Do people really think the shoulder crank jones did was "CHEAP"?

[ThunderL1ps]

It's a standing sub.

 

[thatone**]

The dude doesnt like mma.

Stop with the victim mentality; it's pathetic. Never once have I said that you can't think what you want and have repeatedly said the opposite. Of course you can think what you want, and when I say at the end of my post "think what you want," the implication is that of course you can think what you want, and you can be wrong, too. Isn't that what you go on to say about me in no uncertain terms? So why do you think you can act like I'm trying to violate your right to an opinion because I disagree with it? Come the fuck on.



How does me saying "think what you want" and your accusation that I "feel the entitlement to tell [you] what I can think of or not" jive? How does me saying, you can have your own opinion translate to me trampling on your right to have an opinion?

Yeah, JJ said it is frowned on which is observation of fact, not tacit admission that it should be frowned on. Can you spot the difference? He also said the crank is dirty in wrestling but MMA is far from wrestling, another distinction I wish you would notice. Many may think things are dirty (like you) and as seen in the video I posted which you continue to ignore, Hackelman is apparently of a different mind, as am I. That doesn't make it fact in either case. Do you see how appealing to authority is pointless?




And here you tell me to "think what I will." This is very similar to what I said to you (except you go on to call me obstinate here) and you seized on it, saying,

"I already think what I want. You also think what you want. You are the one not agreeing I can think for my own, which is funny and sad at the same time." If I said that right back at you, wouldn't you think it was incredibly whiny? So why do you say it? How have I said or implied that you can't "think for [yourself]?"



I already said I find the potential for injury in this sport lamentable but that it is fairly intrinsic to it as well. If someone is injured, I'm unhappy about that but I understand that it is part of the game and I don't blame the people involved unless it is a foul. An intentional or negligent foul is outrageous but failing that, it is just a part of the sport.


Edit: Another quote from Hackelman with the news that Glover has a torn labrum from the crank:
"It's unbelievable to think of going five rounds with Jones like that. And we're not taking anything away from Jones because he caused the injury. Both the eye and the shoulder. So kudos to Jones for doing that. They are both legal moves. He didn't try to hurt Glover intentionally, he did what he had to do to win."

 

[Shaddows]

Stop with the victim mentality; it's pathetic. Never once have I said that you can't think what you want and have repeatedly said the opposite. Of course you can think what you want, and when I say at the end of my post "think what you want," the implication is that of course you can think what you want, and you can be wrong, too. Isn't that what you go on to say about me in no uncertain terms? So why do you think you can act like I'm trying to violate your right to an opinion because I disagree with it? Come the fuck on.



How does me saying "think what you want" and your accusation that I "feel the entitlement to tell [you] what I can think of or not" jive? How does me saying, you can have your own opinion translate to me trampling on your right to have an opinion?

Yeah, JJ said it is frowned on which is observation of fact, not tacit admission that it should be frowned on. Can you spot the difference? He also said the crank is dirty in wrestling but MMA is far from wrestling, another distinction I wish you would notice. Many may think things are dirty (like you) and as seen in the video I posted which you continue to ignore, Hackelman is apparently of a different mind, as am I. That doesn't make it fact in either case. Do you see how appealing to authority is pointless?




And here you tell me to "think what I will." This is very similar to what I said to you (except you go on to call me obstinate here) and you seized on it, saying,

"I already think what I want. You also think what you want. You are the one not agreeing I can think for my own, which is funny and sad at the same time." If I said that right back at you, wouldn't you think it was incredibly whiny? So why do you say it? How have I said or implied that you can't "think for [yourself]?"



I already said I find the potential for injury in this sport lamentable but that it is fairly intrinsic to it as well. If someone is injured, I'm unhappy about that but I understand that it is part of the game and I don't blame the people involved unless it is a foul. An intentional or negligent foul is outrageous but failing that, it is just a part of the sport.


Edit: Another quote from Hackelman with the news that Glover has a torn labrum from the crank:
"It's unbelievable to think of going five rounds with Jones like that. And we're not taking anything away from Jones because he caused the injury. Both the eye and the shoulder. So kudos to Jones for doing that. They are both legal moves. He didn't try to hurt Glover intentionally, he did what he had to do to win."

LOL you tell me I sound whinny and proceed to whine throughout your post.

You are so valiantly trying to twist what you said before though, it is painful to watch.

You are the one who said I can't consider the move (or Jon) dirty, like you have the right to tell me what to think ( and that is what I keep pointing out). I didn't say you have to call him dirty, did I? I just showed yu the reasons I consider him. And I followed up with fighters who spoke out about him, and noted the problem of fighters have for speaking out (coming of as whinny or sore losers, or making excuses for their loss). So that is why IMO they keep quiet (though it is obvious some does not have a problem with it - never said all of them had).

So I gave you my points on why I thought one way. You gave me your point why you thought differently.

yet you told me I can't call him dirty. I didn't impose it on you (see the difference?).

Again: I just showed why I consider him dirty.
And I acknowledged (since the start) that those moves were not illegal, but that they blur the line.
Yes, they are frowned upon wrestling. That doesn't mean they are not frowned upon on MMA. They were simply not implemented, so there was no reason to talk about it in MMA (and why can't you get that they might be frowned upon in MMA also, just like I am doing?).

You want to continue ignore my point? Fine by me.

To you it is clearly a valid move, and not dirty at all.
To me, it is not dirty, but "frowned upon moves" that flirt on being dirty and that, by itself, allows me to say that Jon is a guy who's willing to blur the line of acceptable/not acceptable, for as long as he does not pay a price for it (i.e. point deduction or the backlash of really hurting someone on a questionable move).

