DANA'S FACE WHEN HIS FAVORITES LOSE

[fzoid4454]

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...nst-khabib-herb-dean-should-be-fired.3848651/

Post any example in UFC history of a fight with 20 fouls or more without any ref interaction whatsoever. I don't think there is one.

So some salty Sherdog fan is your authoritative source?

(A) A HUGE number of those fouls are not fouls. For instance, the side of the head would not be considered "the back of the head." Those elbows were also nothing resembling 12-6. A kick that hits the front of the hip is not a groin strike. Not sure why just Conor's glove grab when they were both holding each other's gloves is just a Conor infraction.

(B) Herb Dean DID interact on most of those.

(C) "I don't think I've ever seen" does not qualify as any kind of "record."

Toes on the fence and shorts grabs were often enough that Dean should have taken a point. The knee from Conor's back was a foul, but it happen fast enough and Khabib was unphased enough that I think Dean had some doubt about whether it landed.

Totally agree that a point should have been deducted. That doesn't make it a record-breaking performance, and, as I thought, you have nothing to back up your claims about that. Just a vague response that it sure seemed like a lot.

Like I said, overwrought hyperbole, again, on your part.

Bitching about the referee between rounds when you should be back in your corner is absolutely losing your focus on the fight. That's the job of one of the cornermen to address the official. You're 100% wrong in claiming that having some kind of dialogue and debate with the referee when you should be in your corner is part of the fight.

What "thousand other indicators?" Pretty much everything you've been claiming is complete bullshit. And "PR experience" give you exactly zero insight or expertise into fight commentating. Also, and I can't say this often enough, commentating being a clusterfuck is an indication of commentating being a clusterfuck, not an orchestrated campaign by the UFC to throw the fight in a particular direction.

Did THEY, the commentators, promote that shit with glee? No, they did not, so comparing them is valid, how? Why are the commentator's assumed to be part of decisions made by the UFC people with "PR experience" and how they decided to see that?

And, again, promotional favoritism plays out in a million different ways that has nothing to do with and does not remotely approach throwing a fight. Conor absolutely gets pay and fight opportunities and allowances that other fighters who have worked harder and done things better do not. Again, that's not any indication of throwing a fight. Star QB that the team has 30% of their salary cap invested in fucks up at a strip club, they'll "talk to him." Special teams player? He's cut and gone before the story hits the papers. Are you pretending that star-status individuals getting preferential treatment is somehow a revelation? It's the way it is, even as much as it goes against our sense of fair play. Has nothing to do with trying to fix results or throw fights.

"Good on Joe?" You were just accusing him of giving Conor a pass and thinking that it was awesome, when the opposite was true. It's yet another example of your claims being entirely bullshit, and you hand-wave it away and act like you making this kind of completely factually wrong statement is no big deal. Great that you admit it was wrong, but only after irrefutable proof is offered. The problem is that it being completely, 100% wrong didn't stop you from making that claim in the first place. How many of your claims have you had to walk back, just in this thread? Why do you assume, in light of that, that the rest of your unsupported speculation is factually bullet-proof? Or that your core premise should be assumed to be accurate, when so much of your supposed "supporting" arguments have crashed and burned in spectacular fashion?

I can't tell the difference man. I'm not a psychologist. Honestly I think even if someone was a psychologist and they made a definitive prescription of "this face means that" they'd be full of shit. Which is why I'm minimizing that relative to all the rest... I'm merely taking it into the context of all the other factors at play.

And, yet, here you are, making the claim that they were pissed BECAUSE OF THE RESULT. That's EXACTLY the claim you were making. Repeatedly. And you didn't minimize it (until I asked that question, that is). You made it a central part of your assessment.

 

[Dionysian]

So some salty Sherdog fan is your authoritative source?

(A) A HUGE number of those fouls are not fouls. For instance, the side of the head would not be considered "the back of the head." Those elbows were also nothing resembling 12-6. A kick that hits the front of the hip is not a groin strike. Not sure why just Conor's glove grab when they were both holding each other's gloves is just a Conor infraction.

(B) Herb Dean DID interact on most of those.

(C) "I don't think I've ever seen" does not qualify as any kind of "record."

Toes on the fence and shorts grabs were often enough that Dean should have taken a point. The knee from Conor's back was a foul, but it happen fast enough and Khabib was unphased enough that I think Dean had some doubt about whether it landed.

Totally agree that a point should have been deducted. That doesn't make it a record-breaking performance, and, as I thought, you have nothing to back up your claims about that. Just a vague response that it sure seemed like a lot.

Like I said, overwrought hyperbole, again, on your part.

