However you feel about it, UFC is redefining itself as a stylized MA org.

[m52nickerson]

You know whats worse than being boring?

Being weak.



If they keep getting rid of elite fighters, and renewing only exciting ones, they will have a problem.

Its not just about sport and lineage, its also about the simple fact, guys like Okami are better than guys like E Silva.

The UFC is not getting ride of elite fighters left and right. They still have fighters better than Okami. E. Silva was kept because he has more potental at this point than Okami who has already reached his ceiling.

Up and coming fighters are just as important as the current top guys to the sport.

 

[ethanfranklin]

Okami and Palhares were cut for 2 very different reasons. And using the recent cuts to argue that UFC is trying to become a "stylized MA org" is a very weak argument.

They could just as easily change the rules of fights. They could do a restart when fighters wind up clinching on the fence to hinder wrestlers, get rid of ground elbows, or get rid of Sub of the Night if they just wanted brawls .

Your conjecture has very little evidence

The org has explicitly targeted some forms of fighting, and the cuts of Antonio McKee, Volkmann, Fitch, Okami underline this.

Palhares was apparently cut for a very different reason, but the recoil against him, and the double standards over strikers and more popular fighters doing worse, speaks to a degree of hypocrisy and also leaves us with one of the key elements of a diverse free fighting competition, under attack.

You can attack the head, or the neck, or the arms, but attacking the legs is dangerous now, and one of the only guys who are world class at it, is gone.

Why not ban him if he broke the rules? Why fire him?

Changing the rules is inconvenient, because it highlights the major constitutional issues, Dana is trying to sweep under the carpet.

The UFC is not getting ride of elite fighters left and right. They still have fighters better than Okami. E. Silva was kept because he has more potental at this point than Okami who has already reached his ceiling.

Up and coming fighters are just as important as the current top guys to the sport.

When people try to make it all about me nut hugging okami, i laugh at their stupidity.

Like i said before, it would be like OJ Simpson humming "smooth criminal" as he put on the glove.

McKee, and Volkmann were both released on 1 loss. Neither were elite, but both were very effective, with very good records.

Fitch was borderline top 10.

Okami was top 6 on UFCs website.

Ive been accused of nut hugging Davis too, but its really all about the sport for me.

Eric Silva is around 30, and has been smashed by Fitch and DHK. He is a decent fighter, but he is no Okami, and probably never will be.

Quality is quality. Jake Shields is another one. The dude is quality however you look at it.

He is legit, pedigree, world class, world elite, best of the best talent.

So was Okami and so was Fitch.

Cutting guys like this on 1 loss is not "promoting the best fighters", it is cutting the best fighters.

Up and coming fighters are best defined by how they do against the elite, and not how they persevere or fail, in a progressively more stylized version of the sport, against each other.

E Silva, just got KTFO by a wrestler, in his own back yard.

In fact wrestling is strong.

 

[delbosque]

Reading too much into it.

 

[m52nickerson]

The org has explicitly targeted some forms of fighting, and the cuts of Antonio McKee, Volkmann, Fitch, Okami underline this.

Palhares was apparently cut for a very different reason, but the recoil against him, and the double standards over strikers and more popular fighters doing worse, speaks to a degree of hypocrisy and also leaves us with one of the key elements of a diverse free fighting competition, under attack.

You can attack the head, or the neck, or the arms, but attacking the legs is dangerous now, and one of the only guys who are world class at it, is gone.

Why not ban him if he broke the rules? Why fire him?

Changing the rules is inconvenient, because it highlights the major constitutional issues, Dana is trying to sweep under the carpet.

A major constitutional issue? Man you are going off the rails.

The UFC is not targeting forms of fighting, they are targeting forms of non-fighting. There are plenty of great grapplers in the UFC that will be there for a long time. It is the grapplers that only want to control people but not try and finish anyone that are getting pressures. Holding someone down is not fighting, nor is it close to real fighting.

Palhares held a hold after the fight was stopped and it was not the first time. If a striker contiunes to hit a guy after the fight is stopped he will get fired as well.

 

[hto63]

The org has explicitly targeted some forms of fighting, and the cuts of Antonio McKee, Volkmann, Fitch, Okami underline this.

the problem is some styles enjoy a huge advantage thanks to the artificial time limit and scoring criteria.

