UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> Nog was the #2 Fighter of the Decade


2/17/10 4:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52296
I forgot all that matters is who got the W when talking about any aspect of this (or any other) sport. This would indeed be a fantastic discussion forum if we all limited all our discussion solely to what Fightfinder tells us.

2/17/10 4:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hollywood Blonde
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 20010
orcus -  Not sure what you're talking about. His first post had nothing to do with me or anything I've said, and I don't know what he said in his subsequent posts.

Again, please be specific.


Because you re-ignored him?
2/17/10 5:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52298
 lol!

Let's see, the Scott Smith argument. Gee, I guess they are analogous, IF YOU IGNORE THE "HIS SKILL" PART OF WHAT I SAID. Smith has not 1/10th of Nog's skills. Smith is a "striker" who has lost fights standing numerous times; Nog is a grappler who has been outstruck in his 35 fight career only by prime Crocop, Fedor, Sylvia, and (while sick and injured) Mir. Even so, with the exception of Mir, he hung in there with all of them. Nor does Scott have anything like Nog's toughness; can you imagine Nog being beat the fuck down by peppering arm-punches as Nick Diaz did to Scott? Or losing a fight by knee to the stomach?

Thank you for posting this. This is a perfect example of exactly what I mean. To a faggot like Whistleblower, those two fighters might actually be "the same" in all those respects. He thinks the record is what makes Nog great, because he understands nothing but numbers.To the rest of us -- i.e., humans -- it is the things I listed that make Nog great, and that greatness is what ENABLED him to compile that record. You see, the record is NOT why Nog is great, not even close -- the record is just the only way that morons like WB, who only understand binary, can RECOGNIZE that Nog is great. To him, Nog is not great because he is tougher and more determined and vastly more skilled than Scott Smith  -- to him, in fact, they are equal in those categories -- no; to him, Nog is great because he has a record full of impressively "universally ranked" opponents and nothing else.

Seriously lmao @ the hilariously lopsided notion that "continuing success against top opponents" is what makes a fighter great, and not that it is merely a demonstration of what their greatness has allowed them to accomplish. Hmm, is Rickson not a "great" grappler because he never dominated and had continued success against top opponents in the Mundials or ADCC? Rickson's greatness itself is not dependent on yours or my having first-hand knowledge of it. If he entered those tournaments and won, he would not suddenly become great. It would be his greatness that got him the wins in the first place.

And holy shit at the "Ignore" "owning". Do you jackoffs really not know that on Ignore, only subsequent posts in the thread don't show up? That the thread itself, and the initial post, will ALWAYS show up no matter if the person is on Ignore or not?

Holy shit, is this what you retards call getting owned? L O L
2/17/10 5:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Kancho
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/08
Posts: 1324
orcus - 
Thank you for posting this. This is a perfect example of exactly what I mean. To a faggot like Whistleblower, those two fighters might actually be "the same" in all those respects. He thinks the record is what makes Nog great, because he understands nothing but numbers.To the rest of us -- i.e., humans -- it is the things I listed that make Nog great, and that greatness is what ENABLED him to compile that record. You see, the record is NOT why Nog is great, not even close -- the record is just the only way that morons like WB, who only understand binary, can RECOGNIZE that Nog is great.


Thank you for posting this. This is a perfect example of your insanity.

-"to the rest of us" -- you're alone here, bro, and we're all laughing at your insistence to come back for tooling after tooling; we're all laughing at your blind Fedor hate; we're all laughing at the ridiculous shit you write ("Fedor vs. Sylvia showed that Fedor has no power in his punches"), but after awhile the laughter kind of fades because we feel bad for you

-the lack of Rickson's record is why so many people make fun of his 400-0 legacy; search many Rickson threads for people dismissing him as another Bruce Lee. No one is ever going to be able to say that about Nog.

-I love how you try to raise us up to your level of understanding. Please, oh wise one, don't despair. Keep trying. You'll get us there one day.

I forgot all that matters is who got the W when talking about any aspect of this (or any other) sport. This would indeed be a fantastic discussion forum if we all limited all our discussion solely to what Fightfinder tells us.


