# Rampage vs. Machida Rematch Will NOT Happen



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

http://www.ufc.com/news/ufc-123-post-fight-presser-report

6:20

I thought the split decision went the right way, Rampage's actions at the end influenced the debate a bit more IMO but he deserved the win and is now in Title contention as Dana implies.

What's next for Machida? Plenty to choose from.


----------



## Guymay (Jul 6, 2009)

Rampage vs jones/bader winner and machida vs jones/bader loser .


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

Guymay said:


> Rampage vs jones/bader winner and machida vs jones/bader loser .


I have a feeling Machida vs Bader will happen, but don't see Page vs Jones.


----------



## Rusko (Feb 4, 2010)

Page will bring alot of trouble to Jones.


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

That loss was such such a joke.... And it makes UFC look like a joke...

I cant imagine how pissed Machida must be.... h8 pathetic judges


----------



## Danm2501 (Jun 22, 2009)

He shouldn't be pissed. He lost that fight.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

Why should Machida be pissed at judges? if anything... he should be pissed at his performance in the first two rounds. Machida did nothing in the first two because he was just passive waiting for a opening, which didn't really come.


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

Spec0688 said:


> Why should Machida be pissed at judges? if anything... he should be pissed at his performance in the first two rounds. Machida did nothing in the first two because he was just passive waiting for a opening, which didn't really come.


Are you talking about MAchida or Rampage??? Look who was throwing Stikes! WOW REWATCH THE FIRST BEFORE TALKING.....

Rampage STOOD there while Machida went in and out throwing leg kicks if u ACTUALLY WATCH IT, and Rampages sat back looking for an opening....

And the only time Rampage did try to fight, Machida ran back and out of the way, but i guess to you and idiot judges they called that octagon control... Because Machida was avoiding shots...

To bad idiots dont count dodging and getting out of the way, to counter Rampages so called "Octagon Control" points...

Even Rampage was shocked he won that fight, and Machida controlled him more in the clinch....

Tell me what Rampages did to deserve winning the first round by standing there getting leg kicked, and missing mostly if not all clean shots....

And in the second Machida ended nice while Rampage didnt do anything significant....

This is so sad, re watching ALL that Rampage did in that fight, and HE got the win.... Sad day for MMA on judge calls


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

I am not even going to debate this with you, you clearly have your head filled with Machida posters.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Machida Karate said:


> Are you talking about MAchida or Rampage??? Look who was throwing Stikes! WOW REWATCH THE FIRST BEFORE TALKING.....
> 
> Rampage STOOD there while Machida went in and out throwing leg kicks if u ACTUALLY WATCH IT, and Rampages sat back looking for an opening....
> 
> ...


No need to type anything more when this has been said. I agree 100%. Both fighters put on a show but Machida should have taken the decision. Hell, even Rampage thought Machida won and he took part of the fight, not just sit next to the cage and _judge_.


----------



## strikersrevenge (Nov 20, 2010)

That boy from Memphis can't mess wit em


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Too bad... maybe it will happen sometime. To be honest I don't think an immediate rematch would do anyone good right now. Rampage needs a contender fight next and Machida still has so many intriguing matchups that I want to see, so there's no time to lose with rematches when there's no title on the line.


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

Rauno said:


> No need to type anything more when this has been said. I agree 100%. Both fighters put on a show but Machida should have taken the decision. Hell, even Rampage thought Machida won and he took part of the fight, not just sit next to the cage and _judge_.


I just watched the fight again, and while I'm not going to complain about the decision, I could definitely see Machida winning the 1st round. It was a split decision after all, so not really a robbery, but this should be an important lesson for Machida.

Despite the loss, this should be a moral victory for Machida IMHO.


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

sNuFf_rEaLiTy said:


> I just watched the fight again, and while I'm not going to complain about the decision, I could definitely see Machida winning the 1st round. It was a split decision after all, so not really a robbery, but this should be an important lesson for Machida.
> 
> Despite the loss, this should be a moral victory for Machida IMHO.