Consult the definition of hyperbole please. Counting the fouls is not hyperbole. It is the ability to count that you learn in kindergarten. The fact that you say "you have nothing to back up your claims" when I just linked you to a thread, covering each of them with gifs, is a joke that shows you've got an agenda. And no shit it came from a fan, did you think UFC.com would release a video titled "the most corrupt reffing ever starring company favorite Herb Dean!" I love your logic of "UFC didn't admit to it therefore it isn't real" regarding something millions of people watched. Dictatorships around the world would love if everyone had your logic.

You can't post any other fight with more fouls and a ref not doing anything about it because no other fight exists. But instead of admitting as much, you attack the messenger again. I'm noticing a pattern. Also, I literally lol'd at your defense of arguably the most obvious foul... one that was literally called out on live TV by the entire fucking commentary team: the BLATANT illegal grounded knee. I have never even heard anyone mount a defense for that foul before you just now... even Conor on twitter openly embraced it as a foul haha. That's how fucking low the bar you're setting for your reality-bending is: you are more permissive of Conor fouls than Conor himself and multiple UFC companymen. Like I said, there is debate and there are agendas. You crossed the line with that one and outed yourself as pushing an agenda.

Bitching about the referee between rounds when you should be back in your corner is absolutely losing your focus on the fight. That's the job of one of the cornermen to address the official. You're 100% wrong in claiming that having some kind of dialogue and debate with the referee when you should be in your corner is part of the fight.

It must kill you that he outed Herb's corruption on live TV, then chatted with his corner, then calmly walked back in and finished Conor. He probably could have recited all the Great Gatsby too in between and still finished him.

What "thousand other indicators?" Pretty much everything you've been claiming is complete bullshit. And "PR experience" give you exactly zero insight or expertise into fight commentating. Also, and I can't say this often enough, commentating being a clusterfuck is an indication of commentating being a clusterfuck, not an orchestrated campaign by the UFC to throw the fight in a particular direction.

Did THEY, the commentators, promote that shit with glee? No, they did not, so comparing them is valid, how? Why are the commentator's assumed to be part of decisions made by the UFC people with "PR experience" and how they decided to see that?

I cited my basic PR experience to provide insight into why an inexperienced/nervous commentator in Dom Cruz might have contradicted himself multiple times literally seconds apart when he's never done that otherwise. But sure on your distraction point... breaking news everyone... commentators are not promoters per fzoid. So the fact that UFC commentating was wildly in favor of Conor and UFC promotion was wildly in favor of Conor is ACTUALLY not suggestive of all of the fact that the UFC might have been in favor of Conor... it actually suggests that the UFC was NOT trying to push a Conor win! lol you're gifted at the bullshit distraction logic game.

I know you're trying to obscure the issue, so yes, I'll reply and bring the focus on what we're talking about. Comparing all the blatant indications that the UFC REALLY wanted Conor to win is valid because every fucking indicator points to the same conclusion.
1. Herb not responding to the most fouls in UFC history, shown live and documented every which way online, the thread I posted being just one instance.
2. The promotional bias. Giving Conor belts he didn't have.
3. The hand-wringing over Khabib jumping out a cage while, at the same time, using Conor's criminality all day long to promote the event.
4. The posturing to strip Khabib of the belt right after he defended it via a non-controversial finish.
5. The Conor shilling in commentary. Specifically, the self-contradictory nature of it showing that they weren't speaking for themselves but for directed talking points from the truck. For instance, multiple commentators not saying Khabib is tired, then very tired, then not tired within the span of 20 seconds (again, instructions from the truck prompting confusion among employees not experienced in broadcasting).
6. Not putting the belt around the winner of the title fight in the largest PPV in UFC history.
7. Mirg/Dana/Buffer/etc clearly visibly unhappy once Khabib won.
8. The fact UFC then doubled back and dropped all their moral outrage and belt-stripping talk once it was clear they were fucked in terms of the PR battle.

The only thing it was missing was a disclaimer at the start of the show saying "hey guys... we really really want Conor to win this one." Every step points in one direction, but you're endlessly attacking me personally rather than refuting the reality in an effort to get people to dismiss that reality. Let me know though how your "Khabib's lack of reaction is why Herb may have missed the downed knee" position goes online, I'm curious if you get anyone to buy that line of shit.

And, again, promotional favoritism plays out in a million different ways that has nothing to do with and does not remotely approach throwing a fight. Conor absolutely gets pay and fight opportunities and allowances that other fighters who have worked harder and done things better do not. Again, that's not any indication of throwing a fight. Star QB that the team has 30% of their salary cap invested in fucks up at a strip club, they'll "talk to him." Special teams player? He's cut and gone before the story hits the papers. Are you pretending that star-status individuals getting preferential treatment is somehow a revelation? It's the way it is, even as much as it goes against our sense of fair play. Has nothing to do with trying to fix results or throw fights.

