|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 8, 2010 3:44:27 GMT -5
You may want to watch that fight again. Even though SOME of Carwin's shots landed, they were getting gradually weaker and Lesnar was covering up pretty well towards the end. i disagree. there were a few moments where i swear carwin backed off brock on the ground, after hitting him with consecutive punches to the face, as if saying 'what more do i have to do? c'mon ref...' the bombs carwin landed, imo, would've stopped any fight that had happened earlier in the night. heyman explains how the ref arranged with brock how he'd know if he was knocked out or not, and while i'm not suggesting there was foulplay at all, i doubt the refs do that for everyone else. they protected brock in this one, i think carwin won. Comments like this baffle me. Fights are supposed to get "stopped" when a guy CANNOT continue in a fight. Not just because punches are being landed. If a guy is standing on his feet, taking those same punches from Carwin, blocking most of them; is the fight going to get stopped? No. Fights are supposed to be stopped to PROTECT a fighter from getting seriously hurt. Not only was Lesnar aware of where he was, blocking most of the shots, and eventually escaping... He went on to WIN the fight by SUBMISSION in the second round. While the shots obviously caused him some pain and a couple bruises/cuts, he was not unable to continue. In MMA, I want a clear, decisive victory one way or another. I'm tired of seeing referees step in and stop fights because one guy looks like he's "out," then that guy hops to his feet, yelling "WHAT THE F*CK!?!?!" immediately after the referee stops it. Obviously a referee's job is to help the fight be safe for both competitors, but they can't just go stopping a huge heavyweight title fight because one guy taking some damage. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hetfield on Jul 8, 2010 4:13:31 GMT -5
You may want to watch that fight again. Even though SOME of Carwin's shots landed, they were getting gradually weaker and Lesnar was covering up pretty well towards the end. heyman explains how the ref arranged with brock how he'd know if he was knocked out or not, and while i'm not suggesting there was foulplay at all, i doubt the refs do that for everyone else. they protected brock in this one, i think carwin won. You are completely misinterpreting what Heyman is saying. Every single ref in every single fight HAS to meet with both fighters in their dressing rooms just to go over ALL of the rules or any questions the fighters may have. Different refs have different ways of telling/asking fighters to advance their positions if they are being beaten on. Herb Dean, Yves Lavigne, Mario Yamasaki, John McCarthy, Josh Rosenthal are all experienced refs and have different ways of giving fighters chances to show they are still in the fight. Rosenthal's way was just to tell Lesnar/Carwin 3 times to get out of precarious positions. Get real, sir. |
|
|
|
Post by 1992 on Jul 8, 2010 5:30:28 GMT -5
Does Rosenthal have a stupid,  ing mustache for Lesnar to punch off if necessary though? |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 11, 2010 13:09:19 GMT -5
Comments like this baffle me. Fights are supposed to get "stopped" when a guy CANNOT continue in a fight. Not just because punches are being landed. If a guy is standing on his feet, taking those same punches from Carwin, blocking most of them; is the fight going to get stopped? No. Fights are supposed to be stopped to PROTECT a fighter from getting seriously hurt. Not only was Lesnar aware of where he was, blocking most of the shots, and eventually escaping... He went on to WIN the fight by SUBMISSION in the second round. While the shots obviously caused him some pain and a couple bruises/cuts, he was not unable to continue. In MMA, I want a clear, decisive victory one way or another. I'm tired of seeing referees step in and stop fights because one guy looks like he's "out," then that guy hops to his feet, yelling "WHAT THE F*CK!?!?!" immediately after the referee stops it. Obviously a referee's job is to help the fight be safe for both competitors, but they can't just go stopping a huge heavyweight title fight because one guy taking some damage. once again, if it had been another fight i believe it would've been stopped quite quickly after carwin got those bombs in, but do to the event, how much brock is worth, and the overall risks, they let it go to see if brock was done or not. he obviously wasn't, and he came back and beat carwin...but that doesn't take away from my opinion that i think they let it go much longer for brock then they would've for carwin, and in that way they protected brock. you don't agree, great, but that doesn't mean i'm wrong. if every ufc fight was handled like that, it would've been different, but they're not, and therefore, i think as i do. |
|
K Dot
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 5, 2005 10:06:08 GMT -5
Posts: 1,771
|
Post by K Dot on Jul 11, 2010 15:45:58 GMT -5
Do you honestly not get what everyone is saying? BROCK WASN'T OUT. He was defending himself and I'm sure he was trying to gas Carwin out which he did.
There was one instance where he caught Brock with solid elbows then followed up by furry of punches that were much slower than his previous shots and he completely missed Brock because Brock intelligently defended himself.