Why should it be a moral victory for him when he was supposed to pick Rampage apart? If anything its a moral victory for Rampage.

And no I dont want an immediate rematch, its simply not needed.


----------



## Brydon (Jan 13, 2007)

Rampage was more aggressive and did more damage in Rd 1, clipping Machida a few times.

Round 2 he clipped him a few times again and got a TD (the TD won him the round IMO)

RD 3 Lyoto tooled rampage with strikes, a takedown and mount but it was not dominant enough for a 10-8 round.

So Lyoto wins the fight as a whole. He did more overall damage and had Rampage in more trouble. However Rampage wins Rd 1 and 2. 

As we all know it is a 10 point must sytem and IMO Rampage won 2 out of the 3 rounds, so Machida's dominance in Rd 3 is irrelevant.

On a side note. Rampage is so bad off his back it is ridiculous. He doesn't scramble to get back to his feet, he doesn't attempt anything from half guard (doesn't go for an underhook, doesn't try and sweep, doesnt even try to get to full guard). It is just terrible for a guy who should have been doing BJJ for over 10 years. Even if he completly neglects BJJ then at least scramble like mad, push off, create space and try and stand.

I am a MASSIVE Rampage fan but his ground game is as bad as Kongo's, and for a all time great, current contender and former champion, that is unnacceptable.


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

^^^ Rampage didnt scarmble because he was rocked and trying to catch a breather...

In a normal situation he would have powered his way out of that.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

Machida Karate said:


> That loss was such such a joke.... And it makes UFC look like a joke...
> 
> I *cant imagine how pissed Machida must be*.... h8 pathetic judges


You know...I could make a Machida urine drinking joke here but it's too easy...LOL 

In all seriousness I am a huge Machida fan and I still think he's one of the best. The fight was extremely close but I don't care to see a rematch. I want to see Machida fight another top contender.


----------



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

> I cant imagine how pissed Machida must be.... h8 pathetic judges


Shit when that happens aint it, at least maybe Machida will get an awesome 1st round KO next time, like a certain other dude who got robbed...

Except Machida was not robbed, and either way, what goes around comes around.

Rampage is not useless on the ground, he has great top control and nasty GnP. He may not have looked very active under Machida, but he was rocked and still controlled Machida and defended the submission attempt. That is a result of KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE.

Controlling and stalling his opponent on the ground is exactly what Rampage wants if it will force a stand up, where he is most comfortable. He has 4 submission wins, and only lost by submission once, 9 years ago...


----------



## VincePierce (Oct 10, 2010)

theyll feed him someone he can beat. no one wants to see him lose three in a row...altho in that division i dont think it equates to a cut.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

anytime a fight goes to decision and people argue over the decision that only means one thing, never leave it up to the judges. The fact that it's arguable who won makes it a moot point really and whether machida or rampage won is irrelevant.


----------



## Mike28 (Aug 11, 2010)

There was no way that was a bad decision. It was a very close fight. Machida did nothing the first 2 rounds that won him the round. Like Dana says do not leave it in the hands of the judges. People see him continuing to back up and dodge that doesnt have a good effect on the judges. Machida hands down won the 3rd round but i had the first 2 rounds going to Rampage as well. I DO NOT want to see a rematch. It was a boring ass fight and there is no need for another fight. I think Rampage should get the winner of Franklin/Griffin and Machida will probably get the loser of Jones/Bader. We will see though.


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

It was a close fight. Could have gone either way. The only people complaining are blinded by a salty taste in their mouth :sarcastic12:


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

vilify said:


> Why should it be a moral victory for him when he was supposed to pick Rampage apart? If anything its a moral victory for Rampage.
> 
> And no I dont want an immediate rematch, its simply not needed.


it should be a moral victory because he was obviously gunshy and hesitant due to his vicious KO loss by Rua. I felt that Machida was battling his fear as much as his opponent in that fight. 

