did siver take connor down?

Never secured position.
I think that's big as Siver has taken Gray Maynard down, took Cub down a few times, took Manny Gamburyan down a lot, as well as other wrestlers and fighters with good td defense.
 
Officially, no. Siver scored zero takedowns.
What shows just how useless are those crappy stats. Siver put Conor on the mat twice. Was unable to keep him there, but those were takedowns. Conor avoided well a couple of other tries by Siver, tho...
 
What shows just how useless are those crappy stats. Siver put Conor on the mat twice. Was unable to keep him there, but those were takedowns. Conor avoided well a couple of other tries by Siver, tho...

Or, it is simply a demonstration of what they mean by "takedown". Like grappling tournaments, it does not count unless a favorable position is secured as a result.
 
They may not be "technically" takedowns but the fact is he was on his back, even if it was just for a split second, and he had to stand back up.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't count them as takedowns, I mean... he was down, and siver was the one who took him down.

It doesn't matter if he was only down for 1 second or if Siver couldn't "establish control"

It's a takedown.



But he was never on his back you idiot, where are you people getting this from? Did you watch the fight? He wasn't on his back for even a split second.
 
But he was never on his back you idiot, where are you people getting this from? Did you watch the fight? He wasn't on his back for even a split second.

He sure as fuck wasn't on his feet, you idiot. Lol

What are you trying to say? He landed on his butt instead of his back so that means it wasn't a takedown?

He was taken down. Like shit

I'm trying to download the fights so I can re-watch them right now but I distinctly remember it.
 
I mean the simple fact that he had to get back up to his feet proves that he was taken down.
 
He sure as fuck wasn't on his feet, you idiot. Lol

What are you trying to say? He landed on his butt instead of his back so that means it wasn't a takedown?

He was taken down. Like shit

I'm trying to download the fights so I can re-watch them right now but I distinctly remember it.




What the fuck does "on your back" mean in your vocabulary, that's what I'm wondering right now.
 
Or, it is simply a demonstration of what they mean by "takedown". Like grappling tournaments, it does not count unless a favorable position is secured as a result.

That is something that rational people would call "bullshit"

See it's this stuff that's made up in order to obscure the truth, like saying Conor didn't get taken down, when really, he did.
 
What the fuck does "on your back" mean in your vocabulary, that's what I'm wondering right now.

What does that have to do with it?

So being taken down means being put on your back? If you drop someone on their head and their back magically doesn't touch the floor it doesn't count as a takedown?
 
No control, no takedown. And getting your support leg cut kicked out doesn't count as a TD either.
 
I mean the simple fact that he had to get back up to his feet proves that he was taken down.

That's not how it works though. It's like how every time a fighter goes down in boxing it isn't a knockdown. Sometimes it's just a slip. Sometimes you get taken off your feet, but the other guy never establishes position so it's not a takedown. And it definitely doesn't score for the guy attacking.
 
That is something that rational people would call "bullshit"

See it's this stuff that's made up in order to obscure the truth, like saying Conor didn't get taken down, when really, he did.


We're not debating the nuances of human bipedal motion here moron, we're debating if Siver scored takedowns in UFC rules or not.

What does that have to do with it?

So being taken down means being put on your back? If you drop someone on their head and their back magically doesn't touch the floor it doesn't count as a takedown?


It's your own goddamn words dude. Put on your back means being put on your back, do I need some kind of codebook to interpret what you mean? Conor wasn't put on his back, and he wasn't taken down.

If you meant tripped, or put on his ass for a second then please use your words and say that.
 
the two times i saw connor go down were in the first, siver didnt secure any dominant position in either and connor stands back up quickly.

he goes down, but i see why they didn't score it.
 
He sure as fuck wasn't on his feet, you idiot. Lol

What are you trying to say? He landed on his butt instead of his back so that means it wasn't a takedown?

He was taken down. Like shit

I'm trying to download the fights so I can re-watch them right now but I distinctly remember it.

Call a poster an idiot.

Totally wrong about the takedowns. Check the stats.

Admitting to stealing the fights.

That's a lot of fails in 1 post. Haha.
 
That is something that rational people would call "bullshit"

See it's this stuff that's made up in order to obscure the truth, like saying Conor didn't get taken down, when really, he did.

I am sorry that you are ignorant of combat-sport rules and regulations.
 
That's not how it works though. It's like how every time a fighter goes down in boxing it isn't a knockdown. Sometimes it's just a slip. Sometimes you get taken off your feet, but the other guy never establishes position so it's not a takedown. And it definitely doesn't score for the guy attacking.

Except in this case it wasn't a slip, or a trip. Siver actually took Conor down, and Conor was on his butt for like a split second. It doesn't matter how insignificant the takedown was, it was a takedown.
 
Back
Top