hammer
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 12, 2009 2:30:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,619
|
Post by hammer on Jun 5, 2011 16:05:28 GMT -5
"But regarding Clay Guida and title shot, I think if he's not going to be made the number one contender, he should if he gain a win in his next fight."
if jim miller beats ben henderson, hes the number 1 contender.
"As far as Pettis goes? This is the UFC, this isn't the WEC, and if he's going to be given a title shot as soon as he walks in to the UFC, he needs to score a win first, hence why Dana set Clay up to loose in my opinion."
if maynard/edgar didnt go to a draw, pettis was guaranteed a title shot. he [pettis] chose to forgo that title shot to have a fight, while maynard/edgar was set up for number 3.
|
|
DWright
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 7, 2005 18:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,839
|
Post by DWright on Jun 5, 2011 17:31:21 GMT -5
GSP WORKS on the ground. He passes guard, he works for submissions when he can and he does damage. Guida did NONE of that. In round 2, he literally had his head on Pettis' chest for almost 3 minutes straight. Didn't work to pass guard, didn't work for strikes or submissions. He was on the DEFENSE the entire fight, while Pettis was working for the finish with strikes and submissions. Exactly. I have NO idea how people say GSP "doesn't try to finish." Did you see him almost take Dan Hardy's arm back to Canada with him? Did you see Jon Fitch's face? How about Josh Koscheck's? If anything, it's a testament to those fighters that they didn't GET finished by a guy doing extreme damage to them. GSP is and always was a guy that stays extremely busy on top, always causing damage and always trying to pass. Guida on the other hand, was 100% content playing head to chest and wasting 3+ minutes by doing nothing. I'm not a Guida hater by any means. I usually enjoy his energy in the cage. This is a guy that can probably go 8 rounds with ease, but this was an awful showing and to be honest, a decision I still don't agree with. I don't see how you give more points to Guida for take-downs, zero damage, no transitions, a couple of escapes, and "shoulder strikes" than you do to Pettis, who obviously won when standing, controlled Guida completely off his back, worked more off his back, landing more strikes off his back, AND attempted to finish the fight several times...from his back. He finished Gomi, and that's about it...and let's face it...this isn't Pride Gomi. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. He used his wrestling skills to take down Pettis. Have you ever tried to buck off a 165lbs (I'm rounding for after weigh-ins) guy off of you that continually drives his shoulder into your chest/chin with that momentum, from that angle...and when laying, uses all his body weight/strength to hold the back of your neck? The most energy Guida used that entire fight, was to lay on top and stay there. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hetfield on Jun 5, 2011 21:06:43 GMT -5
Let's take a fight where it's all standup fighting. If one guy constantly attacks on the feet, and the other guy is defending the whole time, and once in awhile throws something back, the one who ATTACKS will win if the fight goes to a decision.
It should be the same for ground fighting. Pettis was attacking and Guida was defending.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boquest on Jun 5, 2011 23:56:52 GMT -5
I agree Bas...uh I mean...JH.
I have mixed feelings about the Guida fight. First and foremost, comparing what Guida did last night to GSP's recent performances is a joke, so I wont even comment on that.
Its hard to really be against Guida too much for what happened. He fought a fight in which he was obviously going for a decision and the guaranteed win. What the fight demonstrated was how the rules and even how MMA judging should be changed or re looked at. Was it a boring fight? For sure, but until issues with "blanketing" an opponent get resolved we will continue to see fighters win fights like the one that happened last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveHulk on Jun 6, 2011 1:15:20 GMT -5
The hate Guida is getting is sad. It really is... I'm amazed at all this "controversy". I thought Guida fought a good, smart fight and clearly won... what's wrong suddenly with guys fighting intelligently and winning decisions? You don't have to go for the finish all the time. As little as Guida may have done on the ground, it was still more than Pettis was able to do off his back... he couldn't secure anything in his active guard, nor did he sweep Guida or mount any significant strike based offense off of his back. It may not have been the most exciting performance in the world, but Guida controlled the fight, scored numerous take-downs, and looked the busier and more dominant fighter. Now, bring on "The Answer". ;D |
|
DWright
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 7, 2005 18:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,839
|
Post by DWright on Jun 6, 2011 17:35:13 GMT -5
The hate Guida is getting is sad. I hate when people use this excuse. What was "good, smart" about this victory? What was "clear" about this victory? Sure, he was awarded the decision, but I'm sorry...I don't watch Mixed Martial Arts to watch someone use the flaws in scoring systems in order take advantage. And please...WHY fight if you AREN'T fighting to finish? This isn't NCAA wrestling...this is a fight. You don't want to finish? Go find a new profession. I can't STAND when MMA fighters claim they followed a game plan and grinded out a decision. What? Where is Pettis supposed to sweep Guida, who honestly didn't even TRY to leave full guard? Guida stayed head to chest/chest to chest and was content with that for about 9-10 minutes of a 3 round fight. He didn't allow space, nor did he throw ANY blows or try to even cause damage...that's ridiculous. Did you WATCH the fight? When was Guida active or dominant at ALL? Using your strength and body weight to blanket a fighter isn't being busy nor dominant...it's a cheap win. That fight should have been stood up several different times. This fight is yet another example as to why they need to change the scoring system. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hetfield on Jun 6, 2011 17:43:19 GMT -5
It's not the scoring, it's the judging. Judges just assume that guys off their back are completely losing the fight and being dominated, when a lot of fighters fight BETTER off their back from more clearly dominant positions.
