how do you lose a fight if you win the first 3 rounds?

sdpdude9 said:
Wait what? You must be getting me confused with yourself, as you used stats to judge lmfao.
Click to expand...
No, I didnt go off the ufc stats, what actually happened in the fight is what matters, not some screen numbers, but I can use that against you
 
Boxingroutines said:
I gave him the win
Click to expand...
20tbjf.gif

Any chance you're related to Cecil Peoples or Sal D'Amato's nephew/niece?
 
LetThemBleed said:
You thought Santos did anything of note in rounds 1 or 3? Apart from one strike add Round 2 to that as well, hell whilst we're at it add rounds 4 and 5 too. Don't get me wrong Ankalaev was boring as shit as well, but he won that fight comfortably. We should say farewell to the old fan favourite Santos, clearly that guy's long gone.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say Ankalaev won the fight comfortably. It was a terrible fight with neither fighter doing much. Only one round got dominated by either fighter and that was the second round by Santos. Even the Sherdog judges have mixed results on three rounds of the fight. One of them scored the fight for Santos.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
There was nothing "clear" about Ankalaev winning the first round. He threw less than ten strikes. There was no clear winner of that round. Other than that I agree that Ankalaev won 3, 4, and 5.
Click to expand...
Yeah, "clear" is a huge stretch. Ankalaev landed the biggest shot of Round 1, but it didn't phase Santos. Santos was the more accurate striker that round and he edged Ankalev on strikes landed, 10 to 8.

Round 3 was very close as well, so I understand TS's argument.

Screenshot-20220312-223220.png
 
Boxingroutines said:
No, I didnt go off the ufc stats, what actually happened in the fight is what matters, not some screen numbers, but I can use that against you
Click to expand...

Pretty hilarious to cite “he landed more” which is literally just counting strikes (i.e. using stats) as your sole criteria for “what actually happened” but neglecting things like being on the back foot and getting wobbled. You can’t be this dumb lmao.
 
Johnnny said:
Yeah, "clear" is a huge stretch. Ankalaev landed the biggest shot of Round 1, but it didn't phase Santos. Santos was the more accurate striker that round and he edged Ankalev on strikes landed, 10 to 8.

Round 3 was very close as well, so I understand TS's argument.

Screenshot-20220312-223220.png
Click to expand...

The thing about round three was that Thiago started strong, but Ankalev finished better. In an even, and semi-uneventful round, things like that matter more.
 
SherdogFan23 said:
I don't see how you can say Ankalaev won the fight comfortably. It was a terrible fight with neither fighter doing much. Only one round got dominated by either fighter and that was the second round by Santos. Even the Sherdog judges have mixed results on three rounds of the fight. One of them scored the fight for Santos.
Click to expand...
Octagon control, being the aggressor for the vast majority of the fight well notionally the aggressor by going forward, there was very little aggression in that fight, the takedown in what the 4th, more significant strikes total, double in rounds 4 and 5, what round outside of the 2nd did you give Santos, the 1st despite him being on the backfoot the entire time? Again don't get me wrong that fight stunk to the high heavens but Ankalaeev did what he needed to do to win. 49-46, pretty comfortably imo, maybe an argument to make for 48-47, no way did Santos do enough to win 3 rounds.
 
Terrible fight. Amazing to think Santos beat Jones.
 
sdpdude9 said:
Pretty hilarious to cite “he landed more” which is literally just counting strikes (i.e. using stats) as your sole criteria for “what actually happened” but neglecting things like being on the back foot and getting wobbled. You can’t be this dumb lmao.
Click to expand...
wobbled? in the 2nd round? no, that was the other dude curling up in a ball and then getting pieced up the next round, I never said stats were my criteria though, if you could counter with facts you wouldnt lie.
 
Boxingroutines said:
no, dont know who cecil is. memes dont counter facts, typical.
Click to expand...
You haven't said anything of note, hence the meme, all you've said is it's my opinion, you understand there's a difference between opinion and fact yes?
Explain how you scored any of the rounds beyond the obvious one, Round 2, in favor of Santos.
The easy counter arguments to whatever spurious claims you'd spout are octagon control, aggression, head strikes versus kicks, total strikes, signficant strikes landed, the takedown in the 4th, doubling of sig strikes in the 4th and 5th. He was on the pack pedal virtually that entire fight, with the exception of one strike Ankalaev did more damage, and did it to the head forcing Santos back on multiple occasions.
 
Boxingroutines said:
wobbled? in the 2nd round? no, that was the other dude curling up in a ball and then getting pieced up the next round, I never said stats were my criteria though, if you could counter with facts you wouldnt lie.
Click to expand...
Pieced up in the 3rd whilst on the back pedal for 90 percent of that round outside of the briefest of flurries, predominantly landing leg kicks and having the same number of sig strikes? You could just say you were trolling and we can all move on if it's easier at this point.
Pieced up?
princess-bride-you-keep-using-that-word.gif
 
LetThemBleed said:
You haven't said anything of note, hence the meme, all you've said is it's my opinion, you understand there's a difference between opinion and fact yes?
Explain how you scored any of the rounds beyond the obvious one, Round 2, in favor of Santos.
The easy counter arguments to whatever spurious claims you'd spout are octagon control, aggression, head strikes versus kicks, total strikes, signficant strikes landed, the takedown in the 4th, doubling of sig strikes in the 4th and 5th. He was on the pack pedal virtually that entire fight, with the exception of one strike Ankalaev did more damage, and did it to the head forcing Santos back on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...
the man can't even spell back pedal properly. Goodbye
 
Boxingroutines said:
the man can't even spell back pedal properly. Goodbye
Click to expand...
Lol so no argument about scoring then but spelling? Well that's a tacit concession if I've ever heard one. BTW well played if this is all a troll, otherwise;
insanely-idiotic-things-ive-ever-heard.gif
 
Boxingroutines said:
wobbled? in the 2nd round? no, that was the other dude curling up in a ball and then getting pieced up the next round, I never said stats were my criteria though, if you could counter with facts you wouldnt lie.
Click to expand...

In the first round he got wobbled, you’re having a tough time here. You said “he landed more” as your sole reasoning which is counting strikes, which is using statistics. You’re literally using them as your reasoning then claiming you’re not. You’re just too dumb to realize it lmao.
 
sdpdude9 said:
In the first round he got wobbled, you’re having a tough time here. You said “he landed more” as your sole reasoning which is counting strikes, which is using statistics. You’re literally using them as your reasoning then claiming you’re not. You’re just too dumb to realize it lmao.
Click to expand...
I like how I explained my self before and you resort to name calling and still can't comprehend what I'm saying,so you instead twist it and put it out there that I said something without me actually having said something in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,306
Messages
58,275,501
Members
175,990
Latest member
gorakk

Share this page

Back
Top