Bloody Elbow

Don't be shitty.

Matthew Roth - January 29, 2012 reply

awesome

Roth, you get a lot of shit for the pro wrestling stuff, but catching a 35 year old reference is pretty impressive. I grew up watching WWF, and still remember when my parents took me to my first amateur wrestling practice when I was like 7, I thought I was going to be doing flying elbows off the top rope and shit.

For the first time ever, I was getting a bit tired of Chael’s schtick leading up to this fight. The pre-fight stuff was entertaining, but a little too rehearsed. I was very relieved to listen to the ‘real’ Chael post fight on Fox and in the press conference. It certainly quelled any of the annoyance I had with him to hear him speak much more honestly (relatively).

insamniac - January 29, 2012 reply

I see it the opposite...

Too much bullshit to be honest. I enjoy the talent Chael has with the microphone but this is serious stuff for the UFC to consider. “Beef” between these two was fake and to have a post fight interview go the way this did screams pure bullshit in my opinion… A second FOX broadcast and the casual fan is suppose to think that this is a tad more real than WWE? With their behavior over the last 24 hours?

I’m seeing a UFC that’s starting to get too murky. A tad fake? I want GSP telling the fans it wasn’t good enough. I want a Diaz telling me how it goes down in Stockton. I want a Rampage telling me that he’s the best Rampage to walk into a cage and Bones deserves his due for beating him up. I want to see Griffin tell us that he hates the thought of fighting Quinton again because it’s gonna hurt… I don’t need the bullshit Sonnen presents.

He ain’t no champion. He ain’t undefeated. And he can fuck off with his talking the talk yet pitter pattering punchin’ schtick…

That being said, I look forward to purchasing yet another PPV where yet again Anderson beats the jawin’ bastard.

jthin - January 29, 2012 reply

I think your last lines sums up everything.

I think it's the only Chael fight I would be excited to see Tim.

And his talk is fun to listen to but it’s skirting a little close to WWE than the UFC where it is “as real as it gets”.

jthin - January 29, 2012 reply

Right

I said I was annoyed by him too. If you listened to him after the fight though, (not counting the Rogan interview) he sounded much more like a regular guy, even conceding that he wouldn’t have argued if he’d lost the decision. It was nice to see him not in character, which has become way too over the top.

insamniac - January 29, 2012 reply

people always forget its just an act

Just look at how riled up everyone is about it lol.

mikeI981j - January 29, 2012 reply

People already know it's an act

They just grew tired of it. It was good at first, made every body hate him before the Andy fight. Then, became awesome when he sad a lot of hilarious things. But now, it’s completely lame and forced. Nobody is riled up like before the Silva fight, people are just annoyed.

Triangled - January 30, 2012 reply

Im not too sure about that, because it seems every time sonnen says something and its posted on here everyone comes in to complain about him. Me personally I don’t like milk, so instead of telling everyone about how I don’t like it and why, I just stopped drinking it.

mikeI981j - January 30, 2012 reply

UNDEFEATED AND UNDISPUTED

Chael yet again successfully defended his middleweight championship. Yeah an idiot judge gave Chael all 3 rounds because one takedown negates quite a bit of offense from the other fighter unfortunately but I called it. The takedown is valued WAY too highly in the eyes of the judges and has been this way for far too long.

Rob Young - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Bisping's offense mostly consisted of leaning against Sonnen and pushing him against the cage

Bisping produced very little offense in the first and third. How anyone thought he won is mind blowing.

how you think that there was little offense from bisping is mind blowing

Do you also think that Clay Guida is some kind of offense producing fighter?

Most of the fight consisted of a stalemate or Bisping defending takedowns, getting take down and punched a few times on the way up. His actual offensive output wasn’t too impressive in the first and third. Sonnen was actually busier in the clinch in the first, landing a good amount of knees and dirty boxing a bit. I don’t see how someone gives the first round or the third round to Bisping. Even the second round was competitive.

Check the stats. Sonnen edged Bisping out on everything essentially. As small as that edge was, takedowns do mean everything.

Empty Thoughts - January 29, 2012 reply

-1. Boom. There goes mathematics running wild.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Not going to lie

I love this comment

+ infinity and then multiplied by infinity.

buh-boom blam

Rob Young - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

I’m done picking random events to showcase how awesome MMA is. We all know sometimes it can be boring, even for us.

spectaa - January 29, 2012 reply

It was just happenstance. We had planned this dinner for awhile and tuned in, I had my DVR recording, but they were curious. If I’m going to showcase an MMA event for friends I will make sure that a Diaz or Condit is on the show. I’m not hosting a Super Bowl party this year. My friends want my good eats they are going to get a good show to boot.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

You SHOULDN'T just pick any old event to introduce someone to MMA.

