Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
AhrnCityPahnder

UFC wagering: breaking news - judging is so terrible it got me to return here to update this thread title

Recommended Posts

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
The important question is how they're judged. I think they're judged pretty highly b/c wrestling is one of the major disciplines of mma and in wrestling you score for takedowns and not for escapes. If what you're talking about is changing how fights are judged, then never mind.
I'm talking about how fights should be judged. Otherwise there would be little to no discussion of judging, rather reporting what the judges scored it.

There is nothing in the unified rules that prioritizes wrestling, it's just an ad hoc rule of how judges score fights. Octagon control is the the closest, but I've never seen a judge score a round for a fighter because he controlled where the fight took place by stuffing takedowns.

didn't say it should prioritize wrestling. i think you questioned another poster on why 4 take downs is more impressive than 4 escapes. i'm going to go out on a limp and say that the point system in wrestling does offer some precedent on why mma judges would consider that to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Octagon control is the the closest, but I've never seen a judge score a round for a fighter because he controlled where the fight took place by stuffing takedowns.

Do you reward offense over defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
The important question is how they're judged. I think they're judged pretty highly b/c wrestling is one of the major disciplines of mma and in wrestling you score for takedowns and not for escapes. If what you're talking about is changing how fights are judged, then never mind.
I'm talking about how fights should be judged, clearly. Otherwise there would be little to no discussion of judging, rather reporting what the judges scored it.
Huh? You could still discuss why the fights were judged the way they were. its not robots we're talking about. there's frequently fights where one judge scores it completely opposite from another.

and i still think they have it right for their rewarding take downs and not escapes. that's how both freestyle and greco roman score it. they even used to award escapes, but took that away. i think they may be on to something.

I was off, forgetting the discussion of why fights are judged how they are. But how often does discussion go into how judges actually score fights (Cecil People's leg kicks don't count) vs what someone thinks the judges should have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
Takedowns dictate where the fight takes place. That's pretty important. And yes - so does getting up, but as stated before, I believe getting up is easier. Plus, being on the offensive should be more highly rewarded than being on the defensive. It really amazes me that this is questioned regarding grappling as it never is regarding striking.
Is pulling guard offensive or defensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
Takedowns dictate where the fight takes place. That's pretty important. And yes - so does getting up, but as stated before, I believe getting up is easier. Plus, being on the offensive should be more highly rewarded than being on the defensive. It really amazes me that this is questioned regarding grappling as it never is regarding striking.
Is pulling guard offensive or defensive?
Offensive. It's a huge risk in MMA though because it's common to get busted up while someone is in your guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
Takedowns dictate where the fight takes place. That's pretty important. And yes - so does getting up, but as stated before, I believe getting up is easier. Plus, being on the offensive should be more highly rewarded than being on the defensive. It really amazes me that this is questioned regarding grappling as it never is regarding striking.
Is pulling guard offensive or defensive?
Offensive. It's a huge risk in MMA though because it's common to get busted up while someone is in your guard.
So in an otherwise even round,

a) would you score the round for the guard puller and

b) would you expect any judge to score it for the guard puller.

Edited by Voice Of Reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in an otherwise even round, a) would you score the round for the guard puller andb) would you expect any judge to score it for the guard puller.

a) Yesb) "any judge" - yes. I would hope they would remember how the fight got to the mat. Given my experience with judging, however, I would not expect the average judge to reward the guy on bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in an otherwise even round, a) would you score the round for the guard puller andb) would you expect any judge to score it for the guard puller.

a) Yesb) "any judge" - yes. I would hope they would remember how the fight got to the mat. Given my experience with judging, however, I would not expect the average judge to reward the guy on bottom.
Didn't expect answer A. Most people prioritize absolute position vs the way the fighters got there. So Condit could've won a round by flopping back and pulling Hendricks down as Hendricks shot for a takedown? Edited by Voice Of Reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Condit could've won a round by flopping back and pulling Hendricks down as Hendricks shot for a takedown?

That's not so clear cut. If Condit only pulled guard because he was being taken down, then I'd favor the takedown. If Condit was in the clinch and pulled guard, I'd favor the guard pull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me to justify a 10-7 round it would have to be complete domination from bell to bell and probably a really bad reffing job for them not to stop the fight to protect the fighter on the receiving end. I can't think of any fights at the UFC level I would have judged that way.

