Thread: TUF 6
2/26/2005 2:50pm, #111
It's a contest to determine who's the better, not more exciting fighter. Changing the rules to benefit the most exciting fighter would make it XMA.
2/26/2005 3:26pm, #112
What's wrong with XMA? ;)"I had once talked to Billy Conn, the boxer, about professionals versus amateurs - specifically street fighters. One had always heard rumors of champions being taken out by back-alley fighters. Conn was scornful. "Aw, it's like hitting a girl," he said. "They're nothing."
- George Plimpton
2/27/2005 9:36pm, #113
"We're going to have to agree to disagree on this."
"A successful takedown to me is the same thing as a good jab... both set up the opponent for you to do damage, and both impose your will on the other guy."
Unless you aren't trying to defend the takedown, right? Cause I've fought many guys who I desperatly want to take me down.When you takedown Matt Serra or Nogi did you impose your will on them? Or did they manipulate you into screwing yourself over?
Yes, in this case Josh was imposing his will on the TD's.Then again I guess for every second Leben was standing he was imposing his will on Josh.Not that I know what "imposing your will" is supposed to mean.It's a fight.It's about damage not will.
"If Josh K had KO'd Chris with his takedown ala Tito Ortiz vs. Evan Tanner or Frank Shamrock vs. Igor Zinoviev, we wouldn't be talking about this."
And if Leben had landed his right clean we wouldnt either.But he did no damage with it.So I think giving him credit for it would be odd.This is not a video game.Not a hypothetical fight where we should speak of "ould have" and vague ideas as to whats imposing your will and whats an advantage.It is a fight.The guy that taps out or failling that...the gut that takes the most damage loses.If no one takes damage then the one that fought more defensively loses in my book.
"A takedown is an offensive move"
I didn't see it that way.I saw Joshs takedowns as instigated by his thinking "I better try takedowns,so I can lie on him, cause if we stay standing im gonna get creamed."
"and Josh K. had more offensive success than Chris Leben in that fight."
I didn't see that part.
Ok, I reluctantly accept this agreement to disagree.
But one thing I think we can agree on is that no right thinking person would pay a dime to see josh "fight" anytime soon.
2/27/2005 10:31pm, #114
Polefighter raised a good idea about Leben "replacing" Nate, but honestly? That just would be a wuss-out.
I think it's probably a bigger draw to put Leben and Josh on an undercard in a future UFC.Regards,
"Na'h, they should go to old school rules.
One guy gets sword and sheild, the other gets a net and a trident.
Lions eat christians between rounds." - Strong Machine