The guys you named are great examples, they are safety first wrestlers, the style profitting by far the most from the scoring system and time limit because no other martial art enables a fighter this much to just sit out the clock and still get a win.

Getting someone to the ground and then keeping him pinned down without taking risks is much, much easier than trying to get up when your opponent is content with just keeping position without looking for a submission or trying to get some decent GnP in so there might be openings.

The best MMA wrestlers are guys like Cain Velasquez who use their wrestling for their real goal - beating their opponent and not just looking good to the judges, in Cain's case in a very literal way.

You can attack the head, or the neck, or the arms, but attacking the legs is dangerous now, and one of the only guys who are world class at it, is gone.

You can attack the legs. You can use heel hooks. Just let go when the ref tells you to stop, it's really that simple and Palhares was cut for breaking the rules one too many times not for the body part he attacked

 

[ethanfranklin]

true reality-based "All in"- Fighting wouldn't have a time limit. There would be no judges. There would be no stalling in top position to win a decision.

UFC has had plenty of stalemates, before there were time limits.

In fact thats exactly why rounds were introduced.

Stalling and stalemate, are two different things. A lot of what you call LNP, is really just a marginal fight.

And you don't win a fistfight irl by point-fighting, there's also no cage around most of the time. In other orgs, especially in Asia they had only ropes and fights were reset in the middle of the ring when it moved to the ropes, the cage is not at all a necessary part of MMA.

You would win a "fist fight" by point fighting, if the other guy cant hit you, and you can hit him, and you have more stamina, he will lose.

The ropes point is a good one, but id happily watch a ring or a square cage, over a round one any day.

In fact it's just a pretty unnecessary advantage for certain styles and actually encourages fighters to just grind their opponents against the fence which is stupid and too often doesn't lead to anything but both guys being totally gassed and putting up an even worse fight for the remainder...

Unless you are arguing with the cage itself, irl, getting on top of someone and GNPing them indefinitely would lead to victory and be deemed such at any time in the fight.

It's actually not an issue at all because the best fighters are usually also very telegenic. The best fighters are the ones who not only have the technique to better their opponent but also the guts to go for the kill. You know, the way you actually win a fight by incapacitating your opponent.

No, the best fighters are the best.

How you see them, is your issue.

The best fighters are often the guys who know how to have the edge, and that often means they are marginal fighters.

KO artists and 14-0 by submission guys, often come unstuck at the highest levels.

Sadly Palhares was one of the ones, who was hitting that elite, and got cut.

There is a reason DHK himself said his spectacular KO win over Silva makes him more proud than all of his previous wins combined (so boring he doesn't even watch them himself he said)

Its nice to KO someone. Ive done it. But its not everything.

If you believe that, then go watch boxing.

 

[m52nickerson]

When people try to make it all about me nut hugging okami, i laugh at their stupidity.

Like i said before, it would be like OJ Simpson humming "smooth criminal" as he put on the glove.

McKee, and Volkmann were both released on 1 loss. Neither were elite, but both were very effective, with very good records.

Fitch was borderline top 10.

Okami was top 6 on UFCs website.

Ive been accused of nut hugging Davis too, but its really all about the sport for me.

Eric Silva is around 30, and has been smashed by Fitch and DHK. He is a decent fighter, but he is no Okami, and probably never will be.

Quality is quality. Jake Shields is another one. The dude is quality however you look at it.

He is legit, pedigree, world class, world elite, best of the best talent.

So was Okami and so was Fitch.

Cutting guys like this on 1 loss is not "promoting the best fighters", it is cutting the best fighters.

Up and coming fighters are best defined by how they do against the elite, and not how they persevere or fail, in a progressively more stylized version of the sport, against each other.

E Silva, just got KTFO by a wrestler, in his own back yard.

In fact wrestling is strong.

You talk about Jake Shields who dispite being called boring is still in the UFC. You talk about guys who got cut that while effective were not going to compete for any titles. These point don't help your arguments at all.

There are plenty of elite fighters in the UFC right now to test up and coming fighters. That includes a plethera of wrestlers. You can't turn around in the UFC without running into a wrestler. Cutting a fighter with a wrestling background who does not try and finish fights is not weakening wrestiling in the UFC.

