# Chuck Liddell Defends Anderson Silva Post UFC Press Conference. VIDEO



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)




----------



## Villian (Jul 23, 2008)

Pls post the text i cant access the video. thx :thumb02:


----------



## chilo (May 27, 2007)

i have to agree with chuck, if the guy (leites) wanted to take the fight to the ground maybe he should of made more of an effort to get anderson to the ground instead of flop around like a fish out of water.


----------



## Gulbrandsen (Mar 10, 2009)

I tend to agree but why is Chuck speaking for Silva?


----------



## imrik32 (Dec 31, 2006)

Because it was a ******* stupid question so Chuck answered it to get it out of the way.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

Villian said:


> Pls post the text i cant access the video. thx :thumb02:


There was a reporter asking why Silva wasn't attacking more and questioning if Silva had a mental block or what his problem was.

Chuck basically cut in and said that Silva was attacking the whole time. 

He addressed the reporters questions to Silva and said that it's hard to attack a guy who continues to throw himself on the ground. He pretty much mocked the reporter with quick agitated answers.


----------



## duncanjr (Dec 12, 2008)

i think it was cool for chuck to step up fer anderson ...its easy for fans (like me ) to critisize fighters for poor showings , but silva must be in a very frustraighting situation , and its cool to see fighters stick up for each other ..alot of those reporters are just assholes trying to stir up shit and irratate the fighters . the reporter got would he deserved if you ask me .:thumbsup:


----------



## Gulbrandsen (Mar 10, 2009)

might as well have BJ,s mom speak for all the fighters in post fight interviews


----------



## NameThief (Dec 28, 2008)

Chuck's way too cool!


----------



## Prone_to_rage (Jan 2, 2007)

good for chuck that was a stupid question. what was silva supposed to do? leites flopped around like he was taking a seizure or some shit man. Chuck has been in the game along time and it was nice to see him go to bat for a fellow fighter that was being attacked by this reporter for no reason at all


----------



## NameThief (Dec 28, 2008)

Prone_to_rage said:


> good for chuck that was a stupid question. what was silva supposed to do? leites flopped around like he was taking a seizure or some shit man. Chuck has been in the game along time and it was nice to see him go to bat for a fellow fighter that was being attacked by this reporter for no reason at all


Great name Prone To Rage! :thumb02:


----------



## Villian (Jul 23, 2008)

J.P. said:


> There was a reporter asking why Silva wasn't attacking more and questioning if Silva had a mental block or what his problem was.
> 
> Chuck basically cut in and said that Silva was attacking the whole time.
> 
> He addressed the reporters questions to Silva and said that it's hard to attack a guy who continues to throw himself on the ground. He pretty much mocked the reporter with quick agitated answers.


Thx, i agree with chuck 100%.


----------



## Trips1978 (Jul 9, 2006)

I glad chuck stepped up and answered for him all this crap about Anderson not showing up is BS. I guess the next time Fedor goes out if he doesn't finish it in the first round i can assume he is not a top p4p fighter give me a break last i checked Silva won right damn i mean the guy doesn't even have a mark on his face after a 5 round fight and because he didn't knock Thales out or give the fans the show they wanted to see he overrated or cant commit people need to grow up and learn what MMA really is....


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Its pretty damn cool that chuck stood up for Anderson Silva. Its like the guy doesnt even know English and im sure the translator feels a bit weird translating that. Im glad Chuck decided to answer it for him.


----------



## H-Deep (Feb 3, 2009)

Ive got new respect for Lidell, dont get me wrong im a huge Chcuk fan but im glad he stood up for Silva. I just hope he doesnt retire, or if he does retire i hope he a does couture where he comes back at Heavyweight and wins the title (yes i no this wont happen lol but a guy can dream right)


----------



## Bob Pataki (Jun 16, 2007)

Watch Anderson at 1.22 :laugh:


----------



## ZENKI1 (Apr 19, 2009)

Bob Pataki said:


> Watch Anderson at 1.22 :laugh:


lmfao thats classic.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Leites fell to his back 4 TIMES in a 25 minute fight. Two of those times were directly and shortly after he got eye poked.

Silva had plenty of oppurtunities to attack where he merely stood there and danced, or threw ridiculous kicks. This is not even counting the fact that he backed away all but one single ground exchange in the entire fight.

Chuck is completely wrong on this one, the reporter was right.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

TheNegation said:


> Leites fell to his back 4 TIMES in a 25 minute fight. Two of those times were directly and shortly after he got eye poked.
> 
> Silva had plenty of oppurtunities to attack where he merely stood there and danced, or threw ridiculous kicks. This is not even counting the fact that he backed away all but one single ground exchange in the entire fight.
> 
> Chuck is completely wrong on this one, the reporter was right.


So are you saying Leites had a good fight and a good fight plan?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

MamaSdKnockUOut said:


> So are you saying Leites had a good fight and a good fight plan?


Where did I say anyhting even close to that in my post??:confused02:


----------



## D.P. (Oct 8, 2008)

I'm glad Liddell stepped in and spoke up. Now if only we can get Chuck to come over here...


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> Leites fell to his back *4 TIMES* in a 25 minute fight. Two of those times were directly and shortly after he got eye poked.
> 
> Silva had plenty of oppurtunities to attack where he merely stood there and danced, or threw ridiculous kicks. This is not even counting the fact that he backed away all but one single ground exchange in the entire fight.
> 
> Chuck is completely wrong on this one, the reporter was right.


It was more like 8-10 times he fell down for no reason at all, actually.

By my count anyways.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

rygu said:


> It was more like 8-10 times he fell down for no reason at all, actually.
> 
> By my count anyways.


This might be of use to you









It was four, I watched the fight. Maybe you should too?
I'm not talking about failed takedowns here.


----------



## duncanjr (Dec 12, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> This might be of use to you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol .


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Wow it took a lot of thought to find some stupid internet picture to try and get your meager point across.

Yeah, i didn't watch the fight, i just made it all up. :sarcastic12:

It was more then 4, and yes i am counting those pathetic takedown attempts, as diving at a leg and missing and going right to guard is the same shit. It was completely unnecessary for Leites to drop over and over again like a fool. If he was a defending champion, then it might have made more sense.

Whats Anderson supposed to do when he's fighting the Brazilian Kalib Starnes, Silva sneezes and Leites falls down.

Answering statements/opinions with stupid pictures stopped being cool or funny in 2006ish.

Yawn.


----------



## Trips1978 (Jul 9, 2006)

rygu said:


> Whats Anderson supposed to do when he's fighting the Brazilian Kalib Starnes, Silva sneezes and Leites falls down.


Now thats funny repped !!!!!


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

rygu said:


> Wow it took a lot of thought to find some stupid internet picture to try and get your meager point across.
> 
> Yeah, i didn't watch the fight, i just made it all up. :sarcastic12:
> 
> ...


He does nothing but flame bait just ignore him.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

rygu said:


> Wow it took a lot of thought to find some stupid internet picture to try and get your meager point across.
> 
> Yeah, i didn't watch the fight, i just made it all up. :sarcastic12:


Meagre point? It's the truth. Leites dropped tot eh ground a total of four times.




rygu said:


> It was more then 4,* and yes i am counting those pathetic takedown attempts, as diving at a leg and missing *and going right to guard is the same shit. It was completely unnecessary for Leites to drop over and over again like a fool. If he was a defending champion, then it might have made more sense.






rygu said:


> It was more like 8-10 times *he fell down for no reason at all*, actually.


Way to contradict yourself fucktard. God I hate you people.




rygu said:


> Whats Anderson supposed to do when he's fighting the Brazilian Kalib Starnes, Silva sneezes and Leites falls down.
> 
> Answering statements/opinions with stupid pictures stopped being cool or funny in 2006ish.
> 
> Yawn.


Maybe he should have tried attacking instead of throwing ridiculous kicks, leg punches, dancing and being overly tentative on the feet?


Osmium, don't be pathetic dude. Let it go.


----------



## BrianRClover (Jan 4, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> Leites fell to his back 4 TIMES in a 25 minute fight. Two of those times were directly and shortly after he got eye poked.
> 
> Silva had plenty of oppurtunities to attack where he merely stood there and danced, or threw ridiculous kicks. This is not even counting the fact that he backed away all but one single ground exchange in the entire fight.
> 
> Chuck is completely wrong on this one, the reporter was right.


Dude get off it, you think Anderson Silva is overrated! WE GET IT!

I would have liked to have seen more out of the fight as well from both guys. Anderson could have engaged more, but it is hard to do when a guy is going limp like a child in daycare everytime you touch them.

If you want the fight on the ground, shoot! Go for a takedown, don't just lay there and expect them to come to you. Leites is far more to blame for that than Silva.

And I find it funny you would criticize his "ridiculous" kicks. If anyone of those had been a KO shot they would have been revered... but you clearly understand striking better than Anderson Silva.

As for Chuck, good for him. And I agree with the person who pointed out, his translator probably didn't want to, or had a hard time translating that question from a guy who probably doesn't know how to properly throw a jab.

Props to Chuck, props to J.P. for posting the vid!


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

BrianRClover said:


> Dude get off it, you think Anderson Silva is overrated! WE GET IT!!


This has less to do with Silva and more to do with people like you saying ridiculousn shit like this



BrianRClover said:


> Anderson could have engaged more, but it is hard to do when a guy is going limp like a child in daycare everytime you touch them.!


He spent more time on the feet engaging than he did on the ground.




BrianRClover said:


> If you want the fight on the ground, shoot! Go for a takedown, don't just lay there and expect them to come to you. Leites is far more to blame for that than Silva.!


He did shoot, he shot way more times than he "lay down".

