UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Basketball is different though and like you said age is a big difference. Sure it can heal, but he could break it again if someone checks it in the right spot.

Yes but I think Bball is actually more stressful when it comes to that sort of injury. The constant jumping and running can add a tremendous amount of stress to that injury. In MMA, Silva would just have to adjust his game. No leg kicks and he would have to be concerned about fighters targeting it with their own leg kicks.

If its healed correctly its doubtful that he would get injured throwing kicks anywhere else or defending a takedown. The last UFC fighter who had this injury was back in the cage a year later. The things that will keep him out of the cage are more likely age and whether he wants to fight anymore.

[Hiro1]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Wow what a card. Uriah Hall and Ronda Rousey are some interesting characters.

Hall is a great athlete with great striking, but doesn't like to hurt people. He seriously looked disappointed Leben wanted to stop the fight. I guess we should all be glad he's not a world class wrestler instead controlling people on the ground for 15minutes.

The solution for him I think is to elevate his submission game, drop a guy and submit him instead of feeling like he's going in for the kill.

It just shows to be a great "fighter " you have to be somewhat of a sociopath.

Loved the ladies fight. At this point Ronda is just too strong for her opponents. She threw Tate around like a lap dog. Tate faught her heart out, but in the end it just wasn't enough. It's going to take a fighter with great takedown defense and striking to pry that belt out of her hands.

Holy ***t. Awful seems like the perfect word to describe Silva vs Weidman II. In early history awful meant full of awe which has now evolved to very bad(Anderson's leg).

Karma, rather you believe in it or not is definitely a b****. Anderson got too cocky, clowned fighters for years and paid for it unfortunately in one of the worse ways.

Silver lining, I believe he will serve as a lesson for future mma champions/ athletes. That every time you step into the octagon even if you don't like your opponent you respect them as a professional fighter.

[TheShizNo1]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Karma is him breaking his leg?



Sent from my HP 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Hiro1]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Karma is him breaking his leg?



Sent from my HP 7 using Tapatalk 4

No Karma is the force created by a person's actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person.

Weidman's well timed check is what broke Silva's leg. Something that may or may not have happened had he took him serious the 1st fight.

[ubernoob]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

You are silly.

[Hiro1]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Lol I guess. Anyway does anyone know why Anderson wasn't wearing Nike in the ring? I think Ariel asked and Silva said he'd have to ask Dana.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Lol I guess. Anyway does anyone know why Anderson wasn't wearing Nike in the ring? I think Ariel asked and Silva said he'd have to ask Dana.

Nike wouldnt pay the UFC's licensing fee. Dana said they gave Nike a pass in the past with Jones, JDS and Silva but wouldnt be doing it anymore. They just made Reebok pay it when Hendricks wore Reebok at 167 so its only fair that Nike would pay it. Dana also made a valid point that GSP has been signed with Under Armour for years but he never wears UA gear in the octagon because UA refuses to pay the fee.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Good article on Anderson's fighting future:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/12/29/5252966/ufc-orthopaedic-surgeon-dr-steve-mora-discusses-anderson-silvas-injury

[Hiro1]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Thanks that's what I assumed was the reason.

[allBthere]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

it was visually disturbing, the reaction in the bar I was in was the full range of emotion lol, even worse than the visuals was the sound. uhhhhgggg.

I felt bad for him, and right away thought that was it for him and he'll retire, but you never know - maybe he can have his boxing match with RJJ now... absolutely no more leg kicks though eeek.

My girlfriend made an interesting observation too - for someone who isn't dramatically into the sport but likes watching it with me she noticed they purposely framed Weidman away from Anderson so that he was alone...you could see Dana direct him away from the 'crime scene' and the camera's avoided that area - it's nothing major, and maybe she is making more of something than is there but she was saying the UFC was smart for doing that but on the same token it's a bad, cold move. Sometimes that outside perspective interesting.

I'm not sure if I want to see Silva fight anymore - is anyone still excited for a superfight with GSP? I'm not, ...

I think the UFC has been addressing those fights for years now, which came from the fans, and they even went as far to give timelines of Silva vs GSP - this has been on the table for years. The UFC has always been quick to bash the world of boxing with promoters and how difficult it is for big fights to get signed, yet they missed the boat. If the fight happens next year, nothing will be answered - they are both not in prime form (especially silva) - so for an organization that seems to have all the answers they failed to put two of the greatest ever in the octagon.

