|
But you can raise your forward hand to block keeping your back hand grounded. That would draw the illegal kick and keep you alive. Jones raised both his hands in surprise not dreaming a kick was coming. May be a viable strategy for a pure grappler to avoid a striker if they practice it.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Crouching down and blocking a kick with one arm is still going to get your teeth knocked out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:22
|
|
He expended too much energy and got tired
|
EvanSchenck posted:The only factor that seems to consistently correlate with chin is a good gas tank. A lot of guys with notable cardio like Condit, Nate/Nick Diaz, Diego Sanchez, Frankie Edgar, and Clay Guida are also notably difficult to stop. It's not so much that they're more resistant to getting hurt, but that they seem more able to survive and recover quickly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:That sounds to me more like they don't get sloppy with their defense because they're tired. (Obviously that doesn't apply to stuff like Hunt surviving a cinematic boot to the head.) After all, most deaths in boxing happen after 8+ round fights, not hellacious first-round knockouts. There are several fighters on that list that have basically zero defense and spend the whole fight getting punched in the head, and still don't gas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
That's a bit conflating chin and recovery. Good recovery is how quick you recover from being hurt, good chin is how much it takes to hurt you to begin with. Wanderlei never had a great chin, but he had terrific recovery. Hunt's chin is inhuman, his recovery is also good. Mir doesn't actually have a particularly bad chin, but his recovery is basically zero; once he's hurt he's a Mortal Kombat FINISH HIM screen for the next twenty minutes. Good recovery is definitely helped by how conditioned you are. Good chin, nobody honestly knows, although prevailing theories are that neck strength plays a significant role because it lessens the rotational effect of strikes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
also, at heavyweight i feel a lot like defense is more important than chin. very few people can stay standing after a big clean shot from a huge dude (hunt in particular is good at picking off shots with his shoulder and top of his head), but some dudes are loving spectacular at letting people hit them directly on the jaw or in the temple (andrei arlovski, JT, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
it's really quite amazing just how little composure arlovski has when there's strikes coming at him considering he's been fighting for a hundred years or more
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
BJ can take a punch because his superior Hawaiian warrior-king genetics give him a perfectly round skull, a thick short neck and nearly unbreakable skin. The trade-off is that he will probably die of diabetes. Same for Hendo but substitute Cherokee for Hawaiian. Real Answer: Sometimes even guys that gas have such good instincts for being hit that they roll with the punches and are difficult to put away. If you watch some boxing defensive greats you can really see it, and if you've ever boxed with a guy whos got good defense (and you suck like me) he can let you land whatever you want and it slides off or only lands in strong spots like shoulders and hip bones. James Tony is a great illustration, especially in his fatter years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8PX8O7mHIE
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
david carmichael posted:also, at heavyweight i feel a lot like defense is more important than chin. very few people can stay standing after a big clean shot from a huge dude (hunt in particular is good at picking off shots with his shoulder and top of his head), but some dudes are loving spectacular at letting people hit them directly on the jaw or in the temple (andrei arlovski, JT, etc.). Yeah, one of the issues with chin talk is that we're seeing the fights and not feeling them from the fighters perspective. A lot of stuff that can look impressive to us might have someone rolling with the punch and not being hit that hard while hits that look weak can hit flush on someone that isn't prepared. The whole "chin" conversation blends a ton of stuff that shouldn't be combined if you're trying to have a realistic conversation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Shaolin monks allegedly trained to take blows by having sandbags swung into their faces and head-butting them back. I take it this is not scientific training.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Shaolin monks allegedly trained to take blows by having sandbags swung into their faces and head-butting them back. I take it this is not scientific training. gently caress no, one of my instructors wanted to show us how easy it is to have your equilibrium hosed up without actually hurting us. I bowed by head, closed by eyes and he gave me a slight tap, not a hard punch, just more like a soft slap right on the chin knocking my head, when I opened my eyes I got that dizzy movement and had to clear the cobwebs a little bit. I've never been knocked down in sparring and to the best of my recollection the only time I've ever been concussed or knocked out was when I played rugby. Well I've been knocked down with a body shot, but other than that I've been OK. There's a huge difference between what you see coming and what you don't. There's also significant evidence to suggest that taking more trauma doesn't condition you to poo poo, but makes you more likely to get knocked out. We know how people get knocked out, how to lessen it, but there's no scientific explanation that I know of that explains why a dude like BJ Penn or Mark Hunt can eat punishment and not flinch but a guy like Forrest who was despite his protestation a vastly superior athlete was pretty chinny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Yeah, one of the issues with chin talk is that we're seeing the fights and not feeling them from the fighters perspective. A lot of stuff that can look impressive to us might have someone rolling with the punch and not being hit that hard while hits that look weak can hit flush on someone that isn't prepared. The whole "chin" conversation blends a ton of stuff that shouldn't be combined if you're trying to have a realistic conversation.  It looks like barely a tap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
