OldStingberg Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Amp, for the record, I didnt call you the police of the sports world. I said the exact opposite in fact. But whatever, you get yourself as mad as you want. So move on and actually make a real point if you'd like. Or keep sarcastically harping on it. Either way you've worked yourself up into obvious anger over a comment that was taken grossly out of proportion and wasn't at any point meant to be an insult. Don't try and re-define what you said. Everyone knows what you said and what you meant. It wasn't cryptic. It was a relatively harmless little insult the type of which everyone's heard since childhood. So the fact that you're going to the trouble of trying to twist it into something different is baffling. Pro sports aren't safe. They're actually very risky. Adding steroids to the mix is riskier and unhealthier. No argument here. So...why do you want steroids in sports then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Explain to me how I mention him and me in the SAME EXACT instance as was meant as an insult??? Please, I'm begging you, explain that. I was trying to say that neither he nor I knows "whats best" for another adult. THATS the point I was trying to make. No insult. I didn't realize calling someone "police" was an insult since childhood. It should baffle you if I was trying to take away an insult. Because I have never nor would I ever give one crap what anyone on a message board thinks about me personally. I like Amp in general and told him I didn't mean to insult him in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantabulous Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I know exactly how steroids work and have used them myself in the past. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would approve their use in any kind of sport. For the record I was prescribed steroids to help rehabilitate an injury, I didn't take them off my own back. You've massively oversimplified how steriods work, and neglected the many and wide-reaching side effects of their use and abuse. It's all well and good saying that they can reduce recovery time, but that IS NOT NATURAL, therefore ultimately it's bad for your body. Careful, Mr 48; you're making it sound like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Don't be letting the kudos go to your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldStingberg Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Explain to me how I mention him and me in the SAME EXACT instance as was meant as an insult??? Please, I'm begging you, explain that. I was trying to say that neither he nor I knows "whats best" for another adult. THATS he point I was trying to make. No insult. I didn't realize calling someone "police" was an insult since childhood. Quit being a jackass, like I often am. Including yourself in an insult usually doesn't make it any less insulting to the other person. And yeah, it was an insult. It was a mild way to dismiss him, like saying to someone "You're not my mom!" or "Oh, aren't you a know-it-all?" Like I said before, relatively harmless, which is why it's so odd you're being all weird about it. But whatever. This is about as far as I want to go with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Quit being a jackass, like I often am. Including yourself in an insult usually doesn't make it any less insulting to the other person. And yeah, it was an insult. It was a mild way to dismiss him, like saying to someone "You're not my mom!" or "Oh, aren't you a know-it-all?" Like I said before, relatively harmless, which is why it's so odd you're being all weird about it. But whatever. This is about as far as I want to go with this. You are a mentally sick person if you feel that I was saying "You aren't my mom!" to a grown man lol. You honestly have taken a very simple statement and grossly distorted it out of proportion to bizarre levels. You make it say what you want. I don't care anymore either. Back to MMA: I'm not sure if I want Jardine to win tonight. He's been one of my favorite fighters for awhile now. I've always respected his style and attitude towards fighting. As a fan of Jardine's, I root for him to win. However, as a fan of Strikeforce and MMA in general, I kinda hope he doesn't. For one, he arguably doesn't deserve the shot. Secondly, I feel it greatly cheapens that entire organization by having a guy who can't win in the UFC as their champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Careful, Mr 48; you're making it sound like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Don't be letting the kudos go to your head. Too late!! In the space of a week I've become both Mr 48 and a national TV superstar. All I need now is for my lottery numbers to come up tonight and I'm laughing. *checks Lotto* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Jardine is obviously a sheep to throw to the wolves. Of course, there is a chance that it might backfire. We'll see. Lesnar also wasn't really supposed to win, I think, though we'll never know. @ Brashley: congrats on the acknowledgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Jardine is obviously a sheep to throw to the wolves. Of course, there is a chance that it might backfire. We'll see. Lesnar also wasn't really supposed to win, I think, though we'll never know. I always wondered this myself. Dana White threw a TON of money and a relatively long term deal at him. However, I am not sure if his UFC contract was guaranteed or not. I find it hard to believe Dana would allow a relative unknown like Lesnar to make a huge ton of long term money off of his company if he turned out to be a bust. But Lesnar was immediately given tough competition in UFC and never fought a "can". Me knowing what I've learned from UFC's marketing strategies, they always try to find themselves in win/win situations. If he'd lost to any of the first few guys he fought, he'd have given them a ton of exposure and would have made them look