I must admit (spoiler)
The Sanity Cruzer
be a UFC title holder. Tonight, he made Jackson look old and slow. I only
saw the fight from the 3rd round on (I hear Forrest kicked butt in the 2nd),
but from what I saw, Griffin fought a good tactical bout and utilized his
strengths and avoided Jackson's.
Styles make fights, and Griffin fought the right style to beat Rampage. My
hat is off to Forrest Griffin.
fvwerhrjjqeh
wrote:
YES...............YES.........................YES.....................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOT DAMN- I'm so proud of him. **THIS** is what makes the UFC the best
IMHO. YES!!!!!!!! I want details.
fvwerhrjjqeh
I wonder if Jackson's trainer will retire like he said he would if
Forrest won. We shall see if he is a man of his word. I bet I know the
answer. If he doesn't- then he has no more credibility IMO.
Anthony Williams
I must admit, when I first saw Forrest Griffin fight, I never thought he'd be a UFC title holder. Tonight, he made Jackson look old and slow. I only saw the fight from the 3rd round on (I hear Forrest kicked butt in the 2nd), but from what I saw, Griffin fought a good tactical bout and utilized his strengths and avoided Jackson's.
Styles make fights, and Griffin fought the right style to beat Rampage. My hat is off to Forrest Griffin.
Anthony Williams
Ron
Yes, he kicked his ass, and it had nothing to do with "styles make
fights", because they both had the same "style", unlike CL, who is
pretty much a standup fighter only.
QR, got G&Ped BIG time in the second rd.....and I was surprised that
he made it to 5 rds.
Ron
"Anthony Williams" <Truth...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:ctZbk.14386$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
You need to fix whatever you are using for a newsreader. (HTML)
Anthony Williams
fvwerhrjjqeh
> The Sanity Cruzer wrote:I must admit, when I first saw Forrest Griffin fight, I never thought he'd be a UFC title holder. Tonight, he made Jackson look old and slow. I only saw the fight from the 3rd round on (I hear Forrest kicked butt in the 2nd), but from what I saw, Griffin fought a good tactical bout and utilized his strengths and avoided Jackson's.
I would definitely pay for that one! The question- what would Dana
lose with that matchup. I can't see him pairing them together because
it would make too much sense.
u...@invalid.net
in article <p5SdnYzSgIPOye3V...@comcast.com>,
"The Sanity Cruzer" <sanity...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I must admit, when I first saw Forrest Griffin fight, I never thought he'd
>be a UFC title holder.
I think there are several people, who, if they undeservingly
got a title shot, could have pulled off the same or better.
>Tonight, he made Jackson look old and slow. I only
>saw the fight from the 3rd round on (I hear Forrest kicked butt in the 2nd),
Jackson floored Griffin in round 1, with an uppercut. Griffin
laid on top of Jackson for the entire 2nd round, with just
enough elbow flurry to avoid being stood up.
>but from what I saw, Griffin fought a good tactical bout and utilized his
>strengths and avoided Jackson's.
Basically, he kept throwing leg kicks, and successfully
conveyed the impression he was more aggressive, without doing
any substantial damage.
>Styles make fights, and Griffin fought the right style to beat Rampage. My
>hat is off to Forrest Griffin.
Not mine. It's just a matter of time till someone whoops his
ass. I predict ASS will easily own this division, if he stays
in it.
u...@invalid.net
in article
<d09d0fe9-baa4-44b6...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
fvwerhrjjqeh <gk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Griffin wins by successfully conveying the impression of
aggression (to people who wanted him to win anyway), by
continuously throwing leg kicks, and laying on top of Jackson
for the entire second round. Meanwhile, Jackson came close to
KOing Griffin, with an uppercut in round 2, and may have
rocked him in round 4 as well.
u...@invalid.net
in article <RcZbk.12745$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
Anthony Williams <Truth...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I couldn't agree more. I am shocked!!! I have made my last prediction. Its just like boxing -- I remember when Holyfield beat Foreman but yet Michael Moore beats Holyfield and Foreman beats Moore and Foreman becomes the H.W. Champ --the shit (fights in general) is just unpredictable. I was wrong. I was totally wrong Forrest fought like a Machida that actually has a nut sack. I wonder if Forrests next fight is Liddell?
While I incorrectly predicted the outcome of this fight, I do
not tip my hat to Griffin, and don't think he'll ever own this
division. In my opinion, he'll be lucky if he can pull off a
title defense against a worthy opponent, or ever regain the
title, once defeated. If ASS stays in this division, Gump
doesn't have a chance.
u...@invalid.net
in article
<74e11f5d-0e44-43fe...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Ron <BigEL...@msn.com> wrote:
>Yes, he kicked his ass, and it had nothing to do with "styles make
>fights", because they both had the same "style", unlike CL, who is
>pretty much a standup fighter only.
