What Does It Mean To Beat The Champion?
(Photo courtesy of Sherdog)
Juanito Ibarro is mad. Quinton “Rampage” Jackson’s trainer told Sherdog that his fighter “was robbed” on Saturday night. He even plans to protest the decision — one of those great and entirely symbolic acts on par with kicking dirt on the umpire’s shoes or voting for a third party presidential candidate.
At the heart of Ibarra’s complaints, it seems, are two points: 1) the first round should have belonged to Jackson on every judge’s scorecard, perhaps even as a 10-8 round, since the most significant action of the round was a knockdown from his right uppercut, and 2) you have to beat the champion.
On the first point, Ibarra has something of a case. Calling it 10-8 for Jackson is a stretch, but knocking Griffin down in a round that saw no other major action should be enough to win the opening frame. On the second point, well, this is where it begins to get tricky.
The conventional wisdom in the fight game says that you can’t win the title with a close decision. You have to go out and really take it away from the champion, either by finishing him or absolutely dominating him. Griffin didn’t do that. Whether you think the decision was the right one or not, the fight was certainly very close. But should the title change hands via razor-thin decision?
The question really asks us to consider whether there should be a different judging criteria for championship fights than the one we use in non-title bouts. This would mean that as they sit watching the fight at cageside, judges would be expected to take into account that there’s a belt on the line. As a result the challenger would need to do more to win than in any other fight.
It’s a strange logic, and one that privileges the champion a little too much. It’s easy to see where it comes from. Watching the title change hands on a close decision is always going to be unsatisfying, mainly because any close decision is going to upset someone.
But that doesn’t mean that the champion should necessarily get the advantage in any close contest. That makes him an incumbent who can hang on to his title as long he doesn’t get demolished. That will lead to champs who fight not to lose. It will also lead to challengers who are forced to fight with a sense of desperation.
The irony is that the champion is the guy who should require the least help from the judges. He’s supposed to be the best in the division, so why can’t he win on a level playing field?
As much as I can understand Ibarra’s frustration with how the bout was scored, the outcome seems justified, though the scoring of it also seems like a good indicator that MMA judges don’t always know how to translate what they see in the cage onto their ten-point must system score cards. When no one knows for sure what a 10-8 round really looks like in MMA, trouble is always right around the corner. Asking judges to take into account who is the champion and who the challenger is essentially asking them to change the rules based on the situation.
It may feel right to insist that you have to really take the title from the champ, but I don’t think it’s something we really want to see in practice. A bad decision will always be a bad decision, no matter who benefits from it. Just like a close decision will always leave someone feeling like they were robbed.
(-Ben Fowlkes)
EMAIL THIS
DIGG THIS
Loading ...
July 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
i dont think griffen did enough to take the belt away, rampage was throwing landed several big punches, griffen looked beat up at the end of the fight, an immediate rematch should take place. tomarrow!!!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Nice post, Ben. I think it would equally “reasonable” to argue that, if the circumstances matter, the champion should be held to a higher standard and required to deliver an extraordinary effort to defend a belt. If the circumstances should be considered on a judge’s scoring card… I don’t think it should.
The thing here is, robbed is a poor choice of words, even Juanito knows that, he’s just sticking up for his boy. Anyone looking with any amount of objectivity at that fight saw a very close contest. And when a close contest goes to the cards, it’s a sticky situation for either fighter. But to say Jackson was robbed, even if you felt two of the three razor thin rounds should have gone to him over Forrest, calling it a robbery is overstating the case. It was a close decision, Forrest’s octagon control scored him the win in the judge’s eyes, and it’s time to move on. Either way that fight went on the judge’s cards, we would be having this same controversy, just with the names flipped.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Ben Fowlkes makes an excellent point when he says, “He’s supposed to be the best in the division”… EXACTLY!!! It’s so odd that Rampage could finish Liddell. Liddell was able to finish plenty of people, proving he was a great champion. Rampage hasn’t finished anyone during his reign.
Another perfect, current day example is, Anderson Silva, that man has proven over and over what a champion is supposed to do (or any fighter) and is… Silva has no intentions on leaving his fights up to the judges.