Let me be clear... the fight wasn't thrown. I said Herb was trying to doctor the results as much as possible so that Conor could win. I'm glad you asked "are you pretending that star-status individuals getting preferential treatment is somehow a revelation?" No, I'm not. That is my entire damn position actually and is EXACTLY what this is all about. You are the one pushing back on that notion by saying the UFC couldn't have tried to help Conor win at 229.

"Good on Joe?" You were just accusing him of giving Conor a pass and thinking that it was awesome, when the opposite was true. It's yet another example of your claims being entirely bullshit, and you hand-wave it away and act like you making this kind of completely factually wrong statement is no big deal.

Personal attack distraction attempt yet again. I said UFC at large was giving him a pass. And you know that. But you are trying to desperately attack the messenger in order to prop your bullshit narrative so I understand why you're harping on me saying "good on Joe" in response to Joe calling out the UFC's behavior afterward on his podcast, as if that was at all a contradiction to what I said. The only thing I said about Joe was that he said "Khabib shouldn't be talking" at the end of the 3rd when Khabib was pointing out Herb's corruption on live TV. I know you're eager to make this a psychoanalysis session again like with Buffer's reaction, but nah... I said clearly that I thought Joe was just speaking his mind there and have said that in multiple posts now, in addition to my perception of Joe as being a guy that diverged from the truck's narrative due to his higher experience as a commentator.

And, yet, here you are, making the claim that they were pissed BECAUSE OF THE RESULT. That's EXACTLY the claim you were making. Repeatedly. And you didn't minimize it (until I asked that question, that is). You made it a central part of your assessment.

Yup. Multi-billion dollar companies tend to be pissed when they lose a lot of money. My position summed up in three sentences for those who want a TLDR:

1. Multi-billion dollar companies tend to be pissed when they lose a lot of money.
2. Conor was who they invested in and wanted to be champ.
3. There are several indicators they took definitive action to make that investment be champ. The most obvious of which was Dean's corrupt reffing to maximize the chances of a Conor victory.

I understand completely if instead of addressing that though you'd like the next 20 posts to be psychoanalysis about Buffer's face, deciphering the meaning of a sentence Rogan said, etc. Your best bet is just to attack me personally though. The more we talk about me in 2021, the less people on the forum will focus on what actually happened on 229 in 2018.

 

[fzoid4454]

Consult the definition of hyperbole please. Counting the fouls is not hyperbole.

Claiming that ordinary, legal strikes are not legal strikes would be hyperbole. Claiming that a foul-record was set when there is no such thing and it isn't tracked, and there was no kind of objective or official accounting of it in the event mentioned would be hyperbole. Claiming that the referee never intervened or reacted when he gave warnings, pulled toes off the cage, etc, would be hyperbole.

It is the ability to count that you learn in kindergarten.

yeah, but if you're counting things that don't actually exist, that's not a real count.

I can find fights were there were many more completely legal strikes to the side of the head. Since this claim is that those were "illegal 12-6 strikes to the back of the head," that would easily account for "more fouls," but since those were actually non-fouls, then finding a equal or greater number of non-fouls proves, what, exactly?

The fact that you say "you have nothing to back up your claims" when I just linked you to a thread, covering each of them with gifs, is a joke that shows you've got an agenda. And no shit it came from a fan

You're claiming that some kind of record was broken. That's a pretty definite and objective claim. Linking to any random asshole making incorrect claims (we know because of GIFs) is NOTHING to back up your claim.

You can't post any other fight with more fouls and a ref not doing anything about it because no other fight exists. But instead of admitting as much, you attack the messenger again. I'm noticing a pattern. Also, I literally lol'd at your defense of arguably the most obvious foul

Do you have the same objective criteria and an exhaustive catalog of all past events, using that same, objective criteria? Then that's not an actual count, and it's not an actual comparison.

I don't have to post a fight that has less fouls by that criteria you offered, because there was no actual criteria offered, and I can't post a fight comparing the fouls because many of the so-called fouls were imaginary.

I didn't defend the most obvious foul, I stated it happened and that Dean did not make the right call.

It must kill you that he outed Herb's corruption on live TV, then chatted with his corner, then calmly walked back in and finished Conor. He probably could have recited all the Great Gatsby too in between and still finished him.

Whether Herb Dean is competent or a decent official might be something worth talking about. But "outing" fictitious and imaginary conspiracy nonsense doesn't kill me, at all, because it's a lot of hot air.