I was brought into the sport the right way… Highlight reels. The first HL reels I saw were of Fedor, BJ, Chuck, Gomi, Hughes. You watch those, and some stock “best knockouts/ best submissions” montages, and then you’re ready for a proper event.

Granted, I think I took to the sport alot quicker than your average person. I did Judo as a kid, and was also a big pro wrestling fan (although I can’t stand the shit nowadays).

But yeah, if you’re going to show someone a full card, maybe try to get a DVD of a great event in recent memory. That way nobody ruins their special night.

Are we so sensative?

Why does every action or match have to be a referendum on the sport of MMA? It is what it is, You Mad Bro?

Roman727 - January 29, 2012 reply

No. Just giving the perspective of a fan who isn’t plugged into every bit of MMA and is just curious. Guess what? That’s what Fox is doing as well.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

And the word is “sensitive”.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

calm down guys

memitim is just mad that JOE got exposed in a bad way.

Rob Young - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

JOE got robbed. Planes and shit…

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

It's hard for a non-wwe fan to understand how polarising WWE is.

Our Bovine Public - January 29, 2012 reply

Fuck those ignorant assholes

You tell those ignorant fools that MMA does not have to prove anything to them. When UFC becomes bigger than the NFL,NBA,MLB,PGA they are not going to be able to watch. Chael sonnen will make sure of that.lol

Charmin Ultra - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

love how you tried to sneak PGA in there and no-one would notice

It does make me wonder how much of that was Rogan’s commentary, he seemed to sell Bisping holding Sonnen against the fence as having much more value than Sonnen having Bisping down on the ground.

brad23 - January 29, 2012 reply

Given how that fight was predicted to go,

I think that it wasn’t that out of line. I was a lot surprised at Bisping’s effort personally. MAybe he could have framed it better.

The look on Rogan’s face after Chael’s awkward little speech was priceless, and reflected how I felt.

DankNabbot - January 29, 2012 reply

I love mma & I used to love pro wrestling with that said...

Cheal Sonnen has jumped the shark. It’s forced and unoriginal…to begin with it was an extention of persona not his own but now it’s just recycling & hoping for the best… That’s not paying homage it’s being lazy & thinking fans are so hungry for this shit they’ll eat up anything spewed out of his mouth.

RECE ROCK - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

I think Chael figured, "Hey, I'm on fox,

I’ll just grab my spotlight while it’s on and run with it." I think it was so poorly executed, and looked so weird after such a close fight, that his plan backfired. But whatever, I am so over that guy that I don’t even care if he loses or wins anymore, him on the mic is an instant channel change for me at this point. and if that’s the direction the UFC goes in, well, it was fun.

DankNabbot - January 29, 2012 reply

Subtleties or not, how the fuck did Bisping win that fight?

Barely won? Clearly you, along with Rogan, were exaggerating Bisping’s output to sway your friends’ opinions.

From striking distance, Bisping outlanded Chael by a mere 2 strikes in the first, and 1 strike in the second. Nobody in their right mind would value that over a clearly won ground game and takedowns. There are no subtleties here. Chael clearly won.

paythefighters - January 29, 2012 reply

Nobody in their right mind values a meaningless takedown or two,

or Chael’s weak flailing in the clinch, over landing the better strikes for both the first and the second round, which Bisping did. Here’s to winning fights with aggression, pseudo-control and a big mouth. You’re our hero Chael Sonnen!

The takedowns were not meaningless

He trapped Bisping against the cage and flurried on him for short (!) periods of time when he got back up. So while he wasn’t doing much on the ground, the TD did have some effect.

KGNLuc - January 29, 2012 reply

Of course,

just matching the lunatic tone of the comment I was responding to. Takedowns count for close to nothing in my book, but if they lead to strikes or serious submission attempts, those actions score points.

Nice, I know nothing about Pro Wrestling so it just seemed like more Chael Sonnen to me.

spectaa - January 29, 2012 reply

I don't care, it was still amusing,

especially coming after a loss:)

Well, technically...

wait, I see what you did there…

Sigh. Here comes that fucking pelican gif. again:)

What pelican gif?

I must know.

Here we go.

I don't understand...

See, it's working!

