Prime Anderson/prime Rampage vs common LHW opponents

Hendo vs Rampage is one of the most underrated fights in UFC history.

The judges robbed Rampage. Even Forrest was surprised to hear his announced.

How did Rampage win?
He got outstruck point wise and was the only fighter clearly hurt by strikes as he could barely walk.
 
Wanderlei's takedown defense vs former Japanese pro wrasslers affects that percentage.

How was Wanderlei's takedown defense vs strong grapplers like Arona or Tito?

I think Rampage was at his best in his first UFC run. He solidified his boxing and his overall gameplan.

I'm pretty sure Wanderlei didn't fight any Japanese pro wrasslers unless Minowa was but he did fight a Japanese HW who had a gold medal in Judo and beat him both times stuffing most if not all the takedowns(haven't seen those fights in years but they were mostly on the feet).

Well you can look at a fighters TDD at the time the fight happened or you can look at his TDD when he's been fighting for over 10 years passed his prime. I went with the former you chose the latter.

His TDD was still pretty good against Arona and Ortiz who are among the best takedown artists of that era.
 
Rampage would of been a nightmare match up for Anderson!

Garbage. It would've been the reverse. Anderson's hands were as good as Rampage's and he also had KO power with his knees, elbows and feet. It would be like Rampage vs. a more technical version of Wand or Shogun from Pride. Rampage's only chance would be to use his wrestling, but he never did that in the UFC.

I've been saying the same thing T.S. was saying for years. Whampage has always been overrated here.
 
How did Rampage win?
He got outstruck point wise and was the only fighter clearly hurt by strikes as he could barely walk.
Dude that happened in round 2. He went a decision and leg was fine by the 3rd. He even won the 3rd round.

He was outstruck if we just look at numbers. But his strikes were before the most significant strikes. He dropped Forrest twice, busted him open, and visibly hurt had had Forrest retreating multiple times in the fight. He landed the more effective strikes. He almost powerbombed him in the 4th.

Forrest rounds 2 and 5.
Rampage 1, 3 and 4.
 
Dude that happened in round 2. He went a decision and leg was fine by the 3rd. He even won the 3rd round.

He was outstruck if we just look at numbers. But his strikes were before the most significant strikes. He dropped Forrest twice, busted him open, and visibly hurt had had Forrest retreating multiple times in the fight. He landed the more effective strikes. He almost powerbombed him in the 4th.

Forrest rounds 2 and 5.
Rampage 1, 3 and 4.

He ALMOST powerbombed him wow ... should we count ALMOST landing something as points?
 
Dude that happened in round 2. He went a decision and leg was fine by the 3rd. He even won the 3rd round.

He was outstruck if we just look at numbers. But his strikes were before the most significant strikes. He dropped Forrest twice, busted him open, and visibly hurt had had Forrest retreating multiple times in the fight. He landed the more effective strikes. He almost powerbombed him in the 4th.

Forrest rounds 2 and 5.
Rampage 1, 3 and 4.

You didn't give Forrest a 10-8 for round 2?
 
The only common opponent that matters is Nick Diaz.

And Anderson roided up and fought Nick to a boring No-Contest.

Rampage straight up bitched Nick out and stole his girl.
 
Dude that happened in round 2. He went a decision and leg was fine by the 3rd. He even won the 3rd round.

He was outstruck if we just look at numbers. But his strikes were before the most significant strikes. He dropped Forrest twice, busted him open, and visibly hurt had had Forrest retreating multiple times in the fight. He landed the more effective strikes. He almost powerbombed him in the 4th.

Forrest rounds 2 and 5.
Rampage 1, 3 and 4.
And Forrest dropped him once, and had him so badly hurt in the second Page just gave the round away. No attempt to scramble or reverse, just an entire round of being mounted after being dropped.

That is a more one sided round than anything else that happened in the fight. Both Pages knockdowns were flash knockdowns Griffin recovered from instantly. We know this because Page couldn't land meaningful follow up, and Griffin has only an average chin and arguably below average recovery when rocked.

Bias has lead people to believe the rounds rampage won were like the first round of Edgar vs Maynard. They were not.
 
You didn't give Forrest a 10-8 for round 2?
No because it wasn't close to fight ending. We're talking about a time (late 00) when 10-8 were barely ever given out and you had to basically be on the brink of winning to get it (example round 1 in both the 2nd and 3rd Frankie/Maynard fights. Frankie was saved by the bell on both occasions.)

Now I'd give him a 10-8 using today's scoring.
 
No because it wasn't close to fight ending. We're talking about a time (late 00) when 10-8 were barely ever given out and you had to basically be on the brink of winning to get it (example round 1 in both the 2nd and 3rd Frankie/Maynard fights. Frankie was saved by the bell on both occasions.)

Now I'd give him a 10-8 using today's scoring.

So? The criteria for a 10-8 is dominance not how close you are to ending the fight. Rampage didn't land a single strike that round and was mounted for most of the round, Forrest also landed like 70 strikes.

70-0 in strikes while mounting your opponent for like 5 minutes is a 10-8 round even with the old scoring system.
 
And Forrest dropped him once, and had him so badly hurt in the second Page just gave the round away. No attempt to scramble or reverse, just an entire round of being mounted after being dropped.

That is a more one sided round than anything else that happened in the fight. Both Pages knockdowns were flash knockdowns Griffin recovered from instantly. We know this because Page couldn't land meaningful follow up, and Griffin has only an average chin and arguably below average recovery when rocked.

Bias has lead people to believe the rounds rampage won were like the first round of Edgar vs Maynard. They were not.
Bias is acting like round 2 of that fight were like round 1 of the 2nd/3rd frankie/Maynard fights.

People act like Forrest was close to stopping Rampage when he wasn't.
 
You guys arguing make me wanna rewatch Rampage vs Forrest
 
So? The criteria for a 10-8 is dominance not how close you are to ending the fight. Rampage didn't land a single strike that round and was mounted for most of the round, Forrest also landed like 70 strikes.

70-0 in strikes while mounting your opponent for like 5 minutes is a 10-8 round even with the old scoring system.
10-8 were like 4 leaf clovers back then. But my Rampage fanboyism is showing hard.
 
Bias is acting like round 2 of that fight were like round 1 of the 2nd/3rd frankie/Maynard fights.

People act like Forrest was close to stopping Rampage when he wasn't.

Learn the scoring system. 10-8 rounds are determined by dominance, you don't have to get close to finishing to dominate. If you get hit 70 times and land no offense whatsoever while being mounted for 4+ minutes you got dominated.
 
Learn the scoring system. 10-8 rounds are determined by dominance, you don't have to get close to finishing to dominate. If you get hit 70 times and land no offense whatsoever while being mounted for 4+ minutes you got dominated.
http://www.mmadecisions.com/decision/1040/Forrest-Griffin-vs-Quinton-Jackson

Dude even one of judges, who scored it 49-46. (Which is absurd to me) Forrest, gave him a 10-9 round 2 for Forrest. So clearly it wasn't an obvious 10-8.
 
Back
Top