Non-threadworthy MMA Rumors/Quotes/Tweets/Etc., Vol. 4

[cowboyronnie]

You sound surprised.

Guess that colitis went away in record time.

Maybe the smugness isn't due considering this was apparently Dana just flapping his gums and reflects no interest on GSP's part.

Yea, well the post said "GSP is looking for" and the follow up responses were as if GSP's camp floated the idea. But lets not act like it would be totally shocking either.

Word is now that GSP never considered Nate, and would never move down to 155 for someone as irrelevant as Nate. Conor or Khabib, no one else.

[Headliner]

I figured it would be a tune up fight before he got to Connor.
However, now that Connor isn't the champ it changes things. It could set up a MASSIVE fight.
Conor isn't likely to beat Khabib, so if he fights Khabib and loses it puts a wet blanket over any fight between him and GSP. However, GSP is likely to beat Khabib if they fight, so if GSP drops to 155 and beats Khabib it opens up the Conor vs GSP superfight that they want, which would obviously be the biggest MMA fight in history, and could use the Champ vs "champ" BS line since Connor didn't actually lose.

The entertainment from Conor brining up his one punch knockout power, and GSP being KO'd by Serra would be incredible, and be good enough to sell his chances to some people.

GSP Vs Khabib in Sept and Conor vs GSP on New Years...make it happen!!!

[REDDzone]

The true battle between Khabib and GSP would be who could make it to the cage at championship weight for 155 with all their internal organs intact and functioning properly?

[Bernman]

Big John McCarthy's podcast appearance on JRE made me gain some respect for him. Shared some interesting stories on the history of MMA, but also weighed in on the Rocky Pennington corner controversy.

I felt more at ease with their decision after hearing Rocky and her coach w/ Ariel on Monday. There were legitimately no regrets as of right now and her leg was just in pain. But I still thought the fight should have been stopped when she asked out for the same reasons BJM also argued on JRE. Pointed out you have to look at it not only about that fight but career and life. Seen too many fighters changed overnight from a beating and have rough lives. Rocky was also showing nothing to suggest she could end up victorious. In addition she had mentally checked out. So the costs greatly outweighed the benefits.

BJM was wrong too much and excessively authoritarian for my liking. But I think his heart was usually in the right place. More a matter of believing in his knowledge than wanting the spotlight unlike it seemed.

[REDDzone]

I haven't listened to the podcast yet but it irritates me listening to BJM commentate for Bellator now. On one or two occasions already - including this past weekend - he chastised a fighter for trying to force a ref standup, saying that won't work or whatever he said exactly. Just ironic considering BJM was the first to be swayed by a booing crowd or just his own need to interject himself into every situation as much as he can which led to a ton of ref standups by him.

[Bernman]

He did address that issue in regards to the Daley match. Concurred that it wasn't the refs job to bail the fighter out on the bottom who was trying to stall for a stand-up. Said it was when the fighter on top stalled that he would intervene. That's an important distinction. I don't recall him having issues in this area like Yamasaki or someone like that. But I'm not militant as you on that subject. As you know if nothing is happening for long periods I want the ref to intervene to make sure we find out who the better fighter is in the allotted time and since it's a combo of sport and entertainment.

[Jasen777]

Oleynik / Werdum for the Moscow card.

[Jasen777]

Said it was when the fighter on top stalled that he would intervene. That's an important distinction.

Of course that incentivizes the person on bottom to try to make it a stall instead of trying to stand up, reverse, go for a submission, etc.

[Bernman]

Of course that incentivizes the person on bottom to try to make it a stall instead of trying to stand up, reverse, go for a submission, etc.

But he stipulated that if they were causing the inactivity he would not reward them.

[Jasen777]

But he stipulated that if they were causing the inactivity he would not reward them.

If the fighter on bottom does that close guard hug the neck thing, and the fighter on top doesn't manage to break it quickly, who is stalling? Refs break that up all the time. And I don't recall Big John being an exception.

Or the last event (standing though), Usman did nothing but stall when Maia was threatening to take his back in the first round. Granted Maia wasn't doing much but Usman was literally doing nothing (other than trying to stall the position), and got rewarded with the separation.

[Bernman]

If the fighter on bottom does that close guard hug the neck thing, and the fighter on top doesn't manage to break it quickly, who is stalling? Refs break that up all the time. And I don't recall Big John being an exception.

Or the last event (standing though), Usman did nothing but stall when Maia was threatening to take his back in the first round. Granted Maia wasn't doing much but Usman was literally doing nothing (other than trying to stall the position), and got rewarded with the separation.

I don't recall his history in this regard so I'm not contending what he actually did, but going by what he said I concur with his stated philosophy. The fighter on top would be forcing the stall to prompt a stand-up.

BJM wasn't reffing the Usman-Maia fight this weekend. Personally didn't think the action you're referring to on the fence should have been separated. Maia had Usman contorted and he was holding on.