There was a point where this was the go-to for all “I see what you did there” comments:)

Shit...I'm so behind the curve...

if anyone seriously thinks mma is fake

they’re fucking retarded

JayT86 - January 29, 2012 reply

They didn’t think it was fake. They thought, after Chael’s promo and my hyping how big the event would be in Brazil if Chael won, that it was tilted. And chill on the retarded. No need to feed the stereotype.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

He busted out Billy Graham at the pre-fight press conference too. “The reflection of perfection”.

MostDiabolicalCasanova - January 29, 2012 reply

Thanks for the bust out Mr. Sonnen

"Eating all my steak raw. I don't even cook my meat."

That was awesome.

WanderChe - January 29, 2012 reply

Another thing he has in common with Billy Graham

is that they’re both avid abusers of steroids!

OldBoomBap - January 29, 2012 reply

Except Sonnen's fucked, now that he has to cut his cycle earlier.

And then first time viewers changed the channel.

NoHo - January 29, 2012 reply

You missed every events including a Fitch fight ?

spectaa - January 29, 2012 reply

so you dont count. what worse you forgot the Hos

dandeman - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Why do people read soo much into an over the top promo? Yeah, it’s pro wrestling 101. I kinda wish he wouldn’t just straight rip legends off (at least when Joshi’s doin’ it, he reps Dusty and stuff), but…these types of hype promos exist in every level of every sport smart/dumb enough to put a live mic in front of a competitor. If you don’t think this drives casual interest, you’re crazy. Chael’s speech was the most memorable thing of the entire UFC on Fox 2 main card. The fights certainly aren’t making casuals pine for more.

Instead of hating, think about a couple things:

1. If you’re here deriding it, that means you remembered it at least.
2. If you think outrageous characters do any damage to the credibility of the sport whatsoever, I can point you to 500 examples why you’re fucking wrong. And you can probably point me to about three that might help your point. Probably two and a half, one of them was probably Sky Low Low.

If he dominated I would agree. He barely pulled out a victory and then went on that rant. Wrong time, wrong place.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Not really. You have an opinion of the sport as a regular watcher. You wanted/expected him to give Bisping some props for a close fight (which he did plenty of at the post-fight press conference). But what’s more memorable? What’s going to cement his place in the minds of a gigantic audience? The completely tame and predictable Rashad Evans interview? Or a catchy (if rehearsed) promo? You’re looking at it the wrong way man. That was exactly the right time and exactly the right place.

You want 100% sport? Cool. I respect that. But the UFC isn’t 100% sport.

My audience didn’t watch the post-fight interviews. They watched a fighter, who barely won, give a ridiculous promo post-fight promo and it harkened to their days of watching pro-wrestling. That’s all. They didn’t know who Chael was going in but they recognized his style of post fight rambling as pure pro-wrestling.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

I’m trying to figure out what’s wrong with that?

Like I said, if Chael dominated then the perception would be different. He didn’t. A debate could easily be made that Bisping won but Chael/Anderson is the more money fight. If I’m a casual I would have my doubts. That’s the point regarding Chael’s post-fight promo.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Okay, so if Chael says “hey, close fight, I barely beat Bisping”…your friends are gonna go “well shit, that had to be real?”

Definitely. His interview post- fight was pure WWE. If he did a more realistic interview, like Rampage saying I thought I lost that fight, they would see the realism. Chael was projecting pure fantasy.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Like when Rampage said

Forrest “kicked my ass” in the cage and immediately changed to “I won the fight” backstage? So you want the UFC to be more fake?

And Chael was at the press conference sayin “Bisping kicked my ass” tonight. It’s exactly the same thing.

I assume memitim is an adult, and he sat down and watched the card with adults. If adults can’t figure out that MMA (like all sports) involve some level of pageantry, and that sometimes the witty catchline is more important for future interest than the sportsmanlike mumbo jumbo everyone else spouts…well, god rest his MMA-loving soul.

Personally, I think memitim is just bitter cuz JOE lost again! : )

The thing is regular folks look at MMA and can’t help but see similarities in pro-wrestling. Then Chael confirms them. That’s all.
And JOE was robbed!!!

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

What’s wrong with that though? If they think that the relationship blurs the line between fixed and real, that’s on them. Many, many more people just wanna be entertained. Ask Monte Fisto, we argue about this all the time. In this case, I’m on his side.

I do appreciate the debate though. You’re one of the few that can take a minority position, get plastered for it, and still retain your dignity and not let it degenerate into name calling and stupidity (kinda like Chael, ironically). Props to you, sir.