It really sucks for anyone who loses over a decision and sometimes leads for a boring fight (i.e. Cote vs. Almeida), but let’s face it, it’s the oldest saying “do no leave it up to the judges to decide”
Fighter’s should learn from their loss and try not to repeat it, plain and simple. Either way it was an entertaining fight.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Rampage will be on top again. Being a huge fan of Rampage makes the loss tough to swallow, especially since it went to a decision. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but like I have read in a few blogs. It seems that the UFC really wanted Forrest to win and with the fight in the judges hands they had the ability to make that happen. Not to take anything away from Forrest because he can take a beating and it was a great fight, but I am just stating my opinion. Ben Fowlkes always writes great stuff.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
If you dont want to lose your belt or title than put the other guy away.
What are we now supposed to hold the hands or title fighter cause they had an off night? Get real …. if your the supposed best in your division than you shouldnt need to go to the score card. If you cant put down a challanger in 5 rounds than you should be able to lose your belt via close call.
Even Rampage said he lost and you could see it on his face before the call was even made. Juanito Ibarro is just pissed off cause of all the talking he did about how there was no way they were going to lose this fight. This is what makes re-matches so good, if it was not for close fights would we have had Ali vs. Frazier 2 or Ward vs Gatti 2?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I would love to read interviews with the judges, particular if they scored the first for Griffin. As I commented before I had it as a draw, but I could see the decision going to Forest.
I just checked fight metric, and they also score it a draw. I just want to understand the “why” of it all, for my own knowledge as fan but I’d also like the fighters to have a clearer picture of what they need to do to win, when they can’t finish.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Personally, I agree with Ibarra. Maybe not on the 10-8 thing, but Rampage clearly won the first round. I also believe he won the 3rd and 4th rounds. The triangle was a close one, but rather than getting into trouble Rampage tried to turn it into a slam, which pretty much negates the triangle.
Griffin won the 2nd and 5th rounds, and the 2nd may have been a 10-8.
So, at best it was a draw, and you have to beat the champ to take the strap.
Rampage did get ripped off, but it’ll only be a true robbery if he doesn’t get his rematch.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:44 am
To beat the champ, you have to destroy the champ!!!! I could of sworn Lyoto Machida was in the ring with Rampage lol.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
When will we see the ten point must system banished from MMA competition? To say that EVERY round of that fight had a clear victor is just asinine! Sometimes rounds are even, plain and simple. Sure it may lead to more draws, but I also think it would eliminate cheating a fighter that fought well for the first two minutes of the round to have that negated by a late round stealing rush by his opponent. If they fought equally well, score the round as a draw. If necessary, there should be a overtime rounds for championship fights.
MMA is far different than boxing and limiting fights to 5 rounds on a ten point system means a close round can ruin a fight and lead to controversial decisions and leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. Over twelve rounds, more often than not, the dominant fighter starts to become apparent. I think if we would’ve seen another 11 minutes of fighting (the difference between 12 rounds of boxing and 5 of mma) we would’ve seen a clear victor due to Rampage’s superior hands, or Forrest’s effective leg kicks. I don’t think either of them won that fight.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Exactly, when you are champ you need to put people away and defend that title. Your back is against the wall, you have the pressure to put people away before it goes to the judges. Even though I wanted Rampage to win, he did not do enough to stop Forest.
It wasn’t like Forest was runnign from him or not pressing the action, he clearly was standing there and banging with Rampage. So why didn’t Rampage knock him out, why didn’t rampage submit him, why didn’t rampage whoop Forest’s a$$ like he said he would? He didn’t do enough and the judges scored against him plain and simple. Now Juanito Ibarro should take the loss like a man.
He has a good argument about the first round. But “you have to beat the champ” was never in the fight rules and doesn’t hold any water. He knew this coming into the fight, so why is he questioning this now?
July 7th, 2008 at 11:02 am
fivraz- fightmetric score it a draw according to the ten point must be they score it a win for Rampage using their own system, it;s interesting to check out.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
this last UFC card set back mma 5 years. it made Elite XC look good.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Ted Dibiase and you sir are an Ass!
