|
origami posted:Nah it was some drunken bet against a college wrestler and he was wearing dress shoes. I can't remember the details. I believe Coleman told him he'd give him $10k if he could take him down. The college kid couldn't. Coleman was in dress shoes and didn't have the money to pay if he had lost.
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Those knees were close as poo poo, but didn't the UFC recently change the rules about them where the refs now have more leeway when a dude is balancing one hand on the mat to bait illegal knees? The UFC doesn't set the rules. They follow the unified rules that are set by the various athletic commissions. I know a number of refs, though, like Big John don't give a drat if you have a finger down if you're just gaming the system. It would have been wonderful if JBJ had got hit by that kick from Vitor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Whenever he loses he's going to unleash the carnivale of excuses isn't he I hope so bad glover puts him out tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Eh, that only gets 3/5 stars. Not bad, but not your best work. Please seem me after class.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
BJ sees each and every one of these fighters as his lesser and for 90% he's probably right.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Mazz is the loving worst. That was loving looney.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
I didn't think any of his elbows that Mazz was bitching about were illegal outside of the ones that might have hit the back of the head. He wasn't warning for that, though. He was saying some bullshit about the angle, which looked fine to me. The elbows to the ear were the exact same ones Travis Browne used to knock out Barnett.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I honestly think the judges weren't completely terrible. They gave 1 to Zapata and 2 to Stephens. Round 3 would have been Zapata as well if Mazzagatti hadn't stopped the fight. In the end the one that was bad was whoever scored 3 for Stephens and then said Zapata won. outy posted:Well it's all about intent and negligence. If you are throwing lazy jabs with an open hand, you are risking an eye-poke but not necessarily trying to poke out an eye intentionally. So you get warned that your behaviour needs adjusting. Continuing to throw those lazy jabs now constitute an intentional foul, so points can be taken. You are committing the same action, but due to the warning the consequences change. It's not comparable situations. Zapata's elbows outside of some possible back to the head in round 1 were 100% legal. This is just Mazz being a lovely ref.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
I thought the judging in the fight wasn't the terrible part. Mazzagatti was the horrible one. I mean, round 1 Zapata did all the damage even if he got wrestled a little. No problem giving him the round. Round two, Ian won via lead blanket. Because of the draw, the third round is sudden victory. The first half of the round, Zapata is teeing off on the gassed wrestler. Midway we get the "illegal" elbow, and then another two and a half minutes of lead blanket without actually doing anything. I could see a judge giving the edge in the round to either fighter. Zapata got the nod on two scorecards causing a draw. Can't have a draw, so they just have to pick the winner. I think the judges picked correctly, and I can't fault their scoring.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Nibbles141 posted:It depends on how you view the rules I guess as by giving him the victory they essentially ignored the foul. Although since they did it I guess they're perfectly entitled to do so? They didn't ignore the foul. It's what caused the draw forcing them to choose. From the way I understand it, the last round is all that counts at the sudden victory. When that was tied, they weren't asked who they thought won that round. They were asked to pick who they thought won the fight as a whole independent of scorecards.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
They had to have been asked who they thought won the fight as a whole and not just the last round. All three judges gave the fight to Zapata, but one of the judges did not give the 3rd round to him. There are two possible explanations in my mind: they were told to pick the winner of the entire fight OR the third judge didn't give the last round to Zapata on the scorecards because of the foul despite feeling that he won. There's no real good way to explain the inconsistency of that decision otherwise. Why else would one person change their mind about a round in a matter of 30 seconds? Occam's razor would lead to the former.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
At least one of them was consistent throughout. I still place the blame firmly on Mazzagatti.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
I've got however many episodes since the Mazzagatti fuckup on my DVR unwatched because I just can't find it in me to care about this season.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 01:59
|
|