There are a million reasons to give defending the UFC and to say it's not their fault, GSP wanted to gain weight gradually etc. etc. ... but in the end they really could have made it happen with enough conviction and attention. In the end they dangled the carrot, made it seem like a certainty that was going to happen and it never did and now it won't really matter even if it does.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

it was visually disturbing, the reaction in the bar I was in was the full range of emotion lol, even worse than the visuals was the sound. uhhhhgggg.

I felt bad for him, and right away thought that was it for him and he'll retire, but you never know - maybe he can have his boxing match with RJJ now... absolutely no more leg kicks though eeek.

My girlfriend made an interesting observation too - for someone who isn't dramatically into the sport but likes watching it with me she noticed they purposely framed Weidman away from Anderson so that he was alone...you could see Dana direct him away from the 'crime scene' and the camera's avoided that area - it's nothing major, and maybe she is making more of something than is there but she was saying the UFC was smart for doing that but on the same token it's a bad, cold move. Sometimes that outside perspective interesting.

I'm not sure if I want to see Silva fight anymore - is anyone still excited for a superfight with GSP? I'm not, ...

I think the UFC has been addressing those fights for years now, which came from the fans, and they even went as far to give timelines of Silva vs GSP - this has been on the table for years. The UFC has always been quick to bash the world of boxing with promoters and how difficult it is for big fights to get signed, yet they missed the boat. If the fight happens next year, nothing will be answered - they are both not in prime form (especially silva) - so for an organization that seems to have all the answers they failed to put two of the greatest ever in the octagon.

There are a million reasons to give defending the UFC and to say it's not their fault, GSP wanted to gain weight gradually etc. etc. ... but in the end they really could have made it happen with enough conviction and attention. In the end they dangled the carrot, made it seem like a certainty that was going to happen and it never did and now it won't really matter even if it does.

Im interested to hear what the UFC couldve done to make this fight. "Conviction" and "Attention" are vague words in this context. There were only two times that the Superfight wouldve worked: After Silva/Maia at UFC 112 and GSP/Condit at UFC 154.

Here are the facts:

UFC 112:

The UFC wanted to do the superfight if Silva won. They flew GSP in to Abu Dhabi to do a face off after the Silva fight. The problem was Silva embarassed himself and the UFC by going overboard with the showboating against Maia to the point he was booed out of the arena. The last thing they were going to do was reward Silva with a superfight at that point.

Silva also didnt want to drop down at all for a GSP fight at that point and didnt want to do a catchweight fight. Thats why he fought Sonnen next.

GSP went on to do TUF and didnt fight again until the Koscheck fight.

UFC 154

- The UFC wanted to promote a Silva/GSP superfight after the Condit fight.
- GSP wanted to fight Nick Diaz.
- GSP also did not want to have to go above 170 and felt that if he bulked up he would have to move to 185 permanently and it could negatively affect his career. He often talked about how that negatively affected Roy Jones' career.

Now the UFC put plenty of "attention" on that superfight. They did a segment on UFC Countdown about it potentially happening before the Condit fight. They had Silva attend the Condit fight and showed him several times during the fight referencing the potential fight. They even interviewed him about a superfight after the Condit fight.

GSP didnt want the fight and the UFC cant force a fighter to take a fight. Especially a fighter who has been nothing but a company man his entire career. Especially when forcing him to take that fight could affect its relationship with him....a man who is the #1 draw in the sport.

There was no other period where both fighters were healthy when they couldve fought.

So my question for you is....what could the UFC do? How do you force to fighters to fight each other when they both have legitimate reasons not to. Its easy to say that the UFC needed more "conviction" but how does that translate into making the fight.

A GSP/Silva fight wouldve been the biggest UFC fight ever a few years ago. Do you think Dana and the Fertittas didnt want to make money from that fight?

[allBthere]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

Im interested to hear what the UFC couldve done to make this fight. "Conviction" and "Attention" are vague words in this context. There were only two times that the Superfight wouldve worked: After Silva/Maia at UFC 112 and GSP/Condit at UFC 154.

Here are the facts:

UFC 112:

The UFC wanted to do the superfight if Silva won. They flew GSP in to Abu Dhabi to do a face off after the Silva fight. The problem was Silva embarassed himself and the UFC by going overboard with the showboating against Maia to the point he was booed out of the arena. The last thing they were going to do was reward Silva with a superfight at that point.

