July 7, 200818 yr I think Rampage won round 3, 10-9. He put Forrest on the ground, hit him with punches and nearly power-bombed him when breakin the triangle. If I'm not mistaken, Forrest pulled guard, Rampage didn't take him down. Also, he didn't land a lot of punches. Forrests submission attempt earns points as well IMO.
July 7, 200818 yr Limping and being almost knocked out are two different things. A man whose leg is hurt can still hurt you, but one who is knocked senseless has little to no chance of defending himself. All in all, difference in opinion I guess, but that's just the way I look at it. Who says Forrest was almost KO'd? If you watch the fight over you can tell he kept his composure the entire time. He may have been rocked but he wasn't that close to being knocked out. Forrest dominated the 2nd round CLEARLY. He may have been winning round 1 up until the knock down.
July 7, 200818 yr I love when a fight is good and so close that the winner is disputed. Anytime Forrest fights its a good one.
July 8, 200818 yr If I'm not mistaken, Forrest pulled guard, Rampage didn't take him down. Also, he didn't land a lot of punches. Forrests submission attempt earns points as well IMO. Depends on what you call a lot. He landed more than Forrest. Come to think of it, did Forrest land a punch the whole fight? I agree the submission "attempts" do earn points, but not more than punches. I am not saying Rampage dominated the round but I think he won it. Especially since he broke the submission hold with a near power-bomb, which also earns point, IMO.
July 8, 200818 yr Depends on what you call a lot. He landed more than Forrest. Come to think of it, did Forrest land a punch the whole fight? I agree the submission "attempts" do earn points, but not more than punches. I am not saying Rampage dominated the round but I think he won it. Especially since he broke the submission hold with a near power-bomb, which also earns point, IMO. Did you seriously just ask if Forrest landed a punch the whole fight? Did you watch the fight?
July 8, 200818 yr Depends on what you call a lot. He landed more than Forrest. Come to think of it, did Forrest land a punch the whole fight? I agree the submission "attempts" do earn points, but not more than punches. I am not saying Rampage dominated the round but I think he won it. Especially since he broke the submission hold with a near power-bomb, which also earns point, IMO. New to MMA are we? Its not a boxing or K1 match its MIXED MARTIAL ARTS. According to Compustrike - Griffin - 145/441 total strikes 48/247 arms strikes 51/99 leg strikes 46/95 ground strikes 0 takedowns 4 sub-attempts 0 reversals 2 dominant positions Rampage - 84/173 total strikes 67/141 arms strikes 3/4 leg strikes 14/28 ground strikes 1 takedowns 0 sub-attempts 0 reversals 0 dominant positions DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE FIGHT?
July 8, 200818 yr New to MMA are we? Its not a boxing or K1 match its MIXED MARTIAL ARTS. According to Compustrike - Griffin - 145/441 total strikes 48/247 arms strikes 51/99 leg strikes 46/95 ground strikes 0 takedowns 4 sub-attempts 0 reversals 2 dominant positions Rampage - 84/173 total strikes 67/141 arms strikes 3/4 leg strikes 14/28 ground strikes 1 takedowns 0 sub-attempts 0 reversals 0 dominant positions DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE FIGHT? I'm now even more convinced that Forrest won the fight...