one of the big factors seems to be if the guy sees it coming or not, because they can brace for it or whatever, I don't know. Mo definitely didnt see that coming
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
I hear that boxing is corrupt. In what ways? This is not a sarcastic post; I am literally ignorant about all things boxing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Nostradingus posted:I hear that boxing is corrupt. In what ways? While I'm sure one of the boxing thread guys can give you a more definitive answer: There's like 3 organizations with their own belt for every weight class, getting good boxers to actually fight each other is painstaking Judging/referee decisions are either blatantly bought off/biased/robberies/hosed up Top fighters are protected from fighting actual prospects/competition to maintain their records/titles Google Paulie Malignaggi's rants about corruption in boxing for fun youtubes from a current boxer/commentator who is very passionate about the sport
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Nostradingus posted:I hear that boxing is corrupt. In what ways? Champions are protected from any fighters that pose a real threat to them. Champions will fight 20-0 fighters, so that it looks like they are being challenged. When in fact the 20-0 fighter has only beat up cans, and posed no threat at all to the champion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Nostradingus posted:I hear that boxing is corrupt. In what ways? Watch Pacquiao-Bradley, Bradley wins 2 scorecards despite getting owned in all but 1 of 12 rounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:Champions are protected from any fighters that pose a real threat to them. It can be even more insidious because if you've got a marketable guy with a certain style, then you try very hard to make sure he doesn't fight anyone at his level with a style that is bad for him, or even just an opponent that doesn't bring in the money. I guess you can't blame people for most of that because its not outright crooked and simply human nature, but like the Miami heat doesn't get to just not play the Pacers on their way to becoming world champions because they don't match up well and Lebron gets more eyeballs. It also ripples through the sport since even prospects want good matchups and some guys just don't get opportunities. I don't think anyone thats a potential pound for pound great gets left out, talent like that is undeniable most of the time, but there are many mid-level guys who careers were/are adversely affected because of that poo poo and probably didn't get as far as they could if there was some overall organization forcing guys together. It messes with fan expectations too and creates a bad feedback loop. Fan looks at the records for champion sees 33-0 therefore assumes to be good fighters must go 33-00 therefore fighter decides its not good to take challenging fights because you might lose then fans think you're bad then no one watches. Xguard86 fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Didn't somebody come into the monthly UFC thread with a statistical model that "proved" you would never be a champion if you had more than four career losses?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Didn't somebody come into the monthly UFC thread with a statistical model that "proved" you would never be a champion if you had more than four career losses? Randy Couture would like a word with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Randy popped into my head but I thought Shogun too. Turns out he had exactly four. So did Serra.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Rampage had six when he beat Chuck for LHW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Didn't somebody come into the monthly UFC thread with a statistical model that "proved" you would never be a champion if you had more than four career losses? Well, here are the ones I can find that I guess shows it hold some weight. This is with their record before the title fight. Heavyweight: Maurice Smith (5-7) Randy Couture (14-8) - 3rd time Light Heavyweight: Frank Shamrock (14-7-1) Randy Couture (10-5) Interim and (11-5) Unified and (12-6) 2nd time Rampage (26-6) Middleweight: Dave Menne (30-7-2) Welterweight: Carlos Condit (27-5) Interim So the only ones that fit in here are interim champs, early champs (friggin Mo Smith), one outlier, and one extreme outlier. This is only for the UFC though, but I don't think it really makes sense to apply this to other organizations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
I can't remember who it was because it was months ago but he had tons of qualifiers to his theory. Like, he started the data in fall 2007 or something because he thought that was when the sport had matured, except it was obvious he had dated it specifically because Couture (March 2007) and Rampage (May 2007) disproved what he was saying. I was really just mentioning it as an example of how fans get caught up in that kind of thinking, where you have to have an immaculate or near-immaculate record to be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I can't remember who it was because it was months ago but he had tons of qualifiers to his theory. Like, he started the data in fall 2007 or something because he thought that was when the sport had matured, except it was obvious he had dated it specifically because Couture (March 2007) and Rampage (May 2007) disproved what he was saying. I was really just mentioning it as an example of how fans get caught up in that kind of thinking, where you have to have an immaculate or near-immaculate record to be taken seriously. Ditch. It was ditch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I can't remember who it was because it was months ago but he had tons of qualifiers to his theory. Like, he started the data in fall 2007 or something because he thought that was when the sport had matured, except it was obvious he had dated it specifically because Couture (March 2007) and Rampage (May 2007) disproved what he was saying. I was really just mentioning it as an example of how fans get caught up in that kind of thinking, where you have to have an immaculate or near-immaculate record to be taken seriously. Also Dan Henderson.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