Also, if Leites is more to blame than Silva, how is it that Silva avoided the ground game a lot more than Leites avoided the standup? Does seems to not make a whole lot of sense righ there.



BrianRClover said:


> And I find it funny you would criticize his "ridiculous" kicks. If anyone of those had been a KO shot they would have been revered... but you clearly understand striking better than Anderson Silva.


How exactly is he going to KO someone kicking like this?
http://www.mmacore.com/gifs/_Anderson_Silva_Weird_Leg_Kick_UFC_97_Redemption?gid=10000729&tid=105
How is this anything more than ridiculous showboating?


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> This has less to do with Silva and more to do with people like you saying ridiculousn shit like this
> 
> 
> He spent more time on the feet engaging than he did on the ground.
> ...


Your posts are filled with lies, deception, bad grammar, and fail.

Although i won't put this Hooked on Phonics picture up i found just because.

You remind me of a spoiled kid swearing like a fool until you get your own way, or until people agree with you.

Keep it coming, it's fun dissecting posts of the uneducated and blind. raise01:


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Gulbrandsen said:


> I tend to agree but why is Chuck speaking for Silva?


This was basically Silva fighting like Chuck likes to fight when he thinks his opponent can't stand with him. I suppose Chuck sympathizes.


----------



## SimplyNate (May 27, 2007)

Oh snap **** is about to go down.

Anywho, I thought it was because Silva didn't understand the question so Liddell decided to answer it for him. It looked like it pissed Chuck off as a fighter and wanted to get it out of the way. 

I can't blame them for that fight. Silva didn't want to go to the ground with him and Leites didn't want to stand with him. What did Dana think was going to happen?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

rygu said:


> Your posts are filled with lies, deception, bad grammar, and fail.
> 
> Although i won't put this Hooked on Phonics picture up i found just because.
> 
> ...


Oh I see, MY posts are filled with lies and deception, yet I am the one talking about teh fight and you are the one going off topic and saying my posts are full of lies and deception without giving any examples. Typical response from someone with no real argument. Great job dissecting my post:confused02:

Maybe you should try talking about the fight? Or address the fact that you completely contradicted yourself earlier? Maybe then I wouldn't have grounds to call you a fucktard. I don't care if you think I look like a spoiled kid because I curse. Which one of us is the one who is actually providing an analysis of this fight?


----------



## Buckingham (Apr 8, 2007)

This was good to see because with this whole thing the head fighter I would think about outside the two who fought in the main event was Chuck. I wonder if the fans would have given Chuck as hard of a time if he had to fight a bjj fighter who dropped to the ground instead of those wrestlers during his run.


----------



## flourhead (Jul 12, 2006)

i dont understand how he contradicted himself. rolling over after a failed takedown attempt sounds pretty pointless to me


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

You want to know who is to blame? the matchmaker is who. Put a top level bjj guy who can't wrestle for shit against a guy who has the most dangerous standup in the UFC. Of course the bjj guy is going to avoid the standup when he is outmatched, and of course the striker is going to avoid the ground when he is outmatched. The problem was Thales had no wrestling solution to Anderson. The UFC needs to realize that this was bound to happen unless they expected Anderson to get taken down easily or Thales to stand there and get kneed. Give Anderson a guy who can wrestle (Hendo) or a guy who strikes (Franklin, Leben) and you are guaranteed a good fight, give him a BJJ master who sucks at standup and you get a shitty fight every time.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

flourhead said:


> i dont understand how he contradicted himself. rolling over after a failed takedown attempt sounds pretty pointless to me


Going for a takedown in itself means you haven't fallen to the floor for no reason at all......because you went for a takedown.

I don't think I can explain it any further than that.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Going for a takedown in itself means you haven't fallen to the floor for no reason at all......because you went for a takedown.
> 
> I don't think I can explain it any further than that.


because he went to the ground in hopes of Anderson jumping into his guard is why people got mad when it was clear he was not going to, but you can't really blame Thales for not eating knees. Trying to draw a guy into your guard is not against the rules, it was poor matchmaking.


----------



## attention (Oct 18, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> Going for a takedown in itself means you haven't fallen to the floor for no reason at all......because you went for a takedown.
> 
> I don't think I can explain it any further than that.


Ahem... I think you have to differentiate between an 'actual' attempt at a takedown versus 'shoot in' and hope he sprawls enough so that you get him in your guard.

IMHO, those poor arse attempts at a takedown were == to falling straight back...

Basically, it didnt work the 1st, 2nd, 3rd time... what made him think more of the same might pan out?


----------



## attention (Oct 18, 2006)

rabakill said:


> because he went to the ground in hopes of Anderson jumping into his guard is why people got mad when it was clear he was not going to, but you can't really blame Thales for not eating knees. Trying to draw a guy into your guard is not against the rules, it was poor matchmaking.


IMHO, I put 75% of the blame on Thales... because he should have had some other strategy than hoping Silva would simply walking into a ground game war.

If the match resets on the ground... fine, Thales had the right idea... but it doesnt, it resets on their feet... so he should have had a plan to get him to the ground other than piss poor attempts at a takedown.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I am differenciating attention, between Leites falling down and actual attempts to bring the fight to the mat. And your argument makes no sense, grabbing someone and pulling guard, or shooting and trying to pull guard aren't what people are giving out about, they are giving out about him "flopping down" with no control over Silva hoping Silva would attack.

A takedown doesn't have to mean that you put someone on their back.



rabakill said:


> because he went to the ground in hopes of Anderson jumping into his guard is why people got mad when it was clear he was not going to, but you can't really blame Thales for not eating knees. Trying to draw a guy into your guard is not against the rules, it was poor matchmaking.


Yes, but he only did it four times. People are acting like he did it constatnly. Four times in twenty five minutes isn't a lot, thales is taking way too much flak for this.


----------



## attention (Oct 18, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> I am differenciating attention, between Leites falling down and actual attempts to bring the fight to the mat. And your argument makes no sense, grabbing someone and pulling guard, or shooting and trying to pull guard aren't what people are giving out about, they are giving out about him "flopping down" with no control over Silva hoping Silva would attack.
> 
> A takedown doesn't have to mean that you put someone on their back.
> 
> Yes, but he only did it four times. People are acting like he did it constatnly. Four times in twenty five minutes isn't a lot, thales is taking way too much flak for this.


This is where we differ...

I think people were complaining that Thales was on his back baiting Anderson to go to the ground.

'How' he got there is irrelevant.

The fact that he was there, lying on his back for the bulk of every round == NO ACTION... IMHO, that is the reason why people are complaining.

How this doesnt make sense to you, I dunno.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No.

Most of the complaints are about Thales "laying down", "flopping down" and "falling down". You think people would be complaining if he had got there from shooting everytime? If Silva had defended every one of his takedowns and backed off from him? Do you think people would be complaining the same way about Thales performance?


----------



## attention (Oct 18, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> No.
> 
> Most of the complaints are about Thales "laying down", "flopping down" and "falling down". You think people would be complaining if he had got there from shooting everytime? If Silva had defended every one of his takedowns and backed off from him? Do you think people would be complaining the same way about Thales performance?


I think people complain about 'no action'.

The fact that he was on the ground via 'laying', 'flopping', 'falling' is irrelevant.

If there is action, people are happy... stand up action, ground action... doesnt matter, just so long as there is some sort of 'action' per se.

If he fell down, then immediately got back up to try something else or some combo to get him to the ground... no complaints... but it was same ol' thing... flat on his back, with he feet in the air... hoping and praying that Silva would actually want to take the fight there.

...but he 'layed', 'flopped', 'fell'.. and then stayed there.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

attention said:


> IMHO, I put 75% of the blame on Thales... because he should have had some other strategy than hoping Silva would simply walking into a ground game war.
> 
> If the match resets on the ground... fine, Thales had the right idea... but it doesnt, it resets on their feet... so he should have had a plan to get him to the ground other than piss poor attempts at a takedown.


I disagree with this because I think Silva needs to come in with a game plan that doesnt include waiting for his opponent to attack, we've seen what happens when they do and so has the rest of the MW division, the days of people running at Silva wrecklessly fists flailing are over and Anderson has to be able to adapt and not only counter what his opponent does but also build some forward momentum and play the role of aggressor as well instead of dancing around trying to frustrate his opponent.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I think you are wrong about peoples attitudes to this fight, and a quick glance over even just this thread will show you that a lot of people complained about the way Leites fell to the ground and exaggerated it. Plenty of people lay the entirety of the blame on the lack of action of this fight on Thales due to the few instances where he just fell to the ground, thats what I am adressing and arguing agaisnt. It's not just an issue of a lack of action, hence people calling Thales cowardly. If yu look at the original posts I quoted when I began posting in this thread I think you will see that.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

attention said:


> IMHO, I put 75% of the blame on Thales... because he should have had some other strategy than hoping Silva would simply walking into a ground game war.
> 
> If the match resets on the ground... fine, Thales had the right idea... but it doesnt, it resets on their feet... so he should have had a plan to get him to the ground other than piss poor attempts at a takedown.


plan? you don't get understand that he couldn't take him down, he tried, the entire fight. To stand and trade with Silva in attempt to knock him out would have resulted in a definite knockout for Thales, so what is his choice? get ko'ed or keep trying to take him down, he simply was not good enough at wrestling to do so, that's not a fault in gameplan it's a fault in matchmaking.


----------



## Buckingham (Apr 8, 2007)

Toxic said:


> I disagree with this because I think Silva needs to come in with a game plan that doesnt include waiting for his opponent to attack, we've seen what happens when they do and so has the rest of the MW division, the days of people running at Silva wrecklessly fists flailing are over and Anderson has to be able to adapt and not only counter what his opponent does but also build some forward momentum and play the role of aggressor as well instead of dancing around trying to frustrate his opponent.