|
|
DWright
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 7, 2005 18:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,839
|
Post by DWright on Jun 6, 2011 17:47:04 GMT -5
It's not the scoring, it's the judging. Judges just assume that guys off their back are completely losing the fight and being dominated, when a lot of fighters fight BETTER off their back from more clearly dominant positions. I'm mixing the two. Judges score points on simple take downs, while the fighter that was taken down immediately gets up, or the fighter scoring the take down does absolutely nothing from top position. |
|
hammer
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 12, 2009 2:30:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,619
|
Post by hammer on Jun 6, 2011 18:01:05 GMT -5
"When was Guida active or dominant at ALL? Using your strength and body weight to blanket a fighter isn't being busy nor dominant...it's a cheap win."
agreed actually, but just to play devils advocate... shouldnt guida get points based on the fact that pettis couldnt move to a better position and/or get guida off him?
|
|
DWright
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 7, 2005 18:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,839
|
Post by DWright on Jun 6, 2011 18:09:11 GMT -5
"When was Guida active or dominant at ALL? Using your strength and body weight to blanket a fighter isn't being busy nor dominant...it's a cheap win." agreed actually, but just to play devils advocate... shouldnt guida get points based on the fact that pettis couldnt move to a better position and/or get guida off him? 1 - No. Guida shouldn't get points for not trying to improve his position to a place in which he has a better chance to finish a fight. He wasn't working from any position. 2 - Pettis was FAR more active from his back than Guida was from top position. As Hetfield has mentioned, Guida was on defense...from the "more dominant" position. I give Pettis points for staying active, landing more from his back and attempting countless submissions. 3 - It's VERY hard to move a guy that's walking around 165-170lbs off you, while that fighter is using all his energy and strength to keep you in one spot from such a position. All that momentum and leverage...it's extremely hard. Pettis did all he could. In all honesty, it should have been stood up several times each round. |
|
hammer
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 12, 2009 2:30:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,619
|
Post by hammer on Jun 6, 2011 18:34:03 GMT -5
and while pettis was attempting to improve his position... he was failing. his submission attempts were superb... and guida squelched each and every one of them, and got right back on top. guida may have layed on him and attempted no movement, but when pettis was attempting to change that fact, he was not succeeding. and he did little to no damage to guida either, so in the overall... guida should score points for the takedown itself, and the cage control, where pettis gets a round of applause for trying to make the fight more entertaining.
"3 - It's VERY hard to move a guy that's walking around 165-170lbs off you, while that fighter is using all his energy and strength to keep you in one spot from such a position. All that momentum and leverage...it's extremely hard. Pettis did all he could. In all honesty, it should have been stood up several times each round. "
the fact that its hard for pettis to move him off of him, is a negative for guida? that makes zero sense. perhaps it shouldve been stood up... in fact, i agree it shouldve on multiple occasions... but the fact that pettis also could never improve position, shouldnt be held against guida because he was boring.
and yes, i realize that your and james' argument overall, is that guida's inactivity SHOULD be held against him. and again, i agree... it should somehow be included into the scoring system. but it should also be held towards his points, that pettis was nowhere near as skilled a wrestler as him, and couldnt make a difference off the ground. pettis' submission attempts were very pretty and aesthetically pleasing, but they ultimately meant nothing, as guida pushed them aside, and got back to laying on top.
|
|
DWright
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 7, 2005 18:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,839
|
Post by DWright on Jun 6, 2011 19:10:11 GMT -5
Guida has VERY good submission defense, he's proven that in numerous fights. I'm not surprised Pettis couldn't hold a submission. In fact, in the third round, he had the chance to finish that fight and made a horrible mistake that cost him his one chance...but don't take away that Pettis was MUCH more active off his back. Just because Guida kept himself from getting caught, doesn't mean he should score points for holding someone down and making sure there was no space to get caught.
