Shamrock won round1

[Legend]

Originally Posted by Afro Samurai

Herb Dean???? lol wtf fights are y'all watchin?

Big Jon McCarthy stops almost everry damn fight premature and even managed to stop the same fight TWICE and Herb Dean catches heat? Bullshit.. Herb Dean and Mario Yamasaki are damn good refs

Bro listen to what your saying

Matt Hughes hit Royce in the back of the head with his FISTS which is LEGAL, Frank Shamrock used his KNEES which is ILLEGAL so how did Herb fuck up this fight? he didnt.. quit hatin'

Agreed. Bigaxel123 you really do not appear to know what you are talking about.

[magic marker]

for all the shamrock haters, i don't know what fight they were watching. renzo obviously didn't want to stand with frank, so he kept taking it to the ground. but even so, all renzo was doing was laying on top of him just trying to keep him there. frank was doing all the work from the bottom throwing knees and punches to the side. i can't really recall a single blow thrown by gracie. so if people think that gracie was winning by merely laying on him, then that is a joke!

[Rufio]

I'm gonna DL this as time permits, but it sounds to me a lot like the Tito/Vitor situation, only with the striker landing even more hits and the wrestler being even less active. Given that IMO Vitor won round 1, I'd have to say Frank did as well, if what I'm hearing is right. To me, landing around 20 hits (again, assuming I'm hearing this correctly) is better than spending 2-3 minutes in top position accomplishing nothing, especially if the hits are causing damage and thus wearing the opponent down.


I'll try to watch it soon so I can give an informed opinion, but if I'm hearing right and it came down to a few minutes of takedown/lay 'n pray sessions vs. a few flurries of hits, some of which did visible damage, then I'd have to side with damage over time spent on top.

[Rufio]

OK, just watched round 1 ... You guys really think Renzo was WINNING? Not just having the temporary advantage, but in the process of actually securing a victory? Because the way I see it, taking THAT many rib shots while you're on top is not effective in the long run. Sure, you could argue he was ahead on points in that round, but it's obvious that if one person came out of round 1 feeling worse for wear, it was Renzo.


What I see in that round is Renzo trying to rack up points and Frank realizing he was being outwrestled, but using it to his advantage by accumulating damage. IMO, it's obvious that his strategy was to wear Renzo down even if from the bottom, setting up an eventual TKO once the hits got to him.

It was like Frank/Tito all over again, except with a more obvious outcome. I can't see how Renzo would've lasted through the third with the amount of shots he kept eating.

[chuteboxechamp]

Frank would have knocked him out in the third no doubt, Renzo was already having more trouble in the second getting frank down, and Frank was landing decent shots, his stand up looked impressive. None of this matter though because frank broke the rules and lost the fight. Hopefully Shamrock vs Baroni will end a little more decisively.

[dagreat1]

Since when is MMA judged on damage? St. Pierre would've lost to Penn if that were the case but St. Pierre won because of TAKEDOWNS...

Research the rules, some of you are being fucking retarded and it makes this board look ignorant when so many people can't grasp the simple rules of MMA judging, organization to organization.

Shamrock got taken down at will, his TD defense was non existant, his guard was passed at will and he was completely controlled ont he ground, he couldn't get back to his feet, only throw knees to the body from the ground, that is not going to win you the round when you get taken down, controlled and have your guard passed at will.

[DonFrye]

Originally Posted by dagreat1

Since when is MMA judged on damage? St. Pierre would've lost to Penn if that were the case but St. Pierre won because of TAKEDOWNS...

Research the rules, some of you are being fucking retarded and it makes this board look ignorant when so many people can't grasp the simple rules of MMA judging, organization to organization.

Shamrock got taken down at will, his TD defense was non existant, his guard was passed at will and he was completely controlled ont he ground, he couldn't get back to his feet, only throw knees to the body from the ground, that is not going to win you the round when you get taken down, controlled and have your guard passed at will.

Agreed. You can't honestly think that jabs and short knees to the body outweigh wrestling/BJJ domination and numerous takedowns. Are you guys freaking nuts? I guess, according to the posts on this subject, that Ken beat Royce. Tito beat Couture. I mean, all they did was take them down and then pass their guard. If it weren't for the slight factor that THEY WERE ALL DOMINATED ON THE GROUND.

[magic marker]

but the idea was that renzo may have gotten takedowns at will, but was doing absolutely NO damage. he was taking damage, and if people are saying that he was winning or would have won based on just laying on top of someone, then that is kind of pitiful.

[AJL416AZ]

winning a round is not based on damage
in that case, BJ would have beaten GSP unanimously.

BJJ ISN'T BASED ON DOING DAMAGE.
the only time in BJJ that damage is an integral part of is when you actually get the submission

and what's Renzo's primary style? i'll leave you to your own conclusions kids

[tmatwig]

Originally Posted by AJL416AZ

winning a round is not based on damage
in that case, BJ would have beaten GSP unanimously.

BJJ ISN'T BASED ON DOING DAMAGE.
the only time in BJJ that damage is an integral part of is when you actually get the submission

and what's Renzo's primary style? i'll leave you to your own conclusions kids

the bj fight is a bad comparision bj only did damage in round one young fellow, if your gonna insult people at least think of something better