Subjectivity in Rogan's commentating

So does Rogan have a seat with a terrible angle with a sometimes-blocked view or does he have the best seat in the house? Which is it?

I take it you've never seen a cage in real life so you wouldn't know that if your sitting anywhere that there will always been a chance of having your view obstructed.
 
He talked about a lot of things landing big for both fighters in Jones/Cormier that either flat out didn't land, or were at best grazing shots. A big problem with Rogan is that he likes to stick to a certain pre-conceived narrative when he commentates (which is hard to avoid for anyone, I know, but it's something that really pervades Rogan's commentary more than others) and that often involves distorting events to fit said narrative.

Sounds like what the movie Rashomon is about. Everyone does it to an extent.
 
I take it you've never seen a cage in real life so you wouldn't know that if your sitting anywhere that there will always been a chance of having your view obstructed.

I've sat cageside a few times and half the time you can't see shit. So obviously, Joe Rogan doesn't have the best seat in the house like you said.
 
I still don't get why guys care so much about commentating. What difference does it make?
 
The commentating in the Gaudinot-Horiguchi fight was embarrassing. Horiguchi completely shut out Gaudinot and in the first 1.5 rds, all Rogan and Goldberg were discussing was Gaudinot...who was hitting air for the majority of the fight.

It was one of the most surreal calls I can ever remember.
 
I'm with you. I love how the guy who straight up tells his close friend he's not a good fighter somehow can't put bias aside when commentating. And there's absolutely no rationale for why he would be biased toward one guy over another, either. So the whole thing is just one of those things where it's so clear Rogan is the best commentator in MMA history by a fucking landslide, you you just gotta throw your hands in in the air when you hear shit like this and say, "oh, Sherdog! You goofy bastards."

I don't get it either.

So the complaint here is that Rogan commented more about a fighter who outlanded the other handily and won 49-46 on all 3 scorecards.

Rogan has to comment 11 fights in a row over 6 hours and sherdoggers expect him to be perfect when they can't even make 1 grammatically correct post in 24 hours.
 
I just don't get how so many people can't grasp the fact that he's sitting ringside and only gets to see one view of the fight that may be blocked by a ref, a post or just a terrible angle where he can't see what all is going on.

Sure he can watch his small 5x5 screen instead of watching the fights live from the best seats in the house, but then again you can just turn off your sound and stop crying about something that's completely irrelevant to the outcome of the fight.

You can't turn off the sound if you watch the even in a movie theater, like I did UFC 182.
 
I think people are either jealous of Joe, or just looking for something to complain about.

But it's like that in any sport, no matter who the commentator is you have 1000 people sitting in their parents basement calling the guy a retard saying they could do a better job.

Never said I could do a better job. I just said I think he should try to be less presumptuous in knowing what strikes are doing more damage. How does he know that an elbow in the clinch hurts more than a full-blown uppercut?
 
I've sat cageside a few times and half the time you can't see shit. So obviously, Joe Rogan doesn't have the best seat in the house like you said.

I take it you've never seen a cage in real life so you wouldn't know that if your sitting anywhere that there will always been a chance of having your view obstructed.

Pretty sure they have monitors in front of them too...
 
I don't get it either.

So the complaint here is that Rogan commented more about a fighter who outlanded the other handily and won 49-46 on all 3 scorecards.

Rogan has to comment 11 fights in a row over 6 hours and sherdoggers expect him to be perfect when they can't even make 1 grammatically correct post in 24 hours.

Didn't read my original post. The comment was that Rogan was making more of Jones' strikes than Cormier's and thus wasn't giving an accurate assessment of what was going on. The point of commentator is to provide insight and clarify what is happening out there, not tell fans who he subjectively thinks is doing more damage. He didn't have that kind of knowledge to provide.
 
If you pay attention to Rogan and judge a fight on what he's saying you're either a noob or an idiot.
I didn't really feel like Rogan was pushing a perception one way or another this fight but he has done it before in the past.
The best thing to do IMO is to only have commentating between rounds. I'd rather listen to the sounds of strikes landing.
Besides I find Rogan's voice and personality annoying.
 
Didn't read my original post. The comment was that Rogan was making more of Jones' strikes than Cormier's and thus wasn't giving an accurate assessment of what was going on. The point of commentator is to provide insight and clarify what is happening out there, not tell fans who he subjectively thinks is doing more damage. He didn't have that kind of knowledge to provide.

So you think your opinion that cormiers strikes did more or equal damage is better than Rogan's? Who was 10 ft away from the fighters?

It would sound retarded if rogan was like "and this elbow did exactly the same amount of damage as cormiers uppercut"

Everyone is guessing how hard and how damaging each strike was, that's why scoring mma is such a pain in the ass.

It's all a guess unless a fighter is noticeably wobbled.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,826
Messages
55,310,353
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top