I think Anderson could have fired more but he did go on the offensive and Thales face showed it.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Yes, but he only did it four times. People are acting like he did it constatnly. Four times in twenty five minutes isn't a lot, thales is taking way too much flak for this.


I just watch the fight and counted how many time Thales went to his back without any control on Anderson. By that I mean he wasn't grabbing or holding on to any part of Silva while going to his back. The number was 9.



Toxic said:


> I disagree with this because I think Silva needs to come in with a game plan that doesnt include waiting for his opponent to attack, we've seen what happens when they do and so has the rest of the MW division, the days of people running at Silva wrecklessly fists flailing are over and Anderson has to be able to adapt and not only counter what his opponent does but also build some forward momentum and play the role of aggressor as well instead of dancing around trying to frustrate his opponent.


I just re-watched the fight and in the first round no one really did anything, which is typical Silva. After that Anderson was the aggressor, he came and attacked Thales quite a few times but was unable buckle him. Also Thales was just sitting on the outside letting Silva pick him apart. In the 4th round I don't think Thales threw a total of 3 punches. Cote and Thales style was to fight like Silva and they both just got picked apart. Basically you want Silva to "wrecklessly" run after people. Also Thales has never been finished before.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Anderson is the champ, he's defending his title.

He fought the way he thought he had to to defend his title, Leites brought nothing to this fight but a hope in hell Silva might decide to go to the ground with a guy who subs black belts.

Silva didn't want to go to the ground with a superior BJJ fighter like Leites did not want to stand with someone with far superior striking.

To be the champ you have to beat the champ, and Leites failed miserably in trying to do so, his strategy was weak.....he's a one dimensional fighter who has obviously not worked on his standup at all.....Demian Maia has and would have given Silva a much tougher test.

By the 3rd round it got pathetic, Silva could have faked punches and Leites would have fallen down.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

yorT said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> I just re-watched the fight and in the first round no one really did anything, which is typical Silva. After that Anderson was the aggressor, he came and attacked Thales quite a few times but was unable buckle him. Also Thales was just sitting on the outside letting Silva pick him apart. In the 4th round I don't think Thales threw a total of 3 punches. Cote and Thales style was to fight like Silva and they both just got picked apart. Basically you want Silva to "wrecklessly" run after people. Also Thales has never been finished before.


There is a diffrence between being the aggressor and being aggressive, and its not like Leites offered up much competion for the title of aggressor. I dont kneed Silva to get wresckless but I do think he should be pushing the pace in some fights and quit expecting his opponenents to do it for him.


----------



## SonofJor-El (Jan 20, 2008)

Toxic said:


> I disagree with this because I think Silva needs to come in with a game plan that doesnt include waiting for his opponent to attack, .


A challenger who is unwilling to attack the champion *DOES NOT DESERVE THE TITLE SHOT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!*


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

SonofJor-El said:


> A challenger who is unwilling to attack the champion *DOES NOT DESERVE THE TITLE SHOT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!*


That makes zero sense, the champion doesnt get to sit back and have his opponents come at him, people need to drop this pro wrestling mentatlity of the champ having some kind of advantage in an MMA fight because its non existant.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Toxic said:


> That makes zero sense, the champion doesnt get to sit back and have his opponents come at him, people need to drop this pro wrestling mentatlity of the champ having some kind of advantage in an MMA fight because its non existant.


If you have a chance to fight for the title then you take that chance. Dont sit back because your afraid to get hit. Anderson Silva won that fight anyway its not like in any way it was a draw. Anderson Silva did what he had to do the keep the title and Thales didnt do what he had to to get the title. There was no advantage either way... Anderson just did more.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

SideWays222 said:


> If you have a chance to fight for the title then you take that chance. Dont sit back because your afraid to get hit. Anderson Silva won that fight anyway its not like in any way it was a draw. Anderson Silva did what he had to do the keep the title and Thales didnt do what he had to to get the title. There was no advantage either way... Anderson just did more.


Not saying Anderson didnt do more or that Leites won the fight but to basically say that only the champ can couter punch and that the challenger needs to be the aggressor is ridiculous. How many people have this misconception that somehow because Anderson is the champ that everyone else has to come to him and its complete crap.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Toxic said:


> Not saying Anderson didnt do more or that Leites won the fight but to basically say that only the champ can couter punch and that the challenger needs to be the aggressor is ridiculous. How many people have this misconception that somehow because Anderson is the champ that everyone else has to come to him and its complete crap.


Well the counter puncher is most likely going to win on the score cards and if your the champ that's good enough. If your trying to become the champ then its up to you to take it. Thales didnt do that... he allowed Anderson to cruise to a decision victory which to me means he didnt even belong in there. If Anderson felt like he was behind on the score card i guarantee he would have started becoming the aggressor. So in a sense if Thales wanted to win the fight he did need to become the aggressor.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

If your the challenger winning on the scorecards is good enough to see Forrest/Rampage. I do get your point on Leites being behind on the score cards but that just means your admitting Silva was fighting not to lose rather than fighting to win which is far from admirable.


----------



## SonofJor-El (Jan 20, 2008)

Toxic said:


> basically say that only the champ can couter punch and that the challenger needs to be the aggressor is ridiculous.


My frustration with your posts are that you acknowledge that the challengers won't be the aggressor toward Anderson anymore but then in the next sentence you rip Anderson for not being the aggressor. I see that as hypocritical but that's just me.


----------



## Buckingham (Apr 8, 2007)

Toxic said:


> That makes zero sense, the champion doesnt get to sit back and have his opponents come at him, people need to drop this pro wrestling mentatlity of the champ having some kind of advantage in an MMA fight because its non existant.


If both the Champion and the challenger stood in the same spot and did nothing, the Champ would retain his title which mean the challenger must TAKE the title. Now I don't mean if it's a close fight it should automatically go to the Champion but the challenger has to at least have a cast for why he should be the new champ.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

SonofJor-El said:


> My frustration with your posts are that you acknowledge that the challengers won't be the aggressor toward Anderson anymore but then in the next sentence you rip Anderson for not being the aggressor. I see that as hypocritical but that's just me.


See, I have no problem with Anderson not wanting to be aggressive with Cote, there was a very real risk of getting knocked out with Cote, but Leites was so clearly outclassed in the stand up that I think that the risk was worth the reward.


----------



## SonofJor-El (Jan 20, 2008)

Toxic said:


> See, I have no problem with Anderson not wanting to be aggressive with Cote, there was a very real risk of getting knocked out with Cote, but Leites was so clearly outclassed in the stand up that I think that the risk was worth the reward.


I don't really blame Anderson for that though in the Leites fight. Every time Anderson got within clinch range, Thales would "attempt to pull guard" :shame02: :boo01: and end up on his ass.

Picking that tard apart at range was all Anderson COULD do.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

As absurd and embarassing as Leites "attempts to pull guard" where they are being grossly exagerated by alot of people in an attempt to defend Andersons lack of aggression.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

TheNegation said:


> Where did I say anyhting even close to that in my post??:confused02:


I guess it comes down to no one knows wtf you ARE saying.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

yorT said:


> I just watch the fight and counted how many time Thales went to his back without any control on Anderson. By that I mean he wasn't grabbing or holding on to any part of Silva .


I don't even know what to say to this.........I mean it simply isn't true. Bit difficult to argue against something that isn't even based on realty.

Leites fell to his back without attempting a takedown 4 times. 4. Not 9.



rygu said:


> Anderson is the champ, he's defending his title.
> 
> He fought the way he thought he had to to defend his title, Leites brought nothing to this fight but a hope in hell Silva might decide to go to the ground with a guy who subs black belts.
> 
> ...


Who was this even directed at? Useless post.

The bolded part of your post, yet again, Leites fell 4 times. All of these happedned in the third and fourth if I remember correctly, and two happened right after he got eye poked.



MamaSdKnockUOut said:


> I guess it comes down to no one knows wtf you ARE saying.


Most people don't seem to have a problem with it.

And thanks for the neg rep, silly bastard.


----------



## The Dark Knight (Jun 29, 2008)

You know what, it doesn't surprise me that Chuck would stick up for Anderson because Chuck is clearly a decent bloke who has a lot of respect for his fellow fighters. He understands the business more than the reporters. I know that the reporters have a job to do, but they don't have the combat experience that Chuck has so I feel Chuck was completely justified and within his rights with his response.

Leites or however you spell his last name looked like complete and utter shite. I don't see how you can even begin to blame Silva for this fight, unless you are someone who really really dislikes him for whatever random reason. 

Chuck said it best, if Leites really wanted to beat Anderson he would have tried to take Anderson down and then submit him, not pratt around on the floor like a total tit as if he's about to shoot some glamour pics. At least Anderson went to ground and pound him a couple of times. Leites just looked like a *****.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

TheNegation said:


> I don't even know what to say to this.........I mean it simply isn't true. Bit difficult to argue against something that isn't even based on realty.
> 
> Leites fell to his back without attempting a takedown 4 times. 4. Not 9.
> 
> ...


Dumb dumbs get neg reps. All you try to do is get into arguments with no real substance, you count like a monkey, and you act like a know it all. Gfy :sarcastic12:


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

MamaSdKnockUOut said:


> Dumb dumbs get neg reps. All you try to do is get into arguments with no real substance, you count like a monkey, and you act like a know it all. Gfy :sarcastic12:


I act like a know it all and have no substance in my argument? Lets examine your contribution to this thread
"*Stupid shit that has nothing to do with what I said*"
"No-one knows what you are saying"
*Anonymous neg rep with mandatory insult*
"You count like a monkey"


And I have no substance to my argument?

