A Brutally Honest Review UFC 319’s Main Event.

[Rampage_Jackson]

You are simply wrong. The onus is always on the guy with the advantage to make something happen and take risks.

Saying that the guy already at the disadvantage must take a risk to escape is just stupid, childish, asinine logic.

You are wrong and you seem like a fucking bozo because thats how wrong you are

 

[Rampage_Jackson]

Dummy, we tuned in to see a mma fight, not a grappling fest.

The new lay n pray blanket tactic seems to be to get to a dominant position and STAY. You won't be stood up typically because you're in full mount, back, crucifix (which is the saddest) and just keep the position! Voila! You win.

yay

grappling is a part of mma, dumbass

 

[FilipEmoFights]

Dricus should have accepted that he was going to stay on bottom and attempt to utilize a closed guard and then maybe throw up some subs while Khamzat is going for gnp or a position change

That was one of the only things he could do besides the anti wrestling which clearly didn’t work…to avoid Jiu Jitsu because being on your back looks bad to the judges…while you are on your back anyway is just dumb logic

Anderson vs Chael is a similar fight but an example of bjj allowing Anderson to at least defend himself

 

[Mind Mine]

What do you propose, quick stand-ups? I know it was pitter patter, but he hit DDP 500 times. It's on DDP to get on his feet. The rules already favor the striker by standing them up every 5 minutes. If that was one round, DDP would have never gotten up once.

The point is with hydration they could be in the same positions right now with Khamzat still to the moment doing what he was doing and yes he won but hilding people down would absolutely destroy the sport because it’s dog shit to watch and nullifies a fight

 

[Alpha_T83]

You are wrong and you seem like a fucking bozo because thats how wrong you are

Yea, thanks for admitting you lost the argument. I appreciate it. You know I'm right and your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to admit it, so all you can do is insult me.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Not sure why you imagine that, if both are playing it safe, risk-wise, why the loser is less at fault than the winner.

It's more DDP's fault. Khamzhat was happy to finish it, but didn't take any extra risks to do so, because he was winning easily.

DDP was losing, and chose to play it safe, knowing he was going to lose.

Again, if you have a fighter willing to accept easy, boring victory, and a fighter willing to accept safe, boring defeat, professionally, and as competitors, if you think the first has more of an onus to take risks, you're just another stupid Sherdog idiot.

Again, you WANT Khamzat to not be responsible so you're starting with a bad hypothesis and trying to prove it. That's why it doesn't work and why you're struggling so hard with this.

Extreme examples almost always show the truth. Imagine we had a fight with no referee and where fighters/corners can't submit. You have to knock your opponent unconscious, or fight for 30 minutes and the judges will score the fight. Fighter A in the first 5 minutes leg kicks Fighter B, to the point Fighter B can't even walk anymore. At that point, Fighter B can do nothing to end the fight earlier. If Fighter A then proceeds to play it safe, dance around and just throw kicks at Fighter B for the next 25 minutes, it will be Fighter A's fault it was a long and boring fight. Because Fighter A had every advantage to finish the fight, but didn't want to risk going to the ground and being submitted.

The onus to make a fight more exciting is 100% on the fighter with the major advantage. They can play it safe and go for the easy decision win, but if they do so they will rightly earn criticism for being boring. You need to confront your cognitive dissonance and accept this.

 

[Mind Mine]

We will see. If control wrestling and fighting for points continues the way it is, then the rules will need to deal with it.

But if the fighters evolve and are able to counter it, then you will be right.

Fighters evolve and counter it? The sport should counter it. A single night of many fighters doing it most of the fans would stop watching. If you get held down more than 3 minutes you need a point deduction and reset. Khamzat literally trains to hold people down and take the fight out of them so it never occurs

 

[Alpha_T83]

If DDP was able to keep the fight standing ….. would it be more entertaining? Clearly yes


If DDP were able to get back up after being taken down , would that make it more entertaining? Clearly yes

The guy dominating has no obligation to change what’s working

I’ve seen you on here , you know your stuff

Obvious troll imo

So, there's two discussions here which I believe are being misunderstood as somehow mutually exclusive.

1) Khamzat had no obligation to change what was working -- TRUE.
2) It is still Khamzat's fault that the fight was boring -- ALSO TRUE.

While I do feel that the rules should change to prevent point fighting and control wrestling, I acknowledge your point that within the current rules of MMA, there is no reason why Khamzat should be forced to change what was working. HOWEVER, we are never free from the consequences of our decisions. It is Khamzat's fault that fight was boring, because he was too afraid to take risks. He could have gone for a kimura in the crucifix and finished DDP, but he didn't do it because that risks reversal, where DDP can end up on top of Khamzat, in half guard.

Khamzat is free to take the boring win, but he has to live with the consequences of his boring fight.

 

[gentel]

Imagine going back in time to last year and telling people that Belal would put on a top-3 fight of the year in 2025, and that Khamzat would have a boring decision against DDP that made fans miserable

 

[TheNewGame]

Dummy, we tuned in to see a mma fight, not a grappling fest.

The new lay n pray blanket tactic seems to be to get to a dominant position and STAY. You won't be stood up typically because you're in full mount, back, crucifix (which is the saddest) and just keep the position! Voila! You win.

yay

Searching "GSP" in your post history, you've been crying about this for at least 13 years, so it's far from new.

 

[whocares]

Ok mods you can turn off emo mode now

 

[empsim]

It actually looked like DDP didn't know how to get out of a crucifix which is crazy.

Yes I know it's difficult and Chimaev is strong but you atleast have to try to roll to the shoulder that is trapped....

