Diego Sachez - Page 2 - Fight Forum - MMA - UFC - Boxing - K1

[Danny] · 02-07-2006, 11:50 AM

- Nate fought Carter in his first UFC fight and Shonie is no *****. Then he fought Franklin and got KTFO.

- Forrest was going to fight Ian Freeman before Ian got hurt and had to retire.

- Deigo fought a freaking top ten guy in Diaz and beat him. Whoever says Nick is a scrub is retarded.

- Leben just fought and beat Rivera who beat Loiseau who iun the number one contender.

All of those guys have fought good fighters. The TUF guys aren't coddled at all.

Grave · 02-07-2006, 02:48 PM

LOL you guys need to make up your minds already. You all critize diego saying he needs a true test already and to be put up against someone formidable for a change, which i agree.

Then you turn around and act like nick diaz is supposed to be something "special", even though he is among the chumps diego has beaten so far.

RAWNG.The fact is Little nicky is just a wannabe with a big mouth. He did well to weasel away from Diego's superior offensive and keep from getting KO'ed until the time ran out, but little else. Had the fight been allowed to go longer,Nick's luck probabley would have ran out when Diego finally caught his ass with some good hits and KTFO.

angryjonny · 02-07-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grave

LOL you guys need to make up your minds already. You all critize diego saying he needs a true test already and to be put up against someone formidable for a change, which i agree.

Then you turn around and act like nick diaz is supposed to be something "special", even though he is among the chumps diego has beaten so far.

RAWNG.The fact is Little nicky is just a wannabe with a big mouth. He did well to weasel away from Diego's superior offensive and keep from getting KO'ed until the time ran out, but little else. Had the fight been allowed to go longer,Nick's luck probabley would have ran out when Diego finally caught his ass with some good hits and KTFO.

You are showing some ignorance here. I was saying the whole time before the fight (go back and check my posts) that Nick was going to stomp Diego. I honestly didn't think he had a chance in hell to win. I said he would get the respect if he beats Nick and he did get it from me. All I said is UFC needs to match him up with someone who has as good or better wrestling to show he is one dimensional. Also if you watched the fight if the fight had gone another minute or two it would have been stopped and Nick would have got the TKO because he busted Diego wide open. Nick wouldn't get KTFO by Diego. If Lawler and Riggs couldn't do it, and they both blasted him with shots, then Diego sure as hell can't. Have you ever seen Nick fight, have you ever seen any of his grappling matches?

P.S. One last thing it's spelled WRONG.

Unknown · 02-07-2006, 03:36 PM

Diaz is a great fighter and it proved that diego was more then just a joke. I want to see diego go against a better wrestler because of the fight he had with kos on the show. A better wrestler with decent stand-up (like Trigg) is a perfect test to see how well diego can addapt.

ChipShank · 02-07-2006, 03:39 PM

LOL....All I know, is that I hope that the UFC takes this possible Burkman/Sanchez showdown and builds it a bit. Cause that could be a decent matchup, IMO.

We all know how Sanchez/Diaz went and how Burkman/Fickett went.....So build on it a bit. Give Fickett to Sanchez and Diaz to Burkman and see how they each pan out. Might work to create a bit more hype for their possible matchup.

Grave · 02-07-2006, 04:12 PM

If nick diaz really was worth a crap like you guys say, he would NOT have lost against diego, a guy you all say has not had a true test yet.

Bottom line Nicky was fluff hyped up to be a challenge, when he obviously was not. Can't wait till UFC finally puts Diego up against a REAL fighter, and not some joke made out to appear as a threat like Diaz.

Although the odds of that happening soon are low. Next they'll probabley feed Joe riggs to Diego as the next "true challenge" Pfffftt.Afterall he beat Diaz right? yeaahhhhh

Unknown · 02-07-2006, 05:22 PM

Diaz was the number 4 WW in the world. That was Diaz's challange. He passed it. And now Diego is ranked 4 or 5 on any resonable MMA ranking sites. If Diego can handle a better wrestler then he is ready for one of the top 3 at 170.

Diaz is a great fighter and is still ranked hightly in the mma ranks. He has great hands and awesom jiu-jitsu. Just beating him isn't enought for a title shot. But beating him is enought to get you top ranked.

