Just rewatched Fedor vs Arona

migeru29

Brown Belt
@Brown
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
3,077
Reaction score
291
No this is another thread about how "Arona won" I'm sure many already explained that per their rules Fedor won, I really don't understand and don't care. The only thing I want to point out here is that wow what a f*ing grappler Arona was in his prime for gods sake, I mean the way he did against a young Fedor in the grappling department including the standing grappling/wrestling as well.

There is no way any Gracie would beat arona in his prime he was just way too strong way too dominant. I really believe he's a very underrated fighter. Didn't he beat silva in his prime ?

I still dislike the guy for what he did to saku but wow again how underrated he is nowdays nobody talks about him
 
He had great top control and was strong as fuck. He had some devastating lowkicks for a BJJ guy but otherwise was stiff as a plank of wood standing up.

This, he was really awkward standing up but it somehow worked for him. He even stopped Overeem with low kicks. It was probably best for him to keep distance and kick or come in and take someone down. He could stay out of punching range, which is about the only way someone could stop him.
 
This, he was really awkward standing up but it somehow worked for him. He even stopped Overeem with low kicks. It was probably best for him to keep distance and kick or come in and take someone down. He could stay out of punching range, which is about the only way someone could stop him.

Really weird but somehow all of my "likes" are gone lol. I had a few hundred now it's down to 6.
 
I only get on here and there. What happened?

The techs claim that the like system bogs down the user experience too much or something.

So they cleared the counter and now you can only like someone’s posts a limited number of times a day (or so it seems).
 
Fight was in 2000, right?
So Arona was running through allmost everybody at this time.
In 2000 je went for silber at IBJJF and won Gold at ADCC in his weightclass.
Just to come back the year later to repeat and also winning the Open Weightclass at ADCC the same year...

Isnt Arona the only guy (or was) who never got scored a point against him @ADCC?
 
I'm sure many already explained that per their rules Fedor won

They didn't explain anything, some guy way back when decided to post 'RINGS rules magically make it clear Fedor won' and lots of people just follow that fake news without knowing any great detail about the rules (which wasn't so different to PRIDE really in terms of judging).

A couple of years ago Volk Han even said Arona was going to get the W but he used his clout to get the result changed on the fly. Multiple reactions to that were 'oh he must be lying because he probably has beef with Fedor or something'.

Now (moving on to your actual topic a bit more) yes Arona was a great grappler, Fedor often got into bad positions in his fights but was great at getting out of them, his fights vs Coleman (I) and Randleman are perfect examples of that vs strong wrestlers. But Arona was also a strong top control grappler who wasn't going to be reversed and subbed like those guys. So in some ways it's not so surprising the fight went the way it did. What triggers me is, continuing the above theme of finding any excuse to justify Fedor winning this bout, people used to completely ignore Arona's performance here, give him no credit at all and claim Fedor fought like that on purpose 'because he was clearly winning anyway ' (wtf?!?!?), as if letting Arona take him down and mount him repeatedly with ease was Fedor's plan, in which case it was a really stupid plan and even taking the judging at face value he came a cunt's hair away from losing. Fedor is one of my favorite fighters but knuckleheaded nuthugging like that is probably what turns less hespectful newbs against 'past greats'.
 
They didn't explain anything, some guy way back when decided to post 'RINGS rules magically make it clear Fedor won' and lots of people just follow that fake news without knowing any great detail about the rules (which wasn't so different to PRIDE really in terms of judging)
While I think Arona deserved to win, I don't really understand where you are coming from here. RINGs had funny rules that didn't value takedowns or ground-control as much as striking, strong submissions attempts and damage and Fedor's win isn't the only time a decision in RINGs has looked a little funny. So to say that an explanation of the rule-set is somehow "magical" or non-explanatory doesn't really make sense to me. The rules were what they were. And its only natural to bring them up when discussing a strange decision in RINGs. One issue is that, with their devaluation of positional control and takedowns, the lack of ground and pound becomes that much more significant, because it strips a means of doing damage on the ground and fulfilling one of the judge's main criteria.

I will say that, even in light of RINGs rules, Arona should have won. No matter how little you value a certain form of offense relative to others, if essentially the entirety of the fight is one fighter successfully utilizing that form of offense, then he wins. Its like if a boxer went through a bout with no power punches at all, but landed constantly with a pitty-pat jab and evaded all of his opponent's offense. Regardless of low little a pitty-pat jab means relative to other punches, if that was all the effective offense, he still wins easily.