I cited my basic PR experience to provide insight into why an inexperienced/nervous commentator in Dom Cruz might have contradicted himself multiple times literally seconds apart when he's never done that otherwise. But sure on your distraction point... breaking news everyone... commentators are not promoters per fzoid. So the fact that UFC commentating was wildly in favor of Conor and UFC promotion was wildly in favor of Conor is ACTUALLY not suggestive of all of the fact that the UFC might have been in favor of Conor... it actually suggests that the UFC was NOT trying to push a Conor win! lol you're gifted at the bullshit distraction logic game.

Commentators are there to offer expert commentary and insight to supplement the more dry play-by-play call. It's not a PR function, so "breaking news" for you, I guess. So, as I said before, your experience with PR has nothing to do with commentary, at all. He contradicted himself because, contrary to your claims about Rogan, Rogan called out his stupidity in claiming that Conor was maybe trying to "gas out" Khabib by eating brutal GNP. He's never contradicted himself like that because he's probably never said anything quite that indefensible, and immediately got called out for it. No evil PR conspiracy scheme there. Like I said, shitty commentary is evidence of shitty commentary.

I know you're trying to obscure the issue, so yes, I'll reply and bring the focus on what we're talking about. Comparing all the blatant indications that the UFC REALLY wanted Conor to win is valid because every fucking indicator points to the same conclusion.

But your claim isn't that they WANTED him to win, it's that they tried to fix the result to make that happen.

1. Herb not responding to the most fouls in UFC history, shown live and documented every which way online, the thread I posted being just one instance.
2. The promotional bias. Giving Conor belts he didn't have.
3. The hand-wringing over Khabib jumping out a cage while, at the same time, using Conor's criminality all day long to promote the event.
4. The posturing to strip Khabib of the belt right after he defended it via a non-controversial finish.
5. The Conor shilling in commentary. Specifically, the self-contradictory nature of it showing that they weren't speaking for themselves but for directed talking points from the truck. For instance, multiple commentators not saying Khabib is tired, then very tired, then not tired within the span of 20 seconds (again, instructions from the truck prompting confusion among employees not experienced in broadcasting).
6. Not putting the belt around the winner of the title fight in the largest PPV in UFC history.
7. Mirg/Dana/Buffer/etc clearly visibly unhappy once Khabib won.
8. The fact UFC then doubled back and dropped all their moral outrage and belt-stripping talk once it was clear they were fucked in terms of the PR battle.

1) Your claims of "most fouls in UFC" history have been debunked about a dozen times, just by me. Referencing a debunked claim, again, doesn't magically make it true. There is no such accounting. You just made up that metric. The fouls claimed in the post you pretend verifies the claim are riddled with many examples that were not fouls, and many of those examples Herb Dean actually DID respond to them.

2) Promotional bias - the UFC loves their biggest cash cow. Again, not evidence of anything but mercenary greed. They didn't give him any belts that he didn't have. When you win a belt, they make a new one for you, and you keep that belt. They don't take it away from you and pass it along to the next guy. If he had two belts, that he brought into the cage with him, it was because he won one against Aldo, and he won one against Alvarez. Another invented claim.

3) The "hand-wringing" you point to is by the commentators. The "using Conor's criminality" was by the UFC, and their PR teams. I further linked to one of those "hand-wringing" commentators talking about how wrong it was to use that. You claiming that the commentators thinking it was bad for the sport, WHICH IT WAS, has NOTHING to do with the promotion using it to hype the event. To the degree that Dana was a complete hypocrite for complaining about it is evidence of what a stupid asshole he is. Again, this does NOTHING to support any claim of any kind of attempted "fix."

4) They never postured to strip Khabib right after fighting. Did Dana make noises like that, hypothetically, speculatively, in typical Dana blowhard fashion, depending on the outcome of the NSAC investigation? Yes. Was there ever any efforts or actions by the UFC to that effect? No.

5) NONE of those commentators were "inexperienced." Cruz had done commentary on dozens of fights, over a course of years, before that one. You REALLY don't know WTF you are talking about. Anik was not inexperience. Rogan was not inexperience. Yet another example of you making completely wrong and idiot claims to support your absurd conspiracy nonsense.

6) Not putting the belt on Khabib, in the ring, was Dana shitting his pants over how riled up the drunken Conor brigade in the stands were. He said so in the ring. Maybe he was lying, and he was pissed an Khabib for embarrassing the promotion by doing what he did. Again, Dana being a stupid asshole, if you think the decision was not legit, is simply evidence that Dana is a stupid asshole. Look at Dana's actions regarding things not related to Khabib/Conor. Is he a stupid asshole, otherwise? Of course he is. So if he's pretty much always a stupid asshole, why do you point to his being a stupid asshole, then, as evidence of a plot to screw over Khabib?

