Dunham comments on controversial decision

source: fightersonly

Fighter's Only: So you’re not fixated on a rematch, but if the choice was yours, you’d prefer Sherk as an opponent?

Evan Dunham: Yeah, another fight with Sean.  I can finish him.  I would jump all over the opportunity for a rematch.  I have all the respect in the world for Sean.  He’s a hell of a nice guy , but after this fight I think I can beat him.  

But, with that being said, I don’t expect a rematch with him.  Maybe one day.  He wants to keep moving up and I respect that.  He did everything he needed to do in the fight, but I would definitely like to fight him again.

Fighter's Only: You really turned things around after the first frame.  Why do you think you were more successful in the later rounds?

Evan Dunham: He’s a smart fighter.  He played it well.  I noticed in the 1st round he was coming forward, but if you watch, in the 1st round he was playing back and using my forward pressure along with his to come in twice as quick.  I definitely thought by the 3rd round I had that range figured out real well.  

All the damage he did was on the ground, he didn’t land much on the feet.

read entire interview...

Related MMA gear from the UG Store


MusclePharm Battle Fuel XT (160 capsules)

MusclePharm Battle Fuel XT (160 capsules)

$59.99 $30.98

Elevation Training Mask 2.0

Elevation Training Mask 2.0

Only $79.99


Recent Comments »

honeyman site profile image  

9/29/10 10:11 AM by honeyman

Was amazed to see how well he continued to fight even after that nasty cut. Great fight definitely a future champ

Uncle Justice site profile image  

9/29/10 9:46 AM by Uncle Justice

 TTT for 3D

The Sultan site profile image  

9/29/10 2:20 AM by The Sultan


Uncle Justice site profile image  

9/28/10 6:54 PM by Uncle Justice

 1. A lot of things in MMA "wear you down and hurt you", but they're not weighed evenly with submission attempts and damaging strikes.  You know? 2. I'm not saying striking should have more value by default, I'm saying takedowns shouldn't have more.  It's been made clear that effective means towards finishing the fight through striking or grappling is the highest rated credential.  A takedown does nothing but open up the door for the chance to start being superior.  It only shows superiority over another by control, not by inflicting offense. Again, a takedown is forcing your opponent to engage in a different phase of combat than the one present:  a takedown says, "We're having a grappling match now"; meaning the grappling match should be judged (offense) and transitioning to the grappling match should be scored, but only moderately through control and not extremely with effective grappling (offense). If you still disagree, tell me once the fight is on the ground why getting back to your feet isn't scored the same.  Just as the stand-up fighter is forced to grapple, the stand-up fighter forces the grappler to engage in free-phase combat.  You can say one initiated the action, which is correct; that's why it's also rewarded as effective aggression, and escaping is rewarded as effective defense IN ADDITION to both counting for control.  So there's a tiny little bit of advantage to the more aggressive move. But I don't think that because humans walk upright that whoever goes down first gets more credit than getting back up.  It's just like pulling guard.  You're forcing your opponent into a different position/location/phase of combat.  You may have the advantage there, you may not... but it doesn't matter.  Whatever takes place following this change of location is what's scored the highest. I'm seeing this weird graph, with the top offensive moves in bold: "FREE PHASE / STAND-UP"   < --CONTROL ---> "CLINCH"  < -- CONTROL --->  "GRAPPLING / GROUND" Any fight can be sliced up by standing, clinching, and grappling.  The fight transitions through these phases, usually by "control":  one fighter forcing another to one of these different locations.  What happens in these three phases with effective striking and grappling should be "Tier 1" scores, and all the elements of control (takedowns, pulling guard, escaping back to your feet; forcing the fight to go to a different area) should be "Tier 2" scores.  Whether the moves were offensive/aggressive in nature (takedowns, pulling guard) or reactive/defensive in nature (escaping back to your feet, sweep after takedown/reversal) would be "Tier 3" scores. You can kinda assign any certain point-value to each, as long as they were proportioned correctly. Shit.. I think I just finally found the missing link in the scoring system I've been trying to create.  Does all of that crap make sense though?  I forgot I was even responding to anything or anyone in particular.  ;) 