There's only a substantive difference of opinion here if you think a fight shouldn't be stood up within a reasonable amount of time if the fighter on top is just holding or just inactive on top. He/she more controls the position with their leverage and a change is warranted.

[Jasen777]

He/she more controls the position with their leverage and a change is warranted.

If you're on top but locked into a tight closed guard you aren't necessarily controlling the position. Stalling also isn't completely up to the fighter on top, the fighter on bottom can try to force a stall, and I don't like that that is rewarded.

[High 5]

If the fighter on bottom is able to neutralize the fighter on top and "stall" for a certain amount of time then why shouldn't they be rewarded with a standup? The responsibility to keep the fight on the ground should be on the fighter who wants the fight there. If they can't do anything then that's their problem.

[REDDzone]

If the fighter on bottom is able to neutralize the fighter on top and "stall" for a certain amount of time then why shouldn't they be rewarded with a standup? The responsibility to keep the fight on the ground should be on the fighter who wants the fight there. If they can't do anything then that's their problem.

Because this is fighting.

Being able to stand up when someone is trying to keep you down = fighting. An actual skill that fighters practice and learn to implement in combat situations.

Pretending to be outraged because a guy in all black isn't sweeping in and artificially interfering in the fight in order to do for you what you can't do for yourself = not fighting.

[Bernman]

I'm in the middle. I think in the case of the fighter on the bottom forcing the stall you're hoping for an artificial mediator to save you, but the same thing is true if you're trying to stay heavy on the top. So the artificial mediator is required to punish the fighter trying to avoid a fight as long as possible, to ensure in the allotted time we get to determine who the better fighter is, and for entertainment purposes as wrestlers don't make money for a reason.

[REDDzone]

IDK I don't even like to argue about this too much more because we've all had it out over the years and nobody ever changes their minds. I truly do believe that removing ref standups would lessen the amount of stalling from the bottom because guys will actually have to do something besides beg the ref for standups or hold on for dear life.

[Bernman]

IDK I don't even like to argue about this too much more because we've all had it out over the years and nobody ever changes their minds. I truly do believe that removing ref standups would lessen the amount of stalling from the bottom because guys will actually have to do something besides beg the ref for standups or hold on for dear life.

Some guys aren't very capable of doing anything from the bottom if the guy on top is committed to staying sticky. You're incentivizing them to employ that strategy. Less action in fights and true outcomes.

P.S.: You love to argue about this. It's like you're favorite topic. Nothing draws your ire more than an early stand-up (in your eyes).

[REDDzone]

I'm in the middle. I think in the case of the fighter on the bottom forcing the stall you're hoping for an artificial mediator to save you, but the same thing is true if you're trying to stay heavy on the top. So the artificial mediator is required to punish the fighter trying to avoid a fight as long as possible, to ensure in the allotted time we get to determine who the better fighter is, and for entertainment purposes as wrestlers don't make money for a reason.

We're not finding out who the better fighter is though. We are finding out who the better fighter is with ref intervention. If you can't stop Askren or Fitch from playing patty cake with your face for 15 minutes, its a technical problem, not a rules problem.

I don't really see how the guy on top is waiting for an artificial mediator. If you want to argue that the judging criteria needs to be updated to not just reward guys for being on top if they are being beat up while I'm top, then I am in 100% agreement. That said, all else being equal, the guy on top IS winning.

[REDDzone]

IDK I don't even like to argue about this too much more because we've all had it out over the years and nobody ever changes their minds. I truly do believe that removing ref standups would lessen the amount of stalling from the bottom because guys will actually have to do something besides beg the ref for standups or hold on for dear life.

Some guys aren't very capable of doing anything from the bottom if the guy on top is committed to staying sticky. You're incentivizing them to employ that strategy. Less action in fights and true outcomes.

P.S.: You love to argue about this. It's like you're favorite topic. Nothing draws your ire more than an early stand-up (in your eyes).

How can you possibly argue that having a ref step in and save a fighter who can't stand up by himself leads us to the "true outcome". Even you seem to have not argued this in the past, with your qualifiers of "factoring in entertainment" and "in the time frame allotted under these specific rules", etc.

[Bernman]

We're not finding out who the better fighter is though. We are finding out who the better fighter is with ref intervention. If you can't stop Askren or Fitch from playing patty cake with your face for 15 minutes, its a technical problem, not a rules problem.

I don't really see how the guy on top is waiting for an artificial mediator. If you want to argue that the judging criteria needs to be updated to not just reward guys for being on top if they are being beat up while I'm top, then I am in 100% agreement. That said, all else being equal, the guy on top IS winning.

The fighter on top just remaining sticky is hoping the ref will step in to tell them the round/fight is over so the bad man won't be a danger to them anymore. I guess if there were no time limits and money, ref intervention at some point wouldn't be necessary. But there are.

And tweaking the judging criteria doesn't solve the problem if the guy on top is presumed to be winning if effectively nothing happens. The one on bottom would need the advantage because the guy on top is displaying timidity. I doubt that will ever happen though and seems easy to system game anyway.