TheDarkKnight, Silva wnt to "ground and pound" once. Stayed there for seconds. How can you blame Silva for this fight? He was totally unagressive.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

Toxic said:


> There is a diffrence between being the aggressor and being aggressive, and its not like Leites offered up much competion for the title of aggressor. I dont kneed Silva to get wresckless but I do think he should be pushing the pace in some fights and quit expecting his opponenents to do it for him.





Toxic said:


> If your the challenger winning on the scorecards is good enough to see Forrest/Rampage. I do get your point on Leites being behind on the score cards but that just means your admitting Silva was fighting not to lose rather than fighting to win which is far from admirable.


I just watched the fight, Silva was the aggressor for most of the fight, he just couldn't put Thales away. He did push the pace in this fight, watch it again. Thales was just sitting on the outside so he wouldn't get TKO'd. So it is ok for his opponents to sit back but not ok for Silva? First of all that isn't Thales style, he isn't a counter striker and he isn't going to outstrike the best striker in the UFC. That's why he got picked apart, look at his face.



TheNegation said:


> I don't even know what to say to this.........I mean it simply isn't true. Bit difficult to argue against something that isn't even based on realty.
> 
> Leites fell to his back without attempting a takedown 4 times. 4. Not 9.


I don't even know what to say to this........I mean it simply isn't true. 

I'm going to have to post the gifs.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

yorT said:


> I just watched the fight, Silva was the aggressor for most of the fight, he just couldn't put Thales away. He did push the pace in this fight, watch it again. Thales was just sitting on the outside so he wouldn't get TKO'd. So it is ok for his opponents to sit back but not ok for Silva? First of all that isn't Thales style, he isn't a counter striker and he isn't going to outstrike the best striker in the UFC. That's why he got picked apart, look at his face.


Silva didn;t try to put Thales away. He had plenty of opportunities where Thales was backed up agaisnt the fence and Where Thales came forward with his shitty standup and he did nothing.
I fail to see how you people don't see a problem with this Thales was running away so Silva never had a chance argument and Silva being able to land multiple side kicks to the knees, a behind the heel soccer kick and dance the macarena while Leites stood in front of him.




yorT said:


> I don't even know what to say to this........I mean it simply isn't true.
> 
> I'm going to have to post the gifs.


If you can post more than four I'll wear a ******* Anderson Silva avatar from now on.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

yorT said:


> I just watched the fight, Silva was the aggressor for most of the fight, he just couldn't put Thales away. He did push the pace in this fight, watch it again. Thales was just sitting on the outside so he wouldn't get TKO'd. So it is ok for his opponents to sit back but not ok for Silva? First of all that isn't Thales style, he isn't a counter striker and he isn't going to outstrike the best striker in the UFC. That's why he got picked apart, look at his face.


Its not ok for Silva to sit back when his opponent is as obviously outclassed and scared as Leites. I will watch it again today or try to (no promises Ill get through it) just for you though....


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

rabakill said:


> You want to know who is to blame? the matchmaker is who. Put a top level bjj guy who can't wrestle for shit against a guy who has the most dangerous standup in the UFC. Of course the bjj guy is going to avoid the standup when he is outmatched, and of course the striker is going to avoid the ground when he is outmatched. The problem was Thales had no wrestling solution to Anderson. The UFC needs to realize that this was bound to happen unless they expected Anderson to get taken down easily or Thales to stand there and get kneed. Give Anderson a guy who can wrestle (Hendo) or a guy who strikes (Franklin, Leben) and you are guaranteed a good fight, give him a BJJ master who sucks at standup and you get a shitty fight every time.



So who do you blame in the Cote fight? cote is a good striker, yet that fight was almost as bad as this one. 

Hendo's fight against palhares wasnt nearly as bad as this fight.....and that was a clash of exact opposites just like this fight was. Hendo pushed the pace and engaged quite a bit.....all the while palhares consistantly attempted to take the fight to the ground.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

TheNegation said:


> I act like a know it all and have no substance in my argument? Lets examine your contribution to this thread
> "*Stupid shit that has nothing to do with what I said*"
> "No-one knows what you are saying"
> *Anonymous neg rep with mandatory insult*
> ...


7 pages of the same argument...

Pretty sure this has already been pointed out but I will just reiterate one more time....

It's kind of hard to be aggressive when the guy you are fighting has no intention of fighting. Silva started the fight his usual style but near the end of the fight he started being more aggressive. He was the only one attacking which could clearly be seen on Leites' face. 

When he came in for an attack, Leites would fall to the mat or just put his hands up and run around the ring. He barely threw any punches.

He was clearly scared or intimidated and is a one trick pony, once he realized he couldn't take Silva to the ground he just ran around the ring avoiding a strikes. Now I can't blame him but at the same time you can't blame Silva. He's not a wreckless fighter so he won't just start attacking senselessly just to entertain the crowd because his opponent is scared to fight.

Even a pro fighter Chuck Liddell noticed it which is why he stood up for Silva. 

Someone else also pointed out that by round 3 Leites knew he was behind but still made no effort to win, he didn't change his strategy at all. 

Now I don't think Silva was perfect, he did do a lot of showboating and show frustration but IMO he did the best he could with what was given to him.

People also blame the matchmaker but I don't put as much blame on him. Leites knew what he was getting into. I'm sure they had meetings regarding the fight and I think every fighter comes into the ring knowing part of their job is to put on a good fight. You have to have different kinds of strategy for a fight, if one thing doesn't work then you have to have a backup plan (and it shouldn't be run around the ring like a bitch). I personally would rather go down fighting rather than come across as some coward. You are a professional fighter, act like it.

Clearly you don't agree with this which is fine but posting pictures of barney and being a confrontational asshole will get you a neg rep. You sure are good at dishing it out but seem to be sensitive taking it.


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

OK so what Silva did't put him away. BFD!

Thales didnt execute takedowns like he should have and Silva didnt agressively go after him. There are reasons for both sides.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

MamaSdKnockUOut said:


> Clearly you don't agree with this which is fine but posting pictures of barney and being a confrontational asshole will get you a neg rep. You sure are good at dishing it out but seem to be sensitive taking it.


Says the man who felt the need to give me a neg rep with the comment "fucktard" on it, then defended it by saying "dumb dumbs get neg reps". I guess that explains why you are on full red with 33 posts?


Your either a troll or a retard, either way you aren't worth replying to seroiously. And I disagree with very little(in fact only one thing) in your post, which shows you clearly have no idea whats going on in this thread, and still have no idea, just as earlier, on what my argument is.


Silva didn't start becoming noticeably or effectively ore aggressive in the later rounds.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

MamaSdKnockUOut said:


> People also blame the matchmaker but I don't put as much blame on him. Leites knew what he was getting into. I'm sure they had meetings regarding the fight and I think every fighter comes into the ring knowing part of their job is to put on a good fight. You have to have different kinds of strategy for a fight, if one thing doesn't work then you have to have a backup plan (and it shouldn't be run around the ring like a bitch). I personally would rather go down fighting rather than come across as some coward. You are a professional fighter, act like it.


How come Leites is expected to have a back up plan but not Anderson, Ive said it in other threads everyone is onto Adnersons counter game and they arent gonna aggressively push him, Anderson has no back up plan other than dance around like an idiot and hope his opponent gets frustrated and go after him, if as fighters they were equals Id say the blame was 50/50 but with Anderson clearly being the vastly superior fighter I have to place the majority of the blame on him.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

TheNegation said:


> Says the man who felt the need to give me a neg rep with the comment "fucktard" on it, then defended it by saying "dumb dumbs get neg reps". I guess that explains why you are on full red with 33 posts?
> 
> 
> Your either a troll or a retard, either way you aren't worth replying to seroiously. And I disagree with very little(in fact only one thing) in your post, which shows you clearly have no idea whats going on in this thread, and still have no idea, just as earlier, on what my argument is.
> ...


I am a troll and a retard...I don't really care what you think of me.

I actually know exactly what is going on in this thread, you are saying Silva was not being aggressive and maybe you haven't actually said it but you clearly are _implying_ Silva is to blame for a bad fight...which if you agree with most of the things I said, then not sure what it is you are blaming him for. You also said that Liddell was completely wrong, which means you think Silva IS to blame and had a poor fight.

You claim that Leites wasn't flopping, so are you saying he was being aggressive? Did he have a good fight plan?


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

Would someone else please post in this thread?

I cant read this from the same guys over and over.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

Toxic said:


> How come Leites is expected to have a back up plan but not Anderson, Ive said it in other threads everyone is onto Adnersons counter game and they arent gonna aggressively push him, Anderson has no back up plan other than dance around like an idiot and hope his opponent gets frustrated and go after him, if as fighters they were equals Id say the blame was 50/50 but with Anderson clearly being the vastly superior fighter I have to place the majority of the blame on him.



I agree that Silva should bare some of the blame but 50/50, I disagree. The bottom line is that Leites gave up. If Silva was losing the fight, you know he would be going after the guy. Leites knew he was losing but still would not engage. Yes, Silva could have been even more aggressive and tried to take Leites' head off but he was winning the fight and decided to not risk injury or a freak submission/knockout.

Anderson didn't need a backup plan, his plan was working fine, he was winning the fight.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

chilo said:


> i have to agree with chuck, if the guy (leites) wanted to take the fight to the ground maybe he should of made more of an effort to get anderson to the ground instead of flop around like a fish out of water.


Ya like maybe scoring an actual takedown. I think Anderson could have engaged more on the ground, but it my eyes if you want the fight on the ground, flopping around and pulling guard is not the way to do it vs. someone who wants to keep it standing.

I still feel so bad for Chuck. Damnit...

...and oddly very happy for Rua...


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

LV 2 H8 U said:


> OK so what Silva did't put him away. BFD!
> 
> Thales didnt execute takedowns like he should have and Silva didnt agressively go after him. There are reasons for both sides.


