UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> DFW slams Big Dan, wants Cote vs. Sakara rematch


11/19/12 1:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheRaider
33 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/11
Posts: 1232
For a NC, the shots need to be accidental/unintentional. I think they where intentional, so the DQ was the right call..
11/19/12 1:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ludelow
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/7/12
Posts: 872
jones vs hamill!
Jones was disqualified for illegal "12-to-6" elbow strikes.

so, why a NC?

james toney:

"On July 16, 2008, Toney's rematch against Hasim Rahman was stopped in the third round. An accidental clash of heads to the outside of Rahman's brow opening a cut above Rahman's left eye to the inside of the brow leading to the stoppage. Rahman told the ring doctor he could not see, the ring doctor then stopped the fight. Initially, the fight was called as a TKO win for Toney, but this was overruled by the California State Athletic Commission and the fight was declared no-contest. Rahman went on to fight Wladimir Klitschko for the IBF, IBO and WBO Heavyweight titles in his next fight."

so even SAC's can overturn outcomes with illegal moves
11/19/12 2:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kanabull
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/3/11
Posts: 2283
MMA4Hugs - 

I can't believe anyone is arguing that most of those shots were legal. Sakara was wailing on the back of his head on purpose, hard! The ones that hit ear were the accidents. Wow. I can only guess that Mirgliotta saw Cindy Crawford through the cage and forgot where he was for a few seconds.

In the crowd we were chanting "BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT" when we saw the replay, and note that we couldn't hear any of the commentary. Everyone around me was saying "Cote was on his way out and Sakara would probably have won, but those were just blatant illegal blows". 

Anyone claiming otherwise should forfeit any right to referee a fight in the future, ever.

 


I agree with this. It was really blatant and I think puts on display why the rule exists. It is far too easy to just rain down blows on the back of your opponents head Bob Sapp style.

They also looked really intentional as well. You can usually tell when guys are trying to hit the side of the head and miss, but like this person said Sakara looked like he meant every shot to the back of the head that he threw.
11/19/12 2:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
OmgItsTheWams
221 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/8/10
Posts: 1581
Mayhem13 - Only 2 or maybe 3 of those shots didn't connect with the ear. If a shot hits the ear, it can't be back of the head..

I can understand a NC..but the DQ was extreme. Especially after never getting a warning.

A lot of people are being swayed by the commentators reaction. There were no more then 3 shots to the back of the head.

NC. Sure. DQ. No. Phone Post
Been saying same thing Phone Post
11/19/12 3:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
rsbones
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/9/11
Posts: 95
Hitting ONLY the ear is ok. Hitting the ear with fist while forearm smashes back of head (like Eric Silva did) is illegal, as are these shots where there is an impact in the illegal area. Phone Post
11/19/12 5:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Olive Garden Table For One
76 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/12/05
Posts: 39275

Big Dan reversed himself when he heard the boos. Not a pro move. I see 2 bad shots and 7 legit ones.

11/19/12 6:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
joe canada
43 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3544
Think I'm going to spend a good part of the night posting "Yamasaki was right!" all over the DQ threads.

I remember the OG shitting all over him for that call a while back, and now we're shitting on Dan for not making that call quickly enough.

Vindication.
11/19/12 6:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Olive Garden Table For One
76 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/12/05
Posts: 39282

Joe CANADA can hardly be unbiased in a matter such as this. 

11/19/12 6:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
joe canada
43 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3545
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x67pqu_operaman2_fun#.UKrGwXy9KK0

Lupo: Vid at. 1:20 for your boy and his team. :)
11/19/12 7:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
georgejonesjr
44 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/5/06
Posts: 2089
Even if only 2 or 3 were back of the head, that's enough to make it a NC. Don't think it should be a DQ.

If you start allowing fighters to win after 2 or 3 illegal shots, the logical strategy is to eye gouge twice (say on the ground, where its pretty easy to do), and then when the guy can't see, finish the fight.

But unless he was warned the shots were back of the head, shouldn't be a DQ. So yeah, definitely a NC, but not a DQ.
11/19/12 10:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
joe canada
43 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3551
George:

1) According to some UGers, you can hear the warning on the PPV
2) There's no stipulation for warning in the Unified Rules. If there were, it would essentially mean a few free shots to the back of the head until you get the warning.

Not sure what the litmus test is for DQ or NC, but I'd have to think that if this doesn't qualify as a DQ, then no series of strikes to the back of the head were.

These were repeated, deliberate blows to the back of the head that clearly and obviously stopped the fight. Some will say Cote was on the way out, but on the way out isn't out. Others will say Cote was working a single to avoid taking more damage. Either way, it was clearly the shots to the back of the head that finished this fight.
11/20/12 11:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dallas Winston
73 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/30/03
Posts: 27189
joe canada - George:

1) According to some UGers, you can hear the warning on the PPV
2) There's no stipulation for warning in the Unified Rules. If there were, it would essentially mean a few free shots to the back of the head until you get the warning.

Not sure what the litmus test is for DQ or NC, but I'd have to think that if this doesn't qualify as a DQ, then no series of strikes to the back of the head were.

These were repeated, deliberate blows to the back of the head that clearly and obviously stopped the fight. Some will say Cote was on the way out, but on the way out isn't out. Others will say Cote was working a single to avoid taking more damage. Either way, it was clearly the shots to the back of the head that finished this fight.

To answer your question, "intention" is what determines a NC (unintentional) vs. a DQ (intentional).


Reply Post

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