ausgepicht site profile image  

9/28/10 2:52 PM by ausgepicht

UJ, takedowns DO cause damage and it doesn't have to be a KO/TKO. They wear you down and hurt, excepting the ones I mentioned. Anyone who has wrestled or been on the receiving end of relentless takedowns knows this (not saying you don't, just saying in general). Any fight where there are a number of takedowns are always followed by commentary about how damaging and wearing it is. I think we are in a phase where the takedown is overvalued, but not by much. I think with all the recent scrutiny, things will change a bit. Remember this isn't kickboxing, but MMA and striking shouldn't have more value by default.

Uncle Justice site profile image  

9/28/10 2:45 PM by Uncle Justice

 Ehhh, no.  A takedown does not cause damage.  The amount of takedowns that have caused TKO/KO's are 1%.  It CAN, and those takedowns are the exception to the rule and absolutely should be considered offensive. The striking criteria already upholds the most effective (damaging) strikes over all others.  But it makes no sense to have a takedown given more strength than almost any other technique, and be the only inherently control-based move that's counted alongside with strict offense. IMO, of course. 

ausgepicht site profile image  

9/28/10 2:28 PM by ausgepicht

UJ, I see your point, but a takedown DOES cause damage, and in some cases a TKO/KO. Getting back to standing does NOT cause damage, though if you strike or do a takedown of your own AFTERWARD, of course it will. This is why I see it as less offensive. I get what your saying about it being a positional change which is why I mentioned it falls under effective grappling, so in essence it is included in the criteria or it should be. Getting to standing is definitely underrated right now. The criteria about clean strikes is important, but at best clean strikes can be combined with octagon control. 2 criteria. A takedown can have 3 criteria....clearly this is why judges are scoring the way they are. I agree that more powerful strikes, ones that clearly stun, or hurt should be of more value than a takedown that just brings a person to the mat. We need a scoring system that is more specific. There should be a variance and credit appropriate for strikes. A jab clearly isn't as good as a left hook that gets someone fish dancing. Same with the takedowns. A guard flop or a single leg running the pipe are gentle compared to a German suplex or a back arch. Wrestling has a scoring system in place that could easily be adapted to MMA.

Uncle Justice site profile image  

9/28/10 2:19 PM by Uncle Justice

 How is escaping back to the feet (when a fight is already on the ground) any less offensive than a takedown standing?  A takedown, pulling guard, and escaping back to your feet all do one thing:  force your opponent to a different phase of combat. Yet, as you mention, a takedown counts MORE THAN an effective strike or threatening with submissions (they are only effective grappling/striking) where a takedown is effective grappling AND control AND aggression. A takedown isn't offensive either unless it does damage.  WHAT HAPPENS after the takedown is offense; a takedown is nothing but a factor of control. By the way, "getting up" IS NOT even included in the criteria.  Speculation ensues that it should be counted as "reversals", but the rules don't specify that, and the judges sure as hell don't score it that way.

ausgepicht site profile image  

9/28/10 2:08 PM by ausgepicht

Evan will be champ someday. Bet the house on it. I do disagree though about the standing up should carry equal weight as a takedown. Getting up is not offensive. A takedown fulfills the criteria for Octagon Control, Effective Grappling, and Effective Aggressiveness. Getting up only fulfills the Effective grappling, and MAYBE the Octagon Control.

JDjitsu site profile image  

9/28/10 2:02 PM by JDjitsu

Lots of "so called" professionals could learn a lot from this kid. His maturity and humility is on another level. That's if he isn't being coached exactly what to say. He seems genuine to me. I think he's gonna be top 3 around the end of 2011. I'll be rooting for him for sure. And that was a great interview for sure. FO Mag ftw.