You constantly acting like Khabib jumping into the crowd and starting a riot not being THE main factor in many of these so-called suspicious actions is pretty fucking stupid.

7) Mirgliotta? What are you talking about?

And let's backtrack here. YOU JUST POSTED A RESPONSE SAYING THERE'S NO WAY FOR YOU TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING PISSED ABOUT THE RIOT VS PISSED ABOUT KHABIB WINNING.

And, just like that, you're back to claiming that Khabib winning must be THE reason they were pissed, again, pretending that a riot at what was supposed to be a triumphant showcase of their promotion would not have caused them to be pissed.

8) The UFC never "dropped" any efforts to strip Khabib, because they never MADE any efforts to strip Khabib.

This is just stupid.

The only thing it was missing was a disclaimer at the start of the show saying "hey guys... we really really want Conor to win this one." Every step points in one direction, but you're endlessly attacking me personally rather than refuting the reality in an effort to get people to dismiss that reality. Let me know though how your "Khabib's lack of reaction is why Herb may have missed the downed knee" position goes online, I'm curious if you get anyone to buy that line of shit.

I didn't claim Herb missed the downed knee. I'm saying it happened fast enough and was glancing enough that he might not have thought it LANDED. If I thrown an illegal shot, and it misses, it's not an illegal shot. I had to watch that video slowed down to be sure, myself. By the way, I guarantee you that my take that Herb might not have thought it LANDED would and will go over a LOT better than your claim that Herb was trying to cook the fight in favor of Conor.

Let me be clear... the fight wasn't thrown. I said Herb was trying to doctor the results as much as possible so that Conor could win. I'm glad you asked "are you pretending that star-status individuals getting preferential treatment is somehow a revelation?" No, I'm not. That is my entire damn position actually and is EXACTLY what this is all about. You are the one pushing back on that notion by saying the UFC couldn't have tried to help Conor win at 229.

Let's be clear, you ARE claiming that the UFC TRIED TO THROW THE FIGHT. That's your entire point. You're not claiming that this is about "Boy, we'd really prefer that Conor win, because we can make more money."

Again, no one would even blink at that claim. YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY TRIED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

 

[fzoid4454]

Personal attack distraction attempt yet again. I said UFC at large was giving him a pass. And you know that. But you are trying to desperately attack the messenger in order to prop your bullshit narrative so I understand why you're harping on me saying "good on Joe" in response to Joe calling out the UFC's behavior afterward on his podcast, as if that was at all a contradiction to what I said. The only thing I said about Joe was that he said "Khabib shouldn't be talking" at the end of the 3rd when Khabib was pointing out Herb's corruption on live TV. I know you're eager to make this a psychoanalysis session again like with Buffer's reaction, but nah... I said clearly that I thought Joe was just speaking his mind there and have said that in multiple posts now, in addition to my perception of Joe as being a guy that diverged from the truck's narrative due to his higher experience as a commentator.

No, not personal attack or distraction. The opposite, in fact. Not letting you off the hook for your own deflection/distraction. I'm illustrating classic conspiracy nonsense behavior. Make a big deal out of something, pointing to it as "evidence" of your conspiracy theory, then, when people challenge it, you make THEM prove that you are wrong. When they do, you claim that it doesn't matter, you didn't care about it anyway, but WHATABOUT this other bullshit, unsupported nonsense claim. The other classic conspiracy nonsense behavior is taking observed events that are completely and rationally explainable by the stated context and situation (i.e. it would be completely normal for employees of a promotion or an event to be unhappy if a large-scale brawl broke out and embarrassed their management of the event) and claiming that the conspiracy theory is the ONLY plausible explanation for it.

1) Buffer was choking back tears and they edited UFC videos to conceal it.
2) Okay, Buffer wasn't choking back tears, but he was rolling his eyes and stomping.
3) Okay, he wasn't doing any of that, either, but he was clearly pissed about Khabib losing.
4) Okay, there's nothing to indicate that he was actually pissed about Khabib losing vs the shit-show after, but why is everyone so fixated on Buffer.
5) Ignore what I just said, I'm re-claiming that everyone was specifically pissed about Khabib losing, and not the shit-show.
6) Rogan was completely in the bag for Conor, and was cheering on his thugish behavior before the fight, as well as during the fight.
7) Okay, I guess Rogan called out that behavior, and he challenged Cruz's idiotic cheerleading for Conor, don't know why everyone is fixated on that.

So what's the excuse going to be about your claims that anyone announcing or commentating as "inexperienced" and, therefore, confused by marching orders from "the truck" to cheer for Conor when he was losing? What's your excuse going to be about them "giving him belts?"