And now he knows he's not just going to get KOed by anyone in a fight, and that he still has the skills to put a hurtin' on the top contenders of the 205 division. He needs to go back and reflect and work on his aggressiveness from this point forward. These fighters are human you know?

And as for Machida supposed to pick rampage apart, thats all pundit talk. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the level of competition is way closer than most give credit for.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Although i was rooting for Lyoto, i'm not sad or angry. The fight made both of them look good and Lyoto didn't lose any credibility. i didn't want to Rampage to lose as well so it's almost a win-win situation for me.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

I don't want to see a rematch either. I don't think it makes much sense.

Rampage is back into title contention, as is Lyoto! 

It's a win win for the UFC. Put Rampage against winner of Bones/Bader and give Lyoto the winner of Griffin/Franklin, and everything would be perfect!


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

kc1983 said:


> You know...I could make a Machida urine drinking joke here but it's too easy...LOL
> 
> In all seriousness I am a huge Machida fan and I still think he's one of the best. The fight was extremely close but I don't care to see a rematch. I want to see Machida fight another top contender.



Ya i agree... One part of me wants this to be settled another part feels like he won that fight and i would rather see Machida up against a different style....

I can see why it would be hard for Dana to promote another instant rematch with how many there have been lately...

Its annoying that 1 round was super close, but i gave my unbiased vote to Machida, and another round Rampage wins slightly and the final round Machida does more damage then ether one of them did the first 2 combined.

Damn if that was a title fight! Rampage looked to be slowing down and Machida finding his groove


----------



## Nefilim777 (Jun 24, 2009)

Rogan tried to claim that Rampage won because 'he was the aggressor', if that's really so then why did Machida clearly land far more strikes throughout ALL rounds? Just because he's a counter attacking fighter doesn't mean that he's not being aggressive, the strike count should show that.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

under ufc scoring i'd give the fight to rampage. 29-28 

under pride scoring i'd give the fight to machida. 29-28

under my scoring i'd give the fight to machida. 29-28

a fighter slightly winning 2 rounds > a fighter slightly losing two rounds and beating the epic shit out of his opponent for a round


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

xeberus said:


> under ufc scoring i'd give the fight to rampage. 29-28
> 
> under pride scoring i'd give the fight to machida. 29-28
> 
> ...


When did this happen? :confused02:


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

Nefilim777 said:


> Rogan tried to claim that Rampage won because 'he was the aggressor', if that's really so then why did *Machida clearly land far more strikes throughout ALL rounds*? Just because he's a counter attacking fighter doesn't mean that he's not being aggressive, the strike count should show that.


When did this happen? :confused05:


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

He didn't land more according to Compustrike stats

"Jackson took the fight to Machida, moving forward with strikes while Machida chose to counter with leg kicks. Jackson outstruck Machida in each of the first two rounds, outlanding him 25-12 in round one and 21-9 in round two according to Compustrike scoring.Machida rebounded by dominating the third, hurting Jackson with a combo that started with a left hook and knees to the body. Machida took Jackson down and worked him over for most of the rest of the round, but two of the three judges felt Jackson did enough to capture the bout.
In the seconds after the fight, Jackson said Machida whipped him, but in the post-fight press conference, he said he got carried away with his statements after suffering through a rough final round."
http://www.mmafighting.com/2010/11/...epic-trilogy-with-21-second-ko-rampage-rebou/






QUOTE=Nefilim777;1305864]Rogan tried to claim that Rampage won because 'he was the aggressor', if that's really so then why did Machida clearly land far more strikes throughout ALL rounds? Just because he's a counter attacking fighter doesn't mean that he's not being aggressive, the strike count should show that.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

This last post basically makes all these Machida nut huggers look bad. How can you claim that Machida won either of the first two rounds when he got out struck by a bit more than double. 

Machida did nothing in rounds one and two to warrant winning that round, he basically threw leg kicks for 10 minutes of a fight... did he even land more than 5 punches striking in the first 2?


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

I agree! I just re-watched the fight again and had the first two rounds for Rampage as well. Under this scoring system it's hard to argue that.