July 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hey I love the UFC, but that card was fookin Shyt mate. i dont think you can disagree with that.
the truth sometimes hurts.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:16 am
juanito is only pissed because he said he would retire if rampage lost, now he has to eat his words or be a man of his word and retire or be a liar and well lie. Forrest did plenty, he executed his gameplan to perfection, stick and move. He, just like everybody else knew he couldnt hurt rampage with his hands. and by the way a 10-8 round looks like round 2. total domination good decision good fight
July 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I think the you have to beat the champ argument is BS. As a few others have pointed out, the champ should have to beat the hell out of the contender. The pressure should not be put on the shoulders of just the contender. Its ridiculous to say that the contender has to beat the champ. With that argument Rampage could go in the ring and just run away from Forrest the whole time and at the end of the fight he would be the winner. If you are the champ get in there and fight the guy and beat him.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
People keep saying that if you’re the champ you’re held to a higher standard….and that’s why Forrest won. That’s a load of crap because it’s just swinging the same argument of “you have to beat the champ in order to take the belt” the other direction. Its the same thing. So Forrest is the champ….in order to be the champ you should knock out, destroy, or whatever word you want to put there to the other guy….so why no ridicule Forrest for not knocking Jackson out since he’s supposedly the best the divison has to offer? Face it, the fight was scored poorly regardless of who you wanted to win….plain and simple. Difference between this poorly judge fight and alot of other poorly judged fight and bad reffed fights is that there was a belt involved. Its a problem and until they find a way to fix it, its only going to get worse. Here lately we’ve seen a lot of things go poorly. UFC AND Elite XC for that matter both are slowly turning into Pride. Its only a matter of time.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am
All I can say is Rampage had the first round with the knockdown, second went to opey aka Forest Gump aka big ears. 3,4,5 all close but Forest did not dominate a hurt rampage a visably hurt rampage
July 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I think the decision was fair. If people really have that much of an issue with the fight there can always be a rematch. Taking the title away from griffin now would be wrong. I say putting both fighters in the cage together again soon and see what happens. If Griffin is the better fighter (which I think he is) then he will win, if not then Jackson is the champ again.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I had the fight a draw. Does anyone else think Rampage was out of shape, and didn’t seem to train for this fight at all? I mean, he looked nothing like the Rampage I know, from the first bell till the end, he looked like a shell of his old self. Stop going to events, and train for your fight, you and the fans would be better off.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
It seems to me that, for the purposes of scoring a title bout, drawing a distinction between the champion and the challenger is irrational. Both fighters, regardless of their status, should be judged using the same metrics, whatever those happen to be. Why should MMA be any different from any other athletic contest? Should the Celtics have to be swept out of the playoffs next year in order to lose their title, simply because they won it in 2008? If the Red Sox make the World Series again this year, does the National League representative have to beat the Sox by an average of four runs a game, just to prove that they deserve to be the champions?
A champion is a champion, regardless of the size of the victory. Forrest defeated the champion. The belt is now his. The problem with MMA is that the victory can be in the hands of judges, rather than the fighters. This is a problem with every athletic contest that doesn’t rely on overt scoring (basketball, baseball, etc.). Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be another way to do it, short of letting the fighters continue until someone gets knocked out or submitted. And that proposal leads to an entirely different set of concerns, mainly regarding the health and safety of the fighters.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:50 am
IM actually surprised to be reading a lot of these posts on here. Did you guys actually watch the same fight that I did? Forrest OUT FOUGHT Rampage. The only time Rampage looked better than Forrest was with the uppercut, and also when Forrest went to take Rampage down, but Rampage ended up on top.
Saturday night Forrest was a much better fighter and in my opinion completly out scored, and out fought Rampage.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:52 am
@Kingsac
Yea Rampage looked like he was off his game, it was due to Forrest’s leg kicks. Rampage lost alot of his striking speed and his ability to shoot for a takedown.
Rampage was also limping out of the ring.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I was definately rooting for rampage the entire time, but even I, a fan, knew tha ass soon as the bell ran after the fifth round, Rampage had lost to a far lesser fighter.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Well written BF, as always. I didn’t see the fight so I can’t say much on that. But I will say this… it’s completely rediculous (idiotic) to say you should have to destroy the champ to get the belt. Either competitor must win, based on a standard set of criteria, unfortunately the criteria (if it goes to decision) is up to subjective judgement in MMA, deal with it. Every fighter knows if you leave it in the judges hands it’s a crap shoot, Rampage has no one to blame but himself for not taking the subjective decision making out of it. Congrats Forrest!
July 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
@ JustinD
Agreed the leg kicks took a lot out of Rampage.
But Rampage LOOKED unprepared prior to the fight even starting. He looked softer, less defined, less muscular, than he has in all of his previous fights.
I saw more of Rampage on TV shows, promoting video games, doing press than ever before. Yes he is a popular fighter now, yes he is a great entertainer, but in the end he is a fighter. You can’t take your opponent lightly, which is what I belive Rampage did, through poor training and what seemed to be no game plan.
As a fight fan, I was disapointed to see Rampage show up unprepared, and look like he didn’t train at all.