For 10-8 you would need multiple knockdowns on the feet or maintain a dominate position for at least half the round like in back mount or full mount. I don't see how a fighter could ever be awarded a 10-8 if they are taken down 4 times in that same round, unless they had like a 8-1 striking advantage or inflicted massive damage in the striking and the takedowns were attempted out of sheer desperation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else believe this GSP/Silva fight will actually happen if they get past Hendricks/Weidman respectively? (And big big if IMO in both cases, but they'll have both completely wiped out the division for time being)

Silva turns 38 in April. If they're ever going to do, no better time than to do it around New Year's in Vegas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else believe this GSP/Silva fight will actually happen if they get past Hendricks/Weidman respectively? (And big big if IMO in both cases, but they'll have both completely wiped out the division for time being)

Silva turns 38 in April. If they're ever going to do, no better time than to do it around New Year's in Vegas.

I don't think GSP has cleaned out his division. Not with Ellenberger and McDonald coming up and Maia impressing at his new weight.

Also, 38 years old is past anyone's prime. It wouldn't be the super fight it could have been. I don't need to see it to know how great Anderson and GSP. I really don't know what it would prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else believe this GSP/Silva fight will actually happen if they get past Hendricks/Weidman respectively? (And big big if IMO in both cases, but they'll have both completely wiped out the division for time being)

Silva turns 38 in April. If they're ever going to do, no better time than to do it around New Year's in Vegas.

Rumors out last week that someone on GSP's coaching staff/team said GSP's plan was Diaz, Hendricks, Silva, retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else believe this GSP/Silva fight will actually happen if they get past Hendricks/Weidman respectively? (And big big if IMO in both cases, but they'll have both completely wiped out the division for time being)

Silva turns 38 in April. If they're ever going to do, no better time than to do it around New Year's in Vegas.

Rumors out last week that someone on GSP's coaching staff/team said GSP's plan was Diaz, Hendricks, Silva, retire.
Makes a lot of sense to me. Some may think he'd be retiring early, but the guy's been fighting since he was 21 & his career has come during the rise to prominence of the UFC (to where he's earned a ton of $$). The guy's held the welterweight belt for nearly 6 years by the time he fights again.

Buyrates for Silva/GSP would be insane. (7 year win streak vs. a 6 year one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else believe this GSP/Silva fight will actually happen if they get past Hendricks/Weidman respectively? (And big big if IMO in both cases, but they'll have both completely wiped out the division for time being)

Silva turns 38 in April. If they're ever going to do, no better time than to do it around New Year's in Vegas.

Rumors out last week that someone on GSP's coaching staff/team said GSP's plan was Diaz, Hendricks, Silva, retire.
Makes a lot of sense to me. Some may think he'd be retiring early, but the guy's been fighting since he was 21 & his career has come during the rise to prominence of the UFC (to where he's earned a ton of $$). The guy's held the welterweight belt for nearly 6 years by the time he fights again.

Buyrates for Silva/GSP would be insane. (7 year win streak vs. a 6 year one)

Yep. He'd go out on top which very few do (win or lose vs Silva) and would have had almost a perfect career. He makes $4-5M per fight so he isn't going to need cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a recent interview with Dana, he claims to have been in talks with Silva's camp about setting this fight up. If both of them were to lose their next match, would that diminish the potential of the fight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a recent interview with Dana, he claims to have been in talks with Silva's camp about setting this fight up. If both of them were to lose their next match, would that diminish the potential of the fight?

Diminish the potential that it actually happens or the potential 'greatness' of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I seeing that right? We got about 3 weeks off of MMA stuff and then April is pretty much back to back free "PPVs" all month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a recent interview with Dana, he claims to have been in talks with Silva's camp about setting this fight up. If both of them were to lose their next match, would that diminish the potential of the fight?

Diminish the potential that it actually happens or the potential 'greatness' of it?
The latter, but the former is interesting also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dana's master plan is silva vs gsp at Madison Square Garden for the new year's eve show. A lot of factors before that can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dana's master plan is silva vs gsp at Madison Square Garden for the new year's eve show. A lot of factors before that can happen.

that or there Super Bowl show. It has to be a PPV fight, can't give Silva-GSP to Fox for free. Having the fight in NY would be the plan for Dana, but it makes sense the plan that is set. It would blow to see GSP retire after the fight though, maybe some good time off, but i would hate to see him walk away from the fight. Though he has shown less desire to work with the media since his return and you would have to think that he may be getting tired of all of it. which is an interesting thing, especially from a gambling angle. We are seeing more and more guys who have been around for a bit, losing interest in fighting when their performance is still pretty good. Hardy, Rashad, Mir, and I am sure there are a bunch others. Strange to see some guys lose their desire to fight as they are in it for a bit, and then you see guys like Wandy and Nog who can't walk away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dana's master plan is silva vs gsp at Madison Square Garden for the new year's eve show. A lot of factors before that can happen.