I remember reading an article about Ceasar Chavez, Jr. when he was something like 27 - 0 with 21 knockouts and a WBC title, and the author was wondering if - if! - he could someday become a world class fighter. Those number sound so gaudy after following MMA. I wonder if the can-crushing a relic of an older era when promoters couldn't use highlight reels and were practically limited to printed names and records.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Remember James Toney making fun of Randy Couture's 18-9 record, despite over half those fights being title fights?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Yuriy posted:There's like 3 organizations with their own belt for every weight class, getting good boxers to actually fight each other is painstaking I only watch the big events in boxing so I don't know too much about the sport, but someone once told me that the 3 boxing organizations are more akin to say the UFC, Bellator, and WSOF in MMA. So it's understood that the UFC champs are the best in the world, while other champs are just the best in their organization. Same goes for boxing. I forget which one was supposed to be the best in the world org, but I think it was the WBA. Is that accurate at all? Also, wasn't there another statistical model that showed that MMA fighters consistently go on the decline after X number of years fighting pro?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Pretty Lady Blob posted:I only watch the big events in boxing so I don't know too much about the sport, but someone once told me that the 3 boxing organizations are more akin to say the UFC, Bellator, and WSOF in MMA. So it's understood that the UFC champs are the best in the world, while other champs are just the best in their organization. Same goes for boxing. I forget which one was supposed to be the best in the world org, but I think it was the WBA. Is that accurate at all? Even if one boxing federation is bigger than another, they don't really function as leagues and people can bounce to wherever they think they can get a title. So to stretch your metaphor, imagine Pettis was UFC champ, Henderson was Bellator champ, Gil Melendez was WSOF champ, and none of them would fight Jose Aldo or Khabib Nurmagomedov because they couldn't agree on a catchweight. As for the nine year thing, http://www.fightopinion.com/2011/06/19/9-year-rule-mma-ufc/ I read David Williams' blog pretty regularly. He's not a journalist or anything nor does he have any special knowledge but it's nice to see someone who actually thinks about fights and talks about fighting in an informed way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
I can't remember if it was here or somewhere else but someone made up a thing that showed the average fighter improved for seven years and could only be competitive for nine years. There were some outliers but it seemed to fit fairly well. ^^^ Whoop, there it is
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
not that much different from other sports really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Yuriy posted:There's like 3 organizations with their own belt for every weight class, getting good boxers to actually fight each other is painstaking Also worth noting: uniting the titles in one weight class (out of the 17) involves paying a generous sanctioning fee to each of the sanctioning bodies for each title fight. Champion-vs-champion fights are discouraged financially.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
I think the fans are more accepting of champions with less-than-perfect records because the UFC is much more transparent and honest about its matchups by comparison. Sure, some fighters are 'protected', like Dan Hardy never fighting a wrestler before challenging GSP. But for the most part fighters are matched well for a clear picture of the title implications, and losses aren't treated as career-ending since everyone knows they're high level fighters and sometimes you just get beat. Dana is outspoken about how corrupt boxing is, and that he thinks the sport is dying because of it and he's doing all he can to prevent that in the UFC and i think MMA in general is better for it. If Bellator/WSOF/whoever had a guy they were clearly protecting, I think Dana would be the first to call them out. Didn't M1 want to pick their own fights for Fedor if he were to join the UFC? I thought that was one of their  demands. And with Kimbo Slice/Toney/etc, he's made it clear that you have to earn your way up the ladder.The pay is also much more fair in the UFC. While the main card fighters get 100k to show/win, the undercard guys get a minimum 8k show/win. By comparison Mayweather gets 140M win, lose or draw, while the first couple of undercard guys might get $100 and a bus token just to show. red19fire fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Has anybody in the UFC been more protected than Michael Bisping?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Has anybody in the UFC been more protected than Michael Bisping? Protected from whom exactly? He's had a couple of fights where the matchup was in his favor like Leben and Stann, but his schedule hasn't been exactly a cakewalk at middleweight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Has anybody in the UFC been more protected than Michael Bisping? There's no real compelling argument in favour of this. The guy fights people on his level practically every fight and has stepped up in quality a bunch of times and not looked awful doing so. Chael Sonnen during Chael's hot streak at MW comes to mind. If you're looking for a Brit who was ridiculously protected before health issues seemingly ended his career, look no further than Dan Hardy. If you're wondering why he never fought Anderson, it's because Bisping isn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Yeah remember that Bisping has had many chances to win a title eliminator and he's lost all of them. He even hurt Chael really bad in their fight and still couldn't get the job done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
I remember when he was given Sinosic, who was 1-5 in the UFC and basically came back just to lose to Bisping and wash out. Then after the Hamill and Evans fights showed he wasn't ready for prime time, he was given McCarthy, who also came back from the indies just to lose a retirement fight to Bisping. Then when the Henderson demonstrated that he still hadn't stepped up to the next level, he got Denis Kang. After loving up the chance to look great by beating an over-the-hill Wanderlei, he got the guy who lost to both of the prominent middleweight contenders. In retrospect, he did eventually step up, but back in 08-09 it really felt like he was being bottle-fed until he was strong enough, and he easily could have washed out without the benefit of some clever booking.
Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:27
|
|