That was pretty much the same thing said after the Cote fight. what will be said after his next fight if he fights the same way? 

I blame both fighters for that debacle of a fight. But still feel silva had plenty of opportunity to end the fight. As many of times as he did an inside knee kick he could have exploded forward with something a little more. but thats just my opinion.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> If you can post more than four I'll wear a ******* Anderson Silva avatar from now on.


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

that video doesnt work!


----------



## hairgel62 (Feb 5, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Leites fell to his back 4 TIMES in a 25 minute fight. Two of those times were directly and shortly after he got eye poked.
> 
> Silva had plenty of oppurtunities to attack where he merely stood there and danced, or threw ridiculous kicks. This is not even counting the fact that he backed away all but one single ground exchange in the entire fight.
> 
> Chuck is completely wrong on this one, the reporter was right.


COMPLETELY agree. Striking is one half of mma, if anderson is afraid of going to the ground then he is just as guilty of not pursuing Leites there as Leites was not pursuing him on the feet.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

mihklo said:


> that video doesnt work!


Yeah it is still processing, I just uploaded it. Should be ready soon.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

hairgel62 said:


> COMPLETELY agree. Striking is one half of mma, if anderson is afraid of going to the ground then he is just as guilty of not pursuing Leites there as Leites was not pursuing him on the feet.


If Silva was losing I would agree with you. But why go to the ground if you are winning?

Leites is to blame because he was clearly losing and still not pursuing him, i.e. he had already thrown in the towel.


----------



## Villian (Jul 23, 2008)

hairgel62 said:


> COMPLETELY agree. Striking is one half of mma, if anderson is afraid of going to the ground then he is just as guilty of not pursuing Leites there as Leites was not pursuing him on the feet.


If Leites wanted this on the ground he should have taken silva down. you cant just lay down and hope the other guy lays on top of you wtf is that about?


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

MamaSdKnockUOut said:


> If Silva was losing I would agree with you. But why go to the ground if you are winning?
> 
> Leites is to blame because he was clearly losing and still not pursuing him, i.e. he had already thrown in the towel.


The one thing I will admit I must concede to you is that in the final minutes Leites really should have risked it all and left it all in the cage. I guarantee if Cote had made it to round 5 and thought he was losing he'd have been thowing in the final minutes like there was no tommorow trying to get that knock out.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> No.
> 
> Most of the complaints are about Thales "laying down", "flopping down" and "falling down". You think people would be complaining if he had got there from shooting everytime? If Silva had defended every one of his takedowns and backed off from him? Do you think people would be complaining the same way about Thales performance?


Yes. 

No matter how you look at it, Thales ended up on his back with someone who wasnt going to the ground. That is going to piss people off. Doesn't matter how he ended up on his back, with Anderson still standing, it is still going to piss people off.

If you can't understand why that would piss the majority of casual fans off then I don't know what to say. They want wars; they want knockouts. 

As was mentioned earlier, and I think this is key, is that the fight is reset to the feet, not the ground. Anderson doesn't need to go to the ground with Thales, Thales needs to stand with Anderson. This is a basic fact in all MMA matches under UFC rules: *You must stand with your opponent.* The round will not begin until both fighters are standing.



What happenes when two guys are on the ground and no improvement in position? It gets stood up. 

What happens when two guys on the feet are boring? Nothing. It doesn't get reset to the ground, does it?

For that simple reason it is more Thales fault for a boring fight than Anderson. The default position is standup, if Thales can get it to the ground and improve, he can stay there. But he couldn't get it on the ground!

Since he couldn't, he decided to protect himself from damage and avoid engaging. That made the fight very boring.

The end.



Toxic said:


> The one thing I will admit I must concede to you is that in the final minutes Leites really should have risked it all and left it all in the cage. I guarantee if Cote had made it to round 5 and thought he was losing he'd have been thowing in the final minutes like there was no tommorow trying to get that knock out.


I would bet every cent in my wallet that Cote would not have let round 4 or 5 turn out like that. Cote and Thales both have every right to be cautious, but I think my above description shgows how I feel about how an MMA fight works.


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

i think that video supports negations argument of only "flopping" 4 times. most of the time is was some sort of half-assed takedown attempt or silva was near him....i know i wouldnt be risking getting up with silva right there to pounce on me


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

mihklo said:


> i think that video supports negations argument of only "flopping" 4 times. most of the time is was *some sort of half-assed takedown attempt *or silva was near him....i know i wouldnt be risking getting up with silva right there to pounce on me


Bolded the important part.


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

Ever hear it takes two to tango? Well it applies here too. They both botched the fight. It happens. Silva will be back and so will Thales.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

mihklo said:


> i think that video supports negations argument of only "flopping" 4 times. most of the time is was some sort of half-assed takedown attempt or silva was near him....i know i wouldnt be risking getting up with silva right there to pounce on me


If you don't count the shoots, it is clearly 5.


----------



## Villian (Jul 23, 2008)

Let me explain something Thales Leites was the challenger(coming to take silva's belt away from him) silva is the champ(you want my belt come get it). 
Leites did not come close to challenging silva at all. 

Dana should be apologizing for putting together such a worthless matchup to begin with and then trying to build leites up as 14-1 BJJ expert whatever dude.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

I think there is one thing we can all agree on, it was a bad match up to begin with.

Did anyone really think Thales deserved a shitle tot anyways? I mean Nate M. beat himself in that match lol.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

Ape City said:


> I think there is one thing we can all agree on, it was a bad match up to begin with.
> 
> Did anyone really think Thales deserved a shitle tot anyways? I mean Nate M. beat himself in that match lol.


Agreed. He didn't deserved it, neither did Cote. Those two guys were so outclassed that they only wanted to survive and didn't engage at all.


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

LV 2 H8 U said:


> Ever hear it takes two to tango? Well it applies here too. They both botched the fight. It happens. Silva will be back and so will Thales.



i completely agree. my only question is, with guys shying away from attacking silva and being the aggressor towards him are alot of his future fights gonna turn out the same way?



valrond said:


> Agreed. He didn't deserved it, neither did Cote. Those two guys were so outclassed that they only wanted to survive and didn't engage at all.


So who deserves it? And why is it only up to the challenger to engage?


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

mihklo said:


> So who deserves it? And why is it only up to the challenger to engage?


Anderson was engaing quite a bit, watch the fight again. Hell just watch all the flopping and you can see Silva is trying to engage.


----------



## The Dark Knight (Jun 29, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> TheDarkKnight, Silva wnt to "ground and pound" once. Stayed there for seconds. How can you blame Silva for this fight? He was totally unagressive.


Silva was aggressive. He just wasn't as aggressive as he usually is because he fought a guy who didn't come to fight. It's not like he didn't try to hurt Leites. I imagine it's difficult to fully go all out on somebody who clearly doesn't want to fight properly and keeps backing away. This fight was not unlike that Kalib Starnes/Nate Quarry match up. Silva can only do so much. 

When Leites was in his advantagrous position, he didn't do anything. When Silva was in his advantagerous position, he was at least taking the intiative and scoring.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

yorT said:


>


Thanks for proving my point.
0.12 = failed takedown attempt
0.28 = back flop
0.43 = back flop
0.52 = back flop
0.56 = failed takedown attempto and a repeat of 0.12:confused02:
1.11 = failed takedown attempt
1.20 = failed takedown
1.30 = Counted as a back flop since Thales had no control, but he was attacking at least.

Nine?????????? Nine times he fell down? What were you smoking?




hairgel62 said:


> COMPLETELY agree. Striking is one half of mma, if anderson is afraid of going to the ground then he is just as guilty of not pursuing Leites there as Leites was not pursuing him on the feet.


Yup, someone who can read:thumbsup:



Ape City said:


> Yes.
> 
> No matter how you look at it, Thales ended up on his back with someone who wasnt going to the ground. That is going to piss people off. Doesn't matter how he ended up on his back, with Anderson still standing, it is still going to piss people off.
> 
> If you can't understand why that would piss the majority of casual fans off then I don't know what to say. They want wars; they want knockouts.


You need to go back and read the posts that started this. I am responding to people who are blaming Thales for this fight saying he constantly flopped down without shooting and that he is a coward.





yorT said:


> If you don't count the shoots, it is clearly 5.


No it isn't, see above post.



The Dark Knight said:


> Silva was aggressive. He just wasn't as aggressive as he usually is because he fought a guy who didn't come to fight. It's not like he didn't try to hurt Leites. I imagine it's difficult to fully go all out on somebody who clearly doesn't want to fight properly and keeps backing away. This fight was not unlike that Kalib Starnes/Nate Quarry match up. Silva can only do so much.
> 
> When Leites was in his advantagrous position, he didn't do anything. When Silva was in his advantagerous position, he was at least taking the intiative and scoring.


As he usually is? That wouldn't be an aggressive performance for any fighter. Silva barely engaged on the feet.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Thanks for proving my point.
> 0.12 = failed takedown attempt
> 0.28 = back flop
> 0.43 = back flop
> ...


0.12 he didn't even try to take him down, merely instead of going straight to his back he went forward, not even trying to claps his hands together then went straight to his back.

1.11 he tried to shoot in from 7 feet out but just ended up landing on his butt. Basically falling on his back.

1.20 I don't see how that's a failed takedown, he clearly flopped straight to his back there. No denying that.

0.28, 0.43, 0.52, 1.20, and 1.30 are all going to the back. The others could be debated but I don't see the difference of shooting in from 7 feet out knowing your not going to grab him then just falling to your back.


If you read my initial post were I said 9 times, it was when he had no control over Anderson.


