UFC 119 Pick'em Results

Birdofthad: 9-2
bigbeastcardinal12: 9-2
GolbeZ: 8-3
Andrew the Raider King: 8-3
chorky777: 8-3
freakzilla316ftw: 7-4
timthebim: 7-4
tolivendiewithLA: 7-4
OUSOONERSOU: 7-4
killerofchicken: 7-4
Bigs03: 7-4
LudoCain: 6-5
GDPofDRC: 6-5
Wolfgangsta: 6-5
Jamal: 5-6
bobbitt15: 5-6
KingsOwn19: 5-6
r3dman7630: 4-7

Well done Bird and Beast.

That card was brutal in every way.

Too bad the Dunham screw job happened.

Sherk won that fight.

chorky777 wrote:

Too bad the Dunham screw job happened.

Yeah, results would've been different.

And the Stephens fight, too. Damn. I should've taken Antonio McKee's advice and bet on black there.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Sherk won that fight.

Yeah, technically he did. That's why my record wasn't better.

I really don't understand this outrage with that fight. It isn't anything like BJ-Frankie 1, Shogun-Machida 1 or Bisping-Hamill. This was much closer to Diaz-Maynard.

bigbeastcardinal12
OUSOONERSOU
bobbitt15
KingsOwn19
r3dman7630

These 5 tipped Sherk. Funny thing is the 3 bottom all tipped him.

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

I really don't understand this outrage with that fight. It isn't anything like BJ-Frankie 1, Shogun-Machida 1 or Bisping-Hamill. This was much closer to Diaz-Maynard.

It ruined an undefeated record.

I am happy, barring the Dunham/Sherk fight, but I have lived with worse decisions than that.

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

I really don't understand this outrage with that fight. It isn't anything like BJ-Frankie 1, Shogun-Machida 1 or Bisping-Hamill. This was much closer to Diaz-Maynard.

Wrong is wrong. If wrong was right nobody would be saying much, here, in the MMA circles or anywhere.

Great depiction of your minority opinion.

WINNER

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

I really don't understand this outrage with that fight. It isn't anything like BJ-Frankie 1, Shogun-Machida 1 or Bisping-Hamill. This was much closer to Diaz-Maynard.

It's significantly worse than Diaz-Maynard. It's just like the three you named. Sherk did not have any offense worth winning the second round. The "control" he exhibited wasn't even real control. You're not controlling somebody when you're fending off their submissions. In order for a takedown to be counted as control, you have to take them down to force a ground fight, which wasn't the case as evidenced by his lack of offense. He threw zero punches while in Dunham's guard. Zero. None. Nada. Then the so called control ended and he got his ass beat. He should have lost in the two main objectives of winning the fight, striking and grappling, he only had a marginal edge in cage control, which is to be weighted less than striking and grappling. How is this not as bad as the ones you mentioned? At least in those fights there was effective offense going both ways.

How is it worse then Diaz-Maynard split dec? Nate clearly was more active, clearly did more damage, clearly won the striking. Sherk did more far more damage to Dunham then Maynard did to Nate.

Best I have ever done. This won't happen for another 2-3 years. Oh well.....SUCK IT NOW BITCHES!

the undercard bailed me out big time!

chorky777 wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

I really don't understand this outrage with that fight. It isn't anything like BJ-Frankie 1, Shogun-Machida 1 or Bisping-Hamill. This was much closer to Diaz-Maynard.

It's significantly worse than Diaz-Maynard. It's just like the three you named. Sherk did not have any offense worth winning the second round. The "control" he exhibited wasn't even real control. You're not controlling somebody when you're fending off their submissions. In order for a takedown to be counted as control, you have to take them down to force a ground fight, which wasn't the case as evidenced by his lack of offense. He threw zero punches while in Dunham's guard. Zero. None. Nada. Then the so called control ended and he got his ass beat. He should have lost in the two main objectives of winning the fight, striking and grappling, he only had a marginal edge in cage control, which is to be weighted less than striking and grappling. How is this not as bad as the ones you mentioned? At least in those fights there was effective offense going both ways.

Kind of hard to bust a guys face open two different times in two different locations with zero offense buddy. Damage has got to count for something seeing as it led to the desperation mode Dunham found himself in at the end of the second round and the end of the third round. You can't with a straight face tell Me that minute long flurries and balls to the wall brawling with someone who has ALWAYS been known as an incredibly strong individual fell into the gameplan going into that fight.