Pettis didn't need to "improve" his position. He kept Guida in guard...right where he wanted him. That's where you want your opponent when you're on your back. There really is no better position. The only "improvement" he could have possibly made was getting back to his feet. Like I said, with the leverage and positions Guida was in, he made it basically impossible. Guida is a VERY good wrestler, he knows how to keep someone down.
Like I've said...Guida didn't do anything to score points in my book. When you take someone down and sit head to chest/chest to chest without TRYING to improve position, without causing ANY damage, without staying active and the guy you're fighting is actually trying to (and was obviously) more active from his back...I don't see how you can possibly say Guida was a clear cut winner.
|
|
hammer
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 12, 2009 2:30:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,619
|
Post by hammer on Jun 6, 2011 19:15:21 GMT -5
how could he not have been scoring points by taking pettis down and putting him where he wanted him? guida wanted to play the boring, safe game... and did just that. and pettis failed to do anything about that... just because he was trying, doesnt give him points. its not the special olympics, you dont get points for trying and failing.
"Pettis didn't need to "improve" his position. He kept Guida in guard...right where he wanted him. That's where you want your opponent when you're on your back."
when youre on your back, being the key statement. on his back... where guida put him. youre telling me pettis wanted to be on his back... when he was clearly better standing up?
|
|
DWright
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 7, 2005 18:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,839
|
Post by DWright on Jun 6, 2011 19:29:01 GMT -5
how could he not have been scoring points by taking pettis down and putting him where he wanted him? guida wanted to play the boring, safe game... and did just that. and pettis failed to do anything about that... just because he was trying, doesnt give him points. its not the special olympics, you dont get points for trying and failing. "Pettis didn't need to "improve" his position. He kept Guida in guard...right where he wanted him. That's where you want your opponent when you're on your back." You're starting to make my point for me. Guida wanted to take down Pettis, lay on his chest for 9-10 minutes, if not more, and grind out a win. That's not MMA. This is why the judging/scoring system needs to be re-evaluated. When you clearly aren't trying to improve position, you're not staying active and you're doing no damage at all...that's not a victory. You're missing the point that Pettis was ACTIVE from his back. I like the comparison Hetfield used. If two fighters are standing and one is landing strikes while the other backs up, blocks and plays more defense, who wins? The aggressor. Guida certainly wasn't the aggressor in a fight he was content with just scoring take down points. MMA is flawed in the sense that just because you take your opponent down, you can score enough points to win. Between what we've seen from the blanket, to the late round take down for points to steal a round, it's pointless. If you take down your opponent with 20 seconds left, and sit on blanket him for the rest of the round, what did you accomplish? You didn't give yourself a chance to win. Obviously Pettis didn't WANT to be on his back, but he was clearly more active off his back than Guida was in guard. Until MMA fixes these problems, you're going to see this often. You'll see the fighter that game plans to take down a striker and sit on him. I know all fights aren't going to be finished...but when you're not even trying and you set out to not finish...that's a complete waste. |
|
hammer
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 12, 2009 2:30:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,619
|
Post by hammer on Jun 6, 2011 19:37:57 GMT -5
"
You're starting to make my point for me. Guida wanted to take down Pettis, lay on his chest for 9-10 minutes, if not more, and grind out a win. That's not MMA. This is why the judging/scoring system needs to be re-evaluated. When you clearly aren't trying to improve position, you're not staying active and you're doing no damage at all...that's not a victory. "
agreed fully, til the 'thats not a victory' part. it is a victory, because the scoring system hasnt been changed yet. guida being the dominator in terms of where the fight went, makes him the winner. no question. pettis was more active in his movements, but far more unsuccessful in what he was attempting to do.