I don’t want to make excuses for Rampage, Forrest showed up and did his thing. But I left that fight thinking Rampage didn’t prepare for it at all, even his ho hum response to losing confirmed he didn’t really care that much. Even his no more 9 mo. off break lead me to believe he wasn’t fit at all.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
In this case it looked as if the Champ needed to do more to retain the belt. Easily a draw. No way Griffin won the first, third, or fourth. Rampage is hard on himself so he thought he lost at first because he did not stop Griffin. Does not change the fact that the fight was scored incorrectly. The Champ should never get any special treatment, but should be treated equally. If it was a draw, which it should have been, a rematch would still be great to watch and get just as much attention.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Good point Wyatt, I’m not a fan of the 10 point must system either, we’ve seen fights before where one fighter will dominate a round, but be just shy of a 10-8 round and then next round the other guy wins the round by a razor thin margin and its tied, that makes no sense. Imagine an NBA game where at half time the road team is winning at the half 50 to 49, then the home team comes out in the second half and scores 75 points to the road teams 51 and the final is 125-100, but wait the game is a draw because one team won the first half and the other won the second half. It just wouldn’t make any sense.
As for the Champ being given some advantage where the contender has to do more to take the belt thats only coming up because it was Rampage who is a very popular fighter. Imagine if it was Tim Sylvia with the belt not pushing the action, backing away, only occasionaly throwing a a few punches. I doubt then that people would be saying that the champion should always keep the belt in a close decision.
I agree with the outcome of the Griffin/Jackson fight because Griffing pressed the action and kept the fight at the temp he wanted. The guy moving forward, exposing himself by throwing punches is taking a risk, and I think that should continue to be rewarded on the judge’s score cards.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Ibarra needs to shut up and retire like he said he would if Rampage lost. Also, Rampage said during TUF that he guaranteed the fight with Forrest would not go to a decision. I guess Rampage and Ibarra aren’t men of their word.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Rampage didnt look good in the fight at all. I think the score went down like it should yeah it was close but if you had to give it one of em you give it to forest he clearly wanted it more and he HURT jackson not the other way around. The basic point is that Jackson fans are looking at this fight with a LOT of baggage. some of it is Race related which the stupidest thing I have heard, but most of it comes from they think every time he swings its a ko and it connects. Half the punches missed! they look great for a comicbook or a movie action scene but he MISSED thats why forest didnt get koed this Coach guy needs to grow a pair and just let it go you lost thats it this aint no crap ass cheap sport like boxing dont go and complain thats for all the weak ass boxers who cant fight a real fight if they had to
July 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
This isn’t boxing you can’t call its a 10 - 8 round for just a knockdown. I really do think they need to get a more stable way for calling the fights Because i don’t think round 2 was a 10 - 8 round for Forrest either.
The 2 leg kicks hurt jackson. but other then that what did forrest really do? A few sub attempts and he Hugged him even in the mount. He had the mount for 2 whole minutes and never once postured up to throw any hard punches he just rubbed his forarm in his face. If laying on someone for 4 minutes in a round gets you 10 - 8 then every Round Sean Sherk had against Florian should have been a 10 - 8
Bottom line i had it Jackson 48 - 47 but rounds 3 and 5 were so close i could live with someone having it 48 - 47 Forrest too.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I agree you really can’t call a 10-8 round for a knockdown because then after one fighter gets a decent shot they can just retreat and avoid for the rest of the round, then as long as they don’t get knocked down during the fight they are garunteed not to lose.
Personally I just feel that if your not moving forward you should never complain about losing a decision. If both fighters are pushing the action at every opportunity then we wouldn’t have to worry about decisions.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I like the basketball analogy, Rob.
We’re all preaching to the choir on the 10pt system, it’s a crock. A misjudged round in boxing is nowhere near as influential as a misjudged round in mma.
On topic, do people really think the UFC is better off with Forrest as champ? Quinton was tailor-made to be the UFC posterboy, I can’t see Dana wanting him out.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
#
jesus christ…are people still saying that rampage got robbed?
FOR FUCKS SAKE!
what are the keys to victory in the octagon if the decision goes to the judges?
basically, its this:
dont get ur ass knocked out
dont get ur ass tapped out
maintain octagon control
be the aggressor
heres a recap of what happened:
Round 1:
Forrest was outstriking Jackson the entire time until he got clocked with the uppercut, which almost resulted in a ground and pound stoppage. too bad rampage pulled a brock lesnar and went to the ground with someone who knows how to use their jujitsu to pull guard to avoid ground and pound.
either way, round 1 belonged to rampage just because he landed that haymaker.
