PBP UFC Abu Dhabi Whittaker vs. De Ridder Official PBP Discussion: Sat 7/26 at 12pm ET

[maximus__]

Hahahaha what do you mean? "The cut wasn't open in the first place" to "Re-opened the cut" isn't a changed position? Of course it is, and it's still wrong too, that's the best part.

You keep spewing the same nonsense, yes they do indeed place Vaseline over the open wound and it has a positive effect, if you would actually take the time to read, I've never disputed the Vaseline has a positive impact on restricting bleeding along other things....what it doesn't do is actually seal the wound as you keep claiming because your wittle ego refuses to concede a point.

What do you mean he landed "clean shots", I thought the judges didn't give a shit about clean shots, now they suddenly matter? Interesting.

I don't doubt that the ground and pound was a helpful contributing factor, but the most individual damaging blow that landed in that round(and for Rob in the entire fight) is undeniably the overhand right that dropped RDR and scrambled his brains, let him in a vulnerable position to make those strikes possibly in the first.

Do you not concur that the overhand was Rob's most important, effective strike of the 25 minute fight?

I also think Rob wins the round without the ground and pound, this wasn't just a flash knockdown situation where it's more of an off balance thing and the fighter hops right back up, RDR was completely out of it and sat there like a sitting duck, he couldn't have popped back up to his feet if he tried.

I see that you're making another "washing hands" clean joke...shame you have the charisma of a fucking lamp.

Perfect so we both agree that vaseline or petroleum jelly was used to stop the cut bleeding. The issue is the word "seal".

Change it to: They used vaseline to try and prevent Rob from bleeding from damage caused by RDR. It then began to bleed again in the following two rounds due to RDRs offence as the vaseline wasn't great and stitches weren't an option.

Man, you are really selling how much more effective RDR was in this fight than I thought. He actually kinda got stiffed in the final 3 rounds when you think about it. He kept causing damage to Rob's face and causing damage repeatedly. He did better than people gave him credit for especially in the 3rd.

You are right I missed the quotations. I was making fun of your "clean shots" criteria when I put it in there. You definitely got me there. I missed some quotation marks when I typed. I will make sure they are included from now on.

Do I agree that the shot that allowed Rob to land more offence was his most effective strike? If I look at it that way sure, but if I actually look at which strike did I think was closest to finishing the fight, it was one of the ground and pound shots following. The ref was Mark Goddard...prior to some recent ref blunders, he was notorious for stopping fights early. There were some great elbows from Rob that had RDR reacting poorly that had me thinking Mrk would step in. He also landing some "clean" shots prior to RDR grabbing the wrist and working to his feet. If Rob wasn't impacted by the body shots prior, I think he could have had the gas tank to get RDR out of there at that moment.

RDR did get back to his feet and he did it after taking multiple follow up shots. He took some more shots to get there, but he clearing could get up because he did and then won the rest of the round and caused the "fresher damage".

I still give it to Rob, but I can see why you would argue it for RDR based off your criteria. That's what you are trying to do right? because it's what you are doing by trying to tie this down to one big shot as the main reason we give him the round. RDR got dropped but recovered fine. Rob got hurt prior, ran across the cage, landed his own shot and follow up offence, but then proceeded to get taken down, ground and pound and had his nose split open before being saved by the bell getting pounded on covering up.

I still give it to Rob, but mostly because I think his ground and pound sequence was closer to finishing the fight than RDRs even though Rob got saved by the bell in the exact same position.

 

[Langinbang187]

Perfect so we both agree that vaseline or petroleum jelly was used to stop the cut bleeding. The issue is the word "seal".

Change it to: They used vaseline to try and prevent Rob from bleeding from damage caused by RDR. It then began to bleed again in the following two rounds due to RDRs offence as the vaseline wasn't great and stitches weren't an option.

Man, you are really selling how much more effective RDR was in this fight than I thought. He actually kinda got stiffed in the final 3 rounds when you think about it. He kept causing damage to Rob's face and causing damage repeatedly. He did better than people gave him credit for especially in the 3rd.

You are right I missed the quotations. I was making fun of your "clean shots" criteria when I put it in there. You definitely got me there. I missed some quotation marks when I typed. I will make sure they are included from now on.

Do I agree that the shot that allowed Rob to land more offence was his most effective strike? If I look at it that way sure, but if I actually look at which strike did I think was closest to finishing the fight, it was one of the ground and pound shots following. The ref was Mark Goddard...prior to some recent ref blunders, he was notorious for stopping fights early. There were some great elbows from Rob that had RDR reacting poorly that had me thinking Mrk would step in. He also landing some "clean" shots prior to RDR grabbing the wrist and working to his feet. If Rob wasn't impacted by the body shots prior, I think he could have had the gas tank to get RDR out of there at that moment.