Tim, you are one of the very few that I would debate into the whee hours of the morning knowing I will come out understanding more than when I came in.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

LOL that might be the nicest thing anyone’s said to me on here. Other than that one time Roth said I had a nice ass, but that was just awkward.

You see, I’m more interested in your mind, than Roth is in your body.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

O_o

One of those scares me. The other…well, I do have a pretty nice ass.

NickRingp4pGOAT - January 30, 2012 reply

Considering pro-wrestling’s man thongs, you should be at peace.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Or, if Roth really did say that, don’t lead him on.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Bloody Elbow: come for the homoerotic sporting event,

stay for the homoerotic comments.

bevedog - January 29, 2012 reply

Pics or it didn't happen.

Rampage’s post-fight interviews ABSOLUTELY SUCK!

Holls Hoyce - January 29, 2012 reply

rampage rocks.

JayT86 - January 29, 2012 reply

you're living in a mma media bubble if you think simple stuff like this has no effect on casuals

i have friends who think every fight lesnar was in was fixed. this is not because they’re WWE fans, it’s because they’ve been exposed to WWE and think it’s stupid.
it’s that great crossover WWE audience you all crave – except it’s not a fan audience, it’s an audience that thinks WWE is stupid.

chael is great for hardcore fans who get it but it was a mistake putting him on this card.

WWE polarises people. It’s not like boxing. If you know nothing about you can still acknowledge it’s a real sport and potentially have respect for the fighters as athletes. WWE has fans, and then the rest of us who think it’s dumb.

It depends on whether or not you are willing to put weight on the people on his livingroom counting as a representative sample of a bunch of people in livingrooms across the U.S.

I’ve also seen it happen back at home.

Here in Mexico we’re all about BOXING (RAAAHRRRR!) and most of my family, save for my brother, thinks MMA is huggy bullshit. They just don’t give a fuck about it since they watched a crappy, wrestly hugfest.

Seems plausible.

Isn't this whole discussion about how Chael did Chael?

I kinda think he gave his friends some unrealistic expectations in the first place.

This, after I had hyped the match as a lead in to a huge rematch with one of the greatest of the sport before the fight to perk their interest

As a fan of the sport that’s seen a Chael Sonnen fight before, why would you think, or give them any sort of impression, that Chael would do anything different?

It is odd but who knows

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - January 29, 2012 reply

But, if you never watched the sport before, and were told a rematch with Anderson would fill a Brazil soccer stadium, that the results might seem tilted, without any understanding of MMA judging? And then he gives a standard pro-wrestling promo post match that he barely won? It would seem fishy to someone who was watching for the first time.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

looked to me like he was sandbagging round 1 and 2

Eh, so does two guys rolling around without throwing punches.

Well, as someone who hasn’t watched a sport before, I certainly wouldn’t think it was fixed the first time I tuned in. I’ve never seen dodgeball on TV, but if I throw on ESPN Ocho and see a good ole’ dodgeball game, and the fat guys beat the skinny guys, my first thought isn’t “FIX!” Especially if the fats guys cut a funny promo.

As I said before, maybe you should have given your friends a more realistic explanation of what they were about to see. You really didn’t say “here comes some grade A bullshit!” when Rogan stuck a mic in his face? Really?

Dodgeball on ESPN Ocho is pure fiction. Like Chael’s post-fight promo.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

LOL

Kinda my point.

Do you remember Chris Weidman’s post fight interview? Do you care who he fights next? Hell, we KNOW who Rashad’s fighting next. Do you remember his promo? Do you care about that bout any more than you did 75 months ago when it was originally rumored?

Sonnen sold Silva/Sonnen 2 to a huge audience tonight. If your 11 friends went “eww fake, make it go away!”, fine. I fucking guarantee you that 100000% more casual fans went “well shiiit that guy was funny, I wanna see that!”

If that’s too fake for you, I’ll send you updates about the fight while you and your friends are at a movie or something. Wait, that’s fake too?

To any sportsman, Chael’s promo was fake. No one watched the press conference besides die hards. And that’s who will be most interested in Chael/Anderson II based on tonight’s performance. Chael did zero to promote that fight on a performance basis.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

By barely beating a really tough competitor that was pushed as world-class all night? I disagree. He won. That’s what mattered, and that’s what will always matter in this sport. And a quick look at the stats plays out the fact that Chael won two rounds.

Like I said, to someone who isn’t accustomed to MMA judging it’s hard to watch that fight and see Chael as the winner.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

now that's

some hyperspeed hyperbole

Not really. A lot of people, even Dana White, thought Bisping won.