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

mihklo said:


> i completely agree. my only question is, with guys shying away from attacking silva and being the aggressor towards him are alot of his future fights gonna turn out the same way?
> 
> So who deserves it? And why is it only up to the challenger to engage?


Well yes I do think we will see more of this as long as they match up champs with guys that don't intend on using a forward moving offense. This is the inherent flaw with BJJ being the primary style of a fighter. He is not always going to be attacked in a way that will allow him to use his strength. Silva had no business going to ground with him so he didn't. I don't blame the champ a bit. That would be foolish to get tapped out and lose your belt in such a way. So it made for a boring fight...it happens.

The challenger should be more aggressive imo because he has to prove that he should be the champ decisively. The champ has (supposedly) already done so.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

LV 2 H8 U said:


> Well yes I do think we will see more of this as long as they match up champs with guys that don't intend on using a forward moving offense. This is the inherent flaw with BJJ being the primary style of a fighter. He is not always going to be attacked in a way that will allow him to use his strength. Silva had no business going to ground with him so he didn't. I don't blame the champ a bit. That would be foolish to get tapped out and lose your belt in such a way. So it made for a boring fight...it happens.
> 
> The challenger should be more aggressive imo because he has to prove that he should be the champ decisively. The champ has (supposedly) already done so.


agreed


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Ape City said:


> I think there is one thing we can all agree on, it was a bad match up to begin with.
> 
> Did anyone really think Thales deserved a shitle tot anyways? I mean Nate M. beat himself in that match lol.


LOL @ Thiago Alves reference.:thumb02:


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

LV 2 H8 U said:


> The challenger should be more aggressive imo because he has to prove that he should be the champ decisively. The champ has (supposedly) already done so.


A good example of this is when Silva beat Rick to take the belt. He went at him put him in the clinch and went to town. He wanted the belt, unlike Thales.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I disagree, I think the champ should fight just as hard to keep the belt as he would if he was the challenger trying to take it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Toxic said:


> I disagree, I think the champ should fight just as hard to keep the belt as he would if he was the challenger trying to take it.


well silva fought a lot harder than thales "ooops i fell down for the sixtieth time" leites  its too bad leites couldnt take silva down, that doesnt mean silva owes it to leites to fall into his guard.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

absolutly not, never said he should drop in Leites guard but give a vicous kick instead of the cutesy stuff like when he kicked him with the outside leg or when he punched him in the leg.


----------



## evilstevie (Apr 19, 2009)

It's my first day on this forum, and I can already tell who the idiots are. Where's the ignore button?

Leites ran around and flopped like a girl for 5 rounds. He should be thrown out of the UFC.

I could care less about the retards in this thread who "hate" Silva but couldn't hold his jock...you'll be out of my sight as soon as I figure out how to ignore your worthless comments.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

evilstevie said:


> It's my first day on this forum, and I can already tell who the idiots are. Where's the ignore button?
> 
> Leites ran around and flopped like a girl for 5 rounds. He should be thrown out of the UFC.
> 
> I could care less about the retards in this thread who "hate" Silva but couldn't hold his jock...you'll be out of my sight as soon as I figure out how to ignore your worthless comments.


Atta boy! Like your style, come in with a bang!

You'll probably get a warning but positve rep from me! :thumb02:


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

yorT said:


> 0.12 he didn't even try to take him down, merely instead of going straight to his back he went forward, not even trying to claps his hands together then went straight to his back.
> 
> 1.11 he tried to shoot in from 7 feet out but just ended up landing on his butt. Basically falling on his back.


We were talking about times he fell to the ground for no reason. Not takedown attempts that you think were so weak that he must have known he wasn't going to get them.




yorT said:


> 1.20 I don't see how that's a failed takedown, he clearly flopped straight to his back there. No denying that..


Actaully, he clearly reaches for a leg and falls straight to his side. Do you not have eyes or soemthing?



yorT said:


> 0.28, 0.43, 0.52, 1.20, and 1.30 are all going to the back. The others could be debated but I don't see the difference of shooting in from 7 feet out knowing your not going to grab him then just falling to your back.
> 
> 
> If you read my initial post were I said 9 times, it was when he had no control over Anderson.


As I said earlier, the argument was how many times Leites fell to his back. Not assumptions about whether or not Thales thought he could land a takedown or not. None of us are in Thales head, so thats a pretty useless argument.



evilstevie said:


> It's my first day on this forum, and I can already tell who the idiots are. Where's the ignore button?
> 
> Leites ran around and flopped like a girl for 5 rounds. He should be thrown out of the UFC.


Except he only "flopped" in two rounds.



evilstevie said:


> I could care less about the retards in this thread who "hate" Silva but couldn't hold his jock...you'll be out of my sight as soon as I figure out how to ignore your worthless comments.


I'd say you will have to put up with my posts for a while longer then haha


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

evilstevie said:


> It's my first day on this forum, and I can already tell who the idiots are. Where's the ignore button?
> 
> Leites ran around and flopped like a girl for 5 rounds. He should be thrown out of the UFC.
> 
> I could care less about the retards in this thread who "hate" Silva but couldn't hold his jock...you'll be out of my sight as soon as I figure out how to ignore your worthless comments.


LOL
Nice first post. If you figure it out ignore every person so we dont have to put up with your stupid posts.


----------



## diemos (Nov 7, 2007)

good for Chuck, its a retarded questions. Good Stuff.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Except he only "flopped" in two rounds.


... how is that any better? Seriously, now flopping to your back and laying there is valid tactic, and your opponent should feel obligated to follow you into your guard? i cant understand how that is justifiable as either sport or simulation of a real fight. In sport, it should be the standing fighter's choice, and in a street fight, I sure as hell wouldn't follow some guy down if he fell. I'd just walk away.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

HexRei said:


> ... how is that any better?


How is it not better?
It's better like falling to your back four times in a twenty five minute fight is better than doing it constantly. Or nine times.



HexRei said:


> Seriously, now flopping to your back and laying there is valid tactic, and your opponent should feel obligated to follow you into your guard?


I fail to see where anyone advocated either of these things.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> How is it not better?
> It's better like falling to your back four times in a twenty five minute fight is better than doing it constantly. Or nine times.


Flopping onto your back intentionally AT ALL is not a fight tactic. Doing it ten times in a fight is pathetic. That's not even pulling guard, its falling down and hoping your opponent will follow you because you have inadequate standup for takedown ability. FVCKING PATHETIC. Clearly Leites is a top notch BJJ player but a mediocre MMA fighter.



> I fail to see where anyone advocated either of these things.


Sorry then, it sure seemed like you were implying that doing this for two round was acceptable. glad to hear you don't feel that way


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

It's not that I think Leites did well, I just hate this attitude that Leites is entirely to blame and Silva should get a complete pass for the way this fight turned out(and Silvas lack of aggression), both of which stem from an exaggeration of how many times Leites hit the floor passively.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> We were talking about times he fell to the ground for no reason. Not takedown attempts that you think were so weak that he must have known he wasn't going to get them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There really is no difference in the way Thales attempted to shoot and grab Silva or fall to his back. He was far away from Silva to the point where Thales was almost parallel with that mat. There was no way he was going to get the takedown which is why he would go straight to his back. I see no difference in trying to grab Silva and missing and falling to his back.



TheNegation said:


> It's not that I think Leites did well, I just hate this attitude that Leites is entirely to blame and Silva should get a complete pass for the way this fight turned out(and Silvas lack of aggression), both of which stem from an exaggeration of how many times Leites hit the floor passively.


Silva was winning the fight the whole time expect for when Thales got him down, which was one time. Why should Silva change his game plan to a more aggressive attack at the risk of getting subbed or KO'd?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

yorT said:


> I see no difference in trying to grab Silva and missing and falling to his back.


Well theres your problem then, and why you were wrong to jump in on an argument on how many times Thales fell to the ground for no reason.




yorT said:


> Why should Silva change his game plan to a more aggressive attack at the risk of getting subbed or KO'd?


I think you should re-read that post......


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

As far as I can tell everyone is arguing that Thales was more to blame than Silva, and most are using the arguement that he flopped around all 5 rounds. As far as I can tell theNegation is just pointing out that Silva is also to blame and that many were failed (albeit weak) takedown attempts.


I'd restate my own opinion but I already gave it on page 9.


----------



## evilstevie (Apr 19, 2009)

Negation hates Silva like nerds hate Microsoft. He and Thales should fight each other, so they can flop, squeal, and run around like girls the entire fight, and then afterwards point at each other and say "no, it was HIS fault".
Pathetic. Throw Thales out of the UFC. Throw Negation off this forum.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

evilstevie said:


> Negation hates Silva like nerds hate Microsoft. He and Thales should fight each other, so they can flop, squeal, and run around like girls the entire fight, and then afterwards point at each other and say "no, it was HIS fault".
> Pathetic. Throw Thales out of the UFC. Throw Negation off this forum.



This comment is entirley unecessary. Stay on topic. No need to insult other members.


----------



## JWP (Jun 4, 2007)

Toxic said:


> I disagree with this because I think Silva needs to come in with a game plan that doesnt include waiting for his opponent to attack, we've seen what happens when they do and so has the rest of the MW division, the days of people running at Silva wrecklessly fists flailing are over and Anderson has to be able to adapt and not only counter what his opponent does but also build some forward momentum and play the role of aggressor as well instead of dancing around trying to frustrate his opponent.


you may be right and i like alot of your posts

but isnt it the challengers job to come and win the fight, though i guess this comes under that debate about 'action'

someone with some skills will force him to engage and whammo you have a fight


and yeh Chuck is the man


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

LV 2 H8 U said:


> Well yes I do think we will see more of this as long as they match up champs with guys that don't intend on using a forward moving offense. This is the inherent flaw with BJJ being the primary style of a fighter. He is not always going to be attacked in a way that will allow him to use his strength. Silva had no business going to ground with him so he didn't. I don't blame the champ a bit. That would be foolish to get tapped out and lose your belt in such a way. So it made for a boring fight...it happens.
> 
> The challenger should be more aggressive imo because he has to prove that he should be the champ decisively. The champ has (supposedly) already done so.




the problem i have is that silva has pretty much done the same thing in his last 2 fights......even against a striker in cote. almost as if he has lost that kill instinct. there were times in the fight where he could have went in for the kill and decided not to. 