Also the Diego v Diaz fight was not thought up by joe silva. Both Diego and Diaz decided they wanted to fight each other before silva had any idea about it.

dagenhamdave · 02-07-2006, 06:18 PM

I still belive, although Diego showed more ability than I thought he had, that had that fight with Diaz gone one more round Diego would have bled to death. He was messed up and Diaz looked like he could go 3 more rounds. I'll give Diego credit for squeaking out a win but he is still a massive tool who has yet to prove he is more than a bottom rung top 10 guy. Give him Trigg like Jonny said and I'l have more faith in his ability to hang with the better guys in the division.

[Danny] · 02-07-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grave

If nick diaz really was worth a crap like you guys say, he would NOT have lost against diego, a guy you all say has not had a true test yet.

Bottom line Nicky was fluff hyped up to be a challenge, when he obviously was not. Can't wait till UFC finally puts Diego up against a REAL fighter, and not some joke made out to appear as a threat like Diaz.

Although the odds of that happening soon are low. Next they'll probabley feed Joe riggs to Diego as the next "true challenge" Pfffftt.Afterall he beat Diaz right? yeaahhhhh

Diaz beat a former top 10 middleweight in Robbie Lawler by knock out and also konocked out Pancrase rep and staple in Oishi. Before that he submitted Jackson who is decent fighter.

Your comments really make us question your intelligence in MMA when thousands of fans, fighters, analyists, and commentaters are voting him in the top ten of the welterweight division.

You say that Deigo needs to fight somebody talented, but Diaz is **** because he lost to Deigo. Can you ****ing say oxymoron?

The_Iceman · 02-08-2006, 06:59 PM

Everyone thinks Diaz is such a good fighter, pfff. The guy is over-rated big time, he was suppose to be the guy that was gonna KO Sanchez, couldn't do it. He was supposed to beat Riggs, couldn't do it. He can't finish fights. All that kid is ever gonna have on his resume is the Robbie Lawler knockout.

Unknown · 02-08-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Iceman

Everyone thinks Diaz is such a good fighter, pfff. The guy is over-rated big time, he was suppose to be the guy that was gonna KO Sanchez, couldn't do it. He was supposed to beat Riggs, couldn't do it. He can't finish fights. All that kid is ever gonna have on his resume is the Robbie Lawler knockout.

He would have knocked diego out if he tried to stand with him. He would have knocked Riggs out if he had followed through when he rocked him in the first. However Diaz prefers to beat his opponents in what they are best at. Which is why he lost to both Diego and Riggs.

But anyone who says diaz is a bad fighter dosn't know enough about MMA.

angryjonny · 02-08-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown

He would have knocked diego out if he tried to stand with him. He would have knocked Riggs out if he had followed through when he rocked him in the first. However Diaz prefers to beat his opponents in what they are best at. Which is why he lost to both Diego and Riggs.

But anyone who says diaz is a bad fighter dosn't know enough about MMA.

Couldn't have said that better myself. Everyone thinks that just because he lost to Diego that he sucks now. If he would have beat him by a sub like he wanted to then the Diaz bandwagon would be overflowing with tag alongs. Notice he never tried to stall on the ground or even try to get up? If he wanted to knock him out he wouldn't have done that. He went toe to toe with Riggs who is not used to guys doing that with him. Especially guys who are naturally smaller then him. Plus at fight time he was 30 pounds heavier than him.

glockmn · 02-08-2006, 08:36 PM

I still think he beat Riggs

angryjonny · 02-08-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glockmn

I still think he beat Riggs

So do I. Obviously since there are so many different views on who won that fight it should have been a draw. Since UFC is against giving those for some reason I think Nick deserved it for taking the first round and trying to finish the fight in the second round too. Riggs never had Nick in any danger.

glockmn · 02-08-2006, 08:44 PM

I agree I don't think Riggs did much to end the fight

lwbfl · 02-09-2006, 08:43 AM

Aggression, DAMAGE, and ring control are the scoring criteria.

Unknown · 02-09-2006, 11:18 AM

Since alot of people seem to not really know the judging criteria in the UFC. Here are their full rules.

Quote:

VIII. JUDGES

A. No judge will have a financial interest in any fighter he judges.

B. No judge will be a manager/trainer of any fighter he judges.

C. In a bout goes to it's full time limit, the outcome will be decided by a majority decision of
three, (3), MMAC judges.

D. A judge is accredited, sanctioned and selected based upon his character, experience, stature
in the MMA world, knowledge of MMA systems and impartiality.