Dana also thought Bisping won every round against Mayhem

uh he did

milk72 - January 29, 2012 reply

I disagree, but it’s definitely a valid opinion.

You should know your hyperbole from bole.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

let’s improve the dialogue <3

Sakuraba, Rickson, Minowaman, improved. Done.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Rocky, Apollo, Fedor and Big Nog ;p

Happy to see you are following. I stand by those posts.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Stats lie. Always.

62% of people say that’s bullshit, Barton. 78%!!

http://blog.fightmetric.com/2011/06/overeem-vs-werdum-ii-official.html

I know you agree anyway, but for posterity

If you haven’t already, check out how compustrike scored this bout as opposed to FM. While I think Chael won, your point will be fully proven by the disparity.

I did that

after I saw fightmetric. It’s so silly that two “statistic” sites can have such a huge disparity in numbers. The whole “science” is rubbish and people who use them to prove who won are being tricksy.

I know some people thought Chael won and, to be fair, I think I know why some people scored it for him. I just think those people score MMA wrong.

And I think FightMetric consistently gets the stats right while Compustrike is dumb. Chael clearly won one and three my friend. : )

They certainly

got it right with Overeem vs Werdum!

Compustrike has poor methodology

They count where strikes come from, not where they land. That’s just stupid. It’s 10x more important to know whether power shot are landing to the head rather than the body or legs than it is to know whether those shots were punches or kicks.

paythefighters - January 29, 2012 reply

how the fuck?

I don’t understand how Overeem threw Werdum to the ground repeatedly but gets zero credit for takedowns. Fightmetric is starting to slip into compustrike territory—it’s still not obviously wrong all the time, but it’s had me scratching my head a lot. Or maybe my scalp is just dry.

mcgriff - January 29, 2012 reply

It says why right in the link.

“Note: Overeem is not credited with successful takedowns because a takedown requires that the attempting fighter establish a ground-based advantageous position.”

zY - January 29, 2012 reply

It didn't credit Chael

for getting mount either. The whole system is stupid and broken.

Chris Barton - January 30, 2012 reply

My point if you’re gonna sit a bunch of people down and sell it as 100% sport, especially when CHAEL SONNEN IS ON YOUR TV, I think you probably just hurt your own cred more than the sport’s cred.

Except Chael showed up for Anderson and Stann. He didn’t tonight and then after the fight pretended he did. That’s the point. I can sell Chael after those fights. After tonight, and his BS after, I can’t.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Maybe Bisbing is tougher than you thought

And maybe Chael is good enought to beat him bad

Except Chael didn’t beat him bad. He barely beat him.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Sonnen didn’t even beat Anderson!

How are you missing the fact that what happens in the cage isn’t always 100% important to building the next fight!

Because if I’m watching for the first time and hear how awesome Anderson is, after watching Chael tonight, I would expect Tyson/nobody.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

That’s taking it in the other direction though. 100% is very far from 0%. I see what you’re saying, but just show em UFC 117.

But, I can’t sell Chael without selling the Spider. That’s what he is defined by today. Tonight, that guy gets destroyed by the Spider and hopefully will in Brazil so we can put him behind us.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

I’ve always been of the opinion that Anderson’s rib injury really affected him that night and it would have never been close with out it anyway. Anderson’s clearly 10 times the fighter Chael is, IMO. I just like guys that find ways to maximize their income potential in any way possible, and personality gets you ahead in every walk of life. I respect his ability to be shameless, basically.

After watching “Like Water” I’m certain Anderson’s injury had a ton to do with his fight against Chael and I look forward to him proving it. I have little problem with Chael’s normal schtick. But, in the cage, with the guy who just beat him up, I hope for more. That’s all.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Fair enough.

Good debate, sir.

A fisherman always sees another fisherman from afar. I tip my hat.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

I dig that line.

I still think Rich Franklin beats Chael

9 outta 10

Rich got taken down and controlled by Forrest

How does he deal with Chael?

paythefighters - January 29, 2012 reply

Not agreeing with Chris’s thoughts there, but Forrest is essentially a Heavyweight even if he fights at Light Heavy. Franklin getting controlled by Forrest isn’t hard to imagine once you consider the weight difference.

Empty Thoughts - January 29, 2012 reply

Good thing you didn't introduce your friends

to MMA durig the Silva/Leites fight. Imagine how fucked their heads would have been. I’m assuming you chill will simple people AND they would have had to pay for it.

