Was it me or was that reporter that interviewed Dana reponsible for the cut?

BJJesus said:
I'm amazed at how many people don't think he held the sub too long. the ref actually had to pry him off. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I honestly think anytime the ref has to jump on you and physical pull you off that it is too long. It should take maybe a tenth of a second to let go once the ref touches you or says stop. Not trying to start an argument just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. This next statement is probable going to piss some people off... but I still believe it. I think the overwhelming majority of people that think he didn't hold that too long have never rolled any jitz. If they had... they would understand that he held it much longer than necessary. They would also understand the inherent danger in leg locks to begin with... let alone a specialist that happens to be part gorilla really cranking down on one.
 
It did kinda seem like it did affect it to some degree, to me at least. I mean didn't Dana give him the sub of the night bonus. Clearly he must have saw the sub, and at least at one point was alright w/ it, as he rewarded him sub of the night. So that not only shows the decision to ban him wasn't made instantaneously after he held on too long, but it also shows that he was actually REWARDED for the submission. Then later on, it gets retracted, and he gets the boot. Either way, I"m not complaining about it.
 
fightiq said:
Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. I want saying it was obvious one way or the other, that he held it too long or not - that's as clear as mud. What I was saying was obvious was that, in the video, his hand was above his own shoulders, indicating he'd already released the hold only 1.08 seconds after the ref arrived. There's video documentation of that, so it is obvious. It's just my opinion that 1.08 seconds is a reasonable amount of time, not fact. Obviously ;P
Click to expand...

A full second is an eternity when someone is cranking a heel hook on you.... let alone the nastiest, strongest leg lock specialist in the business. I also believe that most fighters would have looked for the ref once the felt the tap. The thing is, when you land a sub... you usually know you have it, for the most part, before the tap even comes. So, you are kind of anticipating the tap... that is why you are able to let go so quickly after the tap comes. If Palhares would have looked for the ref when he felt Pierce tapping he would have seen that he was running toward him calling the fight. He didn't. He felt the tap... kept cranking... hear the ref... kept cranking... felt the ref trying to break it up... and then kept cranking for 1.08 seconds. It was disgraceful, dangerous, and not the first... second... or even third offense. The guy got exactly what he deserved. I think he is a wildly talented fighter and wish he would quit doing this... but enough is enough.
 
Junior Cigano said:
I'm 100% positive Uncle Dana decided to cut him before that interview.
Click to expand...

yea, its not liek the media has any influence on firm decisions realistically - if it seems that way, its just well staged by the ufc - people who do PR, etc. for a living are usually pretty good about this, and dana white is really good w the media and pushing his points
 
bigfizzy said:
It did kinda seem like it did affect it to some degree, to me at least. I mean didn't Dana give him the sub of the night bonus. Clearly he must have saw the sub, and at least at one point was alright w/ it, as he rewarded him sub of the night. So that not only shows the decision to ban him wasn't made instantaneously after he held on too long, but it also shows that he was actually REWARDED for the submission. Then later on, it gets retracted, and he gets the boot. Either way, I"m not complaining about it.
Click to expand...

I didn't hear that he was ever rewarded the SOTN. People may have assumed this by default... being the only sub of the night... but I never heard that it was given then retracted. If you have any links supporting this, I would be very interested in reading them... and I know how this site is so I feel that it is necessary to say that I am not being sarcastic.
 
https://twitter.com/ufc oct 9 i dont think he ever had it tho
cauliflowerlips said:
I didn't hear that he was ever rewarded the SOTN. People may have assumed this by default... being the only sub of the night... but I never heard that it was given then retracted. If you have any links supporting this, I would be very interested in reading them... and I know how this site is so I feel that it is necessary to say that I am not being sarcastic.
Click to expand...
 
cauliflowerlips said:
I didn't hear that he was ever rewarded the SOTN. People may have assumed this by default... being the only sub of the night... but I never heard that it was given then retracted. If you have any links supporting this, I would be very interested in reading them... and I know how this site is so I feel that it is necessary to say that I am not being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

I actually think you're right. My bad on my original post. I read it on Yahoo Sports (and as we all know Yahoo is super credible) but when I went to look up a source everything else I found was saying he was denied the bonus, as in it was assumed he'd get it (as he was the only submission of the whole night, if I recall), but they withheld it from him, so no, he never actually received it.
 