No, we should all listen to the guy who has nervous breakdowns on his keyboard while trying to convince everyone that THEY'RE crazy. I may go down to the Jesus guy outside the subway station who throws pamphlets at children and see what colour the sky is in his world because the answer "blue" doesn't make me feel good.

At least I would "shit" on him with opinion and analysis of things that actually happen in his fights (whether you think it's right or wrong), and not by rattling off the W-L column from an Excel spreadsheet.


How many people have to tell you your opinion is retarded before you reconsider? How many people have to tell you you've been spanked to realize you're getting spanked?

I know, I know. Raving lunacy, emotional reasoning and blind rage on the internet is how real people see the world. Opinions and analysis of things that happen in the moment must align with our innermost emotional reasoning otherwise faggots like Whistleblower will only be content knowing how the moment happened and what it means to the moments that follow it.

You do know that when you leave the room other people still exist in it, right?
2/17/10 5:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52300
 "-"to the rest of us" -- you're alone here, bro"

So you think Nog's wins made him great, and not that being great won him those fights? Guess I can lump you in with the dipshits.

"
the lack of Rickson's record is why so many people make fun of his 400-0 legacy"

Yes. However, regardless of whether or not we recognize that he is great, he either is or he isn't -- it's not dependent on his record.

"
"Fedor vs. Sylvia showed that Fedor has no power in his punches""

Actually I said that when several guys fight the same opponent, and two of them put him down with one punch and the other takes a dozen to do so, it is non-sensical to insist that the third guy punches the hardest. Explain to me the error in that logic, without falling back on your pre-conceived notions of how hard any of them hit.

"
How many people have to tell you your opinion is retarded before you reconsider?"

I will never reconsider unless they have something convincing to back up their arguments with.

"
How many people have to tell you you've been spanked to realize you're getting spanked?"

lol, when whistleblower's post you quoted above is an example of what you consider spanked, even though it's 100% incorrect bullshit, I guess I'm just going to have to disregard your opinion, now won't I?
2/17/10 6:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
On My Knees for Doom
149 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 20982
 
whistleblower - 
But still, even 2000 alone for Sak was truly epic in itself - one of the greatest, most historically significant years ever. Up through the end of that year, going into 2001, there was virtually no question that Sak had surpassed everyone who came before him, and was the greatest-ever at that point. But he was then in decline for much of the rest of that decade.
First off, excellent post about Nog.  He's my favorite fighter of all time and I've always considered him the Joe Louis of MMA.  Tough, talented and the #2 fighter of all time (just as Louis is second only to Sugar Ray Robinson).  

That said, I have to respecfully disagree with Sak being in the top 5 of all time.  I know it's an unpopular sentiment and I know his run was legendary in its time, but careful analysis of who he was beating, even in the relatively young sport of MMA makes his ranking a little suspect.  Despite the controversial decisions, I would certainly rank Dan Henderson ahead of Sak (and why did Pride never make a fight between these two?)  Sakuraba beat a who's who of "Names" but legit contenders?  

Unlike Nog and other top guys, it is absolutely indisputable that Sak was protected.  That he was given an automatic "no rematch" clause and that he had what amounted to a grappling match with both Vernon White and Carlos Newton tarnishes him somewhat.  Add to that the storming of the octagon following the ersatz "loss" to Conan in the UFC, the ref assist in the Royler match (which was certainly justifiable) the rules ambiguity in the Mezger match and the pre-fight weight limit shifts for the match with Vitor and Sakuraba starts to look like he was almost manufactured.  Only FightFinder logic would allow the rankings alone to justify some of those actions and I know you, WB, in particular are a fierce opponent of that.

That said, a win is a win and if we're going to go back and scrutinize nature of the victory, Henderson falls considerably as do several guys who fought in Pancrase and even Nog is not left untouched with the Rodriguez victory.  

