Revisiting Edgar Aldo

[wiggum]

Chad Mendes definitely was the most dangerous opponent Aldo ever fought. But it was a very clear decision. Frankie absolutely was his closest fight. I remember being upset when the decision was rendered - but I know Frankie well and was biased. Since then, I resigned myself to thinking it was a good decision.

I went back and rewatched the fight and realize I wasn't as off as I convinced myself I was. It still seems to me that Frankie won the last 3 rounds.

Anyone else feel the same?

 

[D241]

I am sure you've seen my "Fights that should be a draw per card" thread on the other site.

Of all the fight examples I mentioned, that one gets brought up the most in terms of people disagreeing it was a close fight.

Personally, I feel it could've been scored either way and definitely think it should've been a draw. The champ would've retained his belt but a draw would reflect the outcome of that fight more accurately.

I'm not biased in anyway. I feel Edgar/Penn 1 should've been a draw, I feel Edgar/Benson 1&2 should've been a draw, Edgar vs Maynard was an accurately scored draw. That's one win I think should be a draw, three losses I think should be a draw, and one draw I agree with.

I really feel it should've been Edgar/Aldo with Conor fighting Cub or Lamas to get next between Edgar/Aldo.

 

[wiggum]

Great post, D. And yeah, I remember that thread.

The way I see it, rounds 1-2 are clearly Aldo. Round 5 is clearly Edgar. Rounds 3-4 are the interesting ones and I'm inclined to say Edgar more clearly won 3 than 4.

A draw sounds right to me.

 

[D241]

People are always taking sides on close fight decisions. Some say Edgar, some say Aldo. Some say Masvidal, some say Iaquinta.

You know when no one argues? When there is a finish. A finish is a clear and undeniable advantage that no one can argue. If there is absolutely any doubt on "what if the fight went longer" and there is just one doubt, it should be a draw.

No denying finishes, close decisions are always subjective and controversial.

 

[Wild]

I could definitely see it being scored a draw. But as close as rounds 3 & 4 were, I could also see them going to Aldo...and in that case, he wins in 49-46. Regardless, I would love to see them rematch, but even more so, I would LOVE to see Frankie get a shot at Conor. Frankie is game as hell, and I think that he would give Conor everything he wants and then some.

 

[Zeph]

I'll make an effort to re-watch this soon™.

 

[wiggum]

I could definitely see it being scored a draw. But as close as rounds 3 & 4 were, I could also see them going to Aldo...and in that case, he wins in 49-46. Regardless, I would love to see them rematch, but even more so, I would LOVE to see Frankie get a shot at Conor. Frankie is game as hell, and I think that he would give Conor everything he wants and then some.

For sure. And if Frankie beats Faber then Mendes, sheesh, I'm not sure you could ask for a better case to be made. Swanson-->Faber-->Mendes.

 

[Ministry of Silly Walks]

For sure. And if Frankie beats Faber then Mendes, sheesh, I'm not sure you could ask for a better case to be made. Swanson-->Faber-->Mendes.

edgar should easily beat faber, but mendes is starting to look like a tough fight for all, and i'd love to see that fight.

 

[D241]

While Faber is 2 years older than Frankie, Frankie has 18 UFC fights against Faber's 11. Advantage-who the fuck knows(meaningless research led to nothing)

 

[Zeph]

While Faber is 2 years older than Frankie, Frankie has 18 UFC fights against Faber's 11. Advantage-who the fuck knows(meaningless research led to nothing)

Faber has had more overall fights..

 

[WoodenPupa]

A division involving only Frankie-Aldo-Mendes-McGregor could run for a couple of years IMO.

 

[lookoutawhale]

A division involving only Frankie-Aldo-Mendes-McGregor could run for a couple of years IMO.

love the new avatar with fedors sweater of doom!

 

[WoodenPupa]

People are always taking sides on close fight decisions. Some say Edgar, some say Aldo. Some say Masvidal, some say Iaquinta.

You know when no one argues? When there is a finish. A finish is a clear and undeniable advantage that no one can argue. If there is absolutely any doubt on "what if the fight went longer" and there is just one doubt, it should be a draw.

No denying finishes, close decisions are always subjective and controversial.

Well, presuming the stoppage itself (i.e. the ref's indication that the fight is over) is uncontroversial, but as we all know they frequently are. Finishes are most often the result of ref intervention and waving the fight off (as opposed to the fighter losing consciousness or tapping), and this action itself is often subjective on the ref's part as he has to determine whether a fighter can still defend himself.

So, causing the opponent to go unconscious or making him tap prior to ref intervention is the only way to preempt any all arguing about the win, presuming the finishing technique is legal.

Right? But even then---you've got your Romero-Kennedy fights in which the ref stoppage appears totally justified, but the final result is STILL tainted because of prior events in the fight. Over this particular fight, peopled argue about whether Romero should have been counted out since he didn't get off his stool for another 15 seconds after the next round started (with further arguments concerning Kennedy's glove-hooking).

You're still right in the broad sense, because that small percentage of fights that end by KO/tap prior to ref intervention, and which also lack controversy regarding fouls and so forth, is the kind of fight we don't argue about. But it isn't uncommon to argue about a stoppage---I'd say at least every other card we get a fight that fits this bill.

 

[WoodenPupa]

love the new avatar with fedors sweater of doom!