I'm sure you're just bitter that Brock ended up winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hetfield on Jul 11, 2010 16:20:06 GMT -5
I think it COULD have been stopped, but the ref obviously made the right decision because Brock came back and won, but that was also because Carwin was gassed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 11, 2010 19:38:23 GMT -5
Do you honestly not get what everyone is saying? BROCK WASN'T OUT. they let it go to see if brock was done or not. he obviously wasn't, and he came back and beat carwin... apparently the only one not registering what is said is you pal...and i don't dislike lesnar. and i do think the right choice was made to continue it...however, by ufc standards, i don't think it went by their usual judgement - imo there was definite bias. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 20:32:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2010 19:43:16 GMT -5
I'm hoping Carwin can rebound well from this, when he gets better...still a great heavyweight contender in my book...
|
|
K Dot
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 5, 2005 10:06:08 GMT -5
Posts: 1,771
|
Post by K Dot on Jul 12, 2010 20:46:23 GMT -5
Do you honestly not get what everyone is saying? BROCK WASN'T OUT. they let it go to see if brock was done or not. he obviously wasn't, and he came back and beat carwin... apparently the only one not registering what is said is you pal...and i don't dislike lesnar. and i do think the right choice was made to continue it...however, by ufc standards, i don't think it went by their usual judgement - imo there was definite bias. And you're not registering what I'm saying. Everyone of Carwin's shots didn't hit Brock. Yes, I agree that Carwin had some solid hard punches and elbows but you can tell near the end that he was gassed out and nothing was going into his punches. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 13, 2010 12:02:16 GMT -5
i read and completely registered that, but i disagree. i think by the time that carwin WAS gassed, the fight should've already been called.
|
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Jul 13, 2010 12:30:51 GMT -5
But it wasn't, so what's the point in thinking in "what ifs" and "could'a beens"? There's been plenty of fights where the ref has made a rushed decision and stopped the fight before it should have been. On the other side, there's fights that have gone longer than they should have. But once the fight's done, it's done. With all due respect to Carwin, as much as he can place some blame on the ref, it's his fault for not stopping the fight. With the position he was in, he could have knocked Brock's lights out. He could have mounted and just went to town after realizing that the fight wasn't going to be stopped. "my heart dropped and it sucked the soul out of me". How about "Ok, so the ref isn't going to stop this via TKO, I need to take a new route." Lesnar was never "out". He may not have been fighting back or defending based on who you are talking to and their definition of those two things, but he wasn't knocked out or on "queer street". Carwin had him on the ground, in a position where Carwin could have easily just knocked him out given his punching power. And he didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 13, 2010 15:20:38 GMT -5
i honestly don't even see what you are attempting to argue. my only point was, that many many fights have ended under much rasher conditions, and i think lesnar got a definite bias in his continuing. you can agree, or disagree...but that doesn't mean i'm wrong. i'd say he definetly was on 'queer street' when he was attempting to evade carwin at first, and i think if the fight HAD been stopped during those consecutive punches, no one would've been shocked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 13, 2010 15:34:17 GMT -5
once again, if it had been another fight i believe it would've been stopped quite quickly after carwin got those bombs in, but do to the event, how much brock is worth, and the overall risks, they let it go to see if brock was done or not. he obviously wasn't, and he came back and beat carwin...but that doesn't take away from my opinion that i think they let it go much longer for brock then they would've for carwin, and in that way they protected brock. you don't agree, great, but that doesn't mean i'm wrong. if every ufc fight was handled like that, it would've been different, but they're not, and therefore, i think as i do. The UFC doesn't determine when a fight stops. Referees do. |
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Jul 13, 2010 16:33:37 GMT -5
The UFC doesn't determine when a fight stops. Referees do. Further more, the UFC doesn't assign referees either. It's not so much an "I'm wrong, I'm right" situation. I fully keep in mind that you are open to your own interpretation. I just don't think Lesnar was ever in a state of "defenselessness" or out, so there was no point to have the ref stop the fight. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 13, 2010 16:55:45 GMT -5
i can understand that opinion, but it's not mine. and kliquid, don't undermind me, i don't want to get into the factors of how/why a referee decides what he does, i just feel as i do about that fight. i'm not trying to say the referee was corrupt, or why the fight wasn't stopped when i think it was, but that doesn't take away from the fact that i think it indeed should've been stopped.
once again, if all ufc fights were ruled like that, there'd be no argument. but if brock had got those bombs in on carwin...you best believe i think the fight would've been called. and i'm more a fan of lesnar than anything.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 20:32:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 12:09:00 GMT -5
i hate stoppages a lot, unless it's extremely obvious the guy that's down has no chance of surviving and only of getting badly hurt...but as long as there is even 1% chance of a reversal, let them fight please.
as brock proved, just because your down and taking shots does not mean your out for good, these guys are trained fighters that know what they got into, and as noted above a lot of times even the fighters themselves get pissed when they have to stop fighting.
it's ultimate fighting for a reason....i hate all those petty rules, safety my ass, if you want to be safe then don't go cage fighting.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hetfield on Jul 14, 2010 16:07:29 GMT -5
hahahahaha. "I hate rules".
|
|
