Emyr "Shark" Bussade Knee bar on Lennox

[Pandinha]

Suggesting Lennox should have given up within the 1st minute of the first round on the first attempt - to "tap and fight another day" as FLMikeATT suggests - yes it is becoming absurd.

... approaching a bullshido-esque statement, even.


:smile:

That has nothing to do with your comment that Shark went for an absurd amount of leglock attempts.

Poor strawman attempt Tom, I expected better from you. :)

[Tom Kagan]

That has nothing to do with your comment that Shark went for an absurd amount of leglock attempts.

Poor strawman attempt Tom, I expected better from you. :)

First, I did not say it was an absurd amount. I said it was becoming an absurd amount. IOW - approaching.

Secondly, your red herring of trying to argue that I was talking about technique instead FLMikeATT's comment, is clearly absurd.


:smile:

[Pandinha]

First, I did not say it was an absurd amount. I said it was becoming an absurd amount. IOW - approaching.

Secondly, your red herring of trying to argue that I was talking about technique instead FLMikeATT's comment, is clearly absurd.


:smile:

Lennox had already successfully defended, escaped, and/or reversed what was becoming an absurd number of leg lock attempts by Bussade during that match.

Semantics. So if Shark kept throwing a left hook three times that Lennox kept defending, would that be reaching an absurd number? Your choice of words.

Who's arguing about technique? I'm arguing your choice of the word absurd to define multiple submission attemps is well... Absurd. :)

[It is Fake]

2 knee bar attempts and 1 successful kneebar is not absurd.

I call it 3 plus the break but we can argue that later.


For me successive meant rounds. Don't take absurd as in "He shouldn't do that technique."

Funny you are also creating a strawman.

[Tom Kagan]

Semantics. So if Shark kept throwing a left hook three times that Lennox kept defending, would that be reaching an absurd number? Your choice of words.

If that's all he was throwing and perhaps passing up other opportunities and strategies, perhaps it might be - especially if someone suggests something like "if a {insert stylist here} throws a left hook at you, you might as well go down right there and fight another day."

Who's arguing about technique?

You are.

[Pandinha]

If that's all he was throwing and perhaps passing up other opportunities and strategies, perhaps it might be - especially if someone suggests something like "if a {insert stylist here} throws a left hook at you, you might as well go down right there and fight another day."

That's your argument with Mike. Mine is your post using the word absurd in context to submissions attempt.

You are.

See above. You keep missing the point that going for a technique, whether sub or striking numeroous times is not absurd, especially if it wins the fight.

[It is Fake]

See above. You keep missing the point that going for a technique, whether sub or striking numeroous times is not absurd, especially if it wins the fight.

Oh now I see. I'm speaking for myself but, this is what I thought Tom meant.

You are defining absurd as in "it is silly dumb stupid retarded" on his part to attempt that many subs.

I'm talking absurd amount. Notice I didn't end the sentence with OMG 4 leglock attempts that is absurd.


Yes, there is a difference.

For reference:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Absur...ient=firefox-a
Need an Absurd Amount of Mini Hay Bales?
Co-workers ask an absurd amount of questions.
the absurd amount of cars that i have had

This is what I meant. I have never seen someone work that many leglocks, in a row (IMO), in a MMA match.

Not that the attempts were wrong or unwarranted. It is more holly **** look at all those attempts.

[sambosteve]

Agreed.




How is it naive? Are they not both techniques? Are they both not part of MMA? At the very core, they were both used in that fight as techniques in a fight.




With the talk in this thread of going for a sub attempt that doesn't working absurd. So don't throw a hook or punch because it didn't work the first few times? Assinine.




Again, Mike is proud of his instructor.

It is naive because they are two completely different techniques with two totally different functions. IMO a jab is basically a set up technique, not a finisher like a submission. In fact, oftentimes jabs are not even intended to hit their target...they are intended to close distance set up other strikes, test the waters of your opponent, etc. Thus you see many of them. Not the same for subs, though a good grappler should use ploys...but ploys are different than subs. A sub is intended to end an exchange, not start one like a jab. By their very nature they are different and can't be compared as you have. I don't even know what technique in grappling would equate to a jab, suffice to say that throwing mutiple missed jabs does not equate with multiple missed subs.


I would be proud of my instructor as well...and bragging too prolly. And note my comment that it was not an absurd amount.

[Tom Kagan]

See above. You keep missing the point that going for a technique, whether sub or striking numeroous times is not absurd, especially if it wins the fight.

What? A BJJ blackbelt needed more than one attempt? Absurd.


:hello2:

[Roidie McDouchebag]

I think Anthony and Tom are both becoming absurd.