>
>QR, got G&Ped BIG time in the second rd.....and I was surprised that
>he made it to 5 rds.
I'm surprised Griffin made it to round 2, after being floored
by an uppercut. But at least he got to rest, while laying on
top of Jackson for the entire second round, with just enough
elbow flurry to avoid being stood up by people who wanted to
see him win.
Stanley Moore
"fvwerhrjjqeh" <gk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6fb5f706-efe9-4a81...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
*****************************
You haven't been paying attention to the presidential race evidently. If the
putative leaders of the free world can change their stances with impunity
(it's expected really) then why expect a mere trainer to stick to some
hyperbolic "promise"? Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Stanley Moore
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:rqb17496v1colkv2f...@4ax.com...
Which fits in with the judges decision of 3 rounds to 2.
If you want to win you gotta finish not rely on judges. Recall in TUF QJ
offered to bet his entire purse it would not go to a decision. Take care
Stanley Moore
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:56c174ha85o6arcg3...@4ax.com...
Unfortunately QJ got to rest as well. He said after the fight that second
round allowed his hurt leg to recover from the kicks. Take care
Ron
> Ron wrote:On Jul 6, 1:12 am, "The Sanity Cruzer"<sanitycru...@comcast.net>wrote:I must admit, when I first saw Forrest Griffin fight, I never thought he'd be a UFC title holder. Tonight, he made Jackson look old and slow. I only saw the fight from the 3rd round on (I hear Forrest kicked butt in the 2nd), but from what I saw, Griffin fought a good tactical bout and utilized his strengths and avoided Jackson's. Styles make fights, and Griffin fought the right style to beat Rampage. My hat is off to Forrest Griffin.Yes, he kicked his ass, and it had nothing to do with "styles make fights", because they both had the same "style", unlike CL, who is pretty much a standup fighter only. QR, got G&Ped BIG time in the second rd.....and I was surprised that he made it to 5 rds.Whatever dude, everyone, well besides you OBVIOUSLY knows most assuredly that "styles DO make fights" Some motherfuckers just have some mother fuckers number. Plain and simple. How else would you explain the phenomenon of mfers that turn around and whoop the mfer that whooped the mfer that whooped them? What's YOUR hypothesis then?
I can't explain anything to you because you are posting in HTML
or something to a text ONLY group.
Russell Watson
>
>
>Jackson floored Griffin in round 1, with an uppercut. Griffin
>laid on top of Jackson for the entire 2nd round, with just
>enough elbow flurry to avoid being stood up.
You like that line, don't you? I think you have used in every post
you've made in reference to this fight. The salient point that you
seem to be missing is that whether he used "...just enough elbow
flurry to keep from being stood up" or was beating the living shit out
of Jackson the bottom line is GRIFFIN WAS ON TOP, JACKSON WAS ON
BOTTOM, AND NOTHING JACKSON WAS ABLE TO DO REVERSED THAT!
Then there's what someone else pointed out which is that in the
post-fight interview Jackson admitted he was using that interval to
try to recover his damaged leg enough to continue when they finally
did get back on their feet.
You keep saying that the fight only looked like a win for Griffin to
people who wanted Griffin to win, but you need to be holding a mirror
up that and seeing what your own bias is doing to your perception of
the outcome when you're trying to give Jackson the fight on the basis
of 2 punches thrown 3 rounds apart, either of which should have taken
Griffin OUT based on your assessment of Jackson's abilities.
fvwerhrjjqeh
> Griffin wins by successfully conveying the impression of
> aggression (to people who wanted him to win anyway), by
> continuously throwing leg kicks, and laying on top of Jackson
> for the entire second round. Meanwhile, Jackson came close to
> KOing Griffin, with an uppercut in round 2, and may have
> rocked him in round 4 as well.
Come on guy- I haven't even watched it yet. I have wrote down what you
said and even though I wanted and thought he would win. I promise I
will be honest enough and let you know it what you have said is
*literally* what happened. My guess though is since you are the only
one phasing it that way and with your posts leading up to the fight
even if Forrest would have knocked him out cold you still would be
saying something. Come on. It is easy and you will feel better when
you just type an/or say the phrase that Forrest Griffin tapped that
ass. :-D
fvwerhrjjqeh
> I wonder if Jackson's trainer will retire like he said he would if
> Forrest won. We shall see if he is a man of his word. I bet I know the
> answer. If he doesn't- then he has no more credibility IMO.