Yup. Multi-billion dollar companies tend to be pissed when they lose a lot of money. My position summed up in three sentences for those who want a TLDR:

1. Multi-billion dollar companies tend to be pissed when they lose a lot of money.
2. Conor was who they invested in and wanted to be champ.

This is what everyone has been saying. This is not surprising, or evidence of anything, even if you don't like it.

3. There are several indicators they took definitive action to make that investment be champ. The most obvious of which was Dean's corrupt reffing to maximize the chances of a Conor victory.

Except, as I've illustrated for the upteenth time, you haven't actually offered any of these "several indicators" that isn't complete bullshit. And as they get knocked down, one by one, you just pretend you never claimed the one that got knocked down mattered, and want to focus on the next bullshit claim. So far you haven't been able to offer a single claim that isn't using some kind of imaginary, bullshit criteria, or that hasn't been factually knocked down.

I understand completely if instead of addressing that though you'd like the next 20 posts to be psychoanalysis about Buffer's face, deciphering the meaning of a sentence Rogan said, etc. Your best bet is just to attack me personally though. The more we talk about me in 2021, the less people on the forum will focus on what actually happened on 229 in 2018.

I understand, completely, if having some "PR experience" makes you think you can peddle bullshit and everyone will swallow it. But you're not going to be able to distract anyone from the fact that your central premise is that the UFC tried to throw the fight, and that non_UFC folks were in on it. And you've yet to offer anything to suggest that this was true.

You keep acting like pointing out that your claims of throwing the fight somehow is a counter-claim that the UFC is pure. That's a straw man. The UFC and Dana can be utter shit heels, through and through. That doesn't make a case, at all, that they actually tried to fix the fight.

As a favor to everyone else, I'm done with this.

 

[Dionysian]

"A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted."

Claiming that ordinary, legal strikes are not legal strikes would be hyperbole. Claiming that a foul-record was set when there is no such thing and it isn't tracked, and there was no kind of objective or official accounting of it in the event mentioned would be hyperbole. Claiming that the referee never intervened or reacted when he gave warnings, pulled toes off the cage, etc, would be hyperbole.

Saying there is no such thing as having the most fouls because they don't track it shows me how utterly intellectually dishonest you are. By this same utter bullshit logic, since there's no such thing as the UFC tracking fouls then a foul has never happened in the sport's history! You can't make points up that could be more idiotic in attempts to dismiss an argument. Straw man #1.

I can find fights were there were many more completely legal strikes to the side of the head. Since this claim is that those were "illegal 12-6 strikes to the back of the head," that would easily account for "more fouls," but since those were actually non-fouls, then finding a equal or greater number of non-fouls proves, what, exactly?



You're claiming that some kind of record was broken. That's a pretty definite and objective claim. Linking to any random asshole making incorrect claims (we know because of GIFs) is NOTHING to back up your claim.

Doesn't like the video so attacks the person that posted it on Sherdog.

Can't, for the life of him, list a single fight in the history of the 27 year sport that has more fouls when I challenge you to name one, therefore attacks the notion of fouls existing because the UFC doesn't track them. Fucking absurd straw man #2. Either you can or you can't list a fight with more fouls. If you can't, then say so instead of obscuring your message under a layer of shit-talk. Use you ability you learned in kindegarten to count how many fouls you see, then do it with another fight, then decide which number is bigger.

Or don't and write a load of verbal shit to justify the reason why you can't count.

I don't have to post a fight that has less fouls by that criteria you offered, because there was no actual criteria offered, and I can't post a fight comparing the fouls because many of the so-called fouls were imaginary.

I didn't defend the most obvious foul, I stated it happened and that Dean did not make the right call.

The criteria are fucking fouls in a fight, as posted fucking online under the Unified Rules for all the world to google. The fact that we're arguing this is insulting. But I don't blame you... better for your game to do anything other than counting the fucking fouls. Better to argue philosophy of what a foul even though the rules are posted online and gifs/video is available to judge how many fouls occurred? Better to do anything than count them.... attack the people who post the gifs, attack the concept of fouls existing because the UFC doesn't count them, etc. LO-fucking-L. "There is no criteria therefore I can't learn to count" fouls = straw man #3.

Whether Herb Dean is competent or a decent official might be something worth talking about. But "outing" fictitious and imaginary conspiracy nonsense doesn't kill me, at all, because it's a lot of hot air.

How many times at work IN ONE DAY can a cashier be caught putting "too little" back in the cash register before the boss calls them on it? How about if you take cash out of the register not one, not two, but 10 times? How about 10 times in one day? What is the criteria before you can "out" the corruption? I would argue Dean's performance (more than 10 times within the span of a single fight for the guy CLEARLY favored by the multi-billion dollar promo company putting on the event) beats that real-world criteria to death and then some. You can agree or disagree and put up a defense for why you think the way you do. But don't fucking straw man the point to death like you're doing in this thread.

