|
Not about Lawler or Condit, but how did Michael Macdonald look coming back? He was ridiculously good for his age before his disappeared.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
He was getting dominated then he won. It was cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
A 50S RAYGUN posted:i don't have to 'come up' with anything, i think the current system is fine. i disagree with you on principle because a good clean head strike a; going to, on a blow-by-blow basis, probably affect your ability to fight more than a leg kick and b; far more likely to end a fight than a leg kick. i like how your answer equates to: 'whatever adellaide byrd thinks'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
i feel like i'm taking crazy pills. look, i posit that every single unchecked leg kick should be counted the same as either a clean jab to the face or a significant strike to the face depending on power. anyone who doesn't feel like that's reasonable, or who knows for a fact that it's not how fights are scored, please give me detailed guidance on how to score leg kicks because i'm sure any alternative is convoluted, subjective, and therefore pretty loving retarded
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
AM I THE ONLY SANE ONE HERE?? the poo poo covered maniac screams to a roomful of mannequins with bruised legs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:AM I THE ONLY SANE ONE HERE?? the poo poo covered maniac screams to a roomful of mannequins with bruised legs. Lot of great insight here, thanks dickhead who never posts here
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:Lot of great insight here, thanks dickhead who never posts here Are you being sarcastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
ninety posted:Are you being sarcastic. Who the gently caress are you and are you contributing to the discussion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:Who the gently caress are you and are you contributing to the discussion? Hello
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
hi
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
This is cute, I remember my first beer... The only way that fight could have been better was if Robbie and Conduit joined hands and flew out of the stadium together 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
They're mostly not as significant to a fight in the vast majority of cases as a good jab, and very rarely as significant as a clean power shot to the face, so it's hard to say they automatically deserve the same weight as either of those things even when landing hard. Clean jabs tend to upset the rhythm of the opponent more, can break/bust noses, swell eyes and sometimes even rock opponents and usually allow the fighter to combo them into power punches. Head punches of any type have a more immediate danger of ending a fight than a leg kick outside of breaks or whatever. That's not me trying to say they never do influence or end fights because they do, it's just a rarer thing to have happen. Even Jose Aldo isn't the Jose Aldo of old who used to change fights with leg kicks and have people poo poo scared of them, he barely even uses them anymore and that guy was probably the best at it. It's not going to help the perception that they're super dangerous, I think. Basically, without the bullshit explaining, the only real way to score leg kicks is to weigh them on a case by case basis based on the effectiveness they've had in the round. If they're not hurting the opponent, the opponent is shrugging them off, walking through or checking them, they're basically a null point. Effective defence should be valued at least equally to ineffective offence. If they're hurting the other fighter, disrupting their offence and putting them at risk, they're obviously very significant and should be evaluated as such but it's also kind of a thing where brilliant leg kicks tend to lead into TKO's or clear dominance where other things are going to lead to 10-8's or whatever, like getting held down or mounted, taken down. I think they should be weighted more heavily, but the ones Condit was landing last night didn't do much of anything to change the fight imo and better scoring for them on basis of them landing wouldn't have won it for him because Robbie wasn't especially bothered by it, he was just throwing a bunch of kicks to keep him at a difference and they were missing/being blocked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:i feel like i'm taking crazy pills. look, i posit that every single unchecked leg kick should be counted the same as either a clean jab to the face or a significant strike to the face depending on power. anyone who doesn't feel like that's reasonable, or who knows for a fact that it's not how fights are scored, please give me detailed guidance on how to score leg kicks because i'm sure any alternative is convoluted, subjective, and therefore pretty loving retarded The 10-point must system does not work that way. There is no metric in place for a judge to say: ok clean jab, 1 point, solid leg kick 0.5 points, successful takedown 1 point, let me add these up and give the dude with more points the round. You get 10 points for winning the round and 9 or less for losing the round. What determines who wins the round is up to the judge. A judge might actually keep track of everything that happened throughout a round in order to give themselves a better picture, but even then, that judge is probably not going to see every single thing that happens in the fight. Ultimately the way it works is: the judge watches the round, who do they think won the round? Ok, now add all these up and let's see who the majority of these judges think won it. It is entirely subjective, extremely arbitrary and if you'd like to argue it's pretty loving retarded, you would certainly get some support. Basically: Marching Powder posted:i like how your answer equates to: 'whatever adellaide byrd thinks'. is literally the system that is in place. So arguing that a clean leg kick should be quantified as being the same as a clean jab is entirely moot, because the system simply does not work that way. If you want a system that does work that way, well, Road FC is giving one a try. For the record, I do think that a leg kick should "count" as much as a punch, but I still think Tumenov won 1 & 2 pretty handily. He put a loving boxing clinic on Larkin those first two rounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Lloyd Boner posted:The 10-point must system does not work that way. There is no metric in place for a judge to say: ok clean jab, 1 point, solid leg kick 0.5 points, successful takedown 1 point, let me add these up and give the dude with more points the round. You get 10 points for winning the round and 9 or less