Not even Putin can sit in the back seat of that car and not be nervous!

 

[Zeph]

Well, presuming the stoppage itself (i.e. the ref's indication that the fight is over) is uncontroversial, but as we all know they frequently are. Finishes are most often the result of ref intervention and waving the fight off (as opposed to the fighter losing consciousness or tapping), and this action itself is often subjective on the ref's part as he has to determine whether a fighter can still defend himself.

So, causing the opponent to go unconscious or making him tap prior to ref intervention is the only way to preempt any all arguing about the win, presuming the finishing technique is legal.

Right? But even then---you've got your Romero-Kennedy fights in which the ref stoppage appears totally justified, but the final result is STILL tainted because of prior events in the fight. Over this particular fight, peopled argue about whether Romero should have been counted out since he didn't get off his stool for another 15 seconds after the next round started (with further arguments concerning Kennedy's glove-hooking).

You're still right in the broad sense, because that small percentage of fights that end by KO/tap prior to ref intervention, and which also lack controversy regarding fouls and so forth, is the kind of fight we don't argue about. But it isn't uncommon to argue about a stoppage---I'd say at least every other card we get a fight that fits this bill.

It's still fairly rare for a truly bad stoppage though, perhaps a couple a year. The rest are just people complaining it was slightly early, or slightly late.

 

[WoodenPupa]

True, but stoppages that are even a little early leave room for doubt. D241 is casting finishes as the kind of result which is inarguable, but my point is that only some are like this. Maybe I overestimated how many we do argue about. What's a good estimate though? Are, say, 75% of stoppages inarguable? If so, if we legitimately bicker about 25% of stoppages, that's still a lot.

What counts as legitimate arguing though? What is a nit-picky complaint as opposed to a justified one? Any definition gets circular pretty quickly.

 

[WoodenPupa]

Just to clarify, I think we justifiably argue about more than 1 or 2 stoppages a year. Throughout the fuck-ton of shows, all the fight nights and non-PPV shows included, there must be 10 a year. That's just what it seems like to me...I could be off.

 

[Zeph]

True, but stoppages that are even a little early leave room for doubt. D241 is casting finishes as the kind of result which is inarguable, but my point is that only some are like this. Maybe I overestimated how many we do argue about. What's a good estimate though? Are, say, 75% of stoppages inarguable? If so, if we legitimately bicker about 25% of stoppages, that's still a lot.

What counts as legitimate arguing though? What is a nit-picky complaint as opposed to a justified one? Any definition gets circular pretty quickly.

25% seems way too high. I'd be interested if you could back up your claims about bad stoppages with actual numbers, but really you are just throwing out numbers that seem baseless. Perhaps a pet project? I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[Zeph]

Just to clarify, I think we justifiably argue about more than 1 or 2 stoppages a year. Throughout the fuck-ton of shows, all the fight nights and non-PPV shows included, there must be 10 a year. That's just what it seems like to me...I could be off.

Even 10, when you consider the number of fights, is a tiny fraction.

 

[WoodenPupa]

In 5 years that's 50 fights...maybe it's not the fraction that counts.

 

[WoodenPupa]

25% seems way too high. I'd be interested if you could back up your claims about bad stoppages with actual numbers, but really you are just throwing out numbers that seem baseless. Perhaps a pet project? I'd love to be proven wrong.

I could make the same claim about your numbers. 2 seems way too low---are you sure you're not "just throwing out numbers that seem baseless"?

And it all depends what you consider a "bad stoppage"? Is it bad because you think it is? Because 50 other people do?

People argue all the time about stoppages, and there isn't a clear way to determine who's right or wrong. No more clear than who should have won a decision in a close fight. And this is my point. D241 is saying that stoppages are in their own category in terms of decisiveness, and his evidence is that stoppages are inarguable. But quite a few stoppages are controversial. You seem to want to talk only about genuinely bad stoppages, but I'm bringing up the murkier cases because they controvert D241's claim just as well.

 

[Zeph]

I'm just saying I'd be interested in actual numbers, rather than all of us throwing out baseless numbers.

 

[WoodenPupa]

Here are some questionable stoppages off the top of my head, or, to put it more precisely, fights that had a decisive result of KO/TKO/submission that were argued about for one reason or another:

1. Romero-Kennedy (many claimed that since Romero didn't get up to answer the bell in time, the fight should have been over)
2. Fedor-Hendo
3. Carwin-Lesnar (many argued fight should have been stopped in Carwin's favor earlier)
4. Barao-Faber 2
5. Cain-Rothwell
6. Ortiz-Shamrock 2
7. Werdum-Vera

I'm no fight historian, and I'm sure others can think of many more. You might think than none of these was problematic, but many people do.

 

[WoodenPupa]

I'm just saying I'd be interested in actual numbers, rather than all of us throwing out baseless numbers.

I'm a fan of numbers as well, which is why I threw some out. I also did so cautiously, admitting they might be off.

It takes time to research stuff like this, but if you throw out your own numbers, you've got to be just as willing to research.

 

[Zeph]

I'm a fan of numbers as well, which is why I threw some out. I also did so cautiously, admitting they might be off.

It takes time to research stuff like this, but if you throw out your own numbers, you've got to be just as willing to research.

Looking back, I came off more combative than I meant to, so I apologise for that. Perhaps a thread here could be used to keep tally of the consensus bad stoppages over a 1 year period?