Tapology Forums
UFC 244: Jorge Masvidal VS Nate Diaz - Stoppage Due to cuts controversy
Anonymous Mode
You are not logged in to Tapology. When browsing anonymously, profanities and images are automatically removed from the forum.
11.04.2019 | 12:22 AM ET
Fans are upset at the decision questioning "why the fight was stopped?" and are also upset being Nate Diaz is used to being cut plus his style is based on taking fighters into deep waters by utilizing his relentless pace and almost endless barrage of Boxing combinations to finish his opponents. If not then he may just find succsess for his BJJ and tap his opponent's out late in the fight. This argument is somewhat plausible but I don't agree
It's my honest humble opinion that one way or another if that fight went on Jorge Masvidal would've still beat Nate Diaz. His strategy was working well. He was able to punch his way into a clinch and make Diaz work while conserving his own energy. His rear body roundhouse kicks were devistating and body uppercuts really took there toll asside from the knockdowns he had.
I don't believe it would've been any different. In fact I firmly believe if Diaz opened up more to push the pace he would've hit highly potential risk of being rocked and or put away like what happened in the earlier rounds.
What do you think?
"Adorable little tough guy" - loudenSwain aka the sus gay bottom drunk guy
Responses
11.04.2019 | 2:27 AM ET
George was winning yes, but when the baddest mutha f*cka belt is on the line, a cut stoppage pours vinegar into that sweet sweet wine. Bad taste all round. Am left wondering if Nate could have fought back to a draw or pulled off a late sub.
"You're all my children, I'll discipline you how I feel" Massabruce
11.04.2019 | 8:10 AM ET
Fans need to stop thinking about only what they want fights to look like, and they need to start thinking about fighter safety.
* Edited at 11.04.2019, 10:08 AM ET *
11.04.2019 | 4:45 PM ET
Look, the reality is Nate got the **** beaten out of him. Two of those rounds were 10-8's. While you can't rule out a late sub you also can't rule out getting killed by a falling safe on your daily commute to work. Nate wasn't going to win that fight. Jorge had an answer for everything, and he wasn't gassed.
This user is suspended from posting until 8 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 58 minutes from now.
11.05.2019 | 1:49 PM ET
Nate admitted he wasn't 100% that he needed six months so in this fight he would lost and taken damage for nothing. The real issue is the ref shoulda had it checked when he stood them up. Shoulda been a no contest... Rematch!!!
11.05.2019 | 3:11 PM ET
He's a Diaz. They always have excuses. Ask Nick and he'll tell you he's never lost a fight. Nate said the same thing after the second Mcgregor fight, and blamed the decision on the fact he didn't have Nick in his corner and a rib injury.
They're just goons.
They're just goons.
This user is suspended from posting until 8 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 58 minutes from now.
11.05.2019 | 5:33 PM ET
That's another argument I've seen and it's not one that makes sense either. The BMF belt was premoted to show who of which is the badest but it was never stated that it would have it's own rules and regulations for it.
The doctor that stopped the fight had a good reason to. Those gashes were almost deep enough to expose skull and could've been opened up even more.
Some fans love to act like they come from a warrior background and know what decision should've been made. This is a weird problem where the UFC tried to promote two street fighters as street fighters for a belt made for such but still have them bound by rules. That would be the fault of athetic commissions if people are unhappy with rules for sports. You want a sport then it needs safety rules otherwise it will be deemed illegal (basically speaking).
The doctor that stopped the fight had a good reason to. Those gashes were almost deep enough to expose skull and could've been opened up even more.
Some fans love to act like they come from a warrior background and know what decision should've been made. This is a weird problem where the UFC tried to promote two street fighters as street fighters for a belt made for such but still have them bound by rules. That would be the fault of athetic commissions if people are unhappy with rules for sports. You want a sport then it needs safety rules otherwise it will be deemed illegal (basically speaking).
"Adorable little tough guy" - loudenSwain aka the sus gay bottom drunk guy
11.05.2019 | 6:06 PM ET
I said it in the event thread right after it happened but I’ll reiterate... Nate got whooped.
Sure it’s possible he’d come back but lie fish said he always has an excuse. It’s part of what I like about him, he believes he’s in it to the end. That’s commendable, sure.
That said, the bottom of the line, top of the line, middle line..thee entire ******* line, Nate got worked. Jorge is the true G.
Down the road I’d be ok with them throwing again but right now, Masvidal has earned bigger and better fights.
Sure it’s possible he’d come back but lie fish said he always has an excuse. It’s part of what I like about him, he believes he’s in it to the end. That’s commendable, sure.
That said, the bottom of the line, top of the line, middle line..thee entire ******* line, Nate got worked. Jorge is the true G.
Down the road I’d be ok with them throwing again but right now, Masvidal has earned bigger and better fights.
