shot at the title. Asshole.
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
He wanted to fight the 1-1 guy because he had spent the previous year in court blowing money on lawyers and he knew a fight against Brock would pocket him a couple million or more, it’s called good business.
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
You got it
he knew a fight against Brock would pocket him a couple million or more
Now, be more angry and indignant at something you agree with. Come on, you can do it.
Again, it sounds like you’re more pissed at Randy than you are at Brock. That’s okay, and actually makes more sense, but you should just say that.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 1, 2009 3:45 AM EDT up reply actions
The biggest flaw has been recognized and finally taken care of...
Tim Sylvia is no longer in the Top Ten for the HW division…. one step closer to legitimacy.. :)
What the fuck is a "robster craw"?
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 © 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.