RDR did get back to his feet and he did it after taking multiple follow up shots. He took some more shots to get there, but he clearing could get up because he did and then won the rest of the round and caused the "fresher damage".

I still give it to Rob, but I can see why you would argue it for RDR based off your criteria. That's what you are trying to do right? because it's what you are doing by trying to tie this down to one big shot as the main reason we give him the round. RDR got dropped but recovered fine. Rob got hurt prior, ran across the cage, landed his own shot and follow up offence, but then proceeded to get taken down, ground and pound and had his nose split open before being saved by the bell getting pounded on covering up.

I still give it to Rob, but mostly because I think his ground and pound sequence was closer to finishing the fight than RDRs even though Rob got saved by the bell in the exact same position.

No, the issue is that you claimed the cut was not there, then you proclaimed it was "re-opened" -- Indeed that is an issue, the open wound remained opened, Vaseline did not close it, that isn't the purpose of it, it physically cannot close an open wound. This really isn't that complex man, I don't get how you're still struggling here, even going as far as to utilize AI to try to fight the battle for you instead of simply conceding...child like behavior.

I mean it's a 25 minute fight with a 10 point must scoring system, the idea that I was ever arguing RDR didn't attain success throughout a 25 minute fight is extremely silly, I've been consistent throughout that the fight was indeed competitive and I scored 2 rounds for RDR, he didn't win two rounds by shadow boxing in the corner, he won those rounds by landing clean, effective striking, just as Rob did in the rounders I scored for him...and check this out -- Over the course of a 5 minute round, even the guy who loses the round can have success throughout the entirety of the round...what a concept, I know.

Oh, ah...you just missed the "quotes"...now you're utilizing them, very convenient.

"RDR did get back to his feet"

Yeah, no shit, after recovering, if he didn't manage to get back to his feet we wouldn't be having this conversation, oh brilliant one. He ate some nasty elbows but then proceeded to get a grip on Rob and tie him up for 10-15 seconds before eating a couple more shots that he rolled quite well with, all together he was on the ground for about 30-35 seconds, there's a reason he didn't try to immediately even try to pop back up, he was badly rocked.

You have an interesting way of looking at things -- The strike that put him in that position to begin with should certainly be looked at as the most significant strikes of the fight, it literally stopped De Ridder in his tracks while he had significant momentum and had him looking half out of it on the ground, the follow up elbows were certainly nasty as well but the overhand right is the shot that got him there and is the only strike that resulted in a knockdown throughout the entirety of the 25 minute fight.

No, I'm utilizing it as an example of how one big shot that results in an opponent getting dropped can secure a round that they objectively lost most exchanges in despite it not being written in the official scoring criteria...it falls under "effective striking".

What a beautiful, clean shot it was.

 

[Luffy]

Is this fight some kind of special fight or something...? Both aren't that hot in MW nowadays, why is this fight causing so big of a discussion??

 

[Doctor Grudge]

Is this fight some kind of special fight or something...? Both aren't that hot in MW nowadays, why is this fight causing so big of a discussion??

Robert was just in a title eliminator and RDR is undefeated. You're talking like it's Tony Furgeson vs Clay Guida or something.

 

[Langinbang187]

Is this fight some kind of special fight or something...? Both aren't that hot in MW nowadays, why is this fight causing so big of a discussion??

I'm terribly bored at work.

 

[Luffy]

Yeah but all this discussion about judging it's like this is some huuuge anticipated fight, like a JJ vs Tom or DDP vs Khamzat or Topuria vs Islam or Alex vs Ank...

 

[maximus__]

No, the issue is that you claimed the cut was not there, then you proclaimed it was "re-opened" -- Indeed that is an issue, the open wound remained opened, Vaseline did not close it, that isn't the purpose of it, it physically cannot close an open wound. This really isn't that complex man, I don't get how you're still struggling here, even going as far as to utilize AI to try to fight the battle for you instead of simply conceding...child like behavior.

I mean it's a 25 minute fight with a 10 point must scoring system, the idea that I was ever arguing RDR didn't attain success throughout a 25 minute fight is extremely silly, I've been consistent throughout that the fight was indeed competitive and I scored 2 rounds for RDR, he didn't win two rounds by shadow boxing in the corner, he won those rounds by landing clean, effective striking, just as Rob did in the rounders I scored for him...and check this out -- Over the course of a 5 minute round, even the guy who loses the round can have success throughout the entirety of the round...what a concept, I know.

Oh, ah...you just missed the "quotes"...now you're utilizing them, very convenient.