So the decision was definitely not a robbery. The first round however could have been Lyoto's if he went for a TD.


But I gotta say, the way Rampage behaved after this fight, I was blown away. I don't believe I have ever seen more class after a fight then that!!! The Respect he showed to Lyoto touched me.

I am a Rampage Fan from now on!


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

sNuFf_rEaLiTy said:


> it should be a moral victory because he was obviously gunshy and hesitant due to his vicious KO loss by Rua. I felt that Machida was battling his fear as much as his opponent in that fight.
> 
> And now he knows he's not just going to get KOed by anyone in a fight, and that he still has the skills to put a hurtin' on the top contenders of the 205 division. He needs to go back and reflect and work on his aggressiveness from this point forward. These fighters are human you know?
> 
> And as for Machida supposed to pick rampage apart, thats all pundit talk. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the level of competition is way closer than most give credit for.


I like this. I think Machida was definitely gunshy in the 1st and 2nd, but he might have realized that unless Rampage hit him smack in the jaw he wasn't getting KOed. That's when he came out more aggressive and got rocked him. A mentally 100% Machida (Rd 3 Machida) would have tooled Rampage the way many expected him to in the build-up.


----------



## Light_Speed (Jun 3, 2009)

Rampage clearly won the firt 2 rounds. Maybe if machida didnt go for the arm bar and actually started to damage rampage on the ground , he might of got a 10-8 round.. and even then the fight is a TIE.. rampage did look good though


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

I personally liked the fight and thought it was too close to tell. I just think it's stupid that peole think it's the worst decision they've ever seen. That's just dumb.


----------



## jongurley (Jun 28, 2008)

js9234 said:


> I personally liked the fight and thought it was too close to tell. I just think it's stupid that peole think it's the worst decision they've ever seen. That's just dumb.


Bisping vs. Hamill fight the other year was a terrible decision, shogun vs. machida 1 was a bad decision,, and alot more,, but this fight,, I had Rampage barely winning the first round, Rampage winning 2nd convincingly and Machida winning 3rd covincingly,, I thought this was a great decision..


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

jongurley said:


> Bisping vs. Hamill fight the other year was a terrible decision, shogun vs. machida 1 was a bad decision,, and alot more,, but this fight,, *I had rampage barely winning the first round,* Rampage winning 2nd convincingly and Machida winning 3rd covincingly,, I thought this was a great decision..


Some people have Machida barely winning the first round. Probably why this fight was a split decision, and why no one should be surprised we're debating this.

I'm actually a little surprised at how many people think machida got robbed to be honest. Live I scored it Rampage, but honestly can see the argument both ways. That's life though, on to the next one.

Oh, and that compustrike data is BS! You're telling me Rampage threw 40 something shots in the first 2 rounds? I don't understand that.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

The only reason Machida lost was because he was moving backwards. It's not like Rampage did anything. Nothing happened in the first two rounds so the score was heavily weighed by aggression and octagon control. The only round where something actually happened was in the 3rd, which Machida dominated.

I'm not saying Machida won, but he definitely didn't get "beat."


----------



## elardo (Jul 8, 2007)

AlphaDawg said:


> The only reason Machida lost was because he was moving backwards. It's not like Rampage did anything. Nothing happened in the first two rounds so the score was heavily weighed by aggression and octagon control. The only round where something actually happened was in the 3rd, which Machida dominated.
> 
> I'm not saying Machida won, but he definitely didn't get "beat."


I think that Machida's record will state that he was in fact beaten.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

elardo said:


> I think that Machida's record will state that he was in fact beaten.


herp derp

That's why I said I didn't think he won.


----------



## elardo (Jul 8, 2007)

AlphaDawg said:


> herp derp
> 
> That's why I said I didn't think he won.


You're one of the few that were really hoping that a Machida/Shogun style controversy would rise out of this. Machida won round 3. And not impressively. Rampage controlled most of the fight, and was never in real trouble.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

elardo said:


> You're one of the few that were really hoping that a Machida/Shogun style controversy would rise out of this. Machida won round 3. And not impressively. Rampage controlled most of the fight, and was never in real trouble.