Pride had some strange, awful decisions but their criteria made much more sense than RINGs' criteria IMO.

EDIT--actually, re-watching the fight, I can definitely see how they could have gone for Fedor under RINGs rules. They probably counted his guillotines as "catches" along with his Achilles lock. Then you have the striking, although Arona did alright there with his leg kicks and did bloody Fedor's nose. Not necessarily saying it is the right call, but it is less incomprehensible than I remembered.
 
Last edited:
While I think Arona deserved to win, I don't really understand where you are coming from here. RINGs had funny rules that didn't value takedowns or ground-control as much as striking, strong submissions attempts and damage and Fedor's win isn't the only time a decision in RINGs has looked a little funny.

but PRIDE scoring rules weren't so different in their emphasis; probably it didn't make for as many 'screwy' looking fights because of the prohibition on GnP in RINGS (a fighter dominating on top in PRIDE could do a lot more damage than they could in RINGS which would make things clearer). (OK I just read your post fully and you said as much too :D)

The Nog/Ricco fight being a notorious example of RINGS-esque scoring in PRIDE.

So to say that an explanation of the rule-set is somehow "magical" or non-explanatory doesn't really make sense to me.

The reason I call it 'magical' is because 'RINGS rules' (no further detail supplied) tend to be invoked to make it clear that Fedor obviously won.
These remarks weren't so common initially, but one day someone made such a remark and it suddenly became widely accepted without further critique.

But even knowing something about the rules, it's not clear or obvious that Fedor won, after all, none of the judges thought he did after reg time (score was 1 Arona 2 draw), I doubt anyone would complain if just one more of those judges had given it to Arona despite how 'clear' the rules were that Fedor won...

so it seems to me it's just become a 'magic' phrase cast by fanboys to dispel doubts about the outcome of the fight.
(on the other hand, if what Volk Han said is true, the judging at regulation time does kinda make sense. If the cap fits....)
 
but PRIDE scoring rules weren't so different in their emphasis; probably it didn't make for as many 'screwy' looking fights because of the prohibition on GnP in RINGS (a fighter dominating on top in PRIDE could do a lot more damage than they could in RINGS which would make things clearer). (OK I just read your post fully and you said as much too :D)

The Nog/Ricco fight being a notorious example of RINGS-esque scoring in PRIDE.



The reason I call it 'magical' is because 'RINGS rules' (no further detail supplied) tend to be invoked to make it clear that Fedor obviously won.
These remarks weren't so common initially, but one day someone made such a remark and it suddenly became widely accepted without further critique.

But even knowing something about the rules, it's not clear or obvious that Fedor won, after all, none of the judges thought he did after reg time (score was 1 Arona 2 draw), I doubt anyone would complain if just one more of those judges had given it to Arona despite how 'clear' the rules were that Fedor won...

so it seems to me it's just become a 'magic' phrase cast by fanboys to dispel doubts about the outcome of the fight.
(on the other hand, if what Volk Han said is true, the judging at regulation time does kinda make sense. If the cap fits....)

Well, definitely, back in the day, I heard the sorts of comments you are talking about ALL THE TIME. That Fedor won based on the judging criteria or, most absurdly, that he would have destroyed Arona had ground-and-pound to the face been allowed. A lot of Fedor's fans would go hard on the attack if this fight was brought up.

The main thing I see, is that Arona, rather than playing to the criteria, kept improving and consolidating position on the ground instead of attacking with submission attempts or attacks to the body. Also, I noticed the referee was giving the "catch" sign for Fedor's guillotine attempts and I think, for his Achilles as well. I think that probably influenced the judging. That said, I wouldn't argue that Arona didn't deserve the win--as you noted, it was 1 for Arona, 2 for a draw after the first two rounds and its unclear what Fedor really did better in the third round to merit the turn-around in his favor.

As far as the idea that any rule-set would make it obvious that Fedor won, that is..obviously...ridiculous, so I guess I'm with you there, now that I do see what you're saying. I think a knowledge of the rule-set might make it less outrageous, but there's no possible case for a clear Fedor win here.
 