"RDR did get back to his feet"

Yeah, no shit, after recovering, if he didn't manage to get back to his feet we wouldn't be having this conversation, oh brilliant one. He ate some nasty elbows but then proceeded to get a grip on Rob and tie him up for 10-15 seconds before eating a couple more shots that he rolled quite well with, all together he was on the ground for about 30-35 seconds, there's a reason he didn't try to immediately even try to pop back up, he was badly rocked.

You have an interesting way of looking at things -- The strike that put him in that position to begin with should certainly be looked at as the most significant strikes of the fight, it literally stopped De Ridder in his tracks while he had significant momentum and had him looking half out of it on the ground, the follow up elbows were certainly nasty as well but the overhand right is the shot that got him there and is the only strike that resulted in a knockdown throughout the entirety of the 25 minute fight.

No, I'm utilizing it as an example of how one big shot that results in an opponent getting dropped can secure a round that they objectively lost most exchanges in despite it not being written in the official scoring criteria...it falls under "effective striking".

What a beautiful, clean shot it was.

Still not sure what your obsession with the vaseline is but ok... I said what I said about it. You said what you said about it. Ultimately RDR caused repeated damage to Rob's face with his offensive strikes in 3 separate rounds. Thanks for pointing out RDR did more damage in those exchanges than I initially observed. I agree.

Yes we agree that RDR and Rob both had success during the fight at various points. I am pretty sure I said that crediting both fighters offence especially in the 5th round. I agree.

Well yeah? I just said that. I popped them back in for you if it makes you feel better. I didn't even go back and edit the post because I accepted I missed them out. I agree.

This I disagree with. RDR didn't get back up because Rob jumped on him and landed some beautiful follow up shots that visibly had RDR in trouble. The initial shot is shown in all the replays, but his ground and pound are the real scoring shots within that round. Knockdowns in MMA get overscored, it's what happens after that should score highly. Get a knockdown but jump into someones guard and get submitted, who cares? Get a knockdown and beat the crap out of someone for an extended period and I am impressed and you probably won the round cleary.

In my opinion Rob could have won that round on those shots alone without the knockdown, that's how good I actually believe they were. That was a real fight ending sequence. If RDR hadn't gotten back to his feet and the round had just continued to play out with Rob landing that level of ground and pound, I would have argued it was a 10-8 for Rob.

Cool. You think a knockdown is worth more than the follow up ground and pound and I think the shots that I felt would actually stop the fight were worth more? We both agree that Rob won the 3rd.

If you want to discuss the whole fight, don't be a dick and I am happy to. Not sure why we are now arguing about vaseline and whether a knockdown or ground and pound is better considering it happened in a completely different round.

 

[maximus__]

I'm terribly bored at work.

I am terribly bored off work until next week... This is never going to stop.

 

[Langinbang187]

Still not sure what your obsession with the vaseline is but ok... I said what I said about it. You said what you said about it. Ultimately RDR caused repeated damage to Rob's face with his offensive strikes in 3 separate rounds. Thanks for pointing out RDR did more damage in those exchanges than I initially observed. I agree.

Yes we agree that RDR and Rob both had success during the fight at various points. I am pretty sure I said that crediting both fighters offence especially in the 5th round. I agree.

Well yeah? I just said that. I popped them back in for you if it makes you feel better. I didn't even go back and edit the post because I accepted I missed them out. I agree.

This I disagree with. RDR didn't get back up because Rob jumped on him and landed some beautiful follow up shots that visibly had RDR in trouble. The initial shot is shown in all the replays, but his ground and pound are the real scoring shots within that round. Knockdowns in MMA get overscored, it's what happens after that should score highly. Get a knockdown but jump into someones guard and get submitted, who cares? Get a knockdown and beat the crap out of someone for an extended period and I am impressed and you probably won the round cleary.

In my opinion Rob could have won that round on those shots alone without the knockdown, that's how good I actually believe they were. That was a real fight ending sequence. If RDR hadn't gotten back to his feet and the round had just continued to play out with Rob landing that level of ground and pound, I would have argued it was a 10-8 for Rob.

Cool. You think a knockdown is worth more than the follow up ground and pound and I think the shots that I felt would actually stop the fight were worth more? We both agree that Rob won the 3rd.

If you want to discuss the whole fight, don't be a dick and I am happy to. Not sure why we are now arguing about vaseline and whether a knockdown or ground and pound is better considering it happened in a completely different round.

I think you might want to look up the definition of the word "obsession" -- Pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in your statements is not an obsession, you just lack general accountability when you spew nonsense that wouldn't even be a remotely big deal if you didn't jump up and down and refuse to accept reality.

"This I disagree with. RDR didn't get back up because Rob jumped on him and landed some beautiful follow up shots that visibly had RDR in trouble. "

I mean to be fair to you here(and myself) this is really something neither of us can prove, merely speculate about. He was clearly badly hurt, if I were to place a wager he would've struggled to get back to his feet to a large degree.