great in defeating a giant like him. When he won he became one of their biggest, if not the single biggest, star in the sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Jardine is obviously a sheep to throw to the wolves. Of course, there is a chance that it might backfire. We'll see. Lesnar also wasn't really supposed to win, I think, though we'll never know. @ Brashley: congrats on the acknowledgement. Cheers dude. Joking aside I was actually seriously surprised and humbled that people voted for me. Big style. Its funny with Lesnar...everyone he fought either could have, or did fight in a title bout in their next bout. Herring could have got a shot at Mir, all the rest were title bouts anyway. I don't know that Lesnar was thrown to the wolves as such...I think the UFC were winners either way the Brock/Reem fight went. I think the thing with Lesnar is that he was making so much money, there were never going to be easy fights for him. You can't afford to 'build' a guy who takes a chunk of the PPV money every time he fights; he has to be in 'money' fights to justify his huge contract. That was fine for the UFC, because he'd either be the star or the star maker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Read this re: the Cris Cyborg/PED situation. It's brilliant. http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/7/2690317/rosi-sexton-on-cyborg-now-we-can-all-stop-pretending Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I meant this last fight against Overeem. His debut was probably a coin toss for them, but like you say, it would've turned into a win-win anyhow. They had to attract the pro wrestling fans anyway. I think a large crowd of fanbase kind of overlaps or was 'stolen' from the big E. I mean, look at this board. edit: She is of course right. They should take lessons from cycling, where the policy has evolved a lot, instead of going through the same shit. Adopt the same medical procedures. It will however cause quite the stirrup. Athletes don't like the intrusion on their private life. In order to make this solution succesful, you need to be able to grant your geographical position every day so they can come and 'control' you. Allowing the steroids is more something for in 10 years' time, when people could get bored of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest codey Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I know it was just a grazer, but that flying knee Lawler just did looked cool as hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 I know it was just a grazer, but that flying knee Lawler just did looked cool as hell. Yup. Lawler has some of the best visual finishes in MMA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I know it was just a grazer, but that flying knee Lawler just did looked cool as hell. Yeah. I also liked he set it up. He was doing these jerky movements, and Amagov ducks his head, and then. BAM!!! Flying Spinning Knee! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 http://mmaweekly.com/robbie-lawler-wasnt-actually-throwing-a-flying-knee apparently it was an accident. still looked awesome though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonster Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Mr. 48, you got your UFC Undisputed 3 game yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Mr. 48, you got your UFC Undisputed 3 game yet? Not yet. I'll be gloating about it here as soon as I do, don't worry :-p Also, Bob Sapp vs James Thompson is going down in India! AMAZING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hehe, Bob Sapp. Always a pleasure to watch. NOT! (ok, it is. i kid) Watched the facebook recap of Strikeforce as I forgot all about it, only to see that, once again, there's little output to be had from this event. Its only purpose seemed to be to establish some stars who were already kinda there. The only meaningful fights ended in a... split decision, which isn't exactly worth a lot (not to say is a nightmare for bookers as it begs a rematch). The march strikeforce card that was announced this week is kinda huge compared to the crappy card from yesterday. Strikeforce really needs to change and get some talent injection from the UFC, or it will die a painful death. The women are basically the only thing that makes it somewhat interesting, as it's supposed to be top level competition. Their FW division should be scrapped though, apart from some lone matches, should Carano decide she'd come back again for good, which I doubt at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Watched the facebook recap of Strikeforce as I forgot all about it, only to see that, once again, there's little output to be had from this event. Its only purpose seemed to be to establish some stars who were already kinda there. The only meaningful fights ended in a... split decision, which isn't exactly worth a lot (not to say is a nightmare for bookers as it begs a rematch). No rematches needed. Both the split decisions on the main card were down to pretty appalling judging. Woodley and Saffiedine clearly won their fights. Although if the judge was doing what I think he was - giving a big "F*** you!" to Woodley - then I see where he's coming from. Obviously don't condone it though. There was another judging howler on the prelims, which saw James Terry lose a controversial decision to Nan-Shon Burrell. Bit of an appalling night for judges and officials really. Kim Winslow had two shockers, and even Herb Dean had an arguably late stoppage in the main event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Yeah, saw it in the highlights. I'm all for gender equality, but really, a bad judge is a bad judge. You'd expect women's kindhartedness to actually assist them in this, but... no. Makes it even worse. I'm baffled at White's decision to promote female MMA during his interview, though. Classy of him. Unfortunately the division really needs depth like he said years ago. The only reason that title fight is viable is that there was