Good thing I didn’t introduce them to GSP vs anyone lately or Lesnar for that matter. Like I said, tonight was happenstance. Some I hang with have zero clue about MMA and some are real competitors. Depends on the night and the card.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

That is so different

from your original statement

No, it’s not. I made it clear who I was watching with. You made your own assumptions.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

He's gone

so don’t bother talking to him anymore

Then I will just yodel. Or have a yodel.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

I would say

that there is no 100% pro sport.

Elstriko - January 29, 2012 via Android app reply

I would counter this by saying that he won a dominating fight

But then Unaguy would come and try to tell me I’m wrong. I didn’t know this was a tag team event

Sean in Vancouver - January 29, 2012 reply

Chael IS WWE afterall...

You are entitled to see the fight the way you say you did. And there's plenty of people who saw Bisping as winning.

I, like you, though Sonnen won clearly, though (not a dominating one, but still). Don’t be mad, brah. Just sleep on it and calm down.

I'm gonna sleep on it and not comment again

Till the PPV next weekend. I’m getting it all out of the way now

Sleep well, man.

No hard feeling on this side.

I like you and wouldn't spend my time fighting if I didn't

Just letting you know I only comment when drunk so I’m not running but just don’t drink during the work week. I’ll be back fighting bullshit points next weekend.

it seems to me that a large percentage of mma fans still remember the day they found out wrestling was fake, and it makes them sad because they were “lied to.” That’s the only thing that can explain the outrageous hate it gets. Yes, it’s fake. yes, it’s a trashy form of entertainment. So is lots of other bullshit that’s on tv, people need to get over it.

If you irrationally hate pro wrestling, you have to do 2 things. The first thing is realize that whatever you think about people that like pro wrestling, people also think that about you liking mma. And the second thing is get over it, because the pro wrestling elements aren’t going away, so deal with it.

Phildo - January 29, 2012 reply

I grew up with MMA

So I always knew Pro-wrestling was fake. Maybe that’s why I don’t really mind it.

I don't think so....

If you don’t think this drives casual interest, you’re crazy. Chael’s speech was the most memorable thing of the entire UFC on Fox 2 main card.

Pro wrestling is over with. The casuals are turned off by Chael Sonnen, not interested in him.

The story memitim related about his non MMA friends asking him “wait, what was that? Is this new pro wrestling?” was likely repeated all across North America. It might have been memorable but not in a good way at all.

Luke Nelson - January 31, 2012 reply

Funny how on BE its paying homage and on MM its ripping off

Only paying homage when you reference who your paying homage to imo.

Chael clearly trying to be clever and getting caught

AfroSamurai - January 29, 2012 reply

I agree with that. Like I said above, Josh Barnett freely gives Dusty Rhodes credit when he does the Hard Times promo. Chael’s kinda hoping no one is noticing that’s he’s ripping off guys now, it seems.

How is it ripping them off?

I think giving props would be better.

I might have spelled that out wrong or something, I dunno. I think giving props would be better too. Sonnen’s not doing that though. He’s not giving the Superstar any props, or even admitting that he’s using the same lines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - January 29, 2012 reply

it's all a work and you are all marking out

that is all

Using the same lines is giving props. Most props that guys has got in at least 20 years.

I dunno, I’d say that 1/4 of pro wrestlers directly rip off Superstar in some way. Hulk Hogan IS Superstar Billy Graham. Exactly the same.

Either way, I get what you’re sayin. Just keepin his shit alive, especially in another sport, is a definite form of props. It’s just really transparent to fans of said sport. Many people are sitting at home tonight thinking “damn, that Sonnen guy is witty as hell!” when all he did was memorize a speech written by a man 30 years ago and regurgitated to a new audience.

There is nothing new under the sun, but we should not pretend that giving a cool line in front of a huge audience on live tv is just easy.

I think Geno (on Mania) got it right.. stealing someones promo word-for-word without giving them credit is ripping them off, not paying homage.

Horselover Fat - January 29, 2012 reply

Hey memitim, you may not be into pro wrestling.

But let The Rock ask you this…what in the blue blazing hell was JOE doing tonight? He walked straight off his house on the corner of Jabroni Drive, checked into to the Smackdown Hotel on Mike Russow’s dime. And once Russow was done with him, he dropped him off onto Know Your Role Boulevard!

What happened?!

What was your name, son? Who the hell are you?

Sorry

Who in the blue hell are you?

That one adjective saved me a bit of shame.

JOE screwed JOE. Montreal style.

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Dana backstage meeting with JOE.

“Jon! YOU’RE! FIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!”