Still, taking it point by point, had Conan been the EF champion when they fought, Sak's victory might have had more relevance, but since he had already been TKOed my Maurice Smith (who would lose his UFC HW title that same night), Conan was basically in a fight to salvage his ranking, not elevate it.  The backstage shenanigans that went on at UFC Japan with Tank's drop-out and the Kingdom guys holding the octagon hostage are well documented.  It was Big John's F-up, but there have certainly been bad stoppages since and that fight exists in a sort of murky gray zone to this day.  I presume it was a NC, but there were certainly no athletic commissions to regulate it at the time.

Either way, in their "do-over" Sak decisively beat Conan in what should have been an easy fight for a Carlson Gracie black belt (having been fought on the ground after all with a guy much lighter).  This was the first indication that Sak might be something special.  

The next two fights against perennial .500 fighter Tiger White and UFC runner-up Carlos Newton almost seemed to go by Shooto or RINGS rules since there was next to no striking in either fight.  Sak decisively outgrappled both fighters, but I've never really understood why they followed Rickson/Nakai rules unless there was a "gentleman's agreement" beforehand.  Either way, they were both beautiful technical masterpieces and I for one enjoyed them.

The draw with Goes would've probably been a loss if decisions were being handed out back then as Sak seemingly had no answer for the butt-scoot.  This was immediately corrected and revolutionized in his next fight with Vitor, but the last minute changes to the weight limit the bout was being contested at supposedly sapped Vitor.  While Vitor's word is suspect, it's unarguable that this was not a case of "old" or "new" Vitor as much as "screwed" Vitor and the results showed it.

Braga was a 100% legit win against a tough fighter who'd been in some wars with good guys and had even gone to a draw with Japanese sweetheart Funaki.  I believe that Japan had to really look at Sak as it's best MMA grappler aside from Rumina Sato at this time because subbing the guy who took Funaki the distance and holding his own with multiple credible grapplers really put him over.  His reward was a gimme against Macias.

The win over Royler is what shot Sak through the roof though it's marred by the stoppage that while justifiable, was supposedly not in the rules.  I've been grappling for 13 years now and if I was the ref, I would've stopped it too, but it has to be said that Royler's MMA credentials were a lot weaker than his brothers and cousins and he was about 30 lbs lighter.  Still, this was the first documented disruption of the Gracie invincibility aura.  By modern standards it seems like a horrible mismatch, but just carrying the name Gracie made it significant.  Still, Royler was not even close to being ranked at any weight so did it do as much to push Sak toward the top 3 at the time or did it just add to his prestige?

The Mezger fight would and should have been a loss for Sak.  Whether you blame Ken, Pride, Sak himself or Guy, the match result was a travesty and like the Fedor "loss" to TK, only happened because of the tournament format.  Igor Vovchanchyn, probably the #1 ranked HW fighter at that moment, crushed Sak, but Sak's survival in that fight in a way only added to his legend.

Royce and Renzo were credible opponents under 200 lbs, carrying the Gracie name, and org champions (WCC and UFC respectively).  Sak beating them made him an NHB community household name.  No more need be said than that except that in beating Royce, Sak effectively became the linear OW champ of the sport for a moment before it returned to Coleman at the end of the GP. 

Neither Shannon Ritch nor Ryan Gracie were credible in any way, Gracie name aside.  The first Wand loss didn't diminish Sak's stature that much because Wand was completing his ascencion.  The second though was the beginning of the end for Sak's reign of terror.  He had beaten a very green Rampage, but his Wanderlization was complete and if his brain wasn't already rattled, Cro Cop finished the job.

This whole history is widely known obviously, but I just get a little annoyed when I hear Sak being mentioned as Top 5 all time.  I think he's a sentimental favorite, but little more.  He had some awesome wins, but they're tied into questionable circumstances and sentiment.  His finest hour was the Royce fight, which crowned him OW champ of NHB for a few minutes, but looking over the arc of his career, he was the sport's greatest showman, but not anywhere near it's greatest fighter.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I stand by it. 
2/17/10 6:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52304
 omg revisionism :P
2/17/10 6:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Kancho
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/08
Posts: 1326
orcus -  "-"to the rest of us" -- you're alone here, bro"

So you think Nog's wins made him great, and not that being great won him those fights? Guess I can lump you in with the dipshits.