In regards to the ground & pound -- Again it comes down to how we both view various things, the overhand(for me) was both the most significant strike In terms of damage and the vulnerability factor afterwards that lead to RDR being exposed to further damaging shots. We've pretty much covered this to the point where agreeing to disagree is about the way to go here, otherwise it's just going to continue going in circles.

Well we've been discussing the fight over the course of days, the reality is I don't necessarily think there's a lot more to cover in regards to the 5th round. We can continue to go about in circles regarding the 5th round but there's only so much you can cover in a 5 minute span that hasn't already been dissected over the course of multiple days and dozens upon dozens of responses, conversations over long durations tend to evolve, that's just how things work.

I have zero issues keeping things good faith as long as the individual I'm speaking to is responding in kind.

 

[Langinbang187]

I am terribly bored off work until next week... This is never going to stop.

We'll be discussing Roswell & debating the moon landing by the end of the week.

 

[maximus__]

I think you might want to look up the definition of the word "obsession" -- Pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in your statements is not an obsession, you just lack general accountability when you spew nonsense that wouldn't even be a remotely big deal if you didn't jump up and down and refuse to accept reality.

"This I disagree with. RDR didn't get back up because Rob jumped on him and landed some beautiful follow up shots that visibly had RDR in trouble. "

I mean to be fair to you here(and myself) this is really something neither of us can prove, merely speculate about. He was clearly badly hurt, if I were to place a wager he would've struggled to get back to his feet to a large degree.

In regards to the ground & pound -- Again it comes down to how we both view various things, the overhand(for me) was both the most significant strike In terms of damage and the vulnerability factor afterwards that lead to RDR being exposed to further damaging shots. We've pretty much covered this to the point where agreeing to disagree is about the way to go here, otherwise it's just going to continue going in circles.

Well we've been discussing the fight over the course of days, the reality is I don't necessarily think there's a lot more to cover in regards to the 5th round. We can continue to go about in circles regarding the 5th round but there's only so much you can cover in a 5 minute span that hasn't already been dissected over the course of multiple days and dozens upon dozens of responses, conversations over long durations tend to evolve, that's just how things work.

I have zero issues keeping things good faith as long as the individual I'm speaking to is responding in kind.

Well that's what you are doing. You're fixating on your version of what I say and then completely ignoring when I expand or clarify on something. Yes I said they used it to seal the cut, but we both know I didn't mean they made the cut go away completely. If you want I will expand even further and say i actually disagree with damage as a criteria within MMA. Some people cut or show damage more than others. RDR got dropped and took multiple elbows etc and had no real visible damage and I still think it should score higher than RDR causing a cut and Rob bleeding.

I have to go by what happened within the fight. I can see that RDR got dropped and Rob landed some great follow up shots, but ultimately he didn't finish RDR.
RDR was clearly recovered enough to then win the rest of the round. I personally don't think it's enough to score it for RDR, but Rob's offence whilst significant was less impactful than it initially seemed. People get tied up on the immediate vs cumulative criteria and ultimately then reach for the 10-8 scoring in boxing. That's not how MMA is scored. It's about who is landing fight ending offence whether that's through a KO, submission,TKO or doctor stoppage. 10-9 for Rob seems right, but RDR was only a few ground and pound strikes from turning that round or earning a draw in my opinion.

Yeah I get it. it's a big highlight reel strike, but it happened near midway through the fight and Rob landed about 10 more shots and couldn't get the job done.
100% I give it credit, but if it wasn't a walk off KO. If he let RDR up, I don't think Rob would have finished it there because he couldn't with his ground and pound.
I don't think he could have landed better shots on the feet than he did when RDR was grounded.

Yeah I don't think we will agree and that's fine, but argue the fight, not the person. I made some light cracks at you but kept it pretty civil to be honest. The only thing you have done is make up some story about me not acting in good faith. You said I was lying because you missed anytime I conceded anything in my posts when you were correct because I wouldn't answer in a yes or no fashion.

 

[Langinbang187]

Well that's what you are doing. You're fixating on your version of what I say and then completely ignoring when I expand or clarify on something. Yes I said they used it to seal the cut, but we both know I didn't mean they made the cut go away completely. If you want I will expand even further and say i actually disagree with damage as a criteria within MMA. Some people cut or show damage more than others. RDR got dropped and took multiple elbows etc and had no real visible damage and I still think it should score higher than RDR causing a cut and Rob bleeding.

I have to go by what happened within the fight. I can see that RDR got dropped and Rob landed some great follow up shots, but ultimately he didn't finish RDR.
RDR was clearly recovered enough to then win the rest of the round. I personally don't think it's enough to score it for RDR, but Rob's offence whilst significant was less impactful than it initially seemed. People get tied up on the immediate vs cumulative criteria and ultimately then reach for the 10-8 scoring in boxing. That's not how MMA is scored. It's about who is landing fight ending offence whether that's through a KO, submission,TKO or doctor stoppage. 10-9 for Rob seems right, but RDR was only a few ground and pound strikes from turning that round or earning a draw in my opinion.