I gave the first 2 rounds to Rampage and the last to Machida. Please stop posting.


----------



## ACTAFOOL (Dec 10, 2008)

Round 1:

machida: 4 leg kicks, 1 knee to the body, 2 kicks to the body, 25 sec clinch

rampage: 5 punches, 55 sec clinch

round 2:

Machida: 2 knees (one hard), 1 leg kick, 45 sec clinch, 1 nice punch + trip (end of the round)

rampage: 20 sec clinch (2 knees to the legs, 1 body shot), 2 knees to the body (one hard), TD (held him for 20 seconds, no damage), nice counter punch

round 3:

Machida: 1 leg kick, big flurry (9 punches, 1 head kick, 2 knees), TD (half guard, pass to side control, pass to full mount, 1 arm bar attempt) 20 sec clinch

rampage: counter 3 punches, 1 slam attempt

that’s just my very VERY simple breakdown, I did this while watching the fight for the second time, this is what both fighters did that was significant for the whole 15 mins now we have to remember that other things are taken into consideration like aggression, and that’s what I think tipped the scales in favor of rampage seeing as though the first round was kinda close

but I think that’s kind of unfair, Machida doesn’t have an aggressive style, he wants others to be aggressive, he is a counter striker, so its kind of unfair to give the edge to aggression to rampage since that’s acutally what Machida wanted, still it actually was a pretty close fight and rampage did much better then I thought but he never had Machida in danger and really didn’t do much except clinch and land a few punches, IMO round 1 and 3 are machidas while rampage won round 2, still thats 2>1 for machida, machida wins

didn’t dana say 4-5 punches don’t win fights? He said that about Machida as if his flurry was the only thing he did, seems to me rampage won the fight based on 8 punches :sarcastic12:


----------



## AlexZ (Sep 14, 2007)

sNuFf_rEaLiTy said:


> it should be a moral victory because he was obviously gunshy and hesitant due to his vicious KO loss by Rua. *I felt that Machida was battling his fear as much as his opponent in that fight. *
> 
> And now he knows he's not just going to get KOed by anyone in a fight, and that he still has the skills to put a hurtin' on the top contenders of the 205 division. He needs to go back and reflect and work on his aggressiveness from this point forward. These fighters are human you know?
> 
> And as for Machida supposed to pick rampage apart, thats all pundit talk. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the level of competition is way closer than most give credit for.


Agreed, Machida went back to being the illusive boring fighter in the first 2 rounds. I like both Machida and Rampage but it would have made for a better fight if the the "pre-Shogun" Machida showed up.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Machida Karate said:


> That loss was such such a joke.... And it makes UFC look like a joke...
> 
> I cant imagine how pissed Machida must be.... h8 pathetic judges


I know right!!

Machida should have been gifted 2 decision wins instead of just won. I mean... its only fair!!! **** the UFC. Why should Machida have to earn his victories????? Shit makes no sense. You are a joke UFC!


----------



## Chileandude (Jan 17, 2008)

ACTAFOOL said:


> Round 1:
> 
> machida: 4 leg kicks, 1 knee to the body, 2 body shots, 25 sec clinch
> 
> ...


I scored that Fight 30-29 Machida, the two first being a round, and the third clearly for Machida. I could see an argument for Quinton taking the first one has he landed the higher volume of strikes although they werent that significant for the most part.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

all i have to say is thats karma for shogun 1 and rampage won on octagon control and aggression end all this pointless threads


----------



## strikersrevenge (Nov 20, 2010)

So who do Rampage and Machida fight next?


----------



## Captain Stupid (Feb 3, 2008)

A fight which really could have been scored either way. Unfortunately for Machida though, with the notable exception of KO'ing Evans, and T Silva, he nearly always goes to decisions. You live by the sword and you die by the sword. Personally i gave the decision th Rampage when i watched it live.