"This is Prize-Fighting, IDGAF about your family or your problems - MassaBruce"
11.05.2019 | 6:23 PM ET
^ This. Nate still thinks he won the second Mcgregor fight despite getting ten-eighted in rounds 1 and 2. I ******* can't stand him TBH. Yeah he's a live dog and game, but the reality is he just homer-simpsons his way to victory. He has a chin and a gas tank. That's it. His plan in the Masvidal fight was the same as it was in the Mcgregor fight, which is to let his opponent gas out through letting them punch him in the face, then fall on them and sink in a choke when they're burned. That's why the Mcgregor fights looked just like the Masvidal fight. Difference is, Jorge wasn't going anywhere.
* Edited at 11.05.2019, 6:27 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 8 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 58 minutes from now.
11.05.2019 | 6:45 PM ET
there were no 10-8 rounds in the second diaz/mcgregor fight
"you dont need religion to have morals. if you can't tell right from wrong you lack empathy and humanity, not religion."
11.05.2019 | 6:51 PM ET
Not even the first where he got dropped on his ass twice?
Be real phil.
Be real phil.
This user is suspended from posting until 8 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 58 minutes from now.
11.05.2019 | 8:11 PM ET
i know you think you are gods gift to mma judging , but you're not. 2 flash knock downs dont make a 10-8 round, sorry. to get 10-8 you have to dominate the entire round didnt happen anywhere in that fight. both fighters scored big in all five rounds.
"you dont need religion to have morals. if you can't tell right from wrong you lack empathy and humanity, not religion."
11.05.2019 | 8:48 PM ET
All you've done is prove that you still don't know how MMA is judged, and you still haven't read the criteria. 'Dominating' the round isn't actually the primary criteria; immediate damage is--that is, the most visible damage which appears to draw the fight closer to a finish.
And before you try and argue with me, here's the criteria.
PRIORITIZED CRITERIA: Effective Striking/Grappling “Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact.
http://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/juding_criteriascoring_rev0816.pdf
It says verbatim that immediate impact is always weighed more heavily than the cumulative. In fact, it also goes on to say that the cumulative can only be considered a deciding factor if the primary criteria isn't met. Striking is always more heavily weighted than grappling. Getting floored twice in a round is at least 10-8 round. Let's move on to what constitutes a 10-8 round, since you don't understand that either.
A 10 – 8 Round in MMA is where one fighter wins the round by a large margin. A 10 – 8 round in MMA is not the most common score a judge will render, but it is absolutely essential to the evolution of the sport and the fairness to the fighters that judges understand and effectively utilize the score of 10 – 8. A score of 10 – 8 does not require a fighter to dominate their opponent for 5 minutes of a round. The score of 10 – 8 is utilized by the judge when the judge sees verifiable actions on the part of either fighter.
So you're literally as wrong as it is possible to be. 'verifiable action' is damage; and the best way of measuring damage, the kind which is that which draws the fight closer to a finish, are knockdowns. Judges do not discriminate between 'flash' knockdowns and...well, whatever the opposite of these are, because doing this is effectively impossible. They score knockdowns as knockdowns.
Long and short of it is Phil, you think you know how MMA is judged, but you don't. Your concept of that is not based on the criteria. It's just your opinion. If the round we're talking about wasn't a 10-8, it was 10-7.
I didn't write the criteria, and I don't necessarily agree with it. But don't tell me I don't know more about that you, because I do. Clearly. I took the time to learn it and you didn't. If you disagree with what I've written here, you're ********. Because all I'm doing is recanting the judging criteria that exists. You might as well try and argue that when you throw a rock and falls down to Earth, this isn't because of Gravity. I didn't create the system that's in place. That doesn't mean I can't understand it.
Save yourself getting **** rubbed in your face and read it, you ******* slob.
And before you try and argue with me, here's the criteria.
PRIORITIZED CRITERIA: Effective Striking/Grappling “Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact.
http://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/juding_criteriascoring_rev0816.pdf
It says verbatim that immediate impact is always weighed more heavily than the cumulative. In fact, it also goes on to say that the cumulative can only be considered a deciding factor if the primary criteria isn't met. Striking is always more heavily weighted than grappling. Getting floored twice in a round is at least 10-8 round. Let's move on to what constitutes a 10-8 round, since you don't understand that either.
A 10 – 8 Round in MMA is where one fighter wins the round by a large margin. A 10 – 8 round in MMA is not the most common score a judge will render, but it is absolutely essential to the evolution of the sport and the fairness to the fighters that judges understand and effectively utilize the score of 10 – 8. A score of 10 – 8 does not require a fighter to dominate their opponent for 5 minutes of a round. The score of 10 – 8 is utilized by the judge when the judge sees verifiable actions on the part of either fighter.
So you're literally as wrong as it is possible to be. 'verifiable action' is damage; and the best way of measuring damage, the kind which is that which draws the fight closer to a finish, are knockdowns. Judges do not discriminate between 'flash' knockdowns and...well, whatever the opposite of these are, because doing this is effectively impossible. They score knockdowns as knockdowns.
Long and short of it is Phil, you think you know how MMA is judged, but you don't. Your concept of that is not based on the criteria. It's just your opinion. If the round we're talking about wasn't a 10-8, it was 10-7.