Yeah I get it. it's a big highlight reel strike, but it happened near midway through the fight and Rob landed about 10 more shots and couldn't get the job done.
100% I give it credit, but if it wasn't a walk off KO. If he let RDR up, I don't think Rob would have finished it there because he couldn't with his ground and pound.
I don't think he could have landed better shots on the feet than he did when RDR was grounded.

Yeah I don't think we will agree and that's fine, but argue the fight, not the person. I made some light cracks at you but kept it pretty civil to be honest. The only thing you have done is make up some story about me not acting in good faith. You said I was lying because you missed anytime I conceded anything in my posts when you were correct because I wouldn't answer in a yes or no fashion.

When you state "re-opened" the cut, you must certainly directly imply that the cut was not open prior to the exchange, which is objectively completely and totally untrue, it's a fabrication from reality. From here all you needed to to was say you misspoke, you didn't, you even tried to continue to have AI argue it out for you, which is beyond silly. The cut remained an open wound, there's nothing else to add here.

I don't disagree that I think the damage criteria is unfair to some fighters, but that's the reality in the scoring criteria, it's unfair to those in particular who suffer from significant scar tissue and open up easily. I don't however, believe that anyone with a brain in their skull would attempt to argue that RDR giving Whittaker a bloody nose/lip is anywhere near the equivalent of Whittaker dropping RDR and nearly finishing him, I can't see anyone making that case.

Regarding how hurt RDR was -- He clearly has elite recovery, but the man was objectively nearly unconscious, he even paused for a split second on his ass after the initial overhand to seemingly "get it together" before falling back and trying to cover up, he certainly recovered quickly but that shot scrambled his brains significantly, he showcased a solid chin, but even better recover. Rob absolutely emptied the gas tank looking for the finish which was a significant contributing factor to RDR sticking around and avoiding a 10-8, as was his recovery.

It comes down to your refusal to actually answer straight up questions. You've made a lot of contradictory statements and sometimes that does indeed lead to confusion, I was simply looking for clarifying questions to be answered, while you seemingly were worried about being caught in a "gotcha" moment. If that's all I was looking for was a cheap "gotcha", I wouldn't still be engaging. I've answered/responded to several questions directly without any issues, clarifying my viewpoints.

It isn't "making up a story" refusing to answer questions while the other party takes zero issues in answering, clarifying their position is objectively bad faith.

 

[maximus__]

When you state "re-opened" the cut, you must certainly directly imply that the cut was not open prior to the exchange, which is objectively completely and totally untrue, it's a fabrication from reality. From here all you needed to to was say you misspoke, you didn't, you even tried to continue to have AI argue it out for you, which is beyond silly. The cut remained an open wound, there's nothing else to add here.

I don't disagree that I think the damage criteria is unfair to some fighters, but that's the reality in the scoring criteria, it's unfair to those in particular who suffer from significant scar tissue and open up easily. I don't however, believe that anyone with a brain in their skull would attempt to argue that RDR giving Whittaker a bloody nose/lip is anywhere near the equivalent of Whittaker dropping RDR and nearly finishing him, I can't see anyone making that case.

Regarding how hurt RDR was -- He clearly has elite recovery, but the man was objectively nearly unconscious, he even paused for a split second on his ass after the initial overhand to seemingly "get it together" before falling back and trying to cover up, he certainly recovered quickly but that shot scrambled his brains significantly, he showcased a solid chin, but even better recover. Rob absolutely emptied the gas tank looking for the finish which was a significant contributing factor to RDR sticking around and avoiding a 10-8, as was his recovery.

It comes down to your refusal to actually answer straight up questions. You've made a lot of contradictory statements and sometimes that does indeed lead to confusion, I was simply looking for clarifying questions to be answered, while you seemingly were worried about being caught in a "gotcha" moment. If that's all I was looking for was a cheap "gotcha", I wouldn't still be engaging. I've answered/responded to several questions directly without any issues, clarifying my viewpoints.

It isn't "making up a story" refusing to answer questions while the other party takes zero issues in answering, clarifying their position is objectively bad faith.

Was the cut bleeding prior to the sequence I pointed out or had the corner work done their job and prevented it from visibly bleeding? Yes I know they didn't magically make it go away. As I said I initially thought it had happened in that exchange. You pointed out it happened in the 4th which I conceded and said it was reopened. It actually happened in the 3rd on rewatch and in between each round the corner did a great job. Using the vaseline between rounds is referred to as "sealing" the cut. When it starts bleeding again after the corner works on it, I referred to it as "reopening" it.