July 8, 200818 yr New to MMA are we? Its not a boxing or K1 match its MIXED MARTIAL ARTS. According to Compustrike - Griffin - 145/441 total strikes 48/247 arms strikes 51/99 leg strikes 46/95 ground strikes 0 takedowns 4 sub-attempts 0 reversals 2 dominant positions Rampage - 84/173 total strikes 67/141 arms strikes 3/4 leg strikes 14/28 ground strikes 1 takedowns 0 sub-attempts 0 reversals 0 dominant positions DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE FIGHT? No, no where near new to the sport. Rampage wasn't as agressive. But way more accurate. He landed nearly 50% of his strikes compared to 32% by Griffen. In punches, which I previously stated, he was even more impressive. Landing 48% to 19%. Griffen dominated on the ground. I will concede that, it wasn't even close. Rampage had more takedowns, Griffen had more dominant positions. These stats don't show a unanimous decision to me. If you think Forrest is a better fighter than Rampage, we will just have to disagree. Did I even watch the fight? Yes, I probably have seen every UFC fight for the last four years, and have always thought Griffen was an overhyped figure for Dana White. They love to blow him up, IMO he didn't deserve a title shot. Yes, he beat Sho Gun, but he got killed by Tito and KO'd by "the dean of mean" in his previous fights. I am not even saying I think Rampage won, I just don't think he lost.:walk:
July 8, 200818 yr Did you seriously just ask if Forrest landed a punch the whole fight? Did you watch the fight? Well, using the stat's provided ont the next page. It looks like he did land a punch. It was just one out of every five instead of 1 out of every 2 by Rampage. Did you watch the fight? Can you honestly say, Rampage was not more effective in punches. He nearly knocked Griffen out a couple times. Rampage didn't even look like he had been in a fight after it was over. Griffen had a big knot, and a huge cut above his eye. Now leg kicks are a different story.... that was what made it an even fight in my eyes.
July 8, 200818 yr No, no where near new to the sport. Rampage wasn't as agressive. But way more accurate. He landed nearly 50% of his strikes compared to 32% by Griffen. In punches, which I previously stated, he was even more impressive. Landing 48% to 19%. Griffen dominated on the ground. I will concede that, it wasn't even close. Rampage had more takedowns, Griffen had more dominant positions. These stats don't show a unanimous decision to me. If you think Forrest is a better fighter than Rampage, we will just have to disagree. Did I even watch the fight? Yes, I probably have seen every UFC fight for the last four years, and have always thought Griffen was an overhyped figure for Dana White. They love to blow him up, IMO he didn't deserve a title shot. Yes, he beat Sho Gun, but he got killed by Tito and KO'd by "the dean of mean" in his previous fights. I am not even saying I think Rampage won, I just don't think he lost.:walk: Forrest Griffin has been hyped. Over hyped? No. Dana has never came out and stated that Forrest is the best of the best or anything like that (previous to this win at least). Dana has given Forrest and Stephan Bonnar credit for making the UFC what it is today. And they deserve that. They had an awesome fight that many people enjoyed and it hooked many people in to MMA and the UFC. Did you watch the Tito/Forrest fight? I don't think you did because Tito did anything but "kill" Forrest. As a matter of fact, a lot of people thought Forrest won that fight. Where do you get this stuff? Keith Jardine has punching power. He also beat a little known guy named Chuck Liddell. He's just a former LHW Champ who has beaten Tito Ortiz, Randy Coutue, Vitor Belfort, Vernon White, Kevin Randlemen, Jeremy Horn...need I go on?
July 8, 200818 yr Well, using the stat's provided ont the next page. It looks like he did land a punch. It was just one out of every five instead of 1 out of every 2 by Rampage. Did you watch the fight? Can you honestly say, Rampage was not more effective in punches. He nearly knocked Griffen out a couple times. Rampage didn't even look like he had been in a fight after it was over. Griffen had a big knot, and a huge cut above his eye. Now leg kicks are a different story.... that was what made it an even fight in my eyes. It doesn't matter what his percentage is. Of course if you throw more punches you are going to miss more. Rampage was playing counter puncher and trying to get Forrest to rush him and come in close. Forrest stayed on the outside a lot and when he did he did well. When Forrest tried to get in close, Rampage dominated. But Rampage was only close to winning the fight once, in the first round. Why ask if I watched the fight? I didn't say anything crazy that would imply that I didn't. I've seen pictures and I saw no knot on Forrest's face. Rampage was more effective on the inside when Forrest rushed him. Forrest was more effective on the outside throwing jabs and leg kicks. And yes, leg kicks count in MMA. They're VERY painful. Leg kicks, Forrest winning round 2/3/5 and Forrest's pure domination of round 2 are what made it a win for Forrest.