"the lack of Rickson's record is why so many people make fun of his 400-0 legacy"

Yes. However, regardless of whether or not we recognize that he is great, he either is or he isn't -- it's not dependent on his record.

""Fedor vs. Sylvia showed that Fedor has no power in his punches""

Actually I said that when several guys fight the same opponent, and two of them put him down with one punch and the other takes a dozen to do so, it is non-sensical to insist that the third guy punches the hardest. Explain to me the error in that logic, without falling back on your pre-conceived notions of how hard any of them hit.

"How many people have to tell you your opinion is retarded before you reconsider?"

I will never reconsider unless they have something convincing to back up their arguments with.

"How many people have to tell you you've been spanked to realize you're getting spanked?"

lol, when whistleblower's post you quoted above is an example of what you consider spanked, even though it's 100% incorrect bullshit, I guess I'm just going to have to disregard your opinion, now won't I?


You've ignored me, haven't you? (please keep the confirmation that you have ignored me under two paragraphs)
2/17/10 7:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Kancho
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/08
Posts: 1327
On My Knees for Doom -  
whistleblower - 
But still, even 2000 alone for Sak was truly epic in itself - one of the greatest, most historically significant years ever. Up through the end of that year, going into 2001, there was virtually no question that Sak had surpassed everyone who came before him, and was the greatest-ever at that point. But he was then in decline for much of the rest of that decade.
First off, excellent post about Nog.  He's my favorite fighter of all time and I've always considered him the Joe Louis of MMA.  Tough, talented and the #2 fighter of all time (just as Louis is second only to Sugar Ray Robinson).  

That said, I have to respecfully disagree with Sak being in the top 5 of all time.  I know it's an unpopular sentiment and I know his run was legendary in its time, but careful analysis of who he was beating, even in the relatively young sport of MMA makes his ranking a little suspect.  Despite the controversial decisions, I would certainly rank Dan Henderson ahead of Sak (and why did Pride never make a fight between these two?)  Sakuraba beat a who's who of "Names" but legit contenders?  

Unlike Nog and other top guys, it is absolutely indisputable that Sak was protected.  That he was given an automatic "no rematch" clause and that he had what amounted to a grappling match with both Vernon White and Carlos Newton tarnishes him somewhat.  Add to that the storming of the octagon following the ersatz "loss" to Conan in the UFC, the ref assist in the Royler match (which was certainly justifiable) the rules ambiguity in the Mezger match and the pre-fight weight limit shifts for the match with Vitor and Sakuraba starts to look like he was almost manufactured.  Only FightFinder logic would allow the rankings alone to justify some of those actions and I know you, WB, in particular are a fierce opponent of that.

That said, a win is a win and if we're going to go back and scrutinize nature of the victory, Henderson falls considerably as do several guys who fought in Pancrase and even Nog is not left untouched with the Rodriguez victory.  

Still, taking it point by point, had Conan been the EF champion when they fought, Sak's victory might have had more relevance, but since he had already been TKOed my Maurice Smith (who would lose his UFC HW title that same night), Conan was basically in a fight to salvage his ranking, not elevate it.  The backstage shenanigans that went on at UFC Japan with Tank's drop-out and the Kingdom guys holding the octagon hostage are well documented.  It was Big John's F-up, but there have certainly been bad stoppages since and that fight exists in a sort of murky gray zone to this day.  I presume it was a NC, but there were certainly no athletic commissions to regulate it at the time.

Either way, in their "do-over" Sak decisively beat Conan in what should have been an easy fight for a Carlson Gracie black belt (having been fought on the ground after all with a guy much lighter).  This was the first indication that Sak might be something special.  

The next two fights against perennial .500 fighter Tiger White and UFC runner-up Carlos Newton almost seemed to go by Shooto or RINGS rules since there was next to no striking in either fight.  Sak decisively outgrappled both fighters, but I've never really understood why they followed Rickson/Nakai rules unless there was a "gentleman's agreement" beforehand.  Either way, they were both beautiful technical masterpieces and I for one enjoyed them.