Silva also didnt want to drop down at all for a GSP fight at that point and didnt want to do a catchweight fight. Thats why he fought Sonnen next.

GSP went on to do TUF and didnt fight again until the Koscheck fight.

UFC 154

- The UFC wanted to promote a Silva/GSP superfight after the Condit fight.
- GSP wanted to fight Nick Diaz.
- GSP also did not want to have to go above 170 and felt that if he bulked up he would have to move to 185 permanently and it could negatively affect his career. He often talked about how that negatively affected Roy Jones' career.

Now the UFC put plenty of "attention" on that superfight. They did a segment on UFC Countdown about it potentially happening before the Condit fight. They had Silva attend the Condit fight and showed him several times during the fight referencing the potential fight. They even interviewed him about a superfight after the Condit fight.

GSP didnt want the fight and the UFC cant force a fighter to take a fight. Especially a fighter who has been nothing but a company man his entire career. Especially when forcing him to take that fight could affect its relationship with him....a man who is the #1 draw in the sport.

There was no other period where both fighters were healthy when they couldve fought.

So my question for you is....what could the UFC do? How do you force to fighters to fight each other when they both have legitimate reasons not to. Its easy to say that the UFC needed more "conviction" but how does that translate into making the fight.

A GSP/Silva fight wouldve been the biggest UFC fight ever a few years ago. Do you think Dana and the Fertittas didnt want to make money from that fight?

That first bold is an excuse - and that's my point, you can justify it however you want but the fight didn't happen is the bottom line. The flew him to the fight and promoted that it was going to happen - meaning both guys were aware of it and open to fighting each other.

"conviction" is having big-time negotiations with the fighters and getting things signed on paper. The biggest motivation for each of them is MONEY. If you payed them enough money they would have done it. And if you're worried you lose out because one of your big stars will go down and it's not worth the risk, guess what? you're thinking exactly like a boxing promoter.

In my opinion, the fight could have happened, but it didn't.

The 'attention' you are referring to is quite right, but here is the problem... all of that promotion, Dana saying it will happen 100% and staging both guys in a way to create anticipation was idiotic in retrospect. If you're can't get a fight signed, or for whatever reason you're not SURE it's going to happen - DON'T ****ING PROMOTE IT!

You do things with conviction in a business like that, either make it happen or dont' promote it and make promises to the fans (your clients)

So anyone can come up with reasons defending the UFC why it didn't happen but in the end they promised it would and it didn't.

If you promised your boss you'd close a case by the end of the month, and never did all you have left are excuses.

It is really simple one of 2 scenarios - 1) the fight was never going to happen but they promoted and promised anyway
2) it could have happened and they didn't capitalize and missed the opportunity.

For me it's #2

As fans we never got the super fight, and it's not a blameless situation for the UFC which is what you're arguing.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

That first bold is an excuse - and that's my point, you can justify it however you want but the fight didn't happen is the bottom line. The flew him to the fight and promoted that it was going to happen - meaning both guys were aware of it and open to fighting each other.

"conviction" is having big-time negotiations with the fighters and getting things signed on paper. The biggest motivation for each of them is MONEY. If you payed them enough money they would have done it. And if you're worried you lose out because one of your big stars will go down and it's not worth the risk, guess what? you're thinking exactly like a boxing promoter.

In my opinion, the fight could have happened, but it didn't.

The 'attention' you are referring to is quite right, but here is the problem... all of that promotion, Dana saying it will happen 100% and staging both guys in a way to create anticipation was idiotic in retrospect. If you're can't get a fight signed, or for whatever reason you're not SURE it's going to happen - DON'T ****ING PROMOTE IT!

You do things with conviction in a business like that, either make it happen or dont' promote it and make promises to the fans (your clients)

So anyone can come up with reasons defending the UFC why it didn't happen but in the end they promised it would and it didn't.

If you promised your boss you'd close a case by the end of the month, and never did all you have left are excuses.

It is really simple one of 2 scenarios - 1) the fight was never going to happen but they promoted and promised anyway
2) it could have happened and they didn't capitalize and missed the opportunity.

For me it's #2

As fans we never got the super fight, and it's not a blameless situation for the UFC which is what you're arguing.

