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
"You're all my children, I'll discipline you how I feel" Massabruce
11.04.2019 | 8:10 AM ET
* Edited at 11.04.2019, 10:08 AM ET *
11.04.2019 | 4:45 PM ET
11.05.2019 | 1:49 PM ET
11.05.2019 | 3:11 PM ET
They're just goons.
11.05.2019 | 5:33 PM ET
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
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
* Edited at 11.05.2019, 6:27 PM ET *
11.05.2019 | 6:45 PM ET
"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
Be real phil.
11.05.2019 | 8:11 PM ET
"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
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 *
11.05.2019 | 9:00 PM ET
"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
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 *
11.05.2019 | 9:16 PM ET
"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
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 *
11.05.2019 | 10:01 PM ET
"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
Grow the **** up.
* Edited at 11.06.2019, 12:47 AM ET *
11.06.2019 | 4:54 AM ET
"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
"you dont need religion to have morals. if you can't tell right from wrong you lack empathy and humanity, not religion."