The draw with Goes would've probably been a loss if decisions were being handed out back then as Sak seemingly had no answer for the butt-scoot.  This was immediately corrected and revolutionized in his next fight with Vitor, but the last minute changes to the weight limit the bout was being contested at supposedly sapped Vitor.  While Vitor's word is suspect, it's unarguable that this was not a case of "old" or "new" Vitor as much as "screwed" Vitor and the results showed it.

Braga was a 100% legit win against a tough fighter who'd been in some wars with good guys and had even gone to a draw with Japanese sweetheart Funaki.  I believe that Japan had to really look at Sak as it's best MMA grappler aside from Rumina Sato at this time because subbing the guy who took Funaki the distance and holding his own with multiple credible grapplers really put him over.  His reward was a gimme against Macias.

The win over Royler is what shot Sak through the roof though it's marred by the stoppage that while justifiable, was supposedly not in the rules.  I've been grappling for 13 years now and if I was the ref, I would've stopped it too, but it has to be said that Royler's MMA credentials were a lot weaker than his brothers and cousins and he was about 30 lbs lighter.  Still, this was the first documented disruption of the Gracie invincibility aura.  By modern standards it seems like a horrible mismatch, but just carrying the name Gracie made it significant.  Still, Royler was not even close to being ranked at any weight so did it do as much to push Sak toward the top 3 at the time or did it just add to his prestige?

The Mezger fight would and should have been a loss for Sak.  Whether you blame Ken, Pride, Sak himself or Guy, the match result was a travesty and like the Fedor "loss" to TK, only happened because of the tournament format.  Igor Vovchanchyn, probably the #1 ranked HW fighter at that moment, crushed Sak, but Sak's survival in that fight in a way only added to his legend.

Royce and Renzo were credible opponents under 200 lbs, carrying the Gracie name, and org champions (WCC and UFC respectively).  Sak beating them made him an NHB community household name.  No more need be said than that except that in beating Royce, Sak effectively became the linear OW champ of the sport for a moment before it returned to Coleman at the end of the GP. 

Neither Shannon Ritch nor Ryan Gracie were credible in any way, Gracie name aside.  The first Wand loss didn't diminish Sak's stature that much because Wand was completing his ascencion.  The second though was the beginning of the end for Sak's reign of terror.  He had beaten a very green Rampage, but his Wanderlization was complete and if his brain wasn't already rattled, Cro Cop finished the job.

This whole history is widely known obviously, but I just get a little annoyed when I hear Sak being mentioned as Top 5 all time.  I think he's a sentimental favorite, but little more.  He had some awesome wins, but they're tied into questionable circumstances and sentiment.  His finest hour was the Royce fight, which crowned him OW champ of NHB for a few minutes, but looking over the arc of his career, he was the sport's greatest showman, but not anywhere near it's greatest fighter.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I stand by it. 


Don't forget the rumours published in grappling magazine that Royce had told someone "they aren't going to let me win"; plus didn't Renzo accuse Japanese officials of drugging his water? Or was that a different fight?

That said, Sak was one of the most exciting fighters ever. Maybe THE most exciting fighter.
2/17/10 7:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Kancho
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/08
Posts: 1328
orcus - 
Actually I said that when several guys fight the same opponent, and two of them put him down with one punch and the other takes a dozen to do so, it is non-sensical to insist that the third guy punches the hardest. Explain to me the error in that logic, without falling back on your pre-conceived notions of how hard any of them hit.


I'd actually like you to link to your original post so we can verify that you said something with such minimal craziness. I believe the actual post concluded that Fedor's punching had been exposed as being weaker than everyone thought (or something equally bizarre).
2/17/10 7:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HAMMER
51 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/21/02
Posts: 14731
WAR NOG
2/17/10 8:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 8038
orcus - At least I would "shit" on him with opinion and analysis of things that actually happen in his fights (whether you think it's right or wrong), and not by rattling off the W-L column from an Excel spreadsheet.