He actually does throw punches while in Dunhams guard, Chorky. You may want to rewatch the fight. After the first slam he threw 14 punches to the head while in guard, a few more to the body during that same amount of time. He throws 3 more head punches after the second slam and another couple to the body. They scramble a bit and Sherk gets a front headlock as Dunham gets his base. He gets taken down by Dunhams third guillotine attempt, Dunham takes his back before he spins into guard to throw a total of 9 punches/elbows from guard, one of which opens that gash above Evan's right eye. If we're talking about the second round then yes, Sherk did not throw a punch from guard, however he wasn't in Dunhams guard very long. Most of the takedowns left Dunham sitting up against the cage or had them in a strange variation of half guard where Sherks legs were tangled with Evans and too much space was there to settle down and get a base to throw strikes from.

LudoCain wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

I really don't understand this outrage with that fight. It isn't anything like BJ-Frankie 1, Shogun-Machida 1 or Bisping-Hamill. This was much closer to Diaz-Maynard.

It's significantly worse than Diaz-Maynard. It's just like the three you named. Sherk did not have any offense worth winning the second round. The "control" he exhibited wasn't even real control. You're not controlling somebody when you're fending off their submissions. In order for a takedown to be counted as control, you have to take them down to force a ground fight, which wasn't the case as evidenced by his lack of offense. He threw zero punches while in Dunham's guard. Zero. None. Nada. Then the so called control ended and he got his ass beat. He should have lost in the two main objectives of winning the fight, striking and grappling, he only had a marginal edge in cage control, which is to be weighted less than striking and grappling. How is this not as bad as the ones you mentioned? At least in those fights there was effective offense going both ways.

Kind of hard to bust a guys face open two different times in two different locations with zero offense buddy. Damage has got to count for something seeing as it led to the desperation mode Dunham found himself in at the end of the second round and the end of the third round. You can't with a straight face tell Me that minute long flurries and balls to the wall brawling with someone who has ALWAYS been known as an incredibly strong individual fell into the gameplan going into that fight.

He actually does throw punches while in Dunhams guard, Chorky. You may want to rewatch the fight. After the first slam he threw 14 punches to the head while in guard, a few more to the body during that same amount of time. He throws 3 more head punches after the second slam and another couple to the body. They scramble a bit and Sherk gets a front headlock as Dunham gets his base. He gets taken down by Dunhams third guillotine attempt, Dunham takes his back before he spins into guard to throw a total of 9 punches/elbows from guard, one of which opens that gash above Evan's right eye. If we're talking about the second round then yes, Sherk did not throw a punch from guard, however he wasn't in Dunhams guard very long. Most of the takedowns left Dunham sitting up against the cage or had them in a strange variation of half guard where Sherks legs were tangled with Evans and too much space was there to settle down and get a base to throw strikes from.

I'm clearly only talking about the second round. I pointed out that he threw no ground and pound, and did not control the fight. Top it off with losing the standup and it's impossible to give him that round and therefore the fight.

chorky777 wrote:

LudoCain wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

I really don't understand this outrage with that fight. It isn't anything like BJ-Frankie 1, Shogun-Machida 1 or Bisping-Hamill. This was much closer to Diaz-Maynard.

It's significantly worse than Diaz-Maynard. It's just like the three you named. Sherk did not have any offense worth winning the second round. The "control" he exhibited wasn't even real control. You're not controlling somebody when you're fending off their submissions. In order for a takedown to be counted as control, you have to take them down to force a ground fight, which wasn't the case as evidenced by his lack of offense. He threw zero punches while in Dunham's guard. Zero. None. Nada. Then the so called control ended and he got his ass beat. He should have lost in the two main objectives of winning the fight, striking and grappling, he only had a marginal edge in cage control, which is to be weighted less than striking and grappling. How is this not as bad as the ones you mentioned? At least in those fights there was effective offense going both ways.

Kind of hard to bust a guys face open two different times in two different locations with zero offense buddy. Damage has got to count for something seeing as it led to the desperation mode Dunham found himself in at the end of the second round and the end of the third round. You can't with a straight face tell Me that minute long flurries and balls to the wall brawling with someone who has ALWAYS been known as an incredibly strong individual fell into the gameplan going into that fight.