Round 2:
Forrest fucks up rampages knee, and takes him down. in side control, punishes rampage with quick elbows to the body and head. rampage’s legs are WIDE open, and lets forrest take the full mount. CLEARLY, forrest damaged rampages leg…and it all went down hill from there. Took full mount, until the round ended.
Forest takes round 2
Round 3:
Forrest is feeling a bit confident, but rampage quickly finds his distance, and lands some nice punches on forrest. however, forrest is still coming back at him even after rampages deadly exchanges, and tries to land the leg kicks.
All in all, id give round 3 to jackson just because i feel he landed the more effective strikes.
Round 4:
Forrest pwnt him this round with leg kicks again, and was clearly the aggressor. rampage still tried to put some hard combinations together, but his knee is gimped, and he doesnt have the speed to stalk forrest when he tags him and backs off. Call forrest a pussy you might, but hes the more intelligent fighter…bring the pressure at rampage, and back off. MAINTAINING OCTAGON CONTROL! oh yeah, not to mention forest got him in a DEEP triangle. and i couldnt help but laugh at that statement earlier by that douche bag that was like “if forest held on he knew what would of happened!” …precisely, THATS WHY HE LET GO OF THE TRIANGLE YOU FUCKING MORON!
round 4 griffin all the way
Round 5:
pretty much the same thing as round 4. forrest pushed the pace the entire time, and all jackson tried to do was put up some combinations.
all in all, rampage didnt do enough to win the fight, so as most of you haters are saying “that you have to beat the champ outright to take his belt”, how did griffin NOT do that? all jackson did was clock him with ONE uppercut, and connect with a few combinations. forest connected with more combinations, maintained octagon control by being the aggressor, had at least 5 different submission attempts, and if you didnt notice, fucked rampages knee up all nasty with leg kicks. so the argument that “rampage landed more punches” doesnt even matter since forrest probably landed more kicks then rampage landed punches…sooo yeah, eat it whore.
rampage didnt get robbed, and he even knows he lost. he admitted it. he even joked about it. if the man that lost ADMITTED he lost, and doesnt claim the contrary, why are all you idiot fucks saying he got robbed?
oh, i know. because:
a) you dont know shit about mma
b) you probably lost a whole lot of money betting on rampage
c) if you saw the fight and STILL think jackson got robbed, then ur just a fucking idiot.
get over it you fucking pussies, the UFC has a new light heavyweight champion, and he has now defeated 2 of the best 205 pounders in the world. to think that this kid DOESNT deserve the belt is just crazy.
congrats forrest, and fuck all of you people who believe this shit is racist. racist my fucking ass. you fuckers dont even know what racism is. people back in the day experienced racism, for example, hanging and killing you just beacuse your black, not letting you take a shit in a public bathroom just because your black, and raping your daughter right in front of you just because youre black. THATS RACISM. not a black mma fighter losing his belt.
eat it whores, we got a new champ.
oh yeah, forgot to mention, forest got a 10-8 in round 2 for total domination.
*insert rampage got robbed comment here*
July 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
We must continue to pound out the words of Ibarra in respect to his retirement if Rampage lost to Griffin. he must retire now, but of course he wont. It would be nice though to rid the cage of that guy and his ulgy ass hat.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
If someone actually spends the time to read the post above me (Jared) you need to get a life
July 7th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
All I know is…
Dana and the Fertittas are engaging in mutual masterbation in the fact that they have a legit… YES LEGIT, Griffin won that fight… Champion from the Ultimate Fighter show.
Also, the 10-must system is a crock for MMA. If there is no knockdown a fight is typically called 10-9… rarely called 10-10. 10-8’s are for if a knockdown occurs. Considering many a takedown happen in MMA, you can’t just keep reducing points or make a call on a 10-8. If you want to give Rampage that credit for the knockdown in the first, which I do, I would have called that first round 9-8 Griffin or even potentially since Forrest was dominating him striking that first round a 9-9 round.