 

[Dr Brian Pepper]

i swear sherdoggers are such casual fans, you literally just made an argument that the fight basically has to be FOTY for you to find it exciting

you need him to do well, but not too well, get hurt and recover, rocky isnt real life dingus

 

[fzoid4454]

Again, you WANT Khamzat to not be responsible so you're starting with a bad hypothesis and trying to prove it. That's why it doesn't work and why you're struggling so hard with this.

Extreme examples almost always show the truth. Imagine we had a fight with no referee and where fighters/corners can't submit. You have to knock your opponent unconscious, or fight for 30 minutes and the judges will score the fight. Fighter A in the first 5 minutes leg kicks Fighter B, to the point Fighter B can't even walk anymore. At that point, Fighter B can do nothing to end the fight earlier. If Fighter A then proceeds to play it safe, dance around and just throw kicks at Fighter B for the next 25 minutes, it will be Fighter A's fault it was a long and boring fight. Because Fighter A had every advantage to finish the fight, but didn't want to risk going to the ground and being submitted.

The onus to make a fight more exciting is 100% on the fighter with the major advantage. They can play it safe and go for the easy decision win, but if they do so they will rightly earn criticism for being boring. You need to confront your cognitive dissonance and accept this.

"Extreme examples almost always show the truth" - actually, much like everything else you say, that's the opposite of the truth. Extreme examples show outliers that generally don't reflect the truth, at all. That's why they're considered extreme.

And in order to justify your idiotic, upside-down, bizarro-world stance on the idea that someone who is losing badly does not need to try and change the status quo more than the person dominating, you have to create an idiotic scenario that in no way resembles anything that happens in MMA or any other combat sport.

So, "if we changed everything so nothing, at all, was the same as it is now, I'd definitely be right" is the hill you want to die on?

Priority #1 is win. Priority #2 is to look good doing it.

If Priority #2 isn't happening, but Priority #1 is, Priority #1 wins out because, you know, it's priority #1.

If Priority #2 isn't happening, but Priority #1 isn't, there's no "greater priority" justification for not changing the status quo.

You're just being a moron. We're done here.

 

[fzoid4454]

Imagine going back in time to last year and telling people that Belal would put on a top-3 fight of the year in 2025, and that Khamzat would have a boring decision against DDP that made fans miserable

Competition is exciting, as is uncertainty and an even contest.

Complete and utter dominance usually is not exciting. Let's not confuse boring because everyone sucked and it was all shit, and boring because he was so dominant the the defending champ couldn't or wouldn't muster any kind of a counter to what everyone knew his strategy was going to be.

 

[Rampage_Jackson]

Yea, thanks for admitting you lost the argument. I appreciate it. You know I'm right and your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to admit it, so all you can do is insult me.

Notice fucking nobody here agrees with your shitty sentiment lol

 

[DagOban**]

TS, you don't know what Lay'n'pray is.

Lay'n'pray is to lay on your back with your opponent in a dominant position, holding on to him praying the ref stands you up. (You lay'n'pray from the bottom position, not the top you doofus).

 

[Alpha_T83]

Notice fucking nobody here agrees with your shitty sentiment lol

I disagree and if everyone is agreeing with everything you say, or rather not disagreeing with anything you say, then you're just not using critical thinking.

 

[Alpha_T83]

"Extreme examples almost always show the truth" - actually, much like everything else you say, that's the opposite of the truth. Extreme examples show outliers that generally don't reflect the truth, at all. That's why they're considered extreme.

And in order to justify your idiotic, upside-down, bizarro-world stance on the idea that someone who is losing badly does not need to try and change the status quo more than the person dominating, you have to create an idiotic scenario that in no way resembles anything that happens in MMA or any other combat sport.

So, "if we changed everything so nothing, at all, was the same as it is now, I'd definitely be right" is the hill you want to die on?

Priority #1 is win. Priority #2 is to look good doing it.

If Priority #2 isn't happening, but Priority #1 is, Priority #1 wins out because, you know, it's priority #1.

If Priority #2 isn't happening, but Priority #1 isn't, there's no "greater priority" justification for not changing the status quo.

You're just being a moron. We're done here.

Nice, completely ignore the argument, provide no counter argument, throw insults. Once again, thank you for admitting defeat in the argument. When a petulant child resorts to insults, you know you've won the argument.

And to re-iterate my point: You are correct that Khamzat has every right to make priority #1 to be winning at all costs. But that doesn't mean it's not his fault the fight was boring.

You're like a naive child that wants to do whatever he wants AND be free of the consequences. Doesn't work in the real world son.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

Nice, completely ignore the argument, provide no counter argument, throw insults. Once again, thank you for admitting defeat in the argument. When a petulant child resorts to insults, you know you've won the argument.

And to re-iterate my point: You are correct that Khamzat has every right to make priority #1 to be winning at all costs. But that doesn't mean it's not his fault the fight was boring.

You're like a naive child that wants to do whatever he wants AND be free of the consequences. Doesn't work in the real world son.

Alpha


Although i agree on your points about you can win and be effective but also be boring in the process...

This concept isn't mutually exclusive to MMA...and it doesn't need to change...nor do the rules...when tiger woods was dominating Golf
...nobody said hey we gotta change the rules dudes too good...or when a superbowl team wins the game by a big spread early...nobody says ah that game was boring ...they should change the rules so the other team can always be close to winning too ..



Same applies here...this is sports, sometimes it just isnt the most exciting of games but its still a valid contest and win ... Khamzat will pay for his choices by losing some crowd support and probably adding more pressure on himself for his next fight as UFC staff and fans will only expect more out of him moving forward...

It was on Dricus to improve the position...Khamzat already got to one of the most dominant positions in the sport, he would actually need to take a step back positionally in order to change positions...so Dricus being stuck there so long was on him...his coach said "they didnt train the crucifix" ...like what?? This isnt a new position ... simply put Dricus wasn't prepared... Khamzat was..