Cat "sour grapes" Zingano

[BeardotheWeirdo]

I agree. No argument that it was a fluke. There should be a rematch. But there was no foul so there is no grounds for a NC. Anderson did nothing wrong.

No contest (abbreviated "NC") is a technical term used in some combat sports to describe a fight that ends for reasons outside the fighters' hands, without a winner or loser.

This is a textbook NC, really.

A fight that ends with a foul would be a DQ, resulting in a loss.

They declared it a TKO (injury)… that's more for cuts or broken bones, swollen eyes, things like that.

This was just a fluke occurrence out of the fighters hands, imo. I'm not even a Cat fan, I'm indifferent to her. Just my take on the rules.

 

[Death By Samson]

No contest (abbreviated "NC") is a technical term used in some combat sports to describe a fight that ends for reasons outside the fighters' hands, without a winner or loser.

This is a textbook NC, really.

A fight that ends with a foul would be a DQ, resulting in a loss.

A fight that ends in a foul can also be declared a NC. See: Alvarez vs Poirier I.




McCarthy said that because fighters have more control over their fingers than toes, toe strikes to the eye are not illegal. A toe entering a fighter’s eye is more comparable to a closed fist hitting a fighter’s eye — a legal strike — than an extended finger entering a fighter’s eye, McCarthy said.

“Feel so bad for @CatZingano , but that was the absolutely right call by @marcgoddard_uk,” McCarthy wrote. “Cat was kicked with a legal kick, it was a toe that caught her in the eye, but it was not illegal and is not the same as being poked with a finger.

“You punch with a closed fist. If you sustain an eye injury based upon a legal punch the eye injury could lead to you losing the fight via TKO. A fighter can not control toes in the same fashion they can fingers. That’s why we do not call toe pokes to the eye.”

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2018/12...hn-mccarthy-tko-womens-featherweight-mma-news


BJM is very clear that it was the right call because it was a legal strike - nothing illegal happened. It is safe to say that BJM's interpretation is accurate considering he wrote the rules. A toe hitting the eye is viewed the same as a closed fist hitting the eye according to the rules. Cat has no grounds for an appeal. Couture vs Belfort II was not even ruled a no contest.

 

[pick999]

she got hit by 2 punches at end i dont see how they can overturn that.

 

[Anialater]

bitch looks like a fucking linebacker.
hope Cat has nine lives.

 

[ClipYourDirtyWings]

She has CTE, she told Joe Rogan on his podcast. CTE+MMA Fighter+Female=

 

[sdpdude9]

Lol at anybody that thinks it was anything but the right call. Shitty, yes. But these things happen. Are we going to overturn Weidman’s win over Silva because it was a freak injury too?

 

[neonbelly***]

Isn't disputing a legit loss essentially the opposite of sour grapes? More like salty grapes.

Yeah no one knows what sour grapes means anymore.

Sour grapes means denigrating something you wanted but were denied to act like you don't care.

Like if you wanted grapes, and someone told you no, so you say "well the grapes are sour anyway".

 

[Gamer2k4]

I think the idea that people might be proposing is that toe in the eye is an UNintentional end to the fight, meaning it becomes a NC, like an accidental groin shot that ends the fight.

That's nothing special about an end to the fight being unintentional. I guarantee you Anderson Silva didn't intend to wrap his leg around Chris Weidman's knee, but the fight was still considered a TKO for Weidman.

Legal actions and techniques can, in fluke situations, end a fight unintentionally, but it's still a loss for the fighter who couldn't continue and a win for the fighter who could. An injury only results in a DQ or NC if it comes as a result of an illegal action - punch to the back of the head, knee to a downed opponent, groin shot, etc. A finger in the eye is illegal, so it can result in a DQ or NC. But simply striking the eye by any other means - knuckle, knee, or, in this case, toe - is not an illegal action, and so a fighter injured as a result is considered TKOed.

 

[mutombo]

"They really need to invent socks that prevent eye-pokes' - Joe Rogan.

 

[The Casual]

We breed em like this down in Australia. Reminds me a lot of someone I used to work with who was similar height and played Rugby with men on a mixed gender team...