for losing the round. What determines who wins the round is up to the judge. A judge might actually keep track of everything that happened throughout a round in order to give themselves a better picture, but even then, that judge is probably not going to see every single thing that happens in the fight. Ultimately the way it works is: the judge watches the round, who do they think won the round? Ok, now add all these up and let's see who the majority of these judges think won it. It is entirely subjective, extremely arbitrary and if you'd like to argue it's pretty loving retarded, you would certainly get some support. the scoring system is 'effective striking'. if you land a leg kick, that's a clean strike. there's some subjectivity as to whether it's a 'significant strike' or just a strike but if it lands, it's effective, and should be counted the same regardless of whether or not it's to the body, leg, or face, unless it's a knockdown, then it's something different entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
LobsterMobster posted:How tough is Carlos Condit? He's fuckin Titanium This is beautiful, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:the scoring system is 'effective striking'. if you land a leg kick, that's a clean strike. there's some subjectivity as to whether it's a 'significant strike' or just a strike but if it lands, it's effective, and should be counted the same regardless of whether or not it's to the body, leg, or face, unless it's a knockdown, then it's something different entirely. Well now I feel silly for writing all that since you're not even gonna read it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
5th round Robbie is the best. Man he's a beast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:the scoring system is 'effective striking'. if you land a leg kick, that's a clean strike. there's some subjectivity as to whether it's a 'significant strike' or just a strike but if it lands, it's effective, and should be counted the same regardless of whether or not it's to the body, leg, or face, unless it's a knockdown, then it's something different entirely. robbie punching condit in the head is more effective than condit kicking robbie's hands/arms sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Foul Fowl posted:robbie punching condit in the head is more effective than condit kicking robbie's hands/arms sorry. you'll notice i said body, leg (unchecked), or head, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Lloyd Boner posted:Well now I feel silly for writing all that since you're not even gonna read it. i read what you wrote, none of it addresses why people think leg kicks shouldn't be counted as a 'strike' or 'significant strike' the exact same as a shot to the body or head that doesn't cause a knockdown. which was my query.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
People have already explained it but to put it as simply as possible, I'd say that leg kicks do not individually have the same potential to effect a fighter as much as a serious body or head strike could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfzRO5Eidqs
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:you'll notice i said body, leg (unchecked), or head, sorry i thought the argument was about who won round 3. in that case i think it's pretty dumb to try to standardize and systematize fight scoring because 1) it will come down to some spaz with a clicker deciding what counts as a clean strikes or not 2) leg strikes especially are cumulative and their effectiveness is very dependent on circumstance 3) even the worst judge will always be better than a rigorous system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
i'm sorry for being really stupid (feel free to edit the rest of this out and empty quote the previous because you're an unimaginative fuckbag) but absolutely none of you have explained why effective strikes to the leg aren't effective strikes and shouldn't be counted as such
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:i read what you wrote, none of it addresses why people think leg kicks shouldn't be counted as a 'strike' or 'significant strike' the exact same as a shot to the body or head that doesn't cause a knockdown. which was my query. You asked for how to score leg kicks under the scoring system: you don't, because you don't quantify individual techniques throughout the fight. Also leg kicks do count equally as strikes/significant strikes in the only place those numbers actually do matter: Fightmetric. e: Actually I am completely wrong: quote:E. Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant. Lloyd Boner fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Lloyd Boner posted:You asked for how to score leg kicks under the scoring system: you don't, because you don't quantify individual techniques throughout the fight. Also leg kicks do count equally as strikes/significant strikes in the only place those numbers actually do matter: Fightmetric. But people don't see them as such? Why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Lloyd Boner posted:
This is wrong because of the knock down in round two, the fact that Carlos missed nigh on everything in3 and got bashed up in 5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:i'm sorry for being really stupid (feel free to edit the rest of this out and empty quote the previous because you're an unimaginative fuckbag) but absolutely none of you have explained why effective strikes to the leg aren't effective strikes and shouldn't be counted as such I explained fairly well for an idiot like me, honestly. I think you're kinda choosing to be a martyr for no huge reason. "Effective = Has an effect". Getting punched in the face often has more of an effect than getting kicked in the leg and is therefore a more effective means of winning a fight. It is more effective striking in the vast majority of cases. Never seen a dude knock someone down and swarm to kick them in the legs. Josuke Higashikata fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Josuke Higashikata posted:I explained fairly well for an idiot like me, honestly. i'm not being a martyr, i'm asking questions Josuke Higashikata posted:Getting punched in the face often has more of an effect than getting kicked in the leg and is therefore a more effective means of winning a fight. It is more effective striking. 1000% wrong from anyone who has ever been ko'd by a liver shot. i'd personally count punch to face and a good chop as equally miserable
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
i'm not going to look up how many chops it took for cerrone to cripple alvarez but i'm betting it's way less than the number of times nate diaz hit johnson in the face