He actually does throw punches while in Dunhams guard, Chorky. You may want to rewatch the fight. After the first slam he threw 14 punches to the head while in guard, a few more to the body during that same amount of time. He throws 3 more head punches after the second slam and another couple to the body. They scramble a bit and Sherk gets a front headlock as Dunham gets his base. He gets taken down by Dunhams third guillotine attempt, Dunham takes his back before he spins into guard to throw a total of 9 punches/elbows from guard, one of which opens that gash above Evan's right eye. If we're talking about the second round then yes, Sherk did not throw a punch from guard, however he wasn't in Dunhams guard very long. Most of the takedowns left Dunham sitting up against the cage or had them in a strange variation of half guard where Sherks legs were tangled with Evans and too much space was there to settle down and get a base to throw strikes from.

I'm clearly only talking about the second round. I pointed out that he threw no ground and pound, and did not control the fight. Top it off with losing the standup and it's impossible to give him that round and therefore the fight.

How did he not control the fight? Dunham attempts two half hearted guillotines after he blew his wad on the first one. I suppose we should give more points to the fighters who go for a standing kimura to help fend off takedown attempts even if they end up on they're asses too? I honestly don't see why many, including yourself, are so bent on trying to make everyone agree with you that there is no possible way to judge a close fight like this for Sherk.

In the live discussion thread a lot of us thought it could or should go to sherk

Man, i guess i used all my brilliance for my Sean Sherk pick and it doomed me for the rest of the card.

LudoCain wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

LudoCain wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

I really don't understand this outrage with that fight. It isn't anything like BJ-Frankie 1, Shogun-Machida 1 or Bisping-Hamill. This was much closer to Diaz-Maynard.

It's significantly worse than Diaz-Maynard. It's just like the three you named. Sherk did not have any offense worth winning the second round. The "control" he exhibited wasn't even real control. You're not controlling somebody when you're fending off their submissions. In order for a takedown to be counted as control, you have to take them down to force a ground fight, which wasn't the case as evidenced by his lack of offense. He threw zero punches while in Dunham's guard. Zero. None. Nada. Then the so called control ended and he got his ass beat. He should have lost in the two main objectives of winning the fight, striking and grappling, he only had a marginal edge in cage control, which is to be weighted less than striking and grappling. How is this not as bad as the ones you mentioned? At least in those fights there was effective offense going both ways.

Kind of hard to bust a guys face open two different times in two different locations with zero offense buddy. Damage has got to count for something seeing as it led to the desperation mode Dunham found himself in at the end of the second round and the end of the third round. You can't with a straight face tell Me that minute long flurries and balls to the wall brawling with someone who has ALWAYS been known as an incredibly strong individual fell into the gameplan going into that fight.

He actually does throw punches while in Dunhams guard, Chorky. You may want to rewatch the fight. After the first slam he threw 14 punches to the head while in guard, a few more to the body during that same amount of time. He throws 3 more head punches after the second slam and another couple to the body. They scramble a bit and Sherk gets a front headlock as Dunham gets his base. He gets taken down by Dunhams third guillotine attempt, Dunham takes his back before he spins into guard to throw a total of 9 punches/elbows from guard, one of which opens that gash above Evan's right eye. If we're talking about the second round then yes, Sherk did not throw a punch from guard, however he wasn't in Dunhams guard very long. Most of the takedowns left Dunham sitting up against the cage or had them in a strange variation of half guard where Sherks legs were tangled with Evans and too much space was there to settle down and get a base to throw strikes from.

I'm clearly only talking about the second round. I pointed out that he threw no ground and pound, and did not control the fight. Top it off with losing the standup and it's impossible to give him that round and therefore the fight.

How did he not control the fight? Dunham attempts two half hearted guillotines after he blew his wad on the first one. I suppose we should give more points to the fighters who go for a standing kimura to help fend off takedown attempts even if they end up on they're asses too? I honestly don't see why many, including yourself, are so bent on trying to make everyone agree with you that there is no possible way to judge a close fight like this for Sherk.

I'm trying to get people to look at the rules so they know how to judge fights properly. Taking somebody down and the person getting back up is not, according to the Unified Rules of MMA, effective control. It'll score you 2 points in a wrestling match, and the person who gets up will get 1 for an escape, but it's not worth anything in MMA. Read the rules. You will see. Control is a specifically defined aspect of MMA scoring, not some vague idea of who is pushing who against the fence. I'm tired of seeing people like Sherk getting decisions from judges who don't know the rules. And we know that Glen Trowbridge and Cecil Peoples don't know the rules, so why do commissions allow them to judge?