Wrestling is strong, the guys that were cut were not needed.

 

[ethanfranklin]

A major constitutional issue? Man you are going off the rails.

The UFC is not targeting forms of fighting, they are targeting forms of non-fighting. There are plenty of great grapplers in the UFC that will be there for a long time. It is the grapplers that only want to control people but not try and finish anyone that are getting pressures. Holding someone down is not fighting, nor is it close to real fighting.

Palhares held a hold after the fight was stopped and it was not the first time. If a striker contiunes to hit a guy after the fight is stopped he will get fired as well.

Your rhetoric is going off the rails, if you need hyperbole like that, sans counter argument.

"Non fighting"- dude, you just told me you know nothing about fighting in real life, in martial arts, or in combat sports.

Stalemate is part of life, and real "non fighting", is fighting so you look good on tv, not 2 evenly matched guys hitting stalemates, or dominant wrestlers plying their trade.

Bring back head butts, and we will see who the best finishers are.

Maia is a great grappler, but Shields was meant to be cut.

Turns out Shields is a better MMA grappler and fighter than Maia.

Holding someone down is a part of fighting, and an effective part.

It sure beats being held down.

There is a rule for stalling, but you are erroneously refering to ground wars, based on edging stalemates, as stalling.

Palhares doesnt seem to have been fired for breaking the rules.

Why not?

You talk about Jake Shields who dispite being called boring is still in the UFC. You talk about guys who got cut that while effective were not going to compete for any titles. These point don't help your arguments at all.

There are plenty of elite fighters in the UFC right now to test up and coming fighters. That includes a plethera of wrestlers. You can't turn around in the UFC without running into a wrestler. Cutting a fighter with a wrestling background who does not try and finish fights is not weakening wrestiling in the UFC.

Wrestling is strong, the guys that were cut were not needed.

Shields was under big pressure. He still is. How ridiculous. The guy is pure MMA quality.

You dont know the future, and thats why their is a sport in the first place.

Why would anyone have a competition, if they can predict the winners.

Fights determine rankings and vice versa. Dana has no part in that equation.

Cutting better fighters, for weaker ones is weakening the level of talent in the org.

It just is.

You cant paint the sky yellow, with rhetoric.

 

[kingcillo24]

Palhares should not get a bye because he is a good/entertaining fighter. He has received multiple chances to clean up his game. There is at least 5 video examples of him holding too long on suspensions. His violations toward his opponents and MMA as a whole more than justify his cutting. The talent of the fighter becomes a nonissue at that point.

Jon Fitch and Yushin Okami are the only good examples to back your point.

 

[ethanfranklin]

the problem is some styles enjoy a huge advantage thanks to the artificial time limit and scoring criteria.

The guys you named are great examples, they are safety first wrestlers, the style profitting by far the most from the scoring system and time limit because no other martial art enables a fighter this much to just sit out the clock and still get a win.

Getting someone to the ground and then keeping him pinned down without taking risks is much, much easier than trying to get up when your opponent is content with just keeping position without looking for a submission or trying to get some decent GnP in so there might be openings.

The best MMA wrestlers are guys like Cain Velasquez who use their wrestling for their real goal - beating their opponent and not just looking good to the judges, in Cain's case in a very literal way.

You can attack the legs. You can use heel hooks. Just let go when the ref tells you to stop, it's really that simple and Palhares was cut for breaking the rules one too many times not for the body part he attacked

Really, wrestlers would head butt half the guys they fight to mush. So the impotent lnp wrestler jibe is laughable.

The rules protect their victims, not help them.

I understand why "restraining" is looked at, as less than "finishing" but its an overly simplistic argument.

Get up then.

Being under a wrestler, shows you would lose in a real fight, and is understandably scored. There already exist rules to prevent stalling.

I love cain, but any wrestler at HW is a bad example. The power involved at HW is a very different game. Mini lesnar would be the worst LNPer in the sport. You wont find too many people cut for being LNPers at HW thesedays.

Its unfortunate that Palhares was cut, because he is one of the few elite guys of his kind in that trade.

He earned it, but UFC still havent explained why he was cut arbitrarily and not banned or suspended under the rules.