----------



## JoshJosh (Nov 22, 2010)

I think it will def happen

but that is just my opinion


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

ACTAFOOL said:


> Round 1:
> 
> machida: 4 leg kicks, 1 knee to the body, 2 kicks to the body, 25 sec clinch
> 
> ...


But knowing the way the UFC judges score the fight, he has no one to blame but himself for not finishing the fight. 

Whether you, Machida or anyone else doesn't think it's fair that the scoring doesn't favor less aggressive counter strikers... it doesn't matter much. It is the fighters obligation to put together a game plan to win. 

And I think it might have been the first round, but Rampage landed a nice upper cut coming out of the clinch that you neglected to mention.


----------



## suniis (Mar 30, 2010)

Right after the fight, I felt Machida won, but that's just because Machida convincingly dominated round 3.
While watching the fight, I gave rounds 1 & 2 to Rampage...so it was close...but it wasn't a robbery...


----------



## f4rtknock3r (Nov 22, 2010)

I feel if machidas style is to counter then he should actually counter punches thrown at him instead of freaking running. people keep complaining that page was lackluster but how da hell you hit someone who keeps running around like a damn chicken ,that is why page had the clinch game involved in his strategy. I had Rampage winning 2-1.


----------



## evzbc (Oct 11, 2006)

I can't believe SO many people thought Rampage won.

Even Rampage didn't think Rampage won...


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

evzbc said:


> I can't believe SO many people thought Rampage won.
> 
> Even Rampage didn't think Rampage won...


I'm guessing his opinion was heavily swayed by that last round and he's just trying to be a classy guy.


----------



## suniis (Mar 30, 2010)

amoosenamedhank said:


> I'm guessing his opinion was heavily swayed by that last round and he's just trying to be a classy guy.


He actually said so himself at the post-fight presser...


----------



## GlasgowKiss (Sep 18, 2010)

I had this 29-28 Machida. I will admit to Machida being my favourite fighter just now, however, I do like Rampage as well.

Either way, I felt both fighters came off good here. Rampage looked in better shape, and Machida came through what must have been a mental battle. The third round probably saw him expelling some demons, as he attacked aggressively and came through it.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

strikersrevenge said:


> So who do Rampage and Machida fight next?


Page vs. Jones

Lyoto vs. Griffin/Frnaklin winner


----------



## axewand (Nov 22, 2010)

IMHO Rampage won round 1 and 2 slightly while Machida won the 3rd decisively. In other words a single dominating round for Machida can't turn around 2 slightly won rampage rounds. 

Rampage went there to finish, Machida went to score points, fought patiently like he always do, picks his shots wisely, waits till the other guy over commits and K.O him. 

Fighting is a science and I enjoy watching technical fights. But fighting is also mathematics and 2 rounds will always be better than 1.

If you watch the fight again round per round with proper judging (without a biased mind for either fighters), you'll find the decision has a basis. :innocent01:


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

axewand said:


> IMHO Rampage won round 1 and 2 slightly while Machida won the 3rd decisively. In other words a single dominating round for Machida can't turn around 2 slightly won rampage rounds.
> 
> Rampage went there to finish, Machida went to score points, fought patiently like he always do, picks his shots wisely, waits till the other guy over commits and K.O him.
> 
> ...


Yea, but even without any glasses on you can see that this svcoring system does not translate into MMA. It's pretty obious.


----------



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

^^^ Yes but even so, you don't get 'slightly won' or 'dominating' in the scores, a 10-9 is a 10-9 and Machida's 3rd round 10-9 is no different to Jackson's 10-9s.

3rd round had to be 10-8 for a draw, only way Machida could win was to finish, and he knew that or he would have fought the same way he did in the first two.

Not that I agree with the scoring system, but until it changes it is what it is, and this time it was judged well.