> *****************************
>
> You haven't been paying attention to the presidential race evidently. If the
> putative leaders of the free world can change their stances with impunity
> (it's expected really) then why expect a mere trainer to stick to some
> hyperbolic "promise"? Take care
> --
I know Stan. It was meant partly in jest. It just makes that guy or
any other person who says stuff like that look the fool. Take care.
fvwerhrjjqeh
******APPLAUSE*********APPLAUSE********** loud hand clapping. I think
you 'may' be right in your assesment Russell. At least I will give my
'honest' opinion after watching. Gotta go cut the grass and then I'll
watch it- looking forward to it.
u...@invalid.net
in article
<5f380800-463b-40d0...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
fvwerhrjjqeh <gk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 2:15 pm, Russell Watson <russell-wat...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 06:40:58 -0500, u...@invalid.net wrote:
>>
>> >Jackson floored Griffin in round 1, with an uppercut. Griffin
>> >laid on top of Jackson for the entire 2nd round, with just
>> >enough elbow flurry to avoid being stood up.
>>
>> You like that line, don't you? I think you have used in every post
>> you've made in reference to this fight. The salient point that you
>> seem to be missing is that whether he used "...just enough elbow
>> flurry to keep from being stood up" or was beating the living shit out
>> of Jackson the bottom line is GRIFFIN WAS ON TOP, JACKSON WAS ON
>> BOTTOM, AND NOTHING JACKSON WAS ABLE TO DO REVERSED THAT!
>> Then there's what someone else pointed out which is that in the
>> post-fight interview Jackson admitted he was using that interval to
>> try to recover his damaged leg enough to continue when they finally
>> did get back on their feet.
Thus he admits laying on him for the entire round was not
really inflicting any damage on Jackson, but just giving him a
chance to rest. And that's his _only_ point.
>> You keep saying that the fight only looked like a win for Griffin to
>> people who wanted Griffin to win, but you need to be holding a mirror
>> up that and seeing what your own bias is doing to your perception of
>> the outcome when you're trying to give Jackson the fight on the basis
>> of 2 punches thrown 3 rounds apart, either of which should have taken
>> Griffin OUT based on your assessment of Jackson's abilities.
I saw Gump fall backwards to the mat after a swift uppercut.
They replayed it about five times. I saw Gump get rocked in
the fourth round. I did not see Jackson come anywhere close
to getting knocked out. The only thing Gump did was hurt his
leg with kicks, lay on him for one round, and thus convey the
impression of aggression.
>******APPLAUSE*********APPLAUSE********** loud hand clapping. I think
>you 'may' be right in your assesment Russell. At least I will give my
>'honest' opinion after watching. Gotta go cut the grass and then I'll
>watch it- looking forward to it.
This is classic. You telling him he's right in praising Gump,
_before_ you watch the fight. But hey, you're not biased
<snicker>.
Anthony Williams
fvwerhrjjqeh
> >******APPLAUSE*********APPLAUSE********** loud hand clapping. I think
> >you 'may' be right in your assesment Russell. At least I will give my
> >'honest' opinion after watching. Gotta go cut the grass and then I'll
> >watch it- looking forward to it.
>
> This is classic. You telling him he's right in praising Gump,
> _before_ you watch the fight. But hey, you're not biased
>
No I wasn't being biased. I was just using common sense. After reading
the main page on the UFC and hearing Quinton himself say "He whupped
my ass" - and reading everyones posts that watched it and at the time
over 95% all came up with the same conclusion. *EXCEPT* - - you. I
came to the conclusion - that isn't being 'bias' look up the
definition- that after reading all the evidence that I would come to
the same verdict. I have read a few more since then saying Quinton won
in here and all I can do is shake my head and roll my eyes. Nothing
will change your opinion- that's cool- live with it.<snicker> :-DDD
u...@invalid.net
in article
<cd1cf860-4e6e-4078...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
fvwerhrjjqeh <gk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
We'll see. If Gump can defend his title a few times, against
the likes of Liddell, Jardine, ASS, etc., _then_ I'll tip my
hat to him. Personally, I think ASS will own this division if
he stays in it.
Bob Savage
news:ajb174po8lr4gld14...@4ax.com...
> Not mine. It's just a matter of time till someone whoops his
> ass. I predict ASS will easily own this division, if he stays
> in it.
What a brilliant analysis! Yes, of course he's going to be beaten, just
like every other title holder.
u...@invalid.net
in article <Nn5ek.6735$tN1....@newsfe14.phx>,
"Bob Savage" <bsa...@aewrtsjfasd.net> wrote:
Key word is "holder". He won't hold it, unless they go out of
their way to make sure that only people they know he can beat
get to fight him. The Gump bubble _will_ be popped.
Bob Savage
news:8g4i74hq0v0kl7bpl...@4ax.com...
> Key word is "holder". He won't hold it, unless they go out of
> their way to make sure that only people they know he can beat
> get to fight him. The Gump bubble _will_ be popped.