Palhares should not get a bye because he is a good/entertaining fighter. He has received multiple chances to clean up his game. There is at least 5 video examples of him holding too long on suspensions. His violations toward his opponents and MMA as a whole more than justify his cutting. The talent of the fighter becomes a nonissue at that point.

Jon Fitch and Yushin Okami are the only good examples to back your point.

So why wasnt he sanctioned under the unified rules...

 

[m52nickerson]

Your rhetoric is going off the rails, if you need hyperbole like that, sans counter argument.

"Non fighting"- dude, you just told me you know nothing about fighting in real life, in martial arts, or in combat sports.

Stalemate is part of life, and real "non fighting", is fighting so you look good on tv, not 2 evenly matched guys hitting stalemates, or dominant wrestlers plying their trade.

Bring back head butts, and we will see who the best finishers are.

Maia is a great grappler, but Shields was meant to be cut.

Turns out Shields is a better MMA grappler and fighter than Maia.

Holding someone down is a part of fighting, and an effective part.

It sure beats being held down.

There is a rule for stalling, but you are erroneously refering to ground wars, based on edging stalemates, as stalling.

Palhares doesnt seem to have been fired for breaking the rules.

Why not?

Oh, so you know Shields was ment to be cut do you?

Palhares was not cut for what he did, you know this how?

Holding someone down in a real fight gets you nothing...well except time. Time for friends the person you are fighting to show up and help him.

The whole point of a fight, including an MMA match is to try and beat your opponent. In a real fight you do that as quickly as you can by any means needed.

I have no problem with grapplers. I enjoyed the Sheilds/Maia fight. Both of those guys were looking to finish the other. I understand that two top level guys competing that is going to be hard.

Thing is some people are not looking to finish. They are looking to get a dominate position and stall, just do enough to get a decision victory.

 

[The Real Pedro]

Palhares doesnt seem to have been fired for breaking the rules.

I haven't followed the whole thread, so maybe I'm missing context, but at face value this statement is wrong. Palhares was cut for repeated violations of the rules.

 

[ethanfranklin]

Oh, so you know Shields was ment to be cut do you?

Palhares was not cut for what he did, you know this how?

Holding someone down in a real fight gets you nothing...well except time. Time for friends the person you are fighting to show up and help him.

The whole point of a fight, including an MMA match is to try and beat your opponent. In a real fight you do that as quickly as you can by any means needed.

I have no problem with grapplers. I enjoyed the Sheilds/Maia fight. Both of those guys were looking to finish the other. I understand that two top level guys competing that is going to be hard.

Thing is some people are not looking to finish. They are looking to get a dominate position and stall, just do enough to get a decision victory.

I said he was under pressure. It hardly surprising that most people would agree with me.

Palhares should have been sanctioned under the rules, not the arbitrary whims of a dictator who is perverting the natural course of the sport, extraneous to the rules, for the benefit of his products short side popularity.

Holding someone down is subject to stalling rules, and it beats the shit out of being held down.

The whole point of a fight, is to win. Not to please dana and be popular and pretty on tv. You are advocating for an invisible shadow law, that empasizes twitter followers and looking pretty, over wins. GTFO. Holding someone down is winning a fight, if you arent stalling and the other guy isnt getting back up. The process would lead to a loss for the guy on the bottom.

There are some issues in the game, but going full retard doesnt fix them, and holding someone down and beating on them > being held down and beat on.

I haven't followed the whole thread, so maybe I'm missing context, but at face value this statement is wrong. Palhares was cut for repeated violations of the rules.

Its an arbitrary whim cut.

Why wasnt he officially sanctioned, and punished via rules.

What is his right to recourse and where is the legitimacy of his impeachment?

Some dude said he broke the rules, and thats all we have.

Rancid double standards pervade, whereby countless other fighters have done worse, without similar punishment.

 

[DarthChen731]

Nevertheless, they have taken out one of the premier leg lock specialists in the game. He represented an asset in the diversity of fighting, however much he earned his exit.

Palhares was money, as well.

He was also being a dangerous butthead

 

[m52nickerson]

I said he was under pressure. It hardly surprising that most people would agree with me.

Palhares should have been sanctioned under the rules, not the arbitrary whims of a dictator who is perverting the natural course of the sport, extraneous to the rules, for the benefit of his products short side popularity.