And Joe spits in his face after he punks him in the mouth and goes to ONE FC to become a star. Or something like that….

memitim - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Memitim, a compliment

You are no “Captain Coward”; you truly are going down with the ship…

Dootch - January 29, 2012 reply

Which Jon?

Neither performed very well tonight

Whatever that fight was, I wouldn't call it a smackdown.

Now the Bisping 'won' crowd can shut up.

“33: Total strikes by which Sonnen outlanded Bisping in their middleweight No. 1 contender bout. The Team Quest representative connected on more total strikes than Bisping in every round. He also successfully landed more significant strikes than "The Count" in rounds one (24 to 13) and three (5 to 2).”

lordrelay - January 29, 2012 reply

"significant strikes" is a beyond idiotic metric.

He also scored takedowns and generally outgrappled him

Bisping didn’t do much in the first and third rounds. Sure it looked like he was busy, but he just pushed Sonnen up against the fence during those rounds. I don’t care about Rogan’s bias and absurd commentary during that bout.

I wonder if Randy Couture does pro wrestling shtick and calls his unit Space Mountain.

This thread has me feeling like I'm on acid

It was fun but now I will lay awake staring at the ceiling thinking about the girls I should have banged.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - January 29, 2012 reply

hindsight is always 20/20

BEWWE

Bisping got screwed...

…harder than Bret Hart. 30-27? wtf.

roblo - January 29, 2012 reply

One of the best things about this sport...

If you didnt like how this show went down(Chael’s promo, etc)..just wait til next weekend. It’ll be totally different with Nick Diaz and Carlos Condit.

I personally think Chael is entertaining. If he had a dominant(or even a convincing) win last night the over the top promo wouldn’t have been so bad.

PS: I was hoping Chael would win, however, I personally feel that Bisping should have erked that one out. Takedowns that result in the defensive fighter standing RIGHT back up shouldnt even draw points in my opinion.

And pushing a guy against the fence should?

Neither should count.

And if they do count, they should be based on how long the dominant fighter is maintaining the position.

sun yue - January 29, 2012 reply

And damage, if that wasn't obvious, but that's kind of negligible in this case

sun yue - January 29, 2012 reply

a takedown signifies control

even if it’s brief. are you suggesting that judges use stop watches to determine if a takedown was effective? EVERY takedown is effective. the effect is that your opponenet is on the ground. if you throw a hook and it doesn’t knock your opponent out, does that mean that the hook should not count? people that say that takedowns that are brief should not matter when judging a fight should probably watch boxing.

My point was that i dont think that just cus you got a few takedowns(that did nothing other than show control for half a second) should weigh as heavily as it does. Otherwise im going to become the master of taking you down over and over, just to stand back up..the rest of the time i’ll run around the cage avoiding engaging unless i can take you down. I’ll be champ in no time right?

If that was the case, atleast GSP wouldnt be so boring in comparison.

thems the rules

so i don’t have a problem with it. sure, bisping got right back up. but he would have won the fight had he been able to not get taken down. if fighter A can take fighter B down at will, then fighter A wins. that’s how it works, even if you don’t like it. it’s hard to mount your own offense when you spend the entire fight trying to stand back up.

Im aware thats the rules, as we saw last night by the decision(and many other times). I just think they weigh takedowns a little too heavily sometimes.

Obviously I'm not advocating judges carrying stop watches.

Rather, I’m arguing that takedowns that don’t lead to anything are inconsequential. I mean how much control does a takedown signify if the fighter getting taken down gets up right away? Why should it be considered effective control when the fighter credited with the takedown was unable to control his/her opponent on the ground? And the hook comparison doesn’t work because a punch that doesn’t result in a knock out still does damage. A takedown without substantial follow-up does not.

sun yue - January 29, 2012 reply

This ^

How much control do you really have when you take someone down and they get right back up.

I also remember quite a few instances where Chael was being ground up against the fence by Bisping…To me that is more control than a takedown that results in immediate standing back up. He was blatantly frustrated by Bisping against the cage as his offensive plan came to a screeching halt for much longer than it took for Bisping to return to his feet from a takedown.