"You're missing the point that Pettis was ACTIVE from his back. I like the comparison Hetfield used. If two fighters are standing and one is landing strikes while the other backs up, blocks and plays more defense, who wins? The aggressor. Guida certainly wasn't the aggressor in a fight he was content with just scoring take down points. "
but pettis did no damage, and where he was active... in his submission attempts... guida pushed them away. guida squashed pettis' best attempts, and kept his position and to his boring ass game plan.
"MMA is flawed in the sense that just because you take your opponent down, you can score enough points to win. Between what we've seen from the blanket, to the late round take down for points to steal a round, it's pointless. If you take down your opponent with 20 seconds left, and sit on blanket him for the rest of the round, what did you accomplish? You didn't give yourself a chance to win. "
no arguments at all.
"Obviously Pettis didn't WANT to be on his back, but he was clearly more active off his back than Guida was in guard.
Until MMA fixes these problems, you're going to see this often. You'll see the fighter that game plans to take down a striker and sit on him. I know all fights aren't going to be finished...but when you're not even trying and you set out to not finish...that's a complete waste. "
again, agreed fully.
i ultimately agree with you and james in every point youre making... except that pettis won the fight, because guida completed his game plan to perfection. his game plan was boring, it sucked for us as fans... but he dictated where the fight went, and kept pettis from more or less anything the entire fight. pettis TRIED to do things... and failed. thats gotta be given credit to guida, especially since the position pettis was trying the majority of his skills, were from a position guida put him in, in the first place. until stalling and boring tactics become part of the scoring system, guida cannot be punished for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveHulk on Jun 6, 2011 20:22:00 GMT -5
And please...WHY fight if you AREN'T fighting to finish? This isn't NCAA wrestling...this is a fight. You don't want to finish? Go find a new profession. I can't STAND when MMA fighters claim they followed a game plan and grinded out a decision. So because you don't like it, fighters shouldn't be allowed to do it? Come on dude... fighters don't have to look to end fights... there are countless fighters and styles where the plan is to either out-wrestle or out-box your opponent and win a decision. There's nothing wrong in that. but pettis did no damage, and where he was active... in his submission attempts... guida pushed them away. guida squashed pettis' best attempts, and kept his position and to his boring ass game plan. because guida completed his game plan to perfection. his game plan was boring, it sucked for us as fans... but he dictated where the fight went, and kept pettis from more or less anything the entire fight. pettis TRIED to do things... and failed. thats gotta be given credit to guida, especially since the position pettis was trying the majority of his skills, were from a position guida put him in, in the first place. until stalling and boring tactics become part of the scoring system, guida cannot be punished for it. This. Pettis was active, but was actually failing in his submission attempts... he couldn't secure anything (apart from, what, one arm-bar the entire fight?). Using the "standing" anology again, I doubt very much that judges score for great looking kicks and punches that don't actually land. |
|
DWright
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 7, 2005 18:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,839
|
Post by DWright on Jun 6, 2011 20:54:39 GMT -5
It's not a matter of me personally not liking it, it's a matter of fully taking advantage of an extremely flawed judging/scoring system. Fighters not looking to end fights isn't what MMA needs, sorry. If you don't fight to finish your opponent...why fight? "Not needing to finish fights" is such a cop out.
This wasn't a matter of out wrestling Pettis. This was a matter of taking him down and holding on for 3 minutes with little no to activity whatsoever. If that's what you want from an MMA fight, then I'm sorry...but I'm not sure why you even follow the sport. Going into a fight, knowing you have no plans to even attempt to finish or even be active is just ridiculous. How people can justify that amazes me.
The point is he was ACTIVE. Pettis was actively trying to fight, while Guida was obviously NOT. Regardless if Pettis was successful or not remains to be seen, but at least he was TRYING to fight. He landed more blows from his back and was actively trying to work, while Guida did NOTHING from the more dominant position. That's hard to swallow when you give a decision to a guy who didn't do ANY real work for 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hetfield on Jun 6, 2011 20:58:30 GMT -5
It shouldn't be called "FIGHTING" when people just come in and lay on the guy, NOT try to improve position and "grind" them out. Sorry, but that's not fighting.
As for the whole "he was on his back" thing, that's kind of silly. A lot of jiu-jitsu guys PREFER to be on their back in a fight. It's just a shame that the guy who is on his back is ALWAYS looked at as the guy who is in the most trouble, which is not the case.
|
|