Holding someone down is subject to stalling rules, and it beats the shit out of being held down.

The whole point of a fight, is to win. Not to please dana and be popular and pretty on tv. You are advocating for an invisible shadow law, that empasizes twitter followers and looking pretty, over wins. GTFO. Holding someone down is winning a fight, if you arent stalling and the other guy isnt getting back up. The process would lead to a loss for the guy on the bottom.

There are some issues in the game, but going full retard doesnt fix them, and holding someone down and beating on them > being held down and beat on.



Its an arbitrary whim cut.

Why wasnt he officially sanctioned, and punished via rules.

What is his right to recourse and where is the legitimacy of his impeachment?

Some dude said he broke the rules, and thats all we have.

Palhares may still be sanctioned the athletic commision. However if he is or not that does nto mean the UFC, is employeer, does not have the absolute right to fire him. No one has some right to work for the UFC or any other company.

I agree that holding someone down is winning the fight by the rules put forth. I understand that. I understand it shows skill. Thing is there are plenty of guys in the UFC that can hold guys down and do damage and or get submission. That is a lot different than just trying to hold a person down, or up against the fence. You should be controling a person to try and win the fight, not to win the round. There is a difference.

 

[MrKilroyT]

I said he was under pressure. It hardly surprising that most people would agree with me.

Palhares should have been sanctioned under the rules, not the arbitrary whims of a dictator who is perverting the natural course of the sport, extraneous to the rules, for the benefit of his products short side popularity.

Holding someone down is subject to stalling rules, and it beats the shit out of being held down.

The whole point of a fight, is to win. Not to please dana and be popular and pretty on tv. You are advocating for an invisible shadow law, that empasizes twitter followers and looking pretty, over wins. GTFO. Holding someone down is winning a fight, if you arent stalling and the other guy isnt getting back up. The process would lead to a loss for the guy on the bottom.

There are some issues in the game, but going full retard doesnt fix them, and holding someone down and beating on them > being held down and beat on.



Its an arbitrary whim cut.

Why wasnt he officially sanctioned, and punished via rules.

What is his right to recourse and where is the legitimacy of his impeachment?

Some dude said he broke the rules, and thats all we have.

Rancid double standards pervade, whereby countless other fighters have done worse, without similar punishment.

Cutting someone because he repeatedly attempted to severely injure other fighters outside of the actual competition (ie after the fight was over) is not arbitrary.

 

[spunkbun**]

Lot of Pierce fans out there...

You are correct essentially. Fighters have a legit reason to swerve the guy, and when that happens, you have a problem.

Neither Pierce nor Palhares has the striking skill that's required for me to be a fan.

If by "legit reason to swerve Palhares" you mean that people are very aware of his habit of cranking hard on his leg locks after guys have already tapped then you are correct, but I fail to see the problem as anything but Palhares himself and his failure to abide by the rules.

 

[ethanfranklin]

Cutting someone because he repeatedly attempted to severely injure other fighters outside of the actual competition (ie after the fight was over) is not arbitrary.

Im actually with you on this one, but i think there should have been hard rules to suspend and sanction, and however you spit it, he got cut on a whim.

His record is bad, but the cut decision itself, was arbitrary and arguably hypocritical when compared to other instances with dissimilar outcomes.

Palhares did bring it on himself, but his name has been besmugded, with no trial or recourse.

Whatever the reasons for cutting him, its sad that an element of attack is now missing its greatest practitioner.

Palhares may still be sanctioned the athletic commision.

I would like to see that.

We are unlikely to reach agreement on the other issue.

 

[m52nickerson]

Im actually with you on this one, but i think there should have been hard rules to suspend and sanction, and however you spit it, he got cut on a whim.

I don't think you understand what "whim" means.

 

[phatron]

Oh...its this guy starting a thread....

Without even reading it, I bet it contains the following
- UFC sucks in everyway possible
- UFC is TVMA
- how dare they cut paul harris, he was making the ufc millions
- UFC is dying, ppvs are down
- Dana white is horrible for the sport
- Okami cut was the worst thing in the world (well, maybe the 2nd worst now depending on TS's level of man crush on paul harris)
- Paul harris did no wrong, ufc had no reason to cut him.

did I miss anything? or did bjorn add new material to his shtick?