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:But people don't see them as such? Why? It's subjective so unless you really want to bang your head against the "why do people not think the same way I do" wall you should probably just give it a rest. E: In my former life I watched a video of an assault where a white supremacist dude did a bunch of bouncing around, landed one leg kick, and was immediately laid out by what looked like a pretty soft punch to the face, so I'll never count kicks as much as punches to the face, if somehow the scoring system changes so different strikes are added up WHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN SO STOP. Grem fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Grem posted:It's subjective so unless you really want to bang your head against the "why do people not think the same way I do" wall you should probably just give it a rest. i'm sorry but i learn nothing from 'you're wrong'
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Marching Powder posted:i'm sorry but i learn nothing from 'you're wrong' You don't seem to learn much at all, dudes have done little mini essays to explain to you your whole concept of scoring is incorrect and you aren't absorbing the information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
I've never seen someone with their liver in their leg though! It's not like you have a pecking order of effective moves either. Obviously if you can land a perfect liver shot at will, you're going to do it because it's often going to be a fight ender, but it's not that simple. It's not going to be effective striking if it's the only thing you go for and it's blocked every time. That's the definition of ineffective striking. Punching a dude in the face is considerably easier than landing a liver kick. If I had to define the term effective striking, it'd be something like: "The ability to land techniques reliably with an appreciable effect on the target, be it damage, knock outs, disrupting rhythm, causing cuts or stopping them approaching." Landing leg kicks on a dude who's not feeling it isn't too effective to me, even if you land 10 that do little, it's less than getting a jabbed in the face and staggered a little by it. If someone's closing someone down, checking leg kicks, blocking body kicks and then landing their own, that's more effective striking on their behalf than on the person they're fighting. I think Robbie was the much more effective striker in the fight last night than Condit overall even if Condit throwing a good 500 strikes overall is crazy. Josuke Higashikata fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Grem posted:You don't seem to learn much at all, dudes have done little mini essays to explain to you your whole concept of scoring is incorrect and you aren't absorbing the information. yeah you're right there's obviously been a lot of effort directed towards this conundrum and i find every piece of it either stupid or irrelevant. time to admit that my particular brand of stupidity can't be helped as it stands. thank you everyone for your efforts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Can you guys tell me* about GSP and Anderson Silva? I'm a recent convert to the sport (Rousey bandwagon, I know) but I knew their names even before I started paying attention to MMA, and even before GSP fought Captain America that one time. Are they just meant to be some of the best fighters around? Any really great bouts or highlights I should seek out for them? *yes I can google, but super opinionated sports fan views are more fun than a dry wikipedia page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:Can you guys tell me* about GSP and Anderson Silva? I'm a recent convert to the sport (Rousey bandwagon, I know) but I knew their names even before I started paying attention to MMA, and even before GSP fought Captain America that one time. Are they just meant to be some of the best fighters around? Any really great bouts or highlights I should seek out for them? gsp is probably the best fighter of all time. utterly dominated a great division for a long time by having the best takedown and jab in MMA (and being insanely athletic, especially in the early days of his reign). he won something like thirty six straight rounds after getting blasted by serra in the biggest upset of UFC history. i say best takedown and jab because the rest of his game flowed from those two things, and when johny hendricks took both away, he actually had to fight (imo he won that fight but opinion is sharply divided). he was criticized for not finishing fights and for fighting sub standard opposition once he had cleaned out his entire division (not really his fault). it's hard to fathom in the current mma landscape where unbeatable guys are dropping like flies but for like six years GSP didn't lose a round against the best fighters in the world, to the point where people got bored with him being so good but so workmanlike. anderson is, uh, something else. for one he's the other candidate for greatest of all time but his reign was completely unlike gsp's. gsp was a golden boy who never showed any cracks. anderson routinely put in dog poo poo performances against mediocre fighters but alternated those fights with some of the best and most dominant showings ever. he cracked the iron-chinned chris leben in a minute by countering him to hell and back. he crushed former champ rich franklin twice. he embarrassed former light heavyweight champion forrest griffin to the point of forrest largely becoming a joke after that fight (seriously, it's like a cat playing with its food). he had a great two-parter with chael sonnen who himself was a journeyman but talked endless poo poo and then ground anderson out for four rounds before anderson caught him in a triangle (anderson killed him in the rematch). what i'm getting at here is that if gsp's career was a flat curve, anderson's was a god drat rollercoaster. he was loving reviled after the demian maia fight, for example, but then he rallied against chael in a GREAT fight and basically introduced the front kick to MMA by shoving his foot into vitor belfort's face. and for what it's worth, gsp had the most graceful retirement of all time, while anderson got killed twice by chris weidman and then got busted for steroids in a really dumb fight against a welterweight. both guys were amazing to watch and it's a travesty that they never fought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Please note that Anderson blamed pissing hot for steroids on some off-market Thai viagra he took.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
[deep, soulful voice] blue dick liquid, that blue dick liquid...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Marching Powder vs the world
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 16:01
|
|