As for the challenger having to be more aggressive.....i dont agree with that. just because he is fighting the champ should not mean he has to risk more.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Ape City said:


> As far as I can tell everyone is arguing that Thales was more to blame than Silva, and most are using the arguement that he flopped around all 5 rounds. As far as I can tell theNegation is just pointing out that Silva is also to blame and that many were failed (albeit weak) takedown attempts.
> 
> 
> I'd restate my own opinion but I already gave it on page 9.


Exactly, but to get any point across these days it seems you have to restate it a million times and justify it from a thousand different angles.

Look how hard it was to prove that point, and all that should be have to done is watch the fight to realise it. I can't tell if it's mostly the fact that people can't see around Silvas nuts or what.


----------



## pipe (Jun 15, 2008)

Surely its the challengers obligation to try and win the championship match by being the aggressor? Silva defended his belt, it wasn't a great fight but Anderson is still the champ.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

J.P. said:


> This comment is entirley unecessary. Stay on topic. No need to insult other members.


I actually thought it was completely on topic, great post. :thumb02:



evilstevie said:


> Negation hates Silva like nerds hate Microsoft. He and Thales should fight each other, so they can flop, squeal, and run around like girls the entire fight, and then afterwards point at each other and say "no, it was HIS fault".
> Pathetic. Throw Thales out of the UFC. Throw Negation off this forum.



you are slowly becoming my hero :cool01:

Nice one, that made me laugh.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Dont double post.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Dont double post.


Yes maam


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

mihklo said:


> the problem i have is that silva has pretty much done the same thing in his last 2 fights......even against a striker in cote. almost as if he has lost that kill instinct. there were times in the fight where he could have went in for the kill and decided not to.
> 
> As for the challenger having to be more aggressive.....i dont agree with that. just because he is fighting the champ should not mean he has to risk more.


Although I still feel the challenger has more to prove, there is the whole issue of champs fighting to not lose. I guess I can see it both ways now. The thing is that I feel they are both to blame for this particular fight anyway. Silva didnt have to fall into his guard to be more aggressive with him, but Thales was trying to pull guard too often as a defense to Silvas stand up. Seems like a no win situation. Its also a shame that we are all looking at this from a point of "how entertaining was it". Not all fights are fun to watch. It gets better:thumb02:


----------



## nissassagame (May 6, 2008)

There's alot of respect between Chuck and Anderson. 
There was a stupid question asked.
Those are the reasons Chuck stepped in and I would too.

I'm getting tired really quickly of all the fools out there crying about Anderson's style in his past 2 fights. MMA is about obtaining victory at all costs, not providing erections for the simple minded action seekers out there.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I should know better, since you are on full red, but how is it a stupid question? 
"Hey Anderson, you used to be aggressive, now your not, what gives?" is a pretty legitimate question, it doesn't matter if the answer is an obvious "I want to win fights and not take risks."


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

nissassagame said:


> There's alot of respect between Chuck and Anderson.
> There was a stupid question asked.
> Those are the reasons Chuck stepped in and I would too.
> 
> I'm getting tired really quickly of all the fools out there crying about Anderson's style in his past 2 fights. MMA is about obtaining victory at all costs, *not providing erections for the simple minded action seekers out there.*


Excellent, positive rep on that one! Keep doing your thang.

I agree with you 100%, and the UFC isn't made for pu**ies who come into a championship fight, afraid to fight. When your opponent basically drops his hands and puts his face in front of your glove and basically begs you to punch, and you are too busy soiling your shorts, maybe the fighting game isn't for you.


----------



## cabby (Sep 15, 2006)

Glad to see Liddell stand up for a man who has to use a translator and all. Having too much fun playing cat and mouse lol shut up dude. Leites couldn't hang and it wasn't Silva's fault.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

cabby said:


> Glad to see Liddell stand up for a man who has to use a translator and all. *Having too much fun playing cat and mouse lol shut up dude.* Leites couldn't hang and it wasn't Silva's fault.



Not sure if that was directed to me but I agree with you...the pu**y is Leites.


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

MamaSdKnockUOut said:


> Not sure if that was directed to me but I agree with you...the pu**y is Leites.


I think he meant the reporter not you.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

nissassagame said:


> There's alot of respect between Chuck and Anderson.
> There was a stupid question asked.
> Those are the reasons Chuck stepped in and I would too.
> 
> I'm getting tired really quickly of all the fools out there crying about Anderson's style in his past 2 fights. MMA is about obtaining victory at all costs, not providing erections for the simple minded action seekers out there.



Guess what my simple mind pays my $50 bucks and I want my action fueled errection, Ive said it before it its all about winning explain to me why Chuck Lidell made probably 5 times as much as Anderson and Leites combined to lose his fight, why because people love him because win or lose Liddell left it all out there every time, you can call me simple minded but the fact is, I just want to watch some great fights and I dont care if its 2 scrubs who will never make it to the UFC, if they go out and have a war then Im entertained and I feel like I got my moneys worth and thats what its all about, because at the end of the day this is buisiness, its not the olypics where its all about Pride and doing it for your freinds and family, this is there job and putting on entertaining fights is how they help there company grow and thats what there pay is based on. Winning the UFC title will mean nothing the day nobody will pay to watch it.


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

Toxic said:


> I just want to watch some great fights and I dont care if its 2 scrubs who will never make it to the UFC.


I can agree with this to a point. I dont want to watch an overly technical fight like most of Machidas fights, but I don't really want to see Don Frye either. Action is good as long as it isn't flailing about in an uncontrolled fashion.


----------



## SimplyNate (May 27, 2007)

I am still waiting for two people to just windmill and walk towards each other.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

SimplyNate said:


> I am still waiting for two people to just windmill and walk towards each other.


Your waiting for them to clone Bob Sapp? :dunno:


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Guess what my simple mind pays my $50 bucks and I want my action fueled errection, Ive said it before it its all about winning explain to me why Chuck Lidell made probably 5 times as much as Anderson and Leites combined to lose his fight, why because people love him because win or lose Liddell left it all out there every time, you can call me simple minded but the fact is, I just want to watch some great fights and I dont care if its 2 scrubs who will never make it to the UFC, if they go out and have a war then Im entertained and I feel like I got my moneys worth and thats what its all about, because at the end of the day this is buisiness, its not the olypics where its all about Pride and doing it for your freinds and family, this is there job and putting on entertaining fights is how they help there company grow and thats what there pay is based on. Winning the UFC title will mean nothing the day nobody will pay to watch it.


You just explained why pro wrestling is still alive and kicking, and still sits a lot of people every day. If it's only about entertainment, then it's not a sport. And that's the reason that most wrestling haters use: "rassling is not real, it's not a sport". MMA is in the process is becoming more and more like pro wrestling.

PS: I'm not talking about you liking or disliking wrestling, it's just a general statement.

PS2: To all Silva-haters, find me a relevant fighter that has a better record than Silva, not of wins, but of finish/decision ratio, in the last 4 years:

Wins: 12. By KO/TKO: 9. By Submission: 2. By Decision: 1
Losses: 1 by DQ.

1/13 = 7.69%

Chuck Lidell (incuding the 4/16/2005 fight with couture)

Wins: 6. By KO/TKO: 5. By Decision: 1.
Losses: 4. By KO/TKO: 3 By Decision: 1

2/20 = 20%

Not only that but Silva has seen the 3rd round in just the last 2 fights out of those 13...


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I dont think people are mad about Silva's record but feel he has the attitude that not losing his title has become more important than finishing fights, looking domminant or entertaining anybody. Go listen to the Josh Barnett interview I posted in the thread about wether or not its all about winning, you'll see one of the top HW's in the world give his point of view.


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

Just read through this whole thread for the first time, that back and forth was some pretty funny ****. Luckily Yort is good at the giffs, a picture is worth a million words.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jcal said:


> Just read through this whole thread for the first time, that back and forth was some pretty funny ****. Luckily Yort is good at the giffs, a picture is worth a million words.


This blows my ******* mind.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

Toxic said:


> I dont think people are mad about Silva's record but feel he has the attitude that not losing his title has become more important than finishing fights, looking domminant or entertaining anybody. Go listen to the Josh Barnett interview I posted in the thread about wether or not its all about winning, you'll see one of the top HW's in the world give his point of view.


Well, it's a sport, still. That was my point. And the sport is all about winning. You can't entertain people in all of your fights, specially if you have opponents that don't come to fight.

If you have already won the fight, why risk the win for some fans that didn't even care about you even when you did everything you finish you fights.

Silva is the best finisher in the UFC, yet people buy their PPVs by 300,000. A number quite low. Why care about them?

Just ask Kobe to make a few spectacular dunks in every game instead of trying to win as hard as he can...

A sport is FIRST about winning, then about entertaining.

And a final point, you beloved Chuck DEFENDED Anderson Silva, he said you need two people to fight. So, what can you argue with him?


