Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Yeah she has to land one of those haymakers soon or she will gas and get stopped.Eating way too many shots, TKO coming up.
Andrade tough little thing though.
Yeah she has to land one of those haymakers soon or she will gas and get stopped.
Lol. Masvidal wasn't robbed. It wasn't a terrible decision.Masvidal was robbed. Round 1 was 100% Maia but 2 and 3 were 50/50 control and only Masvidal did damage. It's a terrible decision.
Managed to catch the Alvarez vs Poirier fight before heading out for the footy. Not the right decision but the fairest one made I think......where was this kinda logic in Weidman vs Mousasi fight? It was a good fight.....run it again.
Very different scenarios, but both show how confusing this has become since they changed what a "grounded opponent" means. It used to be clear and obvious so guys just wouldn't even try it - now with the added confusions where one fighter incorrectly thought he was down (Weidman), whilst another incorrectly thought his opponent wasn't (Alvarez).
Initially I was really pissed at the Weidman decision, but on reflection the correct call was made - it was just all the confusion about his "5 minutes break" that caused the problem. Mousasi did everything legally, and when the doctor examined Weidman he determined the fight had to stop (as with Poirier) - the thing is Mousasi did nothing wrong, and Weidman was stopped by a legal hit - win to Mousasi... Ideally we get a rematch, but with where the division is, that is completely unfair to Mousasi when he should be moving up and he won this fight fairly. (Again - I was going for Weidman, and was well pissed at the initial decision).
---
Alvarez is different.
Poirier was stopped (again, medically) by an illegal knee. I'm not sure of the rules - but Dana and Herb said very different things about it (and when it comes to the rules, I would trust Herb Dean over Dana every single time)... my understanding in the past was that it was up to the Ref and that it's not an automatic DQ (ie. could be docked a point instead) - similar to nut shots or eye-pokes. Deans comments that he was calling a no contest because he didn't think it was unintentional fits with how I saw it as well (again though - I'm not sure of the rules here).
Alvarez's right eye was bloodied, and Poiriers back was flush against the cage - so other than the change in level, there was no sure way to know that Poirier had dropped to his knee. Alvarez may have been looking at Poirers left hand, and if what everyone was saying after the Weidman fight was correct (that you need two flat palms on the ground to be grounded) then from his hands - Poirers was not grounded... his left knuckle was on the canvas, not a palm. (obviously he was down by his right knee - but again, I don't think Alvarez saw that).
Now if the rules clearly state that any knee to a ground opponent is a DQ then Alvarez loses - and I think he would accept that - he immediately apologised for doing it and admitted it was wrong. (and Poirier readily accepted that... was actually great to see how both fighters responded).
I just think they need to look at these 2 incidents and scrap the new interpretation - it is not making anybody safer (which was the intent - trying to get guys to try to block rather than get a hand to the ground). Just go back to the old 3 points of contact and keep it simple.