How convenient of you to qualify it so that if Forest wins a title defense
it's because it's been setup.
fvwerhrjjqeh
A waste of bandwidth and I just contributed. Did you notice (I think
and I'm not going to check) that his fav. fighters are ASS **AND** The
Sandman...lol...he can't go wrong in this one either. <sigh> ;-) I
PROMISE you he won't say this fight is fixed- no matter who wins or
what the judges cards say. Isn't that something- I can sit here in
Cincinnati and say that and if anyone in the entire world bet me I
would win. <shaking my head>
u...@invalid.net
in article
<8d6642d2-dcd8-4c87...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
fvwerhrjjqeh <gk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Did you notice (I think
>and I'm not going to check) that his fav. fighters are ASS **AND** The
>Sandman...lol...he can't go wrong in this one either. <sigh>
No, I said sand man is one of my favorites, but that I predict
ASS will win. I do not really like ASS, but his talent is
undeniable.
rollman
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:htlj74lfl3t1g7rl1...@4ax.com...
Look you can just admit you like ASS.. we won't judge you... I'm sure
there have been gay posters before..
" *snicker* "
Anthony Williams
myself.
Ron
> <u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>
> news:htlj74lfl3t1g7rl1...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:25:20 -0700 (PDT),
> > in article
> > fvwerhrjjqeh <gk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Did you notice (I think
> >>and I'm not going to check) that his fav. fighters are ASS **AND** The
> >>Sandman...lol...he can't go wrong in this one either. <sigh>
>
> > No, I said sand man is one of my favorites, but that I predict
> > ASS will win. I do not really like ASS, but his talent is
> > undeniable.
>
> Look you can just admit you like ASS.. we won't judge you... I'm sure
> there have been gay posters before..
>
> " *snicker* "
Are you 12 yrs old?
Seriously, it's 2008, and accusing someone of being gay and
"snickering" about it, is something that "might" still go over in Jr
High.
u...@invalid.net
in article <487a16e7$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"rollman" <roll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your response is the only thing gay I see in this exchange.
>" *snicker* "
>
Anthony Williams
Ron
Yeah, really.
The Sanity Cruzer
news:a799dfbc-4273-4610...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>Yeah, really.<
It's a subtle form of gay bashing.
Ron
"Anthony Williams" <Truth...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:zfgck.17259$Ri....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
Does this look like I'm posting through Google Groups (capitalized), moron?Maybe you should get your facts straight before spouting off your trashhole.
Anthony Williams
inquisitive I would have used a question mark.
Anthony Williams
>
>
> "Anthony Williams" <Truth...@swbell.net
> <mailto:Truth...@swbell.net>> wrote in message
>
> Maybe you should get your facts straight before spouting off your
> trashhole.
>
>
>
Maybe you should take your own advice.
Anthony Williams
and YOU HAD TO DODGE IT so you said "I can't explain anything to you
because you are posting in HTML or something to a text ONLY group."!
Ron
"Anthony Williams" <Truth...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:m0sek.4893$np7....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Regardless, you OBVIOUSLY understood the meaning of my initial question
> and YOU HAD TO DODGE IT so you said "I can't explain anything to you
> because you are posting in HTML or something to a text ONLY group."!
WTF are you talking about?
I made a comment that QRJ and FG have basically the same style. Therefore
you can't say that FG already has his "number" because of opposing styles.
Then, you totally change the subject... Asking me to explain to you, why
fighter A can beat fighter B but, fighter C can beat fighter A but, can't
beat fighter B. What does any of that have to do with the QRJ/FG fight?
BTW, this thread was in such a fucking mess, because 1/2 of it was in HTML,
I had to snip ALL of it.
Ron
And I was agreeing with you, "no reading mfer".
Anthony Williams
For one, that doesn't even make sense. We might agree regarding the OP
( It seems you finally have figured that much out) but you were trying
to "set me straight." Before I filter you out I am thinking there is
still a chance we can be friends; I have been needing a blow job all
day. Ahhhhh never mind.
Ron
You want a guy to give you a blowjob? No wonder you agreed with me.
BTW, I see you are posting through Thunderbird, a FREE program, but, *I'm* a
"cheap ass" for using Google Groups?
Talk about not making any sense...lol
rollman
"Ron" <bigel...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:487a76c7$0$18085$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
wow I didn't realise there were so many daft people in this NG....I seem to
have accidently flushed a few out by bashing one of them....
*snicker*
edbert
>"snickering" about it, is something that "might" still go over in Jr
>High.
...and on UseNet since the '80s.
edbert
>------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C8E4F2.9D6E4FD0
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
>content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1>
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1611" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><BLOCKQUOTE=20
>style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
>BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
>
>
> Does this look like I'm posting through Google Groups (capitalized), =
>moron?
Is that a rhetorical question?