some sort of twitter war or something that supposedly boosted the matchup (could be a cool new feature for WMMA4), as 4-0 isn't really that good of a record to warrant contention. Don't get me wrong. I actually suspect her to have a really good shot at getting the win. It's just... a win against a major contender would have done so much more. But again, blame it on the lack of depth in the division. It's their own fault. Saturday's event could have used another women's bout. It's not like it costs a whole lot of money as they don't charge a lot at all. I wonder what's keeping Strikeforce from deepening out the division then. You can't expect the divisions to keep on flourishing if there are no fights on the card to warrant longitudinal viability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 I'm baffled at White's decision to promote female MMA during his interview, though. Classy of him. Unfortunately the division really needs depth like he said years ago. The only reason that title fight is viable is that there was some sort of twitter war or something that supposedly boosted the matchup (could be a cool new feature for WMMA4), as 4-0 isn't really that good of a record to warrant contention. Don't get me wrong. I actually suspect her to have a really good shot at getting the win. It's just... a win against a major contender would have done so much more. But again, blame it on the lack of depth in the division. It's their own fault. Saturday's event could have used another women's bout. It's not like it costs a whole lot of money as they don't charge a lot at all. I wonder what's keeping Strikeforce from deepening out the division then. You can't expect the divisions to keep on flourishing if there are no fights on the card to warrant longitudinal viability. It's simple really - Dana White is right, they're aren't that many good female fighters out there. They just don't exist. That's why someone like 4-0 Rousey gets jumped all over because she's above average looking, talks a bit of trash and has a legit background. If I wan't to watch crappy MMA, I can do that anywhere. UFC and Strikeforce have to be somewhat image conscious when they're selling themselves as the 'cream of the crop'. Then need 20-30 good fighters in a division to give it depth, longevity and clear layers of talent. Otherwise they're scraping the barrel and putting garbage fighters on their platforms. It's kind of a Catch 22 though - if the UFC abandons WMMA, it's unlikely to flourish outside the promotion. If it can't flourish outside the promotion - how does it grow to the point that it becomes viable for the UFC to take it on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 So it's true. She's been marketing herself as a 'pretty' face to slither herself into top contention. Devious, yet obviously she has a point, seeing as it worked for Carano, who never really amazed me as a competitor to be honest. You're probably right. I don't really know what the best solution is. If you presuppose talent is evenly distributed (through a Gauss curve) and the amount of 'serious' practitioners is about, what, 10 times less then the male counterpart of the division, you'd think that, when promoting the sport for women athletes, all good ones will eventually gravitate towards Strikeforce in a single division. As male talent is currently available outside of Zuffa's reach, it won't be THAT hard to find somewhat decent fighters who are willing to dedicate themselves to the sport. But for that to happen, you need to boost it. It needs credibility for the women themselves to gain access to the better training platforms. And finally they would need to behave like a predator, scouring every promotion for the best and uniting them all under one banner. So as far as I'm concerned, Strikeforce needs to take a shot to the mouth and employ some below-average fighters in order to improve the division in a long term plan to make it viable somewhere in the (near?) future. They don't really have that much to lose, right? Some fights they stage don't really give me the impression the fighters are MMA gods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shape Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Dana sounding confident about the prospects in New York...Jones vs. Rashad in MSG later in the year could be amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btorrie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 When Zuffa wanted to expand its 135/45 divisions (and 125 really) they ran those divisions on TUF. What about a Womens TUF? - might be an "interesting" show, good way to develop new talent and perhaps give some of the ladies - Meisha Tate/Sarah Kaufman etc - exposure as coaches. Might also lead to the UFC expanding its demographic and increase its female viewers/fan base. Really not sure it would work, but its something Zuffa has done previously and would at least be an interesting experiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's because Ronda's smart and ambitious-she knows what the UFC wants, and she's giving it to them. She's claiming to the best of the best AND she's good looking. On paper, Kaufman should have received the shot. But rather than just her looks, she has the charisma of a paper bag. I know that shouldn't count much, but when the top brass are looking for reasons to push something that some are fervently against to begin with (not me), it's better to have it, rather than not. Besides, I think Rousey is smart enough to know that, to maximize her own exposure and money, she had to fight Tate before Kaufman. Kaufman's a lot stronger than Tate is, and probably has good as if, not equal, wrestling, and has much better stand-up. I can't see Tate taking Kaufman down. Rousey fighting Kaufman wouldn't benefit Rousey, nor would it benefit Rousey to fight Tate if Tate lost. Kaufman's going to get her shot sooner rather than later, even though I think she have received it by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.