I find it rather ironic now that orcus seems to want to prop up his own ability for "analysis of things that actually happen in fights" - when orcus himself has never trained a day in his life, to really have any kind of firsthand technical understanding of what "actually happen[s] in his fights."

(But then again, this is also the same guy who called Robbie Lawler's punch against Manhoef that of a "sharpshooter" - while Fedor's punch against Arlovski was just "blind" and "lucky" and thrown like "a blindfolded child throwing darts." Typically valid and insightful orcus "analysis" there.)

I'm actually not being facetious here, orcus - just one month, one week, one day of training would probably do much more for your "analysis of things that actually happen in fights" - than all of your over 50,000 posts here combined. Amazing that you have never felt the need to do so in all this time - or considered that even a little firsthand experience might add to your technical fight "analysis."
orcus - I forgot all that matters is who got the W when talking about any aspect of this (or any other) sport. This would indeed be a fantastic discussion forum if we all limited all our discussion solely to what Fightfinder tells us.

You seem to like continuing your very selective "ignoring" of me and my posts - especially of certain particularly relevant parts of it when it comes to NOT "limit[ing] all our discussion solely to what Fightfinder tells us."

Because I specifically made it a point to note that Nog's "loss" to Hendo - where he outgrappled, positionally dominated, and generally outfought Hendo - was an extremely controversial decision at the time, as was Nog's "win" over Ricco. Those are two conspicuous examples of how it is NOT "all that matters is who got the W" - and which is certainly beyond "solely what Fightfinder tells us" - when it comes to defining the outcome of a fight.

Otherwise, if you rely "solely to what Fightfinder tells us" - it would have told you that Nog (like Fedor today) had one official "loss" on his record at the time. Except the reality at the time is that everyone knew Nog had never really, definitively been beaten before - and was still essentially de-facto undefeated.

(Btw, the especially hilarious part is that I've actually seen you cite the Hendo-Nog fight as an example of how a smaller fighter like Hendo was also able to "beat" someone who was Fedor's best win. Talk about just relying on "solely what Fightfinder tells us" - and only going by "all that matters is who got the W" - when it's convenient for your own argument and agenda, of course. Funny how that works.

So tell us - have you actually seen the first Hendo-Nog fight? Why don't you give us your own "analysis of things that actually happen in his fights" in that case?)
2/17/10 8:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52307
 "I believe the actual post concluded that Fedor's punching had been exposed as being weaker than everyone thought (or something equally bizarre)."

What I had said on many occasions was that, given the fact that he had no KOs on his record despite routinely landing many seemingly direct hits to his opponents' faces, and in fact had only rarely dropped anyone with a single punch, it made no sense to conclude he was one of the hardest punchers in the sport as everyone often claimed. Obviously with two back-to-back one punch KOs in his last two fights, my opinion of his punching power has changed. Also note that I almost always conflate power and accuracy in this discussion, having clarified at least once that I was doing so; in other words, my point was that whether he was lacking in power or was simply inaccurate and never connected "on the button", the result was that he had not established himself as a KO puncher. I also said, completely accurately, that putting a virtually motionless Tim down with a dozen punches, given the fact that Tim had been dropped on multiple occasions by other fighters landing just one punch, was hardly evidence of Fedor's punching power, and if anything could be used to argue that he had less power than others.

2/17/10 8:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 8039
orcus - Let's see, the Scott Smith argument. Gee, I guess they are analogous, IF YOU IGNORE THE "HIS SKILL" PART OF WHAT I SAID.

What? So are you saying that Scott Smith has no "skill" at all - or that he used no skill to keep coming back to win, and that it was all, and only, luck every single time?