I didn't write the criteria, and I don't necessarily agree with it. But don't tell me I don't know more about that you, because I do. Clearly. I took the time to learn it and you didn't. If you disagree with what I've written here, you're ********. Because all I'm doing is recanting the judging criteria that exists. You might as well try and argue that when you throw a rock and falls down to Earth, this isn't because of Gravity. I didn't create the system that's in place. That doesn't mean I can't understand it.
Save yourself getting **** rubbed in your face and read it, you ******* slob.
* Edited at 11.05.2019, 9:05 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 8 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 58 minutes from now.
11.05.2019 | 9:00 PM ET
ive read everything you have, its all subjective to the eye of the watcher, its supposed to be objective but it will never be as long as human beings are involved. the fact that you hate nate diaz and call him homer simpson has nothing to do with how you view that fight? you make me laugh.
"you dont need religion to have morals. if you can't tell right from wrong you lack empathy and humanity, not religion."
11.05.2019 | 9:08 PM ET
No you haven't, because if you had you wouldn't be persisting with this ridiculousness. And No. It doesn't. I hate mcgregor and picked Nate both fights. Every time I see Mcgregor fight I'm hoping he gets mercilessly ass****d. I'll be hoping Cerrone torches him.
Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you and then he kneelsHe crosses himself and then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice, he asks you how it feels
And he says, "Here is your throat back, thanks for the loan"
And you know something is happening but you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?
Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you and then he kneelsHe crosses himself and then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice, he asks you how it feels
And he says, "Here is your throat back, thanks for the loan"
And you know something is happening but you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?
* Edited at 11.05.2019, 9:09 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 8 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 58 minutes from now.
11.05.2019 | 9:16 PM ET
i stand by my original statement, there were no 10-8 rounds in the 2nd mcgregor/diaz fight. if you think that quote, who ever it is and where ever it came from changes anything you are wrong again. and just so you know, since it seems to matter to you, im not the one down voting you.
"you dont need religion to have morals. if you can't tell right from wrong you lack empathy and humanity, not religion."
11.05.2019 | 9:21 PM ET
And you're entitled to believe that in the same way that you are entitled to believe that there's an invisible sex fairy living in your garage that dispenses blowjobs and briskets for you on demand, but she only makes herself interactable with you, personally. But that doesn't make it reality.
Two knockdowns in a round is either a 10-8 or 10-7. The fact that you believe the damage he took didn't affect the trajectory of the fight doesn't mean anything, because that's unknowable. All you, or I, or the judges can measure through sensory input is the appearance of damage within a round.
Here's what I can do and you can't; agree with a decision based on the criteria, but still think the winner didn't win the fight.
Two knockdowns in a round is either a 10-8 or 10-7. The fact that you believe the damage he took didn't affect the trajectory of the fight doesn't mean anything, because that's unknowable. All you, or I, or the judges can measure through sensory input is the appearance of damage within a round.
Here's what I can do and you can't; agree with a decision based on the criteria, but still think the winner didn't win the fight.
* Edited at 11.05.2019, 9:30 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 8 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 58 minutes from now.
11.05.2019 | 10:01 PM ET
you are nothing but an ******* troll **** you. no one can disagree with you without getting called names so just **** off. you arent bruce and never will be.
"you dont need religion to have morals. if you can't tell right from wrong you lack empathy and humanity, not religion."
11.06.2019 | 12:28 AM ET
True on both counts. There'll never be another Bruce. One of god's prototypes never going into mass production. That doesn't make the judging criteria different, and it also doesn't change that two knockdowns in a round is at least a 10-8 round. And I disagree with people all the time on this forum without it leading to conflict. You chose to make a snide remark, couldn't back it up, got exposed by your lack of knowledge and have decided to throw a ****fit because you can't handle it and came off badly in the exchange. At literally no point throughout this entire thing did you make a single valid argument as to why I was wrong other than 'it's all subjective', which isn't one at all. By that logic you could have scored RDA vs Pettis for Pettis.
Grow the **** up.
Grow the **** up.
* Edited at 11.06.2019, 12:47 AM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 8 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, and 58 minutes from now.
11.06.2019 | 4:54 AM ET
your problem is pretty simple really, you have a bad case of diarrhea of the key board. the only thing that comes out of it is the drizzling ****s. and you still dont know more than me or anyone else on this site about mma judging. you need to accept that fact and quit clogging the forums with that blah-blah-blah-blah that you spew constantly. i for one am tired of it.
"you dont need religion to have morals. if you can't tell right from wrong you lack empathy and humanity, not religion."
11.06.2019 | 5:15 AM ET
one last thought and im finished with this conversation. there is no way in a million years you will ever, ever, ever convince me that you know more than i do about judging an mma fight. so theres no point in trying any longer, just give up, you're beating a dead horse.
"you dont need religion to have morals. if you can't tell right from wrong you lack empathy and humanity, not religion."