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

In real fights you do not have rounds so you cannot be saved by the bell. If you are going to have rounds, they should be scored separately.
 
IrritatedTomcat said:
Again; you call me stupid but you're watching a man's podcast or clips of it then bitching that his opinion doesn't matter... on his show... where they often discuss... his opinion... but I'm retarded....


I can already see your life is terrible and I hope things get better for you.
Click to expand...
Opinions on subjects you know nothing about should be left to yourself when you're where he is at. He has a lot of impressionable people listening and a malinformed argument/opinion/bias can easily be taken as a fact by others. Perfect example being the Novitsky podcast, where he just smiled and nodded to everything coming out of Jeff's mouth, when no other scientific expert/study has proven to prove any of Novitsky's claims.
 
Martialarts123 said:
It’s just not true Joe. In saying so, you’d have to conced the fact that GSP lost a number of fights. JJ lost to Karolina, Aldo lost to Mendes, etc. which I know he wouldn’t say
Click to expand...
I see where your going but the JJ fight is a bad example.
 
Kleinschuster said:
I disagree. Unless you add 10-10s more frequently as well. So a guy winning a 10-7 the first and losing only one of the later rounds with the 10-9, the rest 10-10s, would still easily win.
Click to expand...

Ah, a draw for a round slipped my mind.
For sure, of course they have to do a better job knowing the difference between a 10-9 and a draw.

Cointoss 10-9 doesn't mean pick whoever, cointoss 10-9s are a weird idea and phrase that seems to make judges forget draws exist and that you're supposed to score them as such whenever they happen.

It seems so easy to bring on these changes.

Somehow, it hasn't happened and all we can do in the meantime is hope these small yet paramount refinements are made sooner rather then later.
 
Last edited:
Mixedfights said:
If 1 guy wins on points with strikes that do nothing but looks like he got jumped afterwards and the loser doesn't even look like he's been in a fight....fuck that.

Homie that looks like Rocky Dennis lost.
Click to expand...
Except some people show damage differently. We've seen Anderson get the shit beat out of him and not have a mark, and GSP swell up like a melon from a few jabs.
 
sherdogwantedtonamemekiki said:
I've listened to three podcasts. Two were where he "acted" as a moderator between two people having a debate, in which his biased opinion on the subject had him constantly cutting off on person for the other. The third was the Novitsky podcast after the Jon Jones failed drug tests, where even youtube knows he's full of shit. I don't listen for his opinion, I listened to his podcasts because I thought the debates would be meaningful and interesting, which they weren't. Whenever the person Joe didn't favor would gain ground, he'd cut him off for the other individual.
Click to expand...
Lol at even YouTube. You put credibility in YouTube commentary?
 
2004 account said:
Says Woodley won the striking exchanges against wonderbore and that Yoel should have won the fight vs Robert


“It doesn’t make any sense to see a guy have his opponent fucked up and almost out ...Robert Whittaker and Yoel Romero fight...there’s two rounds in that fight where Yoel is landing bombs on Whitaker and Yoel is hurt bad, how does he lose that fight? I don’t understand that?”

I seldomly agree , but this time he is right. I think it’s good that Joe Rogan questions everything, but now it’s time for him to question deeper and use his ppv platform live on air to bring more mainstream attention to this corruption (or at the very least, inconsistency).

He needs to Question the officials, judges, referees, Dana, etc. and make this a bigger issue than it is, for the prosperity and integrity of the sport. Or else it’s just a corrupt betting racket pseudo sport with fixed outcomes.

Min 59:13
Click to expand...


Actually I'd say fights, like wars, are not about who does the most damage, but who's strongest at the end. For instance, in both WW1 and WW2 the Germans did way more damage than the Allies from the start to near the end of the war. But the Allies finished stronger.

Sometimes this is because your opponent can simply take more damage -- if you're hitting your opponent harder than he's hitting you, but he has a better chin than you have, then he's going to be stronger in the last round than you are.

Or put it this way; if you're really doing more significant damage than the guy you're fighting, you should be winning the last round. If you're losing the last round, then you didn't actually do as much meaningful damage as your opponent.

This why Pride gave extra points for winning the last round.
 
Right silva knocking bisping out.. He coulda killed him ... But bisping had more points

Ufc is all about points either you touched him or you missed..

Top controll bonus points x youre points by 20.

In boxing a knockdown is worth what 2 or 4 rounds .. You gott hard shots and light shots and jabs then they look at the dmg too
 
If fights were determined by damage i would imagine we would see a lot of fighters be more passive in order to take less visible damage.

Then you've got the issue with what counts as visible damage... Some guys faces cut open and start swelling from very little compared to others taking the same shots. Does that mean they should lose more fights? Or is it only damage if Joe Rogan goes "he's hurt! He's hurt! He's in trouble! He's hurt!"

The problem isn't the way it's scored. The problem is that fighting is an emotional experience. Even for spectators. Especially if you are in close proximity. And even more so for the judges who haven't been sparring twice a week for 10 years like you'd hope would be a requirement.

And we all know from our experience of talking to women that emotional states and analytical thinking don't occur at the same time.
 
sherdogwantedtonamemekiki said:
It says a lot when majority of the people that watch his video for the content in it, found it deplorable.
Click to expand...
Many feel jones is guilty so they will discount everything that doesn’t confirm that.

Novitzky’s embellishments at least originate from comments from actual experts in the field, who are the ones who lead to the csac decision. The youtubers don’t give a shit about that.
 
Sounds like a 2006 sherdogger mad that Pride isnt around anymore.
 
Johnny Burgers. Yeah, "Octagon Control" is also a factor, but actual damage should count more, especially if the fighter doing the damage isn't constantly conceding Octagon control.
 
JoshR86 said:
Technically speaking whoever is winning the last 30 seconds of the fight wins the the fight, if it was an actual.fight, there also shoukdnt be rounds, or stand ups from the bottom...
Click to expand...
True. A guy can be easily winning 4 mins and then get his ass kicked for the last minute and lose the round. That makes no sense to me. The current system is flawed because judges only care about what happens in the last 30 seconds.
 
kflo said:
Many feel jones is guilty so they will discount everything that doesn’t confirm that.

Novitzky’s embellishments at least originate from comments from actual experts in the field, who are the ones who lead to the csac decision. The youtubers don’t give a shit about that.
Click to expand...
The only experts that came out regarding this subject were USADA employed or were USADA employed, after the fact. Dana White said at the presser that he has hundreds of scientist saying Jon Jones did nothing wrong, but when asked to name one he referred them to Novitsky. Novitsky couldn't name a single person in the podcast. So far no one else has voiced their opinions on this subject. Granted the only study regarding this garbage is based on only one person's experience. So many this is all new, but most people are more angry over the fact that he pissed dirty and should have been pulled from the fight. Regardless of it maybe being beneficial to his performance or not.
 
tramendous said:
people don't practice technique to look good. They practice technique to be better at doing damage.
Click to expand...

And what about grappling technique?

Look at Chael vs Nate Marquack as an example.

Who wins?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,829
Messages
55,519,709
Members
174,808
Latest member
luciusaugustus

Share this page

Back
Top