UFC 209 Free Fight: Tyron Woodley vs Stephen Thompson 1

[HuskySamoan]

The point was that you were being selective with your inclusion of the variables that contributed to the performances in that fight.

Something that folks often due when they want to criticize Woodley for that specific fight.

I was actually unaware or had completely forgotten that Woodley broke his foot in the Kelvin fight, so I wasn't selective with my inclusions at all.

 

[Emjay]

I was actually unaware or had completely forgotten that Woodley broke his foot in the Kelvin fight, so I wasn't selective with my inclusions at all.

Better know the facts before you criticize.

 

[HuskySamoan]

Better know the facts before you criticize.

It's often unlikely, if not outright impossible to be aware of all of the facts when making criticisms. Missing a point here or there like in this case, doesn't at all put the criticism in jeopardy the point still stands.

We're talking about Woodley, the man who ducked Hector Lombard out in the open and sat out for a title shot. When the UFC sent Woodley the Lombard contract he wouldn't sign it and said " Me and Lombard are friends we wouldn't ever fight each other" and then Lombard told Woodley he's scared, he wants the fight and they aren't friends. Then Woodley said " the fight doesn't make business sense for my career".

We're talking about Woodley, the english speaking, desk panelist job having, good looking man. He's one of the most privileged and entitled fighters in the UFC and he's extremely selective when making his arguments.

 

[Emjay]

It's often unlikely, if not outright impossible to be aware of all of the facts when making criticisms. Missing a point here or there like in this case, doesn't at all put the criticism in jeopardy the point still stands.

We're talking about Woodley, the man who ducked Hector Lombard out in the open and sat out for a title shot. When the UFC sent Woodley the Lombard contract he wouldn't sign it and said " Me and Lombard are friends we wouldn't ever fight each other" and then Lombard told Woodley he's scared, he wants the fight and they aren't friends. Then Woodley said " the fight doesn't make business sense for my career".

We're talking about Woodley, the english speaking, desk panelist job having, good looking man. He's one of the most privileged and entitled fighters in the UFC and he's extremely selective when making his arguments.

The criticism is a far reaching one that missed a key point, which some would argue, invalidates your point.

 

[HuskySamoan]

The criticism is a far reaching one that missed a key point, which some would argue, invalidates your point.

I don't see how it's far reaching to point out Woodley got a title shot off going 2-1, with the biggest victory being a split decision over a sick Gastelum in a fight many felt he lost. Then he went onto sit out for 18months. The broken foot bit of information doesn't add any new wrinkles into this story, Woodley said he was sitting out because " he didn't know what more he had to do, he clearly is next in line" and not because of his foot.

I think you're missing every point I'm making here and intentionally at that. Cognitive dissonance or what have you.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

To be fair, the justification for Pride scoring is " because it's more like a real fight " but in a real fight if you beat the shit out of someone for 4 rounds aka 20 minutes and they're wearing all the damage, but going into that 5th round or past the 20 minute market you're gassed and the other guy is pulling away with it ( like Thompson was) than it's more than likely, if it were a real fight the man with the most left at the end of the fight would have won, not the one who sustained the most damage..

I don't think you understand PRIDE Scoring; the criteria was to reward fighters that were doing things considered effective in a fight i.e. damage/knockdowns/submission attempts/slams/aggression - if you were getting the shit kicked out of you for 80% of the fight but then were winning the last 20% they'd NEVER give you the decision.

The fact that there is a Time Limit at all renders that point moot (that if you were winning at the end you would've won if it was a "real fight") - without the 25 minute time limit who is to say the fighter that was beating the shit out of the other guy for 20 minutes would've fought like that if he didn't know that at 25 minutes the fight would be over?

it were a real fight the man with the most left at the end of the fight would have won

If it were a "real fight" there would be:

• No Rules
• No Weight Classes
• No Time Limit
• No Judges
• No Constriction on Fight Environment (i.e. just because you start fighting in a McDonalds bathroom doesn't mean the fight can't spill out into the restaurant or the parking lot)

So enough with this "real fight" nonsense; we are watching MMA because it's a sport, there is nothing sporting about a "real fight" that's about two people trying to kill each other for a perceived slight, not two highly trained athletes that have spent years of their lives dedicated to a craft in pursuit of money/fame/glory/respect. We can only judge these fights within the confines of the rules created, so if we give them a 25 minute time limit it is asinine to say that the guy who won the last 5 minutes would've won if it kept going - they were only fighting the way they fought because they both knew before the fight started that it was going to stop after 25 minutes. In a "real fight" you have no idea when it's going to start or stop!