It’s over and pointless sounding off on a message board. Griffin is champ. There will be a rematch and you guys can complain about Griffin getting screwed that time. Then we can have everyone’s favorite Rubber match even further down the line.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Y is every one saying rampage won the first round forrest was the pusher the whole round yea he got caught but just for a slit second and then recoverd in seconds to control jackson in the guard…I was only able to see rounds 1 2 and 5 and forrest one them i havent seen the the other yet…And also look at jacksons face when the were waiting for the word he new he lost that says it…
July 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
funny how many people are defending the fact that the ufc isn’t fixed. remember the good old days in pride, elbows on the ground are gay they just cut ban the ground elbows
July 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Ok so everyone is saying jackson should of beat the hell outta griffin to keep the belt..But did griffin beat the hell outta jackson to win the belt?? I don’t fucking thing so….look at the end of the match, jackson’s face was CLEAN
July 7th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
think*
July 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Forrest was the man on that night. Page i love hime but he fought like he was scared of Forrest. Undoubtable Forrest did more damage , with his sick leg kicks in the first , third and las round. I wouldnt doubt Rampage has MCL?ACL damage after that fight. His knee buckled twice in the first. IMO Page didnt fight like a champ and Forrest made the best and gutted out a well deserved UD
July 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
So I guess some leg kicks and a sub attempt are enough to win a title in Eliteufc. Any decision was obviosly going to forrest no matter what happened in the fight. forrest is the ufcs kimbo.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
lmao I can’t tell the people genuinely criticizing the decision with the trolls.
1. Rampage landed more punches, but Forrest returned and landed alot of his own, it was probably a 3 to 4 ratio for rampage in punches.
2. Rampage didn’t look damaged, but Forrest is notorious for looking damaged. He’s clumsy and cuts easy as hell. Also “Battle Damage” isn’t something that the judges score on, sorry.
3. Forrest probably landed more kicks than Rampage landed punches.
4. Forrest landed like 6 standing knees on Rampages head, another thing Rampage wasn’t able to respond to.
5. Forrest was pushing the pace and being aggressive, Rampage spent most of the fight tentatively stepping backwards with occasional bull rushes with haymakers in the later rounds.
6. Rampage lost legitimately, but they both fought a good fight, stop crying you pussies.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:10 am
With regard to the first round, while I initially thought Rampage took that round I understand giving it to Forrest. People tend to overvalue the big knockout style punch.
Assume for a second that in the second round Forrest gets that take down, works to the mount for the whole round, but then in the last 30 seconds rampage slips a leg in to get half guard and then gets a triangle. Forrest slips out, takes a second to recover and then the round ends. Would anybody give that round to Rampage. I’ve seen tons of fights where one guy is on top, he’s controling the actions, he’s landing shots but he’s not really threatening to end the fight with his ground and pound, the guy on the bottom throws up a few submission which come close, but they lose it and end up in the same bad position. I have never once heard anyone complain after a round like that, that the guy who threw up one submission (which had it been perfect would have won the fight) should get the round.
Its the same thing with the knockout punch (which had it been perfect would have won the fight). If the other fighter escapes it and recovers should that really erase the entire round where they had the better position and were more aggresive.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Good for Juanito. I agree that he knows Rampage lost, any honest fan can say that I think (and I’ve been down with Rampage since Pride, he’s still my #1 guy). The argument for a 10-8 first round is only credible if you scored the second 10-8 for Forrest. Yeah he controlled, but he didn’t do any damage (should’ve been stood up) after the take down. I score both 10-9 myself, can’t see it any other way. Juanito has a point with the second stance as well, but it is just not feasible to judge that way and have consistency (the #1 problem with judges already). I think he is just saying these things to prove how close it was (it should’ve been a split) and b/c Rampage is more than a fighter to him, their relationship is grounded in almost a father and son role. If your son (or daughter) barely lost a fight, wouldn’t you rationalize out loud too? He’s biased, you would be too, that’s all I’m trying to say. If you disagree with his statements say so respectfully, don’t hurl insults at this guy. Juanito is one of the best trainers/coaches out there and has paid more dues in the game than many would care to or even been around long enough to pay.
Great Fight, Rematch in January — RESPECT!
July 8th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Gotta disagree FOF, I think Forrest did do damage from the top. Those short elbows are no fun and could have opened up a cut. He was active throwing shots, he wasn’t looking for a fight ending shot he was just trying to be annoying so that Rampage would block and give him an Americana (which he was working for) or turn and give him a choke.
I just don’t see how you can equate one punch that wasn’t even strong enough to end the fight, with one guy dominating an entire round. In the first round Forrest landed numerous punches and leg kicks, in the second round I don’t think Rampage landed a single offensive blow.