I expect the "a level athlete" of WMMA to come from Down Under.
Although, I am still pissed off with Aussie MMA after they went 1/6 at UFC Adelaide (I flew an hour and a half and stayed the weekend for that shit?!?).

Strong humble brag there

 

[TITS]

Big John said it was a legal strike. He helped create the recent unified rules for MMA.

Big John is a jerkoff.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

A fight that ends in a foul can also be declared a NC. See: Alvarez vs Poirier I.



McCarthy said that because fighters have more control over their fingers than toes, toe strikes to the eye are not illegal. A toe entering a fighter’s eye is more comparable to a closed fist hitting a fighter’s eye — a legal strike — than an extended finger entering a fighter’s eye, McCarthy said.

“Feel so bad for @CatZingano , but that was the absolutely right call by @marcgoddard_uk,” McCarthy wrote. “Cat was kicked with a legal kick, it was a toe that caught her in the eye, but it was not illegal and is not the same as being poked with a finger.

“You punch with a closed fist. If you sustain an eye injury based upon a legal punch the eye injury could lead to you losing the fight via TKO. A fighter can not control toes in the same fashion they can fingers. That’s why we do not call toe pokes to the eye.”

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2018/12...hn-mccarthy-tko-womens-featherweight-mma-news


BJM is very clear that it was the right call because it was a legal strike - nothing illegal happened. It is safe to say that BJM's interpretation is accurate considering he wrote the rules. A toe hitting the eye is viewed the same as a closed fist hitting the eye according to the rules. Cat has no grounds for an appeal. Couture vs Belfort II was not even ruled a no contest.

Yeah, they won't overturn anything.

Couture vs Belfort 2 should've been a NC.

I respect BJM a lot, I read his book and enjoyed it too. But he's no genius.

The problem with his first statement is that gloves don't have toenails on them, so it's not really comparable.

This mean you can purposefully (and legally) stick your toe into your opponents eye when using rubber guard, and that's dumb. Toes are not fists.

 

[Dorkman]

I mean I don't see it going anywhere. They often end up ignoring actual legitiment appeals at times. Don't see this one going anywhere where they're trying to cite vague langauge in the rules as their response.

 

[CleverNameEh]

Those grapes look finely aged to me.

Would make wine.

 

[EdmundsEmptyBankAccount]

Strong humble brag there

it's two separate things going on:

I have faith in Australian WMMA competitors
I have lost my faith in Australian MMA (men's)

no connection between the two really ... not trying to be like HURRR GO AUSSIE

 

[AlteredStates86]

Can someone plz Photoshop some MMA gloves on Anderson's feet during the kick?

Curved foot gloves, similar to the pride style are the future of MMA to prevent these low life cheaters from toe poking

 

[ufc_vs_pride]

Cat has the worst ever fight IQ in mma history, She needs to shut up about this NC crap

 

[sissypunch]

Zingano should be cut for this bullshit, and banned from competing in any platform owned by UFC including Invicta. As Bellator also follows unified rules, if she wants to fight she can go fight in Japan in a goggles match against Gabi Garcia. Who can't get her fucking tree trunk legs up as high enough to reach anyones head. Brazzers would probably be interested in signing her too.

 

[Freja MMA]

I understand her point it does suck. I feel like if there was some freak accident like this in the UFC then the match should just be scrapped and postponed to another date. obviously they should get payed for cutting weight, making weight, showing up and starting the match etc. But hey thats just my opinion and im ready for the bombardment of negativity

 

[hassebas]

The fact that she's disputing this is laughable. Maybe fighters wrongfully lost and tried to get it overturned to no avail. She got struck with a legal strike and actually thinks this will go her way? I don't see what she is planning with this. No one looks at that fight and thinks that Anderson is the better fighter based on that kick. Maybe for the money? Not sure how it works but I would assume she has to spend some kind of cash to overrule the call which she knows isn't going to go her way.

Accept the rematch and prove you're the better fighter. The UFC likely wants to rebook the fight stop wasting time.

I also think she does this on her own without consulting any lawyers or any other specialists...