What I did not Appreciate about Khamzat's Victory, and is it a problem?

[Epsteins Guard]

Try getting laid. It's a game changer

I've been married for 15 years.

Nice try, kid

Doing a little projecting on this fine Sunday, eh? I would too if i was too retarded to make any intelligent argument.

 

[Captain Herb]

I've been married for 15 years.

15 years, a likely number. Gonna have to call bullshit on that. And if you were, she must look like a whale with legs

 

[Epsteins Guard]

15 years, a likely number. Gonna have to call bullshit on that. And if you were, she must look like a whale with legs

Nah man, I didn't marry an American. Bloated gender confused blue hairs is more your style. Isn't like 70% of your country morbidly obese and can't read past grade 6? Imagine a bunch of fat walruses that can't even read Harry Potter.

No wonder you can't make a coherent argument.

"MOM, CHANGE THE RULES. THEY WONT LET US WIN."

Fat little bitch lmao

 

[ejazahmednit]

Its hard to submit your opponent when they are doing everything in their power not to get submitted/GnPed
That said there is some onus on Khamzat to make the fight more exciting but winning is still the primary objective

 

[BlackStrap]

All that has to happen is for them to score the fight for the fighter trying to finish the fight.

Khamzat should be able to control and try and win that way, but if DDP is throwing up subs, reversing or landing more offence from the bottom, he should be able to win rounds.

That didn't really happen in this fight so Khamzat wins it.

Example I can think of is Diego Lopes vs Evleov. Evleov should have lost that fight and used a similar strategy to Khamzat to win. Atleast Khamzat landed some offence and not just takedowns.

What we have to be careful of is allowing people to just wrestle to a win. The rules are written to reward the offensive fighter, as long as they do that to the wrestlers, it's a non issue.

This is sort of what I was asking about- the last part: "allowing people to just wrestle to win...reward the offensive fighter".

So far, everyone seems to be very much on the same page, but none of the responses that I see yet speak to the specific technical question: was Khamzat just wrestling to win? Were the majority of his positions (crucifix excepted) mechanically impossible offensive positions that were just meant to maintain control and not advance the fight.

 

[BlackStrap]

Luke Thomas doesnt have any expertise. He's a fat white belt that never did any striking. He's an armchair coach, a sophist at best.

He really is the dunning Kruger of fight breakdowns.

I feel that, but also, that's all ad hominem. My question was whether his point was fair: was Khamzat just wrestling to win? Were the majority of his positions (crucifix excepted) mechanically impossible offensive positions that were just meant to maintain control and not advance the fight.

Do you have the answer. I do not have the technical or practical knowledge to confirm or deny, but I think it is an important point to determine.

 

[BlackStrap]

Luke is such libtard, so annoying.

Whatever, but beyond name calling, I am curious about the validity of his point, i.e. was Khamzat just wrestling to win? Were the majority of his positions (crucifix excepted) mechanically impossible offensive positions that were just meant to maintain control and not advance the fight.

 

[BlackStrap]

i have not seen the video but to me it seems Luke is talking out of his ass.
chimaev had him multiple times in a CRUCIFIX. there are not many positions better to finish a fight. DDP held on for dear life. there were several submission attempts also, from different positions, including the crucific, also on ddp's back etc.
this my dear friend is just plain bullshit....it is looking for a weakness or something to critique. this was the same during khabibs wins.....he would get hit 1 time and analysts would act that he is vulnerable and has bad defense bla bla bla

khamzat was definately not sttalling/'just neutralizing ddp'...he advanced his positions every round either from side control to crucifix....or sometimes extra steps...from guard/to half guard/to side control/to crucifix. or DDP turned and gave him his back and khamzat would try to choke him from there. It is not khamzats fault that DDP was not willing to try to get up or go for damage/submissions himself. Doesnt mean Khamzat wasnt advancing his position or trying wo win....he was doing more than 'neutralizing ddp', but he is also not stupid to take unnecessary risks and give DDP a chance to get back in the fight.

Khamzat fought relentless but smart. Luke is a moron, always has been imo.

Your response was the only one that spoke directly to the issue. I think that's the right read. I was not sure whether I lacked some technical/experiential knowledge that prevented me from understanding what was going on, beyond what I wanted to see (I expected the result, and therefore was fully on board).

I also saw his domination as offensive and did not see a boring lay and pray match. I saw DDP hanging on for dear life, and doing fantastically... considering how badly he was being dominated. He escaped without being subbed, which is to his credit, and almost scraped away with what would have been a Silva-esque last minute finish- which would have been the most legendary moment in mma. Alas, Khamzat is not Sonnen, and there was no way he would have gotten himself caught. Khamzat was dominant, smart, and dangerous.

With that, I think it'll be my first and last Luke Thomas video.

 

[chillyoo]

Khazmat dominated no doubt about it.

But I was at a party and no one cared for that main event. That means something.