----------



## KittenStrangler (Mar 26, 2010)

We're bound to see a rematch down the road, just not an immediate one.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

SM33 said:


> ^^^ Yes but even so, you don't get 'slightly won' or 'dominating' in the scores, a 10-9 is a 10-9 and Machida's 3rd round 10-9 is no different to Jackson's 10-9s.
> 
> 3rd round had to be 10-8 for a draw, only way Machida could win was to finish, and he knew that or he would have fought the same way he did in the first two.
> 
> Not that I agree with the scoring system, but until it changes it is what it is, and this time it was judged well.


I know, but it just doesn't translate like I said. This fight was just another example under hundreds and more..


----------



## Zajebisty (May 4, 2010)

I hope there's no rematch. The fight was boring and i'm sure that a rematch would look pretty much the same. Rampage won the fight clearly, now lets move on.

I'd like to see Machida vs Soszynski


----------



## axewand (Nov 22, 2010)

Zajebisty said:


> I hope there's no rematch. The fight was boring and i'm sure that a rematch would look pretty much the same. Rampage won the fight clearly, now lets move on.
> 
> I'd like to see Machida vs Soszynski


Machida will murder Soszynski.
Machida Vs Jones / Couture / Vera


----------



## Mike28 (Aug 11, 2010)

I think Machida would murder Couture/Vera. I would like to see Machida fight Jones or Franklin next.


----------



## axewand (Nov 22, 2010)

Mike28 said:


> I think Machida would murder Couture/Vera. I would like to see Machida fight Jones or Franklin next.


Couture will pin Machida on the fence dirty box him get him down pound his ass and hand it over to him. You don't count the old man out :thumb04: lol


----------



## ACTAFOOL (Dec 10, 2008)

amoosenamedhank said:


> But knowing the way the UFC judges score the fight, he has no one to blame but himself for not finishing the fight.
> 
> Whether you, Machida or anyone else doesn't think it's fair that the scoring doesn't favor less aggressive counter strikers... it doesn't matter much. It is the fighters obligation to put together a game plan to win.
> 
> And I think it might have been the first round, but Rampage landed a nice upper cut coming out of the clinch that you neglected to mention.


well one of those 5 punches was the uppercut:thumbsup: but i can understand how rampage won the fight

it is in the rules to be agressive regardless of style and you still can be agressive while being a counter striker (AS?) i do think its machidas fault for always letting it go to decision and to have been so patient in rounds 1 and 2...it did look like he was scared of rampages KO power

round 1 and 2 he never looked to actually hurt rampage, if he fought the fight like he fought round 3 he could have taken it easily IMO

still there is also octagon control to factor in, so it really doesnt matter if the fact that rampage was agressive is what won him the fight, he also controlled the octagon more so yes by the current judging system seeing as though actual strikes and damage was pretty even in round 1 rampage would win the fight based on octagon control and being agressive


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

I wish Rampage looked that hungry in the Rashad fight.... that would have been an exciting matchup..


----------



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

> I wish Rampage looked that hungry in the Rashad fight.... that would have been an exciting matchup..


Well hopefully he's back on track for a while now, and we'll likely see them fight again.


----------



## Syxx Paq (Feb 19, 2010)

As far as i can see having a guy raise the other's arm, is signifying the one whose arm is being raised fought the better fight. apparently thats not how you win anymore, i can only imagine whats next? rampage to get franklin/forrest again? machida jones/bader?


----------



## VincePierce (Oct 10, 2010)

POLL RESULTS...

More ppl thought Rampage won on the poll i did here. 

It got wiped by the mods, but it was around 100 voted total.

Ppl had rampage by a significant margin, with Machida on around half his total and a draw on half of that. 

That is all. Thank you.


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

_RIVAL_ said:


> I wish Rampage looked that hungry in the Rashad fight.... that would have been an exciting matchup..


I think he did look hungry but Rashad wasnt really their to fight that night. He was more interested in holding and dancing.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Machida Karate said:


> Are you talking about MAchida or Rampage??? Look who was throwing Stikes! WOW REWATCH THE FIRST BEFORE TALKING.....
> 
> Rampage STOOD there while Machida went in and out throwing leg kicks if u ACTUALLY WATCH IT, and Rampages sat back looking for an opening....
> 
> ...