Commentators are there to offer expert commentary and insight to supplement the more dry play-by-play call. It's not a PR function, so "breaking news" for you, I guess. So, as I said before, your experience with PR has nothing to do with commentary, at all.

Your attempt to divorce the worlds of commentary and PR sucked. Commentary hears from the truck that aids their messaging with regards to PR. The truck works for the promo company that faciltates all PR. The promo company's job that signs their paychecks is PR. The fact I'm spelling this out is unfortunate because it wastes time, but clearly you're trying to distract with straw man #4... the guys that work for a PR company (commentators in this case) have no PR function. lol you can't make shit this stupid up

But your claim isn't that they WANTED him to win, it's that they tried to fix the result to make that happen.

Correct. At least you got one portion of this right.

1) Your claims of "most fouls in UFC" history have been debunked about a dozen times, just by me. Referencing a debunked claim, again, doesn't magically make it true. There is no such accounting. You just made up that metric. The fouls claimed in the post you pretend verifies the claim are riddled with many examples that were not fouls, and many of those examples Herb Dean actually DID respond to them.

Debunked zero times. Since you're pretending not to understand the difference between "0" and "about a dozen" I will explain. If I say something verifiable like "this video is longer than any other video" you judge how long the video is, then can disprove the statement. In that case, find a longer video. That would "debunk" it. My statement was the fight with the most fouls without a ref reacting to the fouls. The gifs were posted. You can count and then provide a alternate conception of the fouls (this one and that one don't count) but eventually you have to reach a number and then either say yes it is the most, or no it is not, because me counting in this fight produced a bigger number.

OR if you CAN'T do that and you are extremely intellectually dishonest you insult the people who posted the gifs, attack the notion of fouls, and then say you debunked it a "dozen" times. Clearly that's the route you're going with.

2) Promotional bias - the UFC loves their biggest cash cow. Again, not evidence of anything but mercenary greed. They didn't give him any belts that he didn't have. When you win a belt, they make a new one for you, and you keep that belt. They don't take it away from you and pass it along to the next guy. If he had two belts, that he brought into the cage with him, it was because he won one against Aldo, and he won one against Alvarez. Another invented claim.

*sigh* You aren't this dumb. But I understand why you SAY shit this dumb... because you can't win the actual argument. Clearly my point is he was promoted as holding belts that he did not. They won't fucking bring JDS up with the HW belt draped on his shoulder during his next press conference, nor will show him holding it in their promos for his next fight for his fighter pic. But Conor was promoted endlessly as the double champ, despite him holding exactly 0 belts when they promoted him as such. That. Isn't. Normal.

3) The "hand-wringing" you point to is by the commentators. The "using Conor's criminality" was by the UFC, and their PR teams. I further linked to one of those "hand-wringing" commentators talking about how wrong it was to use that. You claiming that the commentators thinking it was bad for the sport, WHICH IT WAS, has NOTHING to do with the promotion using it to hype the event. To the degree that Dana was a complete hypocrite for complaining about it is evidence of what a stupid asshole he is. Again, this does NOTHING to support any claim of any kind of attempted "fix."

I said the visual reactions was just one (minor) factor put into context with the other evidence (again... first and foremost being Dean's corruption put on display for the world to see). Let's just say that there's likely a reason you've latched onto the weakest, most subjective part of anything I ever said (visuals of behaviors) and keep coming back to it.

4) They never postured to strip Khabib right after fighting. Did Dana make noises like that, hypothetically, speculatively, in typical Dana blowhard fashion, depending on the outcome of the NSAC investigation? Yes. Was there ever any efforts or actions by the UFC to that effect? No.

I already addressed that they didn't strip him. They couldn't. The PR post-fight blew up in their faces. Social media and even the guys like Sharpe calling out the UFC on the double standard of dolly vs cage jump. Hence why Dana conceded something to the effect of "I guess people don't care about it as much as I do" on ESPN shortly after.

5) NONE of those commentators were "inexperienced." Cruz had done commentary on dozens of fights, over a course of years, before that one. You REALLY don't know WTF you are talking about. Anik was not inexperience. Rogan was not inexperience. Yet another example of you making completely wrong and idiot claims to support your absurd conspiracy nonsense.

Cruz is inexperienced relative to Rogan. That much is clear from what I said in multiple posts now. Over and over and over I referred to their different tendencies in that fight as being reflective of their different experience levels. But sure, bust out straw man #5 and show the video of Cruz auditioning to be a commentator with a timestamp or something idiotic like that. But be sure to not include Rogan's resume next to it... wouldn't want to make any sense in your straw man garbage.