Well, definitely, back in the day, I heard the sorts of comments you are talking about ALL THE TIME. That Fedor won based on the judging criteria or, most absurdly, that he would have destroyed Arona had ground-and-pound to the face been allowed. A lot of Fedor's fans would go hard on the attack if this fight was brought up.

The main thing I see, is that Arona, rather than playing to the criteria, kept improving and consolidating position on the ground instead of attacking with submission attempts or attacks to the body. Also, I noticed the referee was giving the "catch" sign for Fedor's guillotine attempts and I think, for his Achilles as well. I think that probably influenced the judging. That said, I wouldn't argue that Arona didn't deserve the win--as you noted, it was 1 for Arona, 2 for a draw after the first two rounds and its unclear what Fedor really did better in the third round to merit the turn-around in his favor.

As far as the idea that any rule-set would make it obvious that Fedor won, that is..obviously...ridiculous, so I guess I'm with you there, now that I do see what you're saying. I think a knowledge of the rule-set might make it less outrageous, but there's no possible case for a clear Fedor win here.

I do think it's at least a little justifiable to talk about the guillotines as maybe swaying things in Fedor's direction with the judges (I hadn't noticed the ref's signalling) but in reality most of those attempts were worse than useless so 'in my book' they didn't win him the fight (and on the 'official' book they only got him a draw at best, i.e. avoided a clear loss, so they didn't directly 'win' him the fight either). It'd only be an uneducated judge that would think those guillotine 'attempts' were close to being a proper sub attempt (most of them were just futile headlocks, really)

Regarding Arona's positional control and 'consolidation', that he did but when he got swept from mount it was because he was attempting a top wristlock (This happened at least twice IIRC). So he did end up sacrificing position to go for submission after all ;)
Indeed I think someone counted up all the sub attempts and they were even in rds 1-2, IMO Arona's sub attempts were clearly 'better' as well as him dominating the grappling overall.
 
It was a good test for Fedor. That ADCC highlight was cool
 
but PRIDE scoring rules weren't so different in their emphasis;

The Nog/Ricco fight being a notorious example of RINGS-esque scoring in PRIDE.
> There´s a qualitative difference between Rings´ & Pride´s Scorin´System, and most of all, their modus operandi.

> I fail to see the correlation between Rings & Pride when it comes to the Nog vs Ricco fight, tbh...


A couple of years ago Volk Han even said Arona was going to get the W but he used his clout to get the result changed on the fly. Multiple reactions to that were 'oh he must be lying because he probably has beef with Fedor or something'.

.

Volk´s 'potential' interference is rather tricky to assess, & Im not talkin´about the context here [feud]

While I think Arona deserved to win, I don't really understand where you are coming from here. RINGs had funny rules that didn't value takedowns or ground-control as much as striking, strong submissions attempts and damage and Fedor's win isn't the only time a decision in RINGs has looked a little funny. So to say that an explanation of the rule-set is somehow "magical" or non-explanatory doesn't really make sense to me. The rules were what they were. And its only natural to bring them up when discussing a strange decision in RINGs. One issue is that, with their devaluation of positional control and takedowns, the lack of ground and pound becomes that much more significant, because it strips a means of doing damage on the ground and fulfilling one of the judge's main criteria.

I will say that, even in light of RINGs rules, Arona should have won. No matter how little you value a certain form of offense relative to others, if essentially the entirety of the fight is one fighter successfully utilizing that form of offense, then he wins. Its like if a boxer went through a bout with no power punches at all, but landed constantly with a pitty-pat jab and evaded all of his opponent's offense. Regardless of low little a pitty-pat jab means relative to other punches, if that was all the effective offense, he still wins easily.

Pride had some strange, awful decisions but their criteria made much more sense than RINGs' criteria IMO.

EDIT--actually, re-watching the fight, I can definitely see how they could have gone for Fedor under RINGs rules. They probably counted his guillotines as "catches" along with his Achilles lock. Then you have the striking, although Arona did alright there with his leg kicks and did bloody Fedor's nose. Not necessarily saying it is the right call, but it is less incomprehensible than I remembered.

I wouldnt call them 'funny', tho... They had a certain idea of the kind of entertainment they wanted to provide, and this influenced their MMA ´ideology'.
 
Yeah they took our likes. What a shitshow!

No kidding. I can't even like your post now!

Eh, just one more reason to abandon sherdog. I don't know why places like this and youtube think they can control what everyone likes and sees but all they are doing is driving people away.
 
Back
Top