Firstly you're extremly bias as i looked at your user name , secondly its hilarious a Machida fan saying that leg kicks won the fight for him and judges robbed him , well if you didnt know Mr Machida got a gift himself vs Shogun who should have won with leg kicks


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

***** de Amigo said:


> Firstly you're extremly bias as i looked at your user name , secondly its hilarious a Machida fan saying that leg kicks won the fight for him and judges robbed him , well if you didnt know Mr Machida got a gift himself vs Shogun who should have won with leg kicks


It wasn't a gift! It was a very close fight, just like the Rampage one.. could have gone either way.

No robbery's in both fights, just close battles wich tend to bring up a winner here and there. Thats all!


*Let me explain you guys the difference between a ROBERRY and a CLOSE fight.. it's certainly not that hard to understand, trust me.*

"If BJ won during Edgar vs Penn 2 , that's a robbery.

If Herring won during Lesnar vs Herring, that's a robbery.

If Hardy won during GSP vs Hardy, that's a robbery.

Those three are robberies because it's clear who a winner is.

If Shogun won during the first Machida vs Shogun, that's not a robbery, it's a really close match.

When Machida did win during the first Machida vs Shogun, that wasn't a robbery, it was a really close match.

If BJ won during the first Edgar vs Penn, that's not a robbery, it's a really close match.

And it goes on. Point is, you have to know the difference between a robbery and a close one.

Rampage vs Machida was CLOSE. None of them dominated the fight, it went back and forth. Machida wasn't doing much damage but hitting solidly, while Rampage was hitting air a lot, but doing takedowns, aggressive, octagon control. The fight could've gone either way, and Rampage winning isn't a robbery."


----------



## MMA87 (Nov 21, 2010)

BobbyCooper said:


> It wasn't a gift! It was a very close fight, just like the Rampage one.. could have gone either way.
> 
> No robbery's in both fights, just close battles wich tend to bring up a winner here and there. Thats all!
> 
> ...


Well said, for Machida vs Shogun 1 I had Machida just edging the first 3 and Shogun absolutely tooling him in the last two. Shogun turned it on too late, much like Machida vs Rampage, if rampage wont the first it was by a hair


----------



## Danm2501 (Jun 22, 2009)

BobbyCooper said:


> It wasn't a gift! It was a very close fight, just like the Rampage one.. could have gone either way.
> 
> No robbery's in both fights, just close battles wich tend to bring up a winner here and there. Thats all!
> 
> ...


Would have repped, but have to spread. A refreshingly un-biased outlook on the fight, well said sir.


----------



## limitufc (Oct 3, 2008)

Machida Karate said:


> That loss was such such a joke.... And it makes UFC look like a joke...
> 
> I cant imagine how pissed Machida must be.... h8 pathetic judges


government judges that don't have to answer to anybody....not the business that has a huge interest in having fair fights nor the fans....

gotta love the state....


----------



## Guy Incognito (Apr 3, 2010)

Rampage won that fight.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Rampage won the fight because he "played the gsme" I had rampage clearly winning 1 and 2. He dictated the pace of the fight and controlled machida by pinning him against the cage. That's what wins rounds not the number of strikes except for those that do large amounts of damage. That's the way it is and by that judging criteria rampage is your winner.


----------



## EliteUndisputed (Nov 26, 2010)

It was a close fight, and a good one im my eyes.

Machida will get a good bounce back fight in Hamill though.


----------



## MMA87 (Nov 21, 2010)

BobbyCooper said:


> It wasn't a gift! It was a very close fight, just like the Rampage one.. could have gone either way.
> 
> No robbery's in both fights, just close battles wich tend to bring up a winner here and there. Thats all!
> 
> ...


Excellent post, Machida tooled Rampage the 3rd, Rampage possibly did just enough in the first to squeak a win. It's very close Machida should have done more to win it


----------