And let's backtrack here. YOU JUST POSTED A RESPONSE SAYING THERE'S NO WAY FOR YOU TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING PISSED ABOUT THE RIOT VS PISSED ABOUT KHABIB WINNING.

And, just like that, you're back to claiming that Khabib winning must be THE reason they were pissed, again, pretending that a riot at what was supposed to be a triumphant showcase of their promotion would not have caused them to be pissed.

Gee I wonder why you keep bringing up the most subjective/tangential aspect of my accusation of promotional slanting (visuals of people being pissed post-fight) while dismissing the obvious shit like Herb's corruption documented on video. Even when I concede and say "there's no way to know someone's psychology" to hand that to you on a silver platter since it is subjective shit you insist on dragging it back and saying "no I've got you on this one, let's talk about it again!" instead use it to try attack me. Attack me conceding it being subjective as me, as a person, being inconsistent, therefore everything I say is wrong. Straw man #6.

1) Buffer was choking back tears and they edited UFC videos to conceal it.
2) Okay, Buffer wasn't choking back tears, but he was rolling his eyes and stomping.
3) Okay, he wasn't doing any of that, either, but he was clearly pissed about Khabib losing.
4) Okay, there's nothing to indicate that he was actually pissed about Khabib losing vs the shit-show after, but why is everyone so fixated on Buffer.
5) Ignore what I just said, I'm re-claiming that everyone was specifically pissed about Khabib losing, and not the shit-show.
6) Rogan was completely in the bag for Conor, and was cheering on his thugish behavior before the fight, as well as during the fight.
7) Okay, I guess Rogan called out that behavior, and he challenged Cruz's idiotic cheerleading for Conor, don't know why everyone is fixated on that.

The above characterization of events is complete bullshit and you know it, but I understand why you're desperate to frame it as such since you have no leg to stand on rationally speaking. Again... the video/gifs are free for everyone on Earth to see. Count the fouls. Is it fishy or not? Compare the number to other fights. Is the number bigger or not? Or if you CAN'T do any of that when the guy posts the gifs FOR YOU... attack him endlessly. You've clearly done the latter, which speaks volumes about your confidence in talking actual facts.

Except, as I've illustrated for the upteenth time, you haven't actually offered any of these "several indicators" that isn't complete bullshit. And as they get knocked down, one by one, you just pretend you never claimed the one that got knocked down mattered, and want to focus on the next bullshit claim. So far you haven't been able to offer a single claim that isn't using some kind of imaginary, bullshit criteria, or that hasn't been factually knocked down.

The only thing you've illustrated upteenth times is your capacity for straw men and a fundamental inability to address the topic. You're real good at congratulating yourself for knocking down imaginary positions though, I'll grant you that. You've knocked down nothing but your own credibility... REPEATEDLY using straw men.

 

[Dionysian]

I understand, completely, if having some "PR experience" makes you think you can peddle bullshit and everyone will swallow it. But you're not going to be able to distract anyone from the fact that your central premise is that the UFC tried to throw the fight, and that non_UFC folks were in on it. And you've yet to offer anything to suggest that this was true.

lol the irony. This tiny multi-billion dollar company called "UFC" thinks they have PR experience and can peddle you bullshit so that you swallow it. And judging by your "if UFC doesn't track fouls we can't ever measure them" strawman you'd eat it with a smile and ask for seconds.

You keep acting like pointing out that your claims of throwing the fight somehow is a counter-claim that the UFC is pure. That's a straw man. The UFC and Dana can be utter shit heels, through and through. That doesn't make a case, at all, that they actually tried to fix the fight.

I've tried to use this entire reply to point out the ultimate irony of YOU resorting to accusing ME of using strawmen. I make no such dichotomy whatsoever. UFC is neither mafioso nor pure. It varies from circumstance to circumstance, fighter to fighter, and event to event. Like anything in life. I'm staking my position on THIS circumstance for THIS fighter for THAT event... things passed a redline in terms of that specific corruption. I'm telling you the reasons I think so. The fact you still haven't addressed the main one ("best in the biz" chosen ref Herb allowing Conor to cheat) AFTER ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH speaks volumes really. As does the habit of strawmanning everything to dismiss me rather than what I'm saying.

As a favor to everyone else, I'm done with this.

Yep, it is a circular argument. I tried to listen to you and even make concessions, like when I said visual behaviors are subjective and how upset Buffer was was exaggerated in my first post. You, on the other hand, doubled and tripled down on strawmen in an effort to never address any salient points. If you post 50 more times I expect you'd be in the same position.

 

[johnmangala]

Yo what happened to this thread? It went from funny gifs and pics to walls of text.