Am I technically incorrect about the "sealing" of the cut and its "reopening", if we take those words in a vacuum, sure if it makes you feel better. In the context of a fight and what is occurring, you are just arguing over semantics. We both clearly know what I meant by what I said in both these situations and as I pointed out, I am acting in good faith by conceding when I am wrong about something. You are just arguing about something for the sake of arguing.

Yeah. I agree that Rob should win that round. Plenty of people were thinking draw or RDR for the 3rd. I don't agree, but if it was just the knockdown, I don't think Rob would really deserve that round the more I think about it.I would prefer a draw to recognise the big shot, but also the fact that RDR won every other moment, had Rob hurt and ultimately finished with Rob also in danger of being finished. Another 30 seconds and I think that fight might have stopped in RDRs favour. Rob doesn't recover well any more. It didn;t happen like that and Rob landed good ground and pound, so Rob gets the round.

I did answer your questions. You can't pigeon hole my opinion into yes/no answers to suit your agenda and position. As I pointed out I had been answering them, but giving my actual thoughts on it. You don't decide what my answers are, that's not how this works. It's not a multiple choice questionnaire on the round.

Your last two points contradict. You wanted me to give Yes/No answers but not clarify my position, whilst saying you were having zero issues answering or clarifying your position. As I pointed out I was clarifying my position and even conceding when you were right, you just chose to ignore it and chase the Yes/No answer you wanted. All the questions had been answered when I clarified my posts.

You are the one actually doing what you accused me of and acting in bad faith throughout all these posts. I just talked about a fight within the scoring criteria whilst you went on about everything but that actual fight to attack me personally. I made fun of you in response, but my posts still tied back to the actual scoring of the fight and what you were saying were key factors to change the result.

 

[Langinbang187]

Was the cut bleeding prior to the sequence I pointed out or had the corner work done their job and prevented it from visibly bleeding? Yes I know they didn't magically make it go away. As I said I initially thought it had happened in that exchange. You pointed out it happened in the 4th which I conceded and said it was reopened. It actually happened in the 3rd on rewatch and in between each round the corner did a great job. Using the vaseline between rounds is referred to as "sealing" the cut. When it starts bleeding again after the corner works on it, I referred to it as "reopening" it.

Am I technically incorrect about the "sealing" of the cut and its "reopening", if we take those words in a vacuum, sure if it makes you feel better. In the context of a fight and what is occurring, you are just arguing over semantics. We both clearly know what I meant by what I said in both these situations and as I pointed out, I am acting in good faith by conceding when I am wrong about something. You are just arguing about something for the sake of arguing.

Yeah. I agree that Rob should win that round. Plenty of people were thinking draw or RDR for the 3rd. I don't agree, but if it was just the knockdown, I don't think Rob would really deserve that round the more I think about it.I would prefer a draw to recognise the big shot, but also the fact that RDR won every other moment, had Rob hurt and ultimately finished with Rob also in danger of being finished. Another 30 seconds and I think that fight might have stopped in RDRs favour. Rob doesn't recover well any more. It didn;t happen like that and Rob landed good ground and pound, so Rob gets the round.

I did answer your questions. You can't pigeon hole my opinion into yes/no answers to suit your agenda and position. As I pointed out I had been answering them, but giving my actual thoughts on it. You don't decide what my answers are, that's not how this works. It's not a multiple choice questionnaire on the round.

Your last two points contradict. You wanted me to give Yes/No answers but not clarify my position, whilst saying you were having zero issues answering or clarifying your position. As I pointed out I was clarifying my position and even conceding when you were right, you just chose to ignore it and chase the Yes/No answer you wanted. All the questions had been answered when I clarified my posts.

You are the one actually doing what you accused me of and acting in bad faith throughout all these posts. I just talked about a fight within the scoring criteria whilst you went on about everything but that actual fight to attack me personally. I made fun of you in response, but my posts still tied back to the actual scoring of the fight and what you were saying were key factors to change the result.

That's never been disputed. There's a monumental difference between freshly causing a new cut and making an open wound continue to trickle blood, which can quite literally just happen on its own by the fighter moving himself.

When it comes to conversations, "semantics" are extremely important, as are follow-up questions. If there's some confusion regarding your stance, I ask questions, it's that simple, if I don't accurately understand your position, then we are talking past each other which is a complete and utter waste of dialogue. No, we both didn't know what you meant, you initially said it was a new cut and then claimed it was re-opened, this is why I asked you the question, so I could fully understand your position from a straight up prospective. Asking questions to comprehend your position more accurately is not bad faith, refusing to engage and answer questions is.