that or there Super Bowl show. It has to be a PPV fight, can't give Silva-GSP to Fox for free. Having the fight in NY would be the plan for Dana, but it makes sense the plan that is set. It would blow to see GSP retire after the fight though, maybe some good time off, but i would hate to see him walk away from the fight. Though he has shown less desire to work with the media since his return and you would have to think that he may be getting tired of all of it. which is an interesting thing, especially from a gambling angle. We are seeing more and more guys who have been around for a bit, losing interest in fighting when their performance is still pretty good. Hardy, Rashad, Mir, and I am sure there are a bunch others. Strange to see some guys lose their desire to fight as they are in it for a bit, and then you see guys like Wandy and Nog who can't walk away
The rumor I was seeing was that with FOX showing the Super Bowl next year, that they were pushing for a FOX super fight Super Bowl weekend in NYC. If not there then in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dana's master plan is silva vs gsp at Madison Square Garden for the new year's eve show. A lot of factors before that can happen.

that or there Super Bowl show. It has to be a PPV fight, can't give Silva-GSP to Fox for free. Having the fight in NY would be the plan for Dana, but it makes sense the plan that is set. It would blow to see GSP retire after the fight though, maybe some good time off, but i would hate to see him walk away from the fight. Though he has shown less desire to work with the media since his return and you would have to think that he may be getting tired of all of it. which is an interesting thing, especially from a gambling angle. We are seeing more and more guys who have been around for a bit, losing interest in fighting when their performance is still pretty good. Hardy, Rashad, Mir, and I am sure there are a bunch others. Strange to see some guys lose their desire to fight as they are in it for a bit, and then you see guys like Wandy and Nog who can't walk away
The rumor I was seeing was that with FOX showing the Super Bowl next year, that they were pushing for a FOX super fight Super Bowl weekend in NYC. If not there then in NJ.
i remember hearing that too. I just can't imagine that Dana would give up his biggest PPV draw ever for a free show on Fox. But maybe. I think this year they had a show on the week before the Super Bowl, and i am not sure if it is schedukled that way again. I could see that be the case, and the next week be the huge PPV on Saturday with the SB on Sunday, like this year. i believe this was Edgar-Aldo right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with mo that no way they give away silva vs gsp if its ever booked. That's $100+ million in ppv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember a 10-7 round ever being scored in the UFC. Have there been any?

I think Starnes-Quarry had one. Forest Petz vs Sam Morgan as well.
I thought Starnes/Quarry was 3 x 10-8 rounds. I didn't remember a 10-7 round, but it's been a while. I don't remember Petz-Morgan, I'll have to look that one up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dana's master plan is silva vs gsp at Madison Square Garden for the new year's eve show. A lot of factors before that can happen.

that or there Super Bowl show. It has to be a PPV fight, can't give Silva-GSP to Fox for free. Having the fight in NY would be the plan for Dana, but it makes sense the plan that is set. It would blow to see GSP retire after the fight though, maybe some good time off, but i would hate to see him walk away from the fight. Though he has shown less desire to work with the media since his return and you would have to think that he may be getting tired of all of it.

which is an interesting thing, especially from a gambling angle. We are seeing more and more guys who have been around for a bit, losing interest in fighting when their performance is still pretty good. Hardy, Rashad, Mir, and I am sure there are a bunch others. Strange to see some guys lose their desire to fight as they are in it for a bit, and then you see guys like Wandy and Nog who can't walk away

All that getting punched in the face stuff probably get less exciting when you're sitting on a few million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me to justify a 10-7 round it would have to be complete domination from bell to bell and probably a really bad reffing job for them not to stop the fight to protect the fighter on the receiving end. I can't think of any fights at the UFC level I would have judged that way.

The worst of the Round 1's between Maynard and Edgar?10-7's are in the rules. They should be used, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me to justify a 10-7 round it would have to be complete domination from bell to bell and probably a really bad reffing job for them not to stop the fight to protect the fighter on the receiving end. I can't think of any fights at the UFC level I would have judged that way.