Chael landed clean, hard shots off takedowns in the first and second

Bisping merely pressured him with strikes, some illegal, all while grabbing the fence or shorts. While no point was officially taken, illegal moves influenced position and damage. Chael, however, landed hard, legal strikes, and ultimately got the better of ground exchanges.

halitosis - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

Because the fighter doing the takedown bypassed his opponent's defense

When looking at that situation, the fighter being taken down was put in a compromised position, and his opponent willed it so. If he got up right away, count it for a little less, but it should still count in favor of the man on top.

halitosis - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

If his defense is bypassed,

it should lead to something, and that’s what should be scored. Chael landed a few decent punches on the ground, but standing, Michael landed nearly all the hard punches in that fight. Their knees in the clinch were pretty much a wash. Takedowns are overvalued generally, and in this fight were particularly meaningless as Chael did little with them, and Bisping got back to his feet each time with little trouble.

the very act of taking someone down IS the bypassing of his opponents defense. bisping did not want to be taken down, but he was taken down none the less.

takedowns ARE offense.

Offense like in sports, not in fighting.

You can’t say one guy has an advantage in any position unless he TAKES advantage of the position. Otherwise you’re scoring on theory instead of in practice. If a guy hits a takedown and nearly gets subbed three or four times but escapes, is he penalized for stupidly taking the fight into an opponent’s demonstrated strength? No the scoring comes from the actual sub attempts, not from who is perceived to have the fight in the best position. There’s a little thing called BJJ. Takedowns are offense, they count like a decent punch.

You're exactly right.

The value in a takedown comes from doing something with it, causing damage, or at least working to a tight submission attempt. Other than that, it’s worth about a body shot, and then only if it’s a hard takedown.

so all i wanna know is did you count the times chael had him on the cage as be ineffective as well or are you going to continue to say ridiculous shit? bisping was winning that fight before that 3rd round and all you chael fans know it . and further more he didnt do well at all in this fight to atleast make people excited for him and anderson i just want it to be over so the damn dumb ass old 80s wrestling promos can stop like really? yeah you and all those guys have something in common: non working balls from abusing steroids

Sonnen produced more offense

That simple.

did he really though because i’ve seen you say this all over this site sir and i just dont believe you at all. bring the fightstats cool whatever still before that 3rd round he was losing that fight IMO fair enough?

I had it even going into the third

In the first Chael landed the hardest shot in the stand up (an overhand right), took Bisping down and hit him a couple times (only three or so punches on the way up but still), and landed some good knees in the clinch. It wasn’t a blowout, it wasn’t entertaining, but I fail to see how Bisping won that round. He didn’t land a lot of flush shots, and when he did Sonnen was able to hit him as well.

And I’ve said before that Fightmetric isn’t the end all be all, it generally gives us a good insight into how a fight broke down and is fairly consistent and reliable. It’s a good tool to use and shouldn’t be ignored completely because you wanted the Count to win.

"If you didnt like how this show went down(Chael’s promo, etc)..just wait til next weekend. It’ll be totally different with Nick Diaz and Carlos Condit."

THANK FUCK FOR THAT.

Tired of Chael and his WWE baggage.

So what happens of Sonnen didn't get his trt levels right? Again...

Sorry it had to be thrown out there, it’s always a possibility for the rest of his career…

RECE ROCK - January 29, 2012 via mobile reply

can anyone put something in perspective?

if you’ve ever watched sonnen’s fights, they are all the same type of fights…his goal is to get you down and hold you down and pound on you. Couple that with Bisping’s ability to NOT be taken down and be held down and you get what you saw in last night’s fight. To try to say that he looked “terrible” and Anderson will destroy him is ridiculous. Anderson’s TDD and strength is nowhere close to Bisping. Chael will take Anderson down at will and the only shot he has at winning are the same things he had last time:

1) Short amount of standup time he’s allowed – start of rounds and if ref stands them up
2) Subs from his back

What you should’ve been paying attention to is yet again Chael is improving his BJJ as he quickly moved to full mount against Bisping. I can easily see Sonnen submitting Silva this next time or GnP from full mount for ref to stop it. Mark it down!

themango69 - January 29, 2012 reply

yeah sure

Agreed

In what universe does Sonnen submit Silva? Cause I know it’s not in this one.

while i cant really imagine chael ko'ing or subbing silva

you make an awesome point saying how much his bjj has improved

there was one exchange in the fight when sonnen was in bispings guard and bisping had wrist control on his right hand and looked to have a pretty sweet triangle choke set up and chael backed up stood up and escaped danger. the old sonnen doesnt escape that choke, throw in nice transition to mount and its very clear that sonnen has been working the hell outta his bjj to some good results

milk72 - January 29, 2012 reply

Sure his bjj is gotten a bit better

But the reason he wasn’t able to take Silva’s back or any of that isn’t because of Chael, it’s because Silva is legit on the ground.