Regarding round 3 -- That's another hypothetical we don't really have an answer to. How would RDR's legs have been if he popped back up? Would Rob have been able to land big shots on the feet as well? Maybe, maybe not. What we do know the primary reason for Rob winning round 3 was the overhand right at the end of the day.

It isn't a contradiction, I didn't deny you the ability to add context, just answer the question with a yes or no first which would clear up any confusion on my end and then proceed to add context if you truly feel like you must, you've had no issues filibustering all week, I have no authority in making you stop, I just wanted basic questions answered, just like I answered yours.

Can you just answer a simple question for me

How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast when you woke up?

 

[maximus__]

That's never been disputed. There's a monumental difference between freshly causing a new cut and making an open wound continue to trickle blood, which can quite literally just happen on its own by the fighter moving himself.

When it comes to conversations, "semantics" are extremely important, as are follow-up questions. If there's some confusion regarding your stance, I ask questions, it's that simple, if I don't accurately understand your position, then we are talking past each other which is a complete and utter waste of dialogue. No, we both didn't know what you meant, you initially said it was a new cut and then claimed it was re-opened, this is why I asked you the question, so I could fully understand your position from a straight up prospective. Asking questions to comprehend your position more accurately is not bad faith, refusing to engage and answer questions is.

Regarding round 3 -- That's another hypothetical we don't really have an answer to. How would RDR's legs have been if he popped back up? Would Rob have been able to land big shots on the feet as well? Maybe, maybe not. What we do know the primary reason for Rob winning round 3 was the overhand right at the end of the day.

It isn't a contradiction, I didn't deny you the ability to add context, just answer the question with a yes or no first which would clear up any confusion on my end and then proceed to add context if you truly feel like you must, you've had no issues filibustering all week, I have no authority in making you stop, I just wanted basic questions answered, just like I answered yours.

Can you just answer a simple question for me

How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast when you woke up?

You are still doing what you accuse me of. You didn't ask a question, you went on a multi post rant about wound management and definitions of wound management. You are still doubling down on it as you supposedly accuse me of doing things. We both clearly knew what I meant. Be honest.
You did understand my position, you just wanted to win an online argument and ignored my posts where I already clarified my position.

Round 3-I agree.

It is though, you repeatedly said to answer yes/no or to concede. I repeatedly said I had answered them and to go back to my previous posts and I showed that I did.
You continue to ignore that fact even now, that I had been answering them, stop making up a story about just wanting to clarify something. You wanted to berate me, trap me into an answer that ignored all context around the question in relation to the fight.

I will ask some questions myself:
Did you miss me answering the questions you asked because you didn't see them in my previous posts or did you choose to ignore the responses?
Without going back, do you recall what the question were?
(Only you will know the answer to this one and it will see how honest you are with yourself)

Breakfast?
Normal. To put some context, I don't eat breakfast when I get up.

 

[Langinbang187]

You are still doing what you accuse me of. You didn't ask a question, you went on a multi post rant about wound management and definitions of wound management. You are still doubling down on it as you supposedly accuse me of doing things. We both clearly knew what I meant. Be honest.
You did understand my position, you just wanted to win an online argument and ignored my posts where I already clarified my position.

Round 3-I agree.

It is though, you repeatedly said to answer yes/no or to concede. I repeatedly said I had answered them and to go back to my previous posts and I showed that I did.
You continue to ignore that fact even now, that I had been answering them, stop making up a story about just wanting to clarify something. You wanted to berate me, trap me into an answer that ignored all context around the question in relation to the fight.

I will ask some questions myself:
Did you miss me answering the questions you asked because you didn't see them in my previous posts or did you choose to ignore the responses?
Without going back, do you recall what the question were?
(Only you will know the answer to this one and it will see how honest you are with yourself)

Breakfast?
Normal. To put some context, I don't eat breakfast when I get up.

Of course I asked a question, you admit as much in your last paragraph, I asked multiple times, I didn't get a direct answer. Again, the reason I asked the question is because you did tend to contradict yourself numerous times, particularly when it came to discussing the cut. No "we" both didn't know what you meant, hence the clarifying question I asked. NOW I know what you meant after further context, prior to the question I had just assumed you were exaggerating details in order to add merit to your argument, but I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt so I asked a question as to not straw man your position.


The last paragraph just kind of circles back to my original point -- You contradicted yourself numerous times, I was actively attempting to dissect if you were intentionally exaggerating details in an attempt to prove points, genuinely weren't aware that the corner didn't seal cuts in between rounds or were simply trolling.

To answer your questions :

1) No, nothing was ignored, I explained the reason behind the questions multiple times directly above, but I have no issues with direct answers.

2) Yes, I remember my questions regarding the cut being there prior to round 5, asking if you were aware cuts can't actually genuinely seal a cut, clinch initiation...they were all pretty basic..