HollowTheory said:
I feel for his opponent in the last video. Takes guts to resume that position. Like willingly sticking your leg back in the jaws of a great white.
Click to expand...

The only reason he had to resume the position though is because Palhares did exactly what everyone keeps saying he should always do - he let go immediately when he felt the tap. Then his opponent claimed it was an unfair stoppage. Second time, Palhares didn't allow for the same antics. In this ONE case, I feel it was his opponent's fault as much as his
 
fightiq said:
The only reason he had to resume the position though is because Palhares did exactly what everyone keeps saying he should always do - he let go immediately when he felt the tap. Then his opponent claimed it was an unfair stoppage. Second time, Palhares didn't allow for the same antics. In this ONE case, I feel it was his opponent's fault as much as his
Click to expand...
BRO, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The reason he had to resume that position was because they went out of bounds and the ref signalled and told Palhares to stop but he didn't timely.
 
BJJesus said:
I'm amazed at how many people don't think he held the sub too long. the ref actually had to pry him off. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I honestly think anytime the ref has to jump on you and physical pull you off that it is too long. It should take maybe a tenth of a second to let go once the ref touches you or says stop. Not trying to start an argument just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

From the time the ref came in and he let go.......was just a bit over 1 second......1.08 seconds. That is not too long.

Watch the timeline thread
 
If anything, the UFC made the reporter ask that question
 
BJJesus said:
that video stops right when the ref jumps on him. If you watch it when it doesn't freeze he jerks twice on PHs arm to get him to release.

and 1.8 second is a really long time when you're talking combat sports. When i compete everyone releases subs way quicker than that and all the ref has to do is touch you.
Click to expand...

Did you even watch the video, the timer starts when the ref jumps in and stops when Palhares right arm is no longer on his leg, its barley over a second. Palhares didn't get cut because he held the submission too long he got cut because he doesn't give his opponent a chance to tap before damage is done.
 
ayiio said:
second time in the UFC , he's done it before .
Good cut .
Click to expand...

Has he held submisisons too long before, yes, but the thing is he didn't this time, 1.08 seconds isn't long at all. Palhares got cut because he cranks submissions immediately instead of applying more and more pressure till the ref comes in.
 
bigfizzy said:
I actually think you're right. My bad on my original post. I read it on Yahoo Sports (and as we all know Yahoo is super credible) but when I went to look up a source everything else I found was saying he was denied the bonus, as in it was assumed he'd get it (as he was the only submission of the whole night, if I recall), but they withheld it from him, so no, he never actually received it.
Click to expand...

Okay... I just looked at the link and couldn't find it either. I was pissed immediately when I watched the fight... just because I knew his history and already thought he was a little sketchy. But I honestly thought he would have already learned his lesson.... So, I kind of assumed that Dana and the gang would be a little sensitive to it as well... because, you know, everybody thinks like me. lol
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
Has he held submisisons too long before, yes, but the thing is he didn't this time, 1.08 seconds isn't long at all. Palhares got cut because he cranks submissions immediately instead of applying more and more pressure till the ref comes in.
Click to expand...

He got cut and suspended by Brazil AC because he didn't release the sub .
Not because he cranked it .
 
fightiq said:
The only reason he had to resume the position though is because Palhares did exactly what everyone keeps saying he should always do - he let go immediately when he felt the tap. Then his opponent claimed it was an unfair stoppage. Second time, Palhares didn't allow for the same antics. In this ONE case, I feel it was his opponent's fault as much as his
Click to expand...

not even close to what happened in that video...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,917
Messages
55,454,886
Members
174,786
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top