E. Judging Criteria
1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it's full time limit based upon the
following criteria:
-Clean Strikes
-Effective Grappling
-Octagon Control
-Effective Aggressiveness

F. Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total
number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the
criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a
winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than
those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality",
than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong
indication of positional dominance for striking.

I. Effective Grappling
1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean takedown and active guard position.
2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly takedown his opponent, is effectively
grappling.
3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple,
through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous
defense from the top fighter.
4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.
5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the
preceding situations were met.(items 2-4)
6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither
fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored
the clean takedown deserves the round.
7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling

J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is
octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

K. Effective Aggressiveness
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring)
2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness.

L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills
are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded.
Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the
scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it
in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations
that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the
criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is
imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
-octagon control
-effective aggressiveness

M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two
point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and
control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the
following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike
-by submission attempt
-from a throw
-from clean strikes either standing or grounded.

N. Judge's Scorecard Procedures
After each round:
1. each Judge will determine and record a score each round
2. a MMAC official will collect the scorecard after each round
3. the MMAC official will track and add each Judges score by round
4. If the fight goes the time limit, the MMAC official will add each Judge's scorecard and double
check total
5. the fighter with the greater number of points wins the fight on each Judges scorecard
6. the fighter who won on the majority of the Judges Scorecards, wins the fight
7. the MMAC official will hand the decision to the PA announcer

O. Types of Judge's Decisions
1. If all three scorecards agree Unanimous
2. If two of three scorecards agree Split
3. Two scorecards agree and one draw Majority
4. two scorecards agree on draw Draw
5. all scorecards different Draw

IX SCORING SYSTEM

A. The MMAC and UFC have adopted a 10 point must system.
The Judge will use the criteria to determine a winner each round. The three step procedure per
round is as follows:
-determine winner of round (can be draw)
-determine if winner dominated round
-fouls then factored in (subtract one point per foul from fighter)

B. Draws are again acceptable in MMAC events

C. Point Totals
1. two fighters who draw are given a score of 10-10
2. the fighter who wins a round is given a score of 10-9
3.The fighter who dominates a round is given a score of 10-8
(a score of 10-7 is possible for a dominant round)
4.For each foul a fighter commits, a point is subtracted. This deduction can change a winning round
to a draw. 9-9

D. Scoring Fouls
1. Fouls will be assessed a one point penalty in the round they occurred. If two (2), fouls
occurred in a round, then a two point penalty will be assessed.
2. all fouls are the Referee's responsibility to call
3. the Referee will notify each Judge that a foul was assessed. The Referee will notify the Judges
immediately, if action stops. If the foul was committed by the "bottom" fighter, then
the Referee will notify the Judges at the end of the round.

X. TIMEKEEPER & ROUND SYSTEM

A. The MMAC requires the presence of an officially designated timekeeper, provided by the promoter.
The timekeeper’s responsibilities include:
1. keep track of the start of each round (as initiated by Referee)
2. keep track of the number of rounds fought
3. start and stop the clock for time-outs (as called by referee)
4. signal end of bout

B. It is mandatory that a bell or buzzer, sufficiently loud enough to be heard by referee, judges,
fighters and cornerman be utilized in all MMAC sanctioned events.

C. The clock will be stopped by the referee for the following:
1. equipment
2. physical environment
3. to allow doctor to inspect athlete
4. end the round or fight

D. Round System
1. All MMAC sanctioned events will now use rounds. The following is the length and number of rounds
for the following types of bouts:
-Preliminary bout 2 rounds of 5 minutes each
-Open Card bout 3 rounds of 5 minutes each
-Championship bout 5 rounds of 5 minutes each
2. Overtimes eliminated

angryjonny · 02-09-2006, 11:47 AM

Diaz still won.

I'm sorry. A tiny cut does not win a fight in my opinion. Neither does throwing combos at the air. But hey I'm not a judge so what do I know?

Unknown · 02-09-2006, 12:00 PM

K 4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.

G 1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.

L 4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations
that led to effective strikes?

J 3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.

Which means Riggs won rounds 2 and 3 because he out srike Diaz, was more agressive, and got a takedown.

angryjonny · 02-09-2006, 12:20 PM

Did you count the number of punches landed by both fighters? I'm thinking about doing that just because I'm sure that Riggs did not land as many punches as some are thinking. Therefore Diaz should take it for moving forward. I don't get how back pedaling while missing punches is aggression.