To the breakfast question -- See, you can answer questions with a single word and provide context, it isn't a problem.

 

[maximus__]

Of course I asked a question, you admit as much in your last paragraph, I asked multiple times, I didn't get a direct answer. Again, the reason I asked the question is because you did tend to contradict yourself numerous times, particularly when it came to discussing the cut. No "we" both didn't know what you meant, hence the clarifying question I asked. NOW I know what you meant after further context, prior to the question I had just assumed you were exaggerating details in order to add merit to your argument, but I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt so I asked a question as to not straw man your position.


The last paragraph just kind of circles back to my original point -- You contradicted yourself numerous times, I was actively attempting to dissect if you were intentionally exaggerating details in an attempt to prove points, genuinely weren't aware that the corner didn't seal cuts in between rounds or were simply trolling.

To answer your questions :

1) No, nothing was ignored, I explained the reason behind the questions multiple times directly above, but I have no issues with direct answers.

2) Yes, I remember my questions regarding the cut being there prior to round 5, asking if you were aware cuts can't actually genuinely seal a cut, clinch initiation...they were all pretty basic..

To the breakfast question -- See, you can answer questions with a single word and provide context, it isn't a problem.

Nah man, that's bullshit. I answered every one of the questions you posted and some I answered multiple times before directing you to actually ready my posts.

You are full of shit. My position never changed, I conceded if you pointed out something that I got wrong and even tolerated the crap you said that had nothing to do with the actual round and took the time to respond to it all.

There is no point continuing, you are just arguing for the sake of it.

 

[Langinbang187]

Nah man, that's bullshit. I answered every one of the questions you posted and some I answered multiple times before directing you to actually ready my posts.

You are full of shit. My position never changed, I conceded if you pointed out something that I got wrong and even tolerated the crap you said that had nothing to do with the actual round and took the time to respond to it all.

There is no point continuing, you are just arguing for the sake of it.

I literally provided examples of how you contradicted yourself dude lol.

Your whining has become unbearable.

You notice how I flat out answered your questions without issues, despite the fact that you admittedly already knew the answers to them?

That's called being good faith, you could learn a lot from that.

At least you finally answered a question though, thanks.

 

[maximus__]

I literally provided examples of how you contradicted yourself dude lol.

Your whining has become unbearable.

You notice how I flat out answered your questions without issues, despite the fact that you admittedly already knew the answers to them?

That's called being good faith, you could learn a lot from that.

At least you finally answered a question though, thanks.

No you created a narrative of what I said, ignored my responses and told me I had to aswer questions how you wanted because you couldn't justify your position in scoring the round for Rob within the actual scoring criteria of MMA.

If you want the answers to all your questions I will refer you to page 165 of this thread and to look directly under each one of your posts to my responses. Each and every response requested is made following your posts in my replies.

In summary, RDR landed with more impactful and damaging shots, with 7x the volume and had Rob backing up for the final 3 mins of the round. RDR round 5 every day of the week. It's not even a controversial round, though Rob does try and make it pretty boring when he starts getting overwhelmed by RDRs offence.

 

[Langinbang187]

No you created a narrative of what I said, ignored my responses and told me I had to aswer questions how you wanted because you couldn't justify your position in scoring the round for Rob within the actual scoring criteria of MMA.

If you want the answers to all your questions I will refer you to page 165 of this thread and to look directly under each one of your posts to my responses. Each and every response requested is made following your posts in my replies.

In summary, RDR landed with more impactful and damaging shots, with 7x the volume and had Rob backing up for the final 3 mins of the round. RDR round 5 every day of the week. It's not even a controversial round, though Rob does try and make it pretty boring when he starts getting overwhelmed by RDRs offence.

You mean I asked you to answer a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no?

What you aren't comprehending is my main issue is your fabrications and your inaccurate framework. I think Rob won the round because he was the more effective striker in the round, he landed the superior shots as a whole through 5 minutes. I didn't need to make up blatant stories about a cut not existing prior to a particular sequence, a non existent four punch combination, an already opened wound being re-opened, I like to stick to reality and not greatly exaggerate, outright make up lies in order to attempt to win a debate on the Internet. From that point on I asked simple questions, you chose to continue to fight about Vaseline instead of just simply conceding the point.

In summary -- You greatly exaggerated RDRs work, blatantly lied about things and proved yourself to be unable to answer basic, simple questions. When you began blatantly lying and extending truths, you became a complete and utter waste of time to engage with regarding the actual fight, the only thing that would actually be useful would be if we both sat down and watched the fight at the exact same time and spoke during, otherwise you can just continue to spew complete and utter foolishness.

You fuck the details up and then proceed to whine, attempt to evade when I bring up that you fucked up details, maybe work on getting your facts right before hitting send, that's not my problem.