 

[HuskySamoan]

I don't think you understand PRIDE Scoring; the criteria was to reward fighters that were doing things considered effective in a fight i.e. damage/knockdowns/submission attempts/slams/aggression - if you were getting the shit kicked out of you for 80% of the fight but then were winning the last 20% they'd NEVER give you the decision.

The fact that there is a Time Limit at all renders that point moot (that if you were winning at the end you would've won if it was a "real fight") - without the 25 minute time limit who is to say the fighter that was beating the shit out of the other guy for 20 minutes would've fought like that if he didn't know that at 25 minutes the fight would be over?

it were a real fight the man with the most left at the end of the fight would have won

If it were a "real fight" there would be:

• No Rules
• No Weight Classes
• No Time Limit
• No Judges
• No Constriction on Fight Environment (i.e. just because you start fighting in a McDonalds bathroom doesn't mean the fight can't spill out into the restaurant or the parking lot)

So enough with this "real fight" nonsense; we are watching MMA because it's a sport, there is nothing sporting about a "real fight" that's about two people trying to kill each other for a perceived slight, not two highly trained athletes that have spent years of their lives dedicated to a craft in pursuit of money/fame/glory/respect. We can only judge these fights within the confines of the rules created, so if we give them a 25 minute time limit it is asinine to say that the guy who won the last 5 minutes wouldn't won if it kept going - they were only fighting the way they fought because they both knew before the fight started that it was going to stop after 25 minutes.

No, no, No I get the Pride scoring. I'm aware that if you're winning the last 20% of the fight but were getting your ass beaten for 80% you are never going to get the decision nor should you. You misunderstood.

I was just making a point that if your argument is " Woodley won because in a real fight, he did more damage " well, then if it were a real fight there's strong reason to believe Thompson would have won because Woodley was completely spent at the end of round 4 when Thompson was ontop throwing punches and Thompson was one pulling away with it in the 5th. This in no way is me trying to say things like this should be taken into consideration when scoring a fight however, it's just my response to the people who say " well in a real fight ". You are right, this isn't a real fight, it's MMA and they fought under the exact ruleset they had agreed to and the scoring of a draw upon review does seem very, very coherent with the criteria of the scoring system they had, as aforementioned agreed to.

Again I'm just responding to people who make the remark " but but if this were a real fight, if if this were pride scoring" irrelevant. I also just went into elaboration about how people put all this stock into " damage" when often visible damage is superficial and significant damage often times goes unnoticed. You see I'm using a forum for discussion?

 

[Emjay]

I don't see how it's far reaching to point out Woodley got a title shot off going 2-1, with the biggest victory being a split decision over a sick Gastelum in a fight many felt he lost. Then he went onto sit out for 18months. The broken foot bit of information doesn't add any new wrinkles into this story, Woodley said he was sitting out because " he didn't know what more he had to do, he clearly is next in line" and not because of his foot.

I think you're missing every point I'm making here and intentionally at that. Cognitive dissonance or what have you.

Why not say he went 3 - 1 and add the Condit win in there? Someone's got an agenda ...

 

[helltoupee]

T Wood WON that fight


Damage-CHECK

Aggression-CHECK

Octagon Control-CHECK

#ROBBERY #UFCRACISM #WOODLEYWON

Fights are scored on a round by round basis, not overall.

Taking 3 rounds off = losing, unless you have 10-8 rounds.

Draw-CHECK.

And how the hell do you get a check for octagon control? Spending the majority of the fight backing up is not octagon control.

 

[Kowboy On Sherdog]

This was an awesome fight. Hope the rematch lives up to the hype !!!

 

[rpn453]

. . . Again I'm just responding to people who make the remark " but but if this were a real fight, if if this were pride scoring" irrelevant. I also just went into elaboration about how people put all this stock into " damage" when often visible damage is superficial and significant damage often times goes unnoticed. You see I'm using a forum for discussion?

You made good points. I'm only saying that it seemed to me that Woodley was the better fighter that night, so I'd have gone with Woodley if I had to pick a winner based on my overall impression of the fight. I'm not saying that every other judge ringside in the Tokyo Dome would see it that way. Controversial decisions were probably just as common under that format.

I haven't watched it again yet.