The worst of the Round 1's between Maynard and Edgar?10-7's are in the rules. They should be used, imo.
My only argument against the 10-7s is that it is virtually impossible to come back from in a decision. We have seen multiple fights where a guy gets destroyed one round, only to come back and win it. I think 10-8s should be one of the more serious one's, unless they change the scoring system. You lose a round 10-8, but if you come back to win the next 2 rounds, you get a draw at best. Just seems like a 10-7 is a death sentence unless it is a 5 round fight, where it still is very tough to come back from. would be interesting to see how many fights had a 10-8 score or 10-7 (i'm sure we don't know half of them because we rarely see scorecards for fights that do not go to decision) that a fighter went on to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a recent interview with Dana, he claims to have been in talks with Silva's camp about setting this fight up. If both of them were to lose their next match, would that diminish the potential of the fight?

Diminish the potential that it actually happens or the potential 'greatness' of it?
The latter, but the former is interesting also.
It definitely would. There are already people calling them washed up or past their primes (even in this thread). It be more like Chuck vs Silva but still the greatest matchup the UFC has ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a recent interview with Dana, he claims to have been in talks with Silva's camp about setting this fight up. If both of them were to lose their next match, would that diminish the potential of the fight?

Diminish the potential that it actually happens or the potential 'greatness' of it?
The latter, but the former is interesting also.
It definitely would. There are already people calling them washed up or past their primes (even in this thread). It be more like Chuck vs Silva but still the greatest matchup the UFC has ever had.
For the life of me I can't imagine anybody thinking that Anderson or GSP are washed up. GSP may not be as exciting as he was before he was ko'd, but the guy had dominated everybody he has faced. He lost one round to condit and I can't remember the last time he has lost a round. And anybody who thinks that with silva just needs to watch silva-bonnet again. Granted we all know bonner is no world beater, but the skills silva showed in that fight are unmatched by anybody in mma that I can think of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a recent interview with Dana, he claims to have been in talks with Silva's camp about setting this fight up. If both of them were to lose their next match, would that diminish the potential of the fight?

Diminish the potential that it actually happens or the potential 'greatness' of it?
The latter, but the former is interesting also.
It definitely would. There are already people calling them washed up or past their primes (even in this thread). It be more like Chuck vs Silva but still the greatest matchup the UFC has ever had.
For the life of me I can't imagine anybody thinking that Anderson or GSP are washed up. GSP may not be as exciting as he was before he was ko'd, but the guy had dominated everybody he has faced. He lost one round to condit and I can't remember the last time he has lost a round. And anybody who thinks that with silva just needs to watch silva-bonnet again. Granted we all know bonner is no world beater, but the skills silva showed in that fight are unmatched by anybody in mma that I can think of
Nobody said washed up. Past his completely different. No one is in their prime at 38. Just not possible. I would have love to see a 30-34 year old Anderson take on anyone in the world at any weight class. Not so much an Anderson that is pushing 40. Although I have no idea what possible challenges are left for him at 185 after he kicks Weidman's ###. Part of me would be happy if he retired on top. GSP is the easier of the two super fights, but GSP has some more fights at 170 that need to happen first (if he is being sencire about leaving the weight class if he took the Anderson fight).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think GSP is washed up. I do think he is an absolutely tremendous athlete, has one of the most effective wrestling games in MMA, and lacks on the psychological side of being a fighter.

Silva on the other hand is a fighter, probably the best we've ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think GSP is washed up. I do think he is an absolutely tremendous athlete, has one of the most effective wrestling games in MMA, and lacks on the psychological side of being a fighter.Silva on the other hand is a fighter, probably the best we've ever seen.

I agree with your sentiments on Silva. But what exactly do you think GSP lacks?I just think he's smart and doesn't take chances. Early in his career he finished people. But now it's more important for him to grind out wins. If he was told he had to finish his opponents in three rounds or he wouldn't get paid, I would be willing to bet a lot of money that his fights would never get passed the second round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only argument against the 10-7s is that it is virtually impossible to come back from in a decision.

It would be impossible to come back from if judges kept the current system of basically only giving 10-9's.

We have seen multiple fights where a guy gets destroyed one round, only to come back and win it.

If figther A wins a single round by more than the combined output of fighter B in the the two rounds he wins, then it'd be wrong to award the fight to Fighter B, imo.

I think 10-8s should be one of the more serious one's, unless they change the scoring system. You lose a round 10-8, but if you come back to win the next 2 rounds, you get a draw at best. Just seems like a 10-7 is a death sentence unless it is a 5 round fight, where it still is very tough to come back from. would be interesting to see how many fights had a 10-8 score or 10-7 (i'm sure we don't know half of them because we rarely see scorecards for fights that do not go to decision) that a fighter went on to lose.

