Joe Rogan: “fights are supposed to be about who does more damage”

Joe and his love to Romero...
I like Romero too, but seriously it was draw at best for Yoel.
When fighters prepare for mma fight they know rules and they prepare tactics because of these rules.
So Robert brought better tactic for these rules and won.
 
Yoel had some cosmetic damage, but Whittaker had years taken off his career, that was a life changing experience. Despite being nearly 15 years younger, it would not shock me to see Whittaker noticeably age as a fighter, more so than Romero, at least in the short term.
 
In a real life fight that is exactly true. So if MMA wants to be as close to reality as possible, inflicting damage should count a lot more than laying on someone.
 
How would they even calculate damage? By calculating the force of impact of every strike?
 
Rogan says this, but also says there should be no stand ups under any circumstance and has no issue with lay n' pray.

<30>
 
TS can you type out your whole thought next time. Like are we just supposed to assume he was talking about Yoel vs Robert when he said this or what? Quit being lazy
 
so he would have given round 4 to Romero?

DfTohq9UcAAMW_y.jpg
 
-Joe Hogan says a lot of stupid stuff.
-Robert Whittaker is a bad-ass and 2-0 vs Yoel.

<Fedor23>
 
Guess you missed Yoel dropping Whittaker 2X
Guess you missed Whittaker bouncing headkicks off Yoels head and it swelling up to the size of a volleyball, his eye getting shut, or his legs getting chopped down all fight long.
 
And what do people mean by damage? A cut and bruised face? It’s not hard to see who wins a fight. It’s round by round. It’s a point system. Some fights are just close and then people bring up the ‘look at his face’. It doesn’t mean shit.
 
Some people cut, and bruise easier than others. How would you measure "damage" in a way that isn't already currently scored on? Don't the judges consider landing percentage, and significant strikes?

We can find out after the fight that someone broke their opponent's ribs, caused internal bleeding, and a concussion. By this logic, if they lost the fight could they petition the governing body to overturn the decision because of post fight medical records?

I don't understand this "damage" thing. I think it is too gray of an area. Yeah you caused some visible swelling on my face, but what if my jab made you go partially or completely blind in one of your eyes?
 
Yeah and elections are supposed to be about who the people want in power but we all know how that goes

As a Californian I didn't event vote for President because my vote doesn't count. There are a lot of people like me.
 
And what do people mean by damage? A cut and bruised face? It’s not hard to see who wins a fight. It’s round by round. It’s a point system. Some fights are just close and then people bring up the ‘look at his face’. It doesn’t mean shit.

Some people wear damage well. Some don't. I mean, can we wait to judge fights to see who gets CTE?
 
Why shouldn't sub attempts count then? Those are just as likely to win a fight as knockdowns. Not trying to argue the outcome of the fight in question btw. Just curious about your logic. It is MMA. Any attempt at a finish should count the same. The grapplers always seemed to get overlooked unless they snap someone's arm.
Well to answer your question it’s hard to compare damage taken from a blow that caused an obvious effect on the opponent to a submission hold that didn’t end up producing any damage , but I do think deep sub attempts that has the opponent in real danger of tapping should get scored a bit higher than subs that don’t but lower than a legitimate knockdown blow.

This is just my opinion of course.
 
Some people bleed easier than others. Judges would f this up to the extreme
 
Round 4 was pretty damn close in the Whittaker fight. Romero probably won but I don't agree with the robbery narrative. Gotta BEAT the champ. It should be that way anyway.
 
Back
Top