You make A TON of assumptions that arent based in fact.

Lets go point by point:

The fact that the fighters were flown in does mean that both were open to fighting each other. As I stated earlier after 112, Silva blew that opportunity by showboating AND because he didnt want to drop below 185. GSP was only willing to take a catchweight fight and Silva wanted it at MW. So at 112 both fighters were not willing to fight each other at that point.

After 154, GSP specifically turned down the Silva fight. He wanted Diaz. It didnt have **** to do with money because if it did he wouldve fought Silva.

Its your opinion but its not based in fact.

Also, I want you to find a quote from Dana or the UFC saying that the fight would definitely happen. Every quote I've seen from him regarding superfights is him saying "he will try to make it happen" or that it "make sense and he is interested in them".


This isnt team sports. This isnt a entity controlling when and where two teams play. The UFC has to get the fighters to agree to fight. The 2 fighters couldnt reach a time or terms for them to fight.

The UFC wasnt worried about losing one of its biggest stars...thats bull****. 2 things happen if GSP/Silva fought. Either its a great fight and there is a rematch (which makes the UFC even more money) or one person wins the fight clearly and they continue to promote the winner as the best P4P fighter in the world. The loser will still be successful. You think GSP wouldve lost popularity for losing to Silva? Or Vice Versa? Really?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion and you typically have ones that are counter to public opinion so I'm not shocked about this. I just dont know how your whole theory makes sense given the facts that are available.

[ManiacMatt1782]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

I don't understand the hoopla between the superfights anyway. Would it be a fun fight to watch, of course. Would it have been worth putting 2 divisions on hold for it to happen. Absolutly not. 2 champions like that, a title better be on the line. GSP doesn't want to move up. Fine he was the champion at 170. Silva doesn't want to drop down, fine he was the champ at 185. Now neither are champ. And unlike boxing, Championships in the UFC mean something because there arent 140 different major governing bodies and weighclasses every 4.5 lbs.

Also, speaking of boxing, this isn't like Manny vs Floyd, as both of those guys were taking plenty of fights at 147 there was no reason for those 2 not to fight other than greed.

[allBthere]

Re: UFC 168:Weidman v. Silva 2 / Rousey v. Tate 2 - Dec. 28 - Las Vegas

You make A TON of assumptions that arent based in fact.

Lets go point by point:

The fact that the fighters were flown in does mean that both were open to fighting each other. As I stated earlier after 112, Silva blew that opportunity by showboating AND because he didnt want to drop below 185. GSP was only willing to take a catchweight fight and Silva wanted it at MW. So at 112 both fighters were not willing to fight each other at that point.

After 154, GSP specifically turned down the Silva fight. He wanted Diaz. It didnt have **** to do with money because if it did he wouldve fought Silva.

Its your opinion but its not based in fact.

Also, I want you to find a quote from Dana or the UFC saying that the fight would definitely happen. Every quote I've seen from him regarding superfights is him saying "he will try to make it happen" or that it "make sense and he is interested in them".


This isnt team sports. This isnt a entity controlling when and where two teams play. The UFC has to get the fighters to agree to fight. The 2 fighters couldnt reach a time or terms for them to fight.

The UFC wasnt worried about losing one of its biggest stars...thats bull****. 2 things happen if GSP/Silva fought. Either its a great fight and there is a rematch (which makes the UFC even more money) or one person wins the fight clearly and they continue to promote the winner as the best P4P fighter in the world. The loser will still be successful. You think GSP wouldve lost popularity for losing to Silva? Or Vice Versa? Really?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion and you typically have ones that are counter to public opinion so I'm not shocked about this. I just dont know how your whole theory makes sense given the facts that are available.