Well, then if you can't deny that Smith does have some "skill" - then please tell us how Scott Smith does not exactly fulfill EVERY single criteria you listed - exactly as you stated them? Here is what you said, in case you need to be reminded - as to what, according to you, are "the things that REALLY make Nog great":
orcus - his toughness, his perseverance, his determination to keep looking for a finish no matter how badly he's getting beaten, his skill, his classiness, and his just plain good nature

So unless you are claiming that Smith has no "skill" at all - how do all the same things that "REALLY make Nog great" (exactly as you defined them) not likewise REALLY make Scott Smith "great" as well? How does your own specific description there NOT fit Scott Smith?

(And btw, what actually proves that Nog's "skill" is so much higher than Smith's anyway [which it is] - more than the fact that Nog was actually able to apply that "skill" more successfully to MUCH higher level opponents? If Nog only beat the same kind of opponents that Scott Smith has - no matter how much "skill" he showed in those fights - no way would Nog even be close to as "REALLY great" as he's undeniably established himself as. More than anything else, the opponents he beat are what ultimately proved him as such.)

Don't go back and change the parameters of your own specific wording just because it directly led to a ridiculous conclusion (which, for you, is typical).
orcus - You see, the record is NOT why Nog is great

LOL.

Yeah, it's all the Scott Smith factors that do - more than who Nog actually did it against.
2/17/10 9:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52308
 For Kancho, here's one from 2004:

" ""but realistically there is no evidence to support the premise that he's one of the hardest hitting guys in MMA." - thanks for the chuckle." If it's so laughable, what's the evidence? That his punches make good sounds? That it looks like he's swinging hard? A guy with 16 fights and only one KO, three TKOs (one of those a cut stoppage) doesn't have an especially strong argument for being the hardest hitter in my opinion. Tim Sylvia, for example, has KO'd his last two opponents with one punch. Anyway, as I said, I agree that Fedor seems to hit incredibly hard. All I'm saying is that it's silly to crown him King of the Hard Hitters when there are a lot of guys who get KOs right and left."
2/17/10 9:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 8040
orcus - Actually I said that when several guys fight the same opponent, and two of them put him down with one punch and the other takes a dozen to do so, it is non-sensical to insist that the third guy punches the hardest.

You certainly elaborated more than that previously. You said that the Sylvia fight actually further confirmed a continuing lack of punching power on Fedor's part because it took way too many punches for Fedor to finally get Sylvia down - who only "wilted slowly" (your exact words) from sheer volume of punches, rather than actual power - because Fedor's individual punches just did not have enough power behind them to drop Sylvia earlier or more efficiently.

Are you denying you said exactly that?

Because it was a rather distinctly memorable (and truly, literally unique) conclusion to make from the Sylvia fight - that an inadequacy of punching power from Fedor is why he needed to use too many of them to finally get the job done. (More of your singular fight "analysis" skills - especially since Sylvia himself said that no one ever punched him as hard as Fedor did.)
orcus - Obviously with two back-to-back one punch KOs in his last two fights, my opinion of his punching power has changed.

LOL. Yeah, because no one could have reasonably already concluded before then that yeah, that Fedor guy has "punching power."

I think you are truly the only one who needed to see the Arlovski and Rogers fights first to finally realize it - so that now your "opinion of his punching power has changed." So I guess you (and all your unique "analysis" up to then) had been wrong - and everyone else's assessment had been well-founded and right. Go figure.
2/17/10 9:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52310
 ^^^ Is he still trying to argue that Nogueira and Scott Smith are the same when it comes to skill and toughness?
2/17/10 9:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
On My Knees for Doom
149 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 20983
 In this particular WB/Orcus debate I have to say you're both right.

The point is Nog is great.

He's great for all the reasons you mention Orcus, and he's loved for those reasons as well, but without the numbers and stats, it's all just hollow.  To define true greatness you have to have the whole context.


2/17/10 9:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 8041
orcus - And holy shit at the "Ignore" "owning". Do you jackoffs really not know that on Ignore, only subsequent posts in the thread don't show up? That the thread itself, and the initial post, will ALWAYS show up no matter if the person is on Ignore or not?

Yes, and the "ignore" button is what compelled you to even click on this thread in the first place, in order to necessarily read through my original post, and then bother to respond to it - and then keep posting repeatedly on this thread - where you proceed to post specifically (and personally) about whistleblower the poster more than about the actual subject of this thread.