Basically, I'm advocating using the tools available in the 10 point must system yield results closer to the scoring system of PRIDE or Fightmetric. There are fights where most people would agree that fighter A "won" the fight, but the they say fighter B should win because of the structure of the 10 pt must system, e.g. two close rounds that slightly favor fighter B and 1 round where fighter A is totally dominant. I'm saying those type of outcomes stem from a bad application of the 10 pt must system, not some inherit flaw in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only argument against the 10-7s is that it is virtually impossible to come back from in a decision.

It would be impossible to come back from if judges kept the current system of basically only giving 10-9's.

We have seen multiple fights where a guy gets destroyed one round, only to come back and win it.

If figther A wins a single round by more than the combined output of fighter B in the the two rounds he wins, then it'd be wrong to award the fight to Fighter B, imo.

I think 10-8s should be one of the more serious one's, unless they change the scoring system. You lose a round 10-8, but if you come back to win the next 2 rounds, you get a draw at best. Just seems like a 10-7 is a death sentence unless it is a 5 round fight, where it still is very tough to come back from. would be interesting to see how many fights had a 10-8 score or 10-7 (i'm sure we don't know half of them because we rarely see scorecards for fights that do not go to decision) that a fighter went on to lose.

Basically, I'm advocating using the tools available in the 10 point must system yield results closer to the scoring system of PRIDE or Fightmetric. There are fights where most people would agree that fighter A "won" the fight, but the they say fighter B should win because of the structure of the 10 pt must system, e.g. two close rounds that slightly favor fighter B and 1 round where fighter A is totally dominant. I'm saying those type of outcomes stem from a bad application of the 10 pt must system, not some inherit flaw in the system.
Whatever happened to California trying out the .5 system? i haven't heard anything about it but that might be a solution too. I have heard a couple of good ideas, somebody recommended a 30 point system where it was something like 10 points for striking, 10 points for grappling, and i forget what the other 10 points but i am guessing some form of aggression/control/damage. i know somebody recommended a 100 point must system, but i can only imagine a judge deciding between 91 and 93 points for a round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only argument against the 10-7s is that it is virtually impossible to come back from in a decision.

It would be impossible to come back from if judges kept the current system of basically only giving 10-9's.

We have seen multiple fights where a guy gets destroyed one round, only to come back and win it.

If figther A wins a single round by more than the combined output of fighter B in the the two rounds he wins, then it'd be wrong to award the fight to Fighter B, imo.

I think 10-8s should be one of the more serious one's, unless they change the scoring system. You lose a round 10-8, but if you come back to win the next 2 rounds, you get a draw at best. Just seems like a 10-7 is a death sentence unless it is a 5 round fight, where it still is very tough to come back from. would be interesting to see how many fights had a 10-8 score or 10-7 (i'm sure we don't know half of them because we rarely see scorecards for fights that do not go to decision) that a fighter went on to lose.

Basically, I'm advocating using the tools available in the 10 point must system yield results closer to the scoring system of PRIDE or Fightmetric. There are fights where most people would agree that fighter A "won" the fight, but the they say fighter B should win because of the structure of the 10 pt must system, e.g. two close rounds that slightly favor fighter B and 1 round where fighter A is totally dominant. I'm saying those type of outcomes stem from a bad application of the 10 pt must system, not some inherit flaw in the system.
Whatever happened to California trying out the .5 system? i haven't heard anything about it but that might be a solution too. I have heard a couple of good ideas, somebody recommended a 30 point system where it was something like 10 points for striking, 10 points for grappling, and i forget what the other 10 points but i am guessing some form of aggression/control/damage. i know somebody recommended a 100 point must system, but i can only imagine a judge deciding between 91 and 93 points for a round
I guess the 0.5 system in CA died, haven't heard anything about it either. I still think using the tools within the current system would basically be the same as the options you mentioned. A lot of people seems to advocate removing discretion from judges, but I'm not for it. Sure, Patrica Jarman or Cecil Peoples could royally screw up given more freedom to score 10-10's and 10-7's, but ultimately someone has to make the decision. The judge or the system creator. I'd rather it be on the judge, because they are more replaceable and burden more responsibility for their calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WSOF live tonight on NBC Sports. Arlovski vs The Nutty Professor Anthony Johnson. Couple other decent names on the card -- JZ Calvancante, Paulo Fihlo, Aaron simpson, Josh Burkman.