July 8, 200818 yr Forrest Griffin has been hyped. Over hyped? No. Dana has never came out and stated that Forrest is the best of the best or anything like that (previous to this win at least). Dana has given Forrest and Stephan Bonnar credit for making the UFC what it is today. And they deserve that. They had an awesome fight that many people enjoyed and it hooked many people in to MMA and the UFC. Did you watch the Tito/Forrest fight? I don't think you did because Tito did anything but "kill" Forrest. As a matter of fact, a lot of people thought Forrest won that fight. Where do you get this stuff? Keith Jardine has punching power. He also beat a little known guy named Chuck Liddell. He's just a former LHW Champ who has beaten Tito Ortiz, Randy Coutue, Vitor Belfort, Vernon White, Kevin Randlemen, Jeremy Horn...need I go on? Yeah, I watched it. Tito dominated the first round. The next two were pretty even. But the first was probably a 10-8, IMO. Still, Tito looked really bad in his fights after that one. By saying "a lot of people" though Griffen won, well that's because Joe Rogan, White etc. love Griffen. He is a product of the ulitmate fighter, etc. They always blow him up. Do you honestly think Griffen is better than Rampage? Or Chuck? If so, I would like to know where you get this stuff yourself? Jardine is garbage, he did beat Chuck. It was a good win. But he also suffered a very bad lost to Houston Alexandar, who isn't very good. Look up Jardines fights, and tell me who he has beat, except Chuck. The bottom line is it is fighting, you never know. I am just saying, I don't think Griffen did enough to take the belt, you think he did... that's great. We disagree.
July 8, 200818 yr Yeah, I watched it. Tito dominated the first round. The next two were pretty even. But the first was probably a 10-8, IMO. Still, Tito looked really bad in his fights after that one. By saying "a lot of people" though Griffen won, well that's because Joe Rogan, White etc. love Griffen. He is a product of the ulitmate fighter, etc. They always blow him up. Do you honestly think Griffen is better than Rampage? Or Chuck? If so, I would like to know where you get this stuff yourself? Jardine is garbage, he did beat Chuck. It was a good win. But he also suffered a very bad lost to Houston Alexandar, who isn't very good. Look up Jardines fights, and tell me who he has beat, except Chuck. The bottom line is it is fighting, you never know. I am just saying, I don't think Griffen did enough to take the belt, you think he did... that's great. We disagree. I think your argument points to why the UFC is so entertaining to watch.....Jardine and Alexander aren't very good but almost all fighters have knockout power and one mistake and anybody can be looking at the lights. Thats why people pay the big bucks to be in he arena and to purchase the PPV.
July 8, 200818 yr I think your argument points to why the UFC is so entertaining to watch.....Jardine and Alexander aren't very good but almost all fighters have knockout power and one mistake and anybody can be looking at the lights. Thats why people pay the big bucks to be in he arena and to purchase the PPV. I know, you are right. That is why I love it. OK, I admit it. I am being a sore loser, Rampage is my man.:lol::jump:
July 8, 200818 yr Yeah, I watched it. Tito dominated the first round. The next two were pretty even. But the first was probably a 10-8, IMO. Still, Tito looked really bad in his fights after that one. By saying "a lot of people" though Griffen won, well that's because Joe Rogan, White etc. love Griffen. He is a product of the ulitmate fighter, etc. They always blow him up. Do you honestly think Griffen is better than Rampage? Or Chuck? If so, I would like to know where you get this stuff yourself? Jardine is garbage, he did beat Chuck. It was a good win. But he also suffered a very bad lost to Houston Alexandar, who isn't very good. Look up Jardines fights, and tell me who he has beat, except Chuck. The bottom line is it is fighting, you never know. I am just saying, I don't think Griffen did enough to take the belt, you think he did... that's great. We disagree. Tito won the first round but it is quite possible that Forrest won the next two. And the people I'm talking about who think that Forrest won are not Dana White and Joe Rogan. They are rightfully hyping Griffin up now. He has beaten two of the best LHW's in the world consecutively. Jardine is far from garbage. He's not a top contender but he is good. He could beat anyone on any given night because he's got great stand up. He just has a weak chin. I can see your argument. It was very close, but apparently the judges agreed with me in that Forrest won the fight. At first I thought it was really close, but after re-watching it I do think that Forrest won the fight.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.