UFN 96 pbp/discussion

guys, i know some of us lost some $, i know this kind of thing can be emotionally charged, but let's keep it friendly, keep it civil. if someone says something rude, turn a blind eye or pm me about it, don't perpetuate immature behavior

Sorry man. Just not cool to act as if 1 side is stupid after a fight(JESUS, THE WINNING SIDE). I lost tonight, but didn't feel the need to still argue my side and act as if the other side got lucky.
 
Sorry man. Just not cool to act as if 1 side is stupid after a fight(JESUS, THE WINNING SIDE). I lost tonight, but didn't feel the need to still argue my side and act as if the other side got lucky.

wasn't really to you, was a couple pages ago people were cursing at each other a bit.

i appreciate the spirited debate about the fight, just need to keep people in check w/the personal attacks and losing their cool
 
God damnit, all my parlays except one ruined when Brooks lost. Would've made a nice profit otherwise. I had such a nagging feeling going to bed last night about that one..

All in all down about 1.5u
Could be a lot worse but would be nice to catch some flow, missed nice profit last week by a second in the Cyborg fight
 
blaydes-east was kinda fun, no?
Maybe for the HELLbow aspect of the fight, followed by the Twitter pic of Cody East's skull that showed a big lump behind his ear/back of the head.

Too bad Smolka got owned. I had 4 perfect DK teams that needed him and Lineker as the last legs.
 
Havent watched the Main card fights but if the main event was FOTN worthy and didn't receive that bonus cause Lineker missed weight... That's pretty shitty for Dodson
 
Jesus guys. Go back and read the multiple pages of debate over this fight. Go read what most Lineker backers argued. They argued they thought Dodson inactivity would hurt him and his style would possibly not look good to the judges. Meanwhile the Dodson side argued that Lineker was a 1 trick pony and would be outclassed.

It was fairly close. But no mma capper can get every fight right.

Exactly this. A few of us argued lineker would win a dec based on lineker's aggression versus dodson's low output even if dodson was landing. Its how fights are judged in the ufc. Volume and aggression trumps low volume accuracy. Its why i loved lineker dec so much. Just gutted best i could get was +650. I did let you guys talk me out of a big pre bet tho i always say last time i do that and i still do it aarrrgghh! Still lb was good to me on that fight.
 
Exactly this. A few of us argued lineker would win a dec based on lineker's aggression versus dodson's low output even if dodson was landing. Its how fights are judged in the ufc. Volume and aggression trumps low volume accuracy. Its why i loved lineker dec so much. Just gutted best i could get was +650. I did let you guys talk me out of a big pre bet tho i always say last time i do that and i still do it aarrrgghh! Still lb was good to me on that fight.

I get it if the volume means more strikes landed despite lower accuracy. Or if one guy is landing pitter patter jabs and the other other bombs. But this was a case of both guys landing power shots, and the guy with less output actually landing a HIGHER total # of them. It's literally rewarding a guy for swinging and missing when you think about it.

The # was close enough that I'm okay with the decision. It was a razor close fight. I thought Dodson won but either way no robbery at all. But to act like "Hey he threw more so...he wins" seems like a bad rationale is all.
 
I get it if the volume means more strikes landed despite lower accuracy. Or if one guy is landing pitter patter jabs and the other other bombs. But this was a case of both guys landing power shots, and the guy with less output actually landing a HIGHER total # of them. It's literally rewarding a guy for swinging and missing when you think about it.

The # was close enough that I'm okay with the decision. It was a razor close fight. I thought Dodson won but either way no robbery at all. But to act like "Hey he threw more so...he wins" seems like a bad rationale is all.

But a judge cant possibly count how many strikes are landing and by whom. They arent privy to fight metric, etc. If one guy is throwing more volume and strikes landing are pretty close the high volume guy will more often than not get the nod. Not saying its right or wrong but as bettors we have to accept that and bet accordingly imo.
 
But a judge cant possibly count how many strikes are landing and by whom. They arent privy to fight metric, etc. If one guy is throwing more volume and strikes landing are pretty close the high volume guy will more often than not get the nod. Not saying its right or wrong but as bettors we have to accept that and bet accordingly imo.

Right I know they can't have an exact count obviously. But they know generally how much each guy is landing. I tend to agree the judges might lean toward the guy throwing more, I just disagree with judging a fight that way. Yeah, I guess you need to take it into account like all other factors, but with how inconsistent judging is not even sure you can do that. I mean, last night was a split and it just happened to be one judge giving Lineker one extra round that was the difference. So it's not like we can say it definitively swayed the judges. He won, but by literally as close a margin as possible. If you had happened to have one judge different than who was assigned the fight may be scored the other way and we're all having a way different conversation.

Anyway, it was a good, close fight and nobody should be yelling robbery either way. Nor should they have been had Dodson gotten the nod.
 
Fight metrics on # of sig strikes is one thing but Lineker was also throwing harder every time so that has to count for something.

Also Lineker appeared to have Dodson in trouble a couple times where Lineker was never in danger of being finished.

Like it or not octagon control is a metric for judges and that shit was one sided.
 
Fight metrics on # of sig strikes is one thing but Lineker was also throwing harder every time so that has to count for something.

Also Lineker appeared to have Dodson in trouble a couple times where Lineker was never in danger of being finished.

Like it or not octagon control is a metric for judges and that shit was one sided.
I don't know why this is even being talked about. Aggression or not (which I completely understand judges favoring), Lineker had one burst for about 20-30 seconds in round 4 that won him this fight on 2/3 scorecards. Other than that it was pretty clear how it was going at every other moment.
 
I don't know why this is even being talked about. Aggression or not (which I completely understand judges favoring), Lineker had one burst for about 20-30 seconds in round 4 that won him this fight on 2/3 scorecards. Other than that it was pretty clear how it was going at every other moment.

It's being talked about because a whole hell of a lot of people have a different viewpoint than yours. It's life man. Everyone doesn't feel the same way.
 
It's being talked about because a whole hell of a lot of people have a different viewpoint than yours. It's life man. Everyone doesn't feel the same way.
What different point of view? I just agreed with the point of view of aggression being favorable for the judges....

Dodson's strategy clearly won him 2 rounds, and he was winning the fourth besides that 30-60 second flurry from Lineker. My point is the discussion of aggression's translation to the judges is a mute one for this particular fight.
 
Fight metrics on # of sig strikes is one thing but Lineker was also throwing harder every time so that has to count for something.

Also Lineker appeared to have Dodson in trouble a couple times where Lineker was never in danger of being finished.

Like it or not octagon control is a metric for judges and that shit was one sided.


There were times in the fight where Dodson literally turned his back and ran. I have no problem judges giving close rounds to the fighter NOT doing that.
 
What different point of view? I just agreed with the point of view of aggression being favorable for the judges....

Dodson's strategy clearly won him 2 rounds, and he was winning the fourth besides that 30-60 second flurry from Lineker. My point is the discussion of aggression's translation to the judges is a mute one for this particular fight.

How is it mute. The dude won the fight because of it. Look, your opinion is set obviously. Even u saying Dodson won the first round clearly is subjective. U just don't seem to understand that we all have different opinions here.
 
Back
Top