 

[AL-Tappo McSnappo]

Whatever, but beyond name calling, I am curious about the validity of his point, i.e. was Khamzat just wrestling to win? Were the majority of his positions (crucifix excepted) mechanically impossible offensive positions that were just meant to maintain control and not advance the fight.

Khamzat was trying to finish DDP was doing a great job just surviving, the stand up possibly saved DDP from getting finished because he looked like he was breaking to me.
Luke is just butthurt because he thought it was going to be a close fight.

 

[fzoid4454]

I watched this video from Luke Thomas, who I have previously avoided (because he is annoying), and he made what I thought was a very good point about the match: Khamzat's control was almost entirely for the sake of neutralizing DDP, and was not/could not have been with the intent to actually win the fight.

CAVEAT: I am differing to his expertise, because frankly this went way over my head when I was watching, and I simply do not have the experience to know whether what he said is accurate- as far as what is and is not possible for an athlete at that level.

The reason he says Khamzat's control was entirely for the sake of neutralizing DDP, and not for the sake of trying to win the fight is because the unified rules of MMA (judging criteria) emphasize that a fighter needs to "to advance to a position to finish the fight". Luke Thomas claims that mechanically Khamzat could not have been trying to "advance to a position to finish the fight" because it was mechanically impossible from the majority of his positions (chest to front, chest to back, knees on ground).

He also added some anecdotal evidence relating to corner directions, including Khamzat asking for permission to stand with DDP or attempt a submission- which is neither here nor there in my opinion.

[Those are the cliffs, Luke talks for nearly 20 mins, but that's all he actually says- other than "I'm right"]

Point being, I am one of those people who felt that his domination, and the style of his domination, was sufficient. Looking at the ruleset, and with more insight as to Luke's view on Khamzat's approach (remember my CAVEAT), I am now reconsidering my position.

It was cool to see the control, but in light of the unified rules, the casual fans, and the Just Bleed God hardcore fans, I wonder whether Khamzat's strategy is a bigger problem than I initially took it to be.

A fight is a necessarily risky undertaking. At a certain point, an excessively risk averse approach is not really fighting. Beyond simply standing fighters up, should there be more significant penalties for stalling a fight, and if so, perhaps Khamzat should not be the champion (in that manner). That is my question, notwithstanding my feeling that Khamzat is a MUCH better fighter than DDP, and that he should be champion.

Well, once you have someone in a crucifix, what "better" position is there to advance to? Sounds like he got too caught up in semantics.

DDP also had a mandate to try and improve his position, ESPECIALLY since he was losing. He didn't.

 

[maximus__]

This is sort of what I was asking about- the last part: "allowing people to just wrestle to win...reward the offensive fighter".

So far, everyone seems to be very much on the same page, but none of the responses that I see yet speak to the specific technical question: was Khamzat just wrestling to win? Were the majority of his positions (crucifix excepted) mechanically impossible offensive positions that were just meant to maintain control and not advance the fight.

He transitioned to places that in MMA tradiionally lead to finishes, bit in wrestling are used to pin or control. It's similar to what people do on the back with a body triangle.

Positions like the crucifix or back traditionally lead to finishes because you need to perform such big actions to escape that you option something up. DDP did that and Khamzat just continued to control him instead of attenpting finishes from those positions.

He still wins, but he did it via control as opposed to fight ending offence. Effectively they could have been there for hours and it would have just come down to who got tired first before we ever saw a finish.

 

[chs140]

I feel that, but also, that's all ad hominem. My question was whether his point was fair: was Khamzat just wrestling to win? Were the majority of his positions (crucifix excepted) mechanically impossible offensive positions that were just meant to maintain control and not advance the fight.

Do you have the answer. I do not have the technical or practical knowledge to confirm or deny, but I think it is an important point to determine.

He was in decent position to attack a bit more. But ddp was so turtled up, waiting the time out, that it wouldn't have made sense for him to risk trying to open up the offense so ddp could escape.
The blame for the fight goes to ddp for not trying to advance back to his feet.
Thomas just didnt get what he wanted, so he's crying, as per usual.

 

[gibson5413]

 

[wwkirk]

Is that Holly Holm?

 

[burningspear]

Yes he reveals some uncomfortable truths.

 

[Captain Herb]

Is that Holly Holm?

And Jones wearing a woman's jacket

 

[gibson5413]

Is that Holly Holm?

Yeppers

 

[josh345]

I mean it was like 50-41 lmao. What more could he do outside of a finish. He almost got the finish in round 3. That was a dominant round.

It was like some of GSPs title defenses. Not always posturing up to deliver heavy strikes but still a complete mauling. Showed a lot of maturity on khamzat to not blow his wad and I was very impressed.

 

[JBJ was here]

Well, once you have someone in a crucifix, what "better" position is there to advance to? Sounds like he got too caught up in semantics.

What makes the crucifix a dominant position is that it's a great position for doing damage and breaking arms. If you're not going to try to do any damage or break an arm, just about any position is better for maintaining control, unless, of course, your opponent isn't bothering to try to escape control.