A couple of thoughts regarding this argument before I continue. My opinion is based on what I've seen and what I think, and doesn't necessarily need to get bogged down and challenged to this degree where you ask me to find 2 year old quotes from Dana White (but I will give it the college try). But all of this clouds the point I was trying to make:

*The fight was either possible or impossible and in the case of the former, it could have happened and in that case, it can be argued that the UFC missed the boat. Here is the final quote from an article (2012) I'll use it bit further down for a Dana quote:

"I have to come down on the side of Chiappetta here. Promoters like Dana White have an obligation to put together the biggest possible fights. In 15 years when fans look back on this era and judge White's contribution to the sport they will remember the super fights that were booked and also the ones that got away.
While Johny Hendricks and Nick Diaz may deserve title shots, no one will remember if a couple of deserving contenders were put on hold for a few months while the champ fought in the biggest fight in UFC and MMA history. Do it Dana, make it happen." -Nate Wilcox

So the challenge to my thining being vs public opinion isn't really fair (bolded in your comment), especially since these author(s) who are paid to write articles agree with me. Furthermore, you don't have the authority of deciding what is and isn't public opinion as well as making the statement that my opinion isn't based on fact; it simply is based on facts that you choose to ignore or dont deem relevant. For example, your claim that my opinion is contrary to public opinion in this instance clearly isn't based in fact and was just a thought you had and decided to write it down - purely subjective and reactionary. So in effect you're doing the same thing that you are accusing me of doing, therby tarnishing the strength of your own argument.


Here is a Dana White quote from 2012 immediately after ufc 154

"It's the No. 1 best pound-for-pound fighter in the world against the No. 2 best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. It's a big fight. We think people want to see it, and we think the guys want to do it, so we'll do it. They will fight, and it will probably be in May or around May."

more from that...

At the post-fight media scrum Dana said the fight would be held in a stadium, possibly in Brazil, Canada, or Dallas, Texas. White seems to be leaning toward Dallas as it is "neutral territory" and he is attracted to the idea of selling 100,000 tickets to the fight.
He doesn't seem daunted by the looming negotiations to put the fight together.
"The thing is that all of the stuff that needs to be done behind the scenes is what we do, it's what we do, this is the business that we're in. We'll get all that done, it's just the matter of sitting down and seeing what's right for everybody."

Those, particularly the first quote, are declarative statements. Anyone listening can't be faulted for assuming the fight would happen - they are being told it will happen. YES there are plenty of other quotes from the past few years that are hopeful in nature and less commital as well, I am not going to deny that.

watch this video and then tell me someone wouldn't expect it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pamZXpr5Zc&feature=youtu.be

Here is him saying Jones vs Silva 'will absolutely happen - guaranteed'

http://www.mmamania.com/2012/10/30/3578936/dana-white-guarantees-anderson-silva-vs-jon-jones-super-fight-will

here is an article agreeing with me that it's can hurt the ufc to promise fights and not deliver

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/11/28/3699934/ufc-gsp-vs-anderson-silva-vs-jon-jones-dana-white-guarantee-georges-st-pierre

from January 2013

“You will have both those fights before Anderson Silva retires,” White promised Friday on ESPN Chicago’s The Waddle & Silvy Show. “Anderson Silva is on the verge of signing a new big deal with us, and he wants big fights. That’s what he wants.”
link:

http://www.5thround.com/136970/dana-white-anderson-silva-will-fight-georges-st-pierre-and-jon-jones/

here is dana saying they want to fight eachother in 2012
http://www.espn.co.uk/ufc/sport/story/168661.html
video and print

I could go back probably as far as 2009 or even before that probably if I had the time (which I don't).

Those are facts, that's Dana talking saying things will happen. Up to that point one could plausibly believe him and assume it would happen. I think now in 2014, it could be argued that Dana is now kind of like Bill O'Reilly in terms of making enough 'guarantees' that never happened because to me 'lying' is too strong of a word, but now his track record has become one that if he says something, one might have to take it now with a grain of salt, which is a terrible repuation for a big company's spokesperson. But I don't think that argument could have been made in 2012 which is when most of the comments were made.

So to put this baby to bed- I think actually the opposite of what you said is true. I think maybe the majority of people thought the superfight(s) were possible and would/could have been made. The UFC's spokesperson told us the fight would happen - it didn't, and therefore they missed an opportunity.

Whether that opportunity was missed because the UFC couldn't deliver their promise (in which case they shouldn't have made it) OR they didn't force the fighters hands enough and come with enough money on the contract, in one sense is irrelevant. We were told the fights would happen and they didn't (and likely won't, and even if they do, won't mean anything in terms of p4p)

Even though I showed above Dana saying both fighters wanted to fight eachother and at least agreed to 'promote' the fight in some senses - if you want to put it all on the fighters not wanting to fight or finding ways out of it - EVEN in that case, it's the UFC's fault for promising it in that case, not the FAN's for believing them.