Rumors with some problem with the NJAC and getting the cage approved for the fight tonight, it may be cancelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WSOF live tonight on NBC Sports. Arlovski vs The Nutty Professor Anthony Johnson. Couple other decent names on the card -- JZ Calvancante, Paulo Fihlo, Aaron simpson, Josh Burkman.

Rumors with some problem with the NJAC and getting the cage approved for the fight tonight, it may be cancelled.

no kidding? That would suck, I've been kinda looking forward to checking out this card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://is.gd/L4uLwv

The second ever World Series of Fighting card is set to take place tomorrow (Saturday) night, live on NBC Sports Network. However, Bloody Elbow has learned that there are major issues that may prevent the show from taking place.

From what we have been told, the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board had not approved the WSOF cage for the event by late Friday evening. There are issues with both the corner pads and the canvas that are holding things up.

WSOF will apparently be borrowing corner pads from a local promoter and has a canvas being flown in from Las Vegas. The main issue is that if the canvas does not correctly fit the cage floor, it could lead to a situation where the cage will not be cleared which would almost certainly lead to the cancellation of the event.

This would, of course, be a disaster for the promotion. I can't imagine that NBC Sports will appreciate having a suddenly empty block of programming at the last minute, and the cost of promoting the event without any sort of gate receipts or advertising..etc. would likely be crippling.

The weigh-ins for the event suffered from issues as well, with delays caused by issues with the proper paperwork for the fighters not being filled out correctly.

Update: Nick Lembo of the New Jersey commission tells Bloody Elbow "The cage still needs to gain approval, has not yet. New canvas to be flown in, and new post pads. Will check out tomorrow. Cage must still be inspected and gain approval after noted deficiencies are addressed."

Edit: The original version said corner posts were one of the issues, it is actually corner pads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man, you would think a nationally-televised event would have basic stuff like this lined up way, way ahead of time. Sounds like a real fiasco - will be disappointing if it ends up falling through. I was pretty interested to see how Rumble fares at HW against a solid opponent.

Edited by Possum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WSOF live tonight on NBC Sports. Arlovski vs The Nutty Professor Anthony Johnson. Couple other decent names on the card -- JZ Calvancante, Paulo Fihlo, Aaron simpson, Josh Burkman.

Rumors with some problem with the NJAC and getting the cage approved for the fight tonight, it may be cancelled.

didn't realize it was on NBC sports. Is this Ray Sefo's league (i always forget what his is called)?

i got money on David Branch, Nam and Johnson. Feel horrible for a guy like Paulo Filho. Used to be considered a top level MW and on his way to great things, but refuses to seek any assistance with mental health issues and they constantly hold him back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this Ray Sefo's league ?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this Ray Sefo's league ?

Yes.
thanks. I think there are a few leagues that have recently come up and i wasn't sure if this was his league or if it was the RFAETA: changed it to RFA. I thought it was Real Fighting Alliance, but it is Ring of Fire something. Edited by modogg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Arlovski pretty much done?

He's still got some decent hands but his chin is beyond suspect at this point. AJ has good power so I'd be really shocked if this fight ended any other way than AJ by (T)KO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Arlovski pretty much done?

He's still got some decent hands but his chin is beyond suspect at this point. AJ has good power so I'd be really shocked if this fight ended any other way than AJ by (T)KO
I thought that was the knock on Arlovski. Looking at both their records, no way this goes to decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Arlovski pretty much done?

He's still got some decent hands but his chin is beyond suspect at this point. AJ has good power so I'd be really shocked if this fight ended any other way than AJ by (T)KO
I thought that was the knock on Arlovski. Looking at both their records, no way this goes to decision.
they are both are on a 4-3 or 3-0 run. Granted their competition hasn't been top notch. Arlovski has looked a little better since working with Greg Jackson though, fights a little smaller. His problem is that he is a striker, he won't be trying to take Johnson down. And with that, he exposes himself to get hit by AJ, which is dangerous. Will be an interesting fight. i am also tempted to take Josh Burkman over Aaron Simpson. Simpson is 37 and i think he is going out there for a paycheck. Not sure of Burkman's motivation either but he is +220 or something so i may take a chance with him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AJ is not a heavyweight. Pit Bull by KO.

Speed and a chin >>> slow with no chin. And Arlovski only weighed in 15 lbs more. That weight doesn't mean much in a striking battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.