Do I blame him? of course yes! No one forces him to do those moves, and as I said, I believe he can win without it.

 

[Wayweary]

LOL you tell me I sound whinny and proceed to whine throughout your post.

You are so valiantly trying to twist what you said before though, it is painful to watch.

You are the one who said I can't consider the move (or Jon) dirty, like you have the right to tell me what to think.

It's called disagreeing with you and trying to persuade you or making an argument. If I say, "you can't call Dana White a sensitive and politically correct personality and acknowledge X, Y and Z," it doesn't fucking mean you don't have the right to do so, especially when I repeatedly tell you that you can think what you want. It means that you can't do so without contradicting X, Y and Z observable facts and/or lines of reasoning. You can't say that and be correct.

So, when I say you can't call John Jones dirty for doing something that is perfectly within the rules, that isn't me forbidding you from thinking something, it is me making an argument against your logic.

I gave you my points on why I thought so.
You gave me your point why you thought your way.

yet you told me I can't call him dirty. I didn't impose on you.
I just showed why I consider him dirty.

And I acknowledged (since the start) that those moves were not illegal, but that they blur the line.
Yes, they are frowned upon wrestling. That doesn't mean they are not frowned upon on MMA. They were simply not implemented, so there was no reason to talk about it in MMA (and why can't you get that they might be frowned upon in MMA also, just like I am doing?).

You want to continue ignore my point? Fine by me.

To you it is clearly a valid move, and not dirty at all.
To me, it is not dirty, but "frowned upon moves" that flirt on being dirty and that, by itself, allows me to say that Jon is a guy who's willing to blur the line of acceptable/not acceptable, for as long as he does not pay a price for it (i.e. point deduction or the backlash of really hurting someone on a questionable move).

Do I blame him? of course yes! No one forces him to do those moves, and as I said, I believe he can win without it.

At this point it is obvious you really are not even worth discussing anything with. Is English even your first language? I ask not only because you are so consistent in misunderstanding me and failing to grasp what I write, but that your posts are absolutely rife with strange grammatical errors. I'm beginning to think that there is a legitimate communication barrier here. It could be due to language ability or maybe education, but this is obviously a waste of my time.

 

[Shaddows]

It's called disagreeing with you and trying to persuade you or making an argument. If I say, "you can't call Dana White a sensitive and politically correct personality and acknowledge X, Y and Z," it doesn't fucking mean you don't have the right to do so, especially when I repeatedly tell you that you can think what you want. It means that you can't do so without contradicting X, Y and Z observable facts and/or lines of reasoning. You can't say that and be correct.

So, when I say you can't call John Jones dirty for doing something that is perfectly within the rules, that isn't me forbidding you from thinking something, it is me making an argument against your logic.



At this point it is obvious you really are not even worth discussing anything with. Is English even your first language? I ask not only because you are so consistent in misunderstanding me and failing to grasp what I write, but that your posts are absolutely rife with strange grammatical errors. I'm beginning to think that there is a legitimate communication barrier here. It could be due to language ability or maybe education, but this is obviously a waste of my time.

English is actually my third language (though I live in US now and am an American).
But despite my grammar errors, I don't think language is the issue.

Probably more that we are talking about feelings (how do I feel towards a fighter) and that brings another layer of complications

 

[Jopo]

jesus wall of text. Go outside people.

 

[TGArthur]

I think it's very dense of people just because some people didn't like the move that they are automatically a "jones hater" I will say though it would of been interesting to see how the fight would of panned out if Glover didn't have to fight with that injury due to it though.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

jesus wall of text. Go outside people.

Yea, the same idiotic thread is still going strong a week later. Most of us gave up after page 10 or so.

 

[Shaddows]

Yea, the same idiotic thread is still going strong a week later. Most of us gave up after page 10 or so.

LOL!
So you claim: "Most of us gave up after page 10 or so" and yet you are still here... (didn't give up after all, did you?)

 

[stosh]

I think it's very dense of people just because some people didn't like the move that they are automatically a "jones hater" I will say though it would of been interesting to see how the fight would of panned out if Glover didn't have to fight with that injury due to it though.

i agree. that fight would've been different if jon jones wasn't real good at beating up glover.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

LOL!
So you claim: "Most of us gave up after page 10 or so" and yet you are still here... (didn't give up after all, did you?)

Well yes, there are still some retards arguing here. I pop in when I need a laugh.

 

[Amygdala]

Not cheap at all. But certainly made possible due to Jones being a freak at LHW in terms of height+reach to generate leverage.

 

[RAVEDEATH]

No. If you do claim that you're just a hater.

 

[Ballist1x]

So teixera got manhandled and probably never trained this technique in his life. That's what sets people like Anderson Silva and jbj apart. They bring these fringe moves right into prime time.

 

[Shaddows]

Well yes, there are still some retards arguing here. I pop in when I need a laugh.

I think retards are the people who come to a forum and don't want to see other people arguing/debating. :icon_twis

but tell me more!
What else do you do?
Go to libraries to watch retards "reading"?

or maybe go to the movies and see those people sitting and actually watching a movie???

WOW!!!

 

[Karp]

I'm okay with shoulder cranks. It's the eye pawing/pokes that are cheap.

 

[locust rising]

This thread won't die!

If arlovski had a chin as durable as this thread he would've been the greatest eva.

Btw the the shoulder crank wasn't dirty or "cheap".
Knee kicks aren't dirty or "cheap".

They need to do something about the eye pokes. I'm glad Dana said they are going to look into it.