Yeah, great job of "ignoring" me there, orcus. Hell, just look at you compulsively following and responding to this thread throughout the whole day. You have actually posted here more times than I have. So you not only saw my thread, felt the irresistible need to click on and read it - but have even kept coming back to and posting on this thread more times than every other person here.

Damn that inadequate "ignore" button!!! And btw, LOL @ even needing an "ignore button" to ignore someone in the first place.

You know, when I want to ignore someone, I don't make a great big show and go around making girlish proclamations telling everyone how I'm ignoring them - I just do. (Gasp o' shock, even with no "ignore button" around.) But taking pains to let everyone know how you're ignoring someone - while still compulsively responding to that person anyway - is pretty much the definition of bitch.

You're the prepubescent girl who goes out of her way to text someone to tell them how she's ignoring them - and then keeps obsessively texting them.
2/17/10 9:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 8042
Btw, orcus' personal obsessions aside - does anyone want to actually dispute, discuss or argue about Nog being the #2 fighter of the decade?
2/17/10 9:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Kancho
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/08
Posts: 1333
orcus -  "I believe the actual post concluded that Fedor's punching had been exposed as being weaker than everyone thought (or something equally bizarre)."

What I had said on many occasions was that, given the fact that he had no KOs on his record despite routinely landing many seemingly direct hits to his opponents' faces, and in fact had only rarely dropped anyone with a single punch, it made no sense to conclude he was one of the hardest punchers in the sport as everyone often claimed. Obviously with two back-to-back one punch KOs in his last two fights, my opinion of his punching power has changed. Also note that I almost always conflate power and accuracy in this discussion, having clarified at least once that I was doing so; in other words, my point was that whether he was lacking in power or was simply inaccurate and never connected "on the button", the result was that he had not established himself as a KO puncher. I also said, completely accurately, that putting a virtually motionless Tim down with a dozen punches, given the fact that Tim had been dropped on multiple occasions by other fighters landing just one punch, was hardly evidence of Fedor's punching power, and if anything could be used to argue that he had less power than others.


I'd like to respond to your actual words, not what you're revisioning to sound less crazy. If anyone cares enough to post the links to his post-Timmy talks of Fedor being exposed, it would be appreciated.

If no one cares enough about Orcus' bullshit to post a link, I absolutely 100% understand.
2/17/10 9:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52317
 It's hard to find. This site's search function is very limited and google doesn't search the site completely for some reason.

But a few posts back I posted exactly what I said in 2004 about his punching power.
2/17/10 9:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Kancho
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/08
Posts: 1334
orcus -  For Kancho, here's one from 2004:

" ""but realistically there is no evidence to support the premise that he's one of the hardest hitting guys in MMA." - thanks for the chuckle." If it's so laughable, what's the evidence? That his punches make good sounds? That it looks like he's swinging hard? A guy with 16 fights and only one KO, three TKOs (one of those a cut stoppage) doesn't have an especially strong argument for being the hardest hitter in my opinion. Tim Sylvia, for example, has KO'd his last two opponents with one punch. Anyway, as I said, I agree that Fedor seems to hit incredibly hard. All I'm saying is that it's silly to crown him King of the Hard Hitters when there are a lot of guys who get KOs right and left."


LOL that might be far enough back to the time when you were actually a Fedor fan. (Did everyone know that? That at one time Orcus was swinging on that nutsack as carefree as any of us?)

I'm talking about after your mind snapped. And specifically your post-Timmy fight comments which WB reiterated just a few posts up.
2/17/10 9:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 52319
 "And specifically your post-Timmy fight comments which WB reiterated just a few posts up."

What did he say and how is he searching? I could use some search tips. You know, to make sure I don't engage in any reprehensible revisionism.
2/17/10 10:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 8045
^ Are you really so pussy that you either can't admit that you're really seeing my posts - or really can't bear to actually confront them yourself and need a go-between? Seriously, which is more pussy?

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.