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

i think the issue here is how he has changed the past 2 fights. if all along he was winning with the same type of style that machida was using then these last 2 fights would have been more acceptable. but being the great finisher that anderson is, to fight the way that he has been fighting is what is being questioned. 

mma is a sport, but it is also a business. people pay to watch these sports and be entertained. even more so in fighting. in the end it is all about the money, because lets be realistic, these guys are fighting to get paid. entertain the fans and you will get paid, disappoint and you will not. if you are not marketable you arent gonna get paid like the other more popular fighters. marketability has everything to do with your entertainment value. look at machida, how long has it taken him to get his shot at the title? and why? because alot of people viewed him as boring, which would be hard to market. why else was rampage going to get the title match before machida? why do/did guys like chuck/wandy not have to worry about getting cut after losing a few fights? because they entertain and people will pay to watch them fight. hell why do you think brock got as much money as he did before he even fought? thats right, because he is a huge draw. 

dont get me wrong winning is very important. 

and for those that say anderson needs to be challenged? why wouldnt he run through these last 2 guys to make that point?

and to get this straight, i am not an anderson hater. i tend to like him and enjoy most of his fights. these last 2 though have been extremely disappointing. and to not place any of the blame on him is completely unjust in my mind.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

valrond said:


> And a final point, you beloved Chuck DEFENDED Anderson Silva, he said you need two people to fight. So, what can you argue with him?


Wait, are our favourite fighters supposed to be infallible gods to us now? I was unaware....


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

TheNegation said:


> Wait, are our favourite fighters supposed to be infallible gods to us now? I was unaware....


Yes, glad he made you aware.


----------



## Combat Soul (Oct 2, 2008)

I just wrote a huge reply but when I was about to post it my God Damn laptop decided to press the page back button by itself.

No way am I typing that s*it out again, here it is in a nutshell.

Leites - Horribly outclassed, he was protecting himself from being hurt, can't blame him for that, blame Joe Silva.

Silva - Was he bored? Insulted by opponent choice? low buy rates despite previous finishes? The booing early on? Who knows maybe that is just how Black House get down now, fight style.

Only thing I can level at Silva is he could have finished the fight if wanted to but he seemed hesitant to. That is odd and there may be a reason behind it, which will come out eventually.

The UFC is entertanment, a fighter's priority is not to entertain but to make sure he gets to see his family afterwards. It is up to the UFC to provide entertainment. As they can't control what happens in fight the one thing they can control is the match ups, and this was a crap one.


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

what about the cote fight? a fight against another striker yet a snoozer? 

would it not make more sense for silva to destroy these opponents if he feels they arent worthy of the fight to prove a point to the match makers?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Combat Soul said:


> Silva - Was he bored? Insulted by opponent choice? low buy rates despite previous finishes? The booing early on? Who knows maybe that is just how Black House get down now, fight style.
> 
> Only thing I can level at Silva is he could have finished the fight if wanted to but he seemed hesitant to. That is odd and there may be a reason behind it, which will come out eventually.


You are wrong, Silva himself said that it was because he didn't want to take risks. Read his post fight interviews.

This has nothing to do with Silva being bored with his opponenets or being too good for them, really it is quite the opposite.


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

i could see the risk against cote, but really what risk did he have against leites?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

mihklo said:


> i could see the risk against cote, but really what risk did he have against leites?


He had a huge risk of getting taken down and subbed, which is why he stayed on the outside and avoided the ground game.


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

i understand that, but after leites took him down and couldnt do anything pretty much killed leites confidence and left him to survival mode.


----------



## Combat Soul (Oct 2, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> You are wrong, Silva himself said that it was because he didn't want to take risks. Read his post fight interviews.
> 
> This has nothing to do with Silva being bored with his opponenets or being too good for them, really it is quite the opposite.


You don't know that for sure. What people say in public, infront of the media is not always what they think or feel you know. Watch the fight again and listen to his corner when they are talking to him they seem a bit confused. They keep telling him 'Come on Anderson, let's go now'. I think there may be some other issues there and there is more than meets the eye. Now unless you are actually Anderson Silva you can't tell me otherwise, if you are it would certainly justify your snotty tone.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Yeah, it is much more likely that Anderson was simply bored at fighting such a poor opponent, so he thought he would drag the fight on twenty five minutes, get his boss pissed off at him and lose some fans, despite waht he said in a public interview and after the fight. You are right.:confused03:


----------



## Combat Soul (Oct 2, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> Yeah, it is much more likely that Anderson was simply bored at fighting such a poor opponent, so he thought he would drag the fight on twenty five minutes, get his boss pissed off at him and lose some fans, despite waht he said in a public interview and after the fight. You are right.:confused03:


I am not saying I am right, I am tossing some theories in the mix. Was he bored? Is he pissed at UFC Management? Pissed at the fans? Thats what you do in a discussion. You present some theories and talk about them, rather than just assusming your own opinion has more validity than anyone elses.

Also, do you believe everything you are told? What is Santa Claus bringing you this year?


----------



## nissassagame (May 6, 2008)

Toxic said:


> Guess what my simple mind pays my $50 bucks and I want my action fueled errection, Ive said it before it its all about winning explain to me why Chuck Lidell made probably 5 times as much as Anderson and Leites combined to lose his fight, why because people love him because win or lose Liddell left it all out there every time, you can call me simple minded but the fact is, I just want to watch some great fights and I dont care if its 2 scrubs who will never make it to the UFC, if they go out and have a war then Im entertained and I feel like I got my moneys worth and thats what its all about, because at the end of the day this is buisiness, its not the olypics where its all about Pride and doing it for your freinds and family, this is there job and putting on entertaining fights is how they help there company grow and thats what there pay is based on. Winning the UFC title will mean nothing the day nobody will pay to watch it.


Is your real name Dana White because thats who you sound like  Hey, I understand where you are coming from man, I paid 50 bucks and had a houseful of people over to watch what I advertised should be a good card with an awesome main event. I too want the action but I can't bring myself to complain about spending my money on MMA. Lets face it, the UFC is not MMA in its purest form because Dana pushes for exciting fights and shits on fighters that don't deliver, despite the fact that they are out there to win, even if it cathes Dana's ire. Come to think of it, I'm really happy Anderson stuck to what he trained and planned because he is not appeasing to Dana but rather the sport that is MMA and not the business.


----------



## MamaSdKnockUOut (Feb 23, 2009)

Combat Soul said:


> I am not saying I am right, I am tossing some theories in the mix. Was he bored? Is he pissed at UFC Management? Pissed at the fans? Thats what you do in a discussion. You present some theories and talk about them, rather than just assusming your own opinion has more validity than anyone elses.
> 
> Also, do you believe everything you are told? What is Santa Claus bringing you this year?


:thumb02:

He's a know it all, just let him believe his ideas are correct. 

But I like your theories, I didn't actually listen to the coaches, have to go watch for that.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Combat Soul said:


> rather than just assusming your own opinion has more validity than anyone elses.


When your "theory" is the only one with backup, it sorta does have more validity man.



Combat Soul said:


> Also, do you believe everything you are told? What is Santa Claus bringing you this year?


No, but when a reputable source tells me something that corresponds with the apparent reality of a situation, and they have no reason to lie, I generally tend to believe it. I find it beats making up my own theories based on.......nothing.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Wait, are our favourite fighters supposed to be infallible gods to us now? I was unaware....


Between the opinion of Chuck Liddell and yours guess which one I'd take...


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

valrond said:


> Between the opinion of Chuck Liddell and yours guess which one I'd take...


And between Andersons and CHucks you will take?


----------



## Josh Jones III (Mar 20, 2009)

I still don't see how anyone could blame Silva for what happened. Imagine if he went the other way, reacted to the crowd, went down with Leites to engage in Jiu-Jistu and got caught in an armbar or something? Then everyone would be calling Anderson an idiot for letting his emotions get the better of him and getting reckless. He's a smart fighter, knew he had the fight won. 

I don't see how that situation is any different than when a fighter wins the first two rounds and the other guy knows he has to get a knockout to win. The guy who won the first two rounds isn't going to leave himself open and engage "so the crowd gets a good fight." He'll sit back and defend, wait out the rest of the fight if he has it won.


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> This blows my ******* mind.


Thats so funny lol, I knew it would, IMHO the fight sucked, Anderson sucked and leites sucked , I want my money back, Anderson did the bare minimum to get the W and Thales had nothing, did he expect Silva to jump in his guard? Hey Neg are ya gonna put up the Spider on your avatar now?:thumb02:


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jcal said:


> Hey Neg are ya gonna put up the Spider on your avatar now?:thumb02:


Ummmm, no. Because Leites only *fell to his back* four times. I think even Yort would admit that at this point(as he pretty much already did).

Did you misunderstand the grounds on which I would be changing my avatar to an Anderson Silva one?


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Lol off topic here but i never would have guessed that this thread gets 164 replies.


On a different note your guyses arguments wont get you no where so maybe you should just call it a draw. Its just back and fourth with no one showing any sign's of giving up.


----------



## daMMAguy (Apr 23, 2009)

Dumb question... Styles always dictates how a fight will go, it was clear by the 3rd round that Leites no longer wanted to engage with Silva. Not his fault.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Ummmm, no. Because Leites only *fell to his back* four times. I think even Yort would admit that at this point(as he pretty much already did).
> 
> Did you misunderstand the grounds on which I would be changing my avatar to an Anderson Silva one?


"only" four times? that's about four too many for an MMA fight imho. and i can tell you're counting some of those ridiculous failed takedowns as not actual falls to guard, when I think plenty of those attempts were nothing more than a ruse to make silva go into his guard willingly. it's hard to call it a takedown attempt when you make a super slow shot that doesn't even really need to be stuffed and then fall down on your back.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

It's not a dumb question because Sulva wasn't as aggressive as he used to be. I don't care if Leites had come in to sing a duet with Danny DeVito, his opponenets actions are irrelevant to the fact that Silva wasn't aggressive compared to the way he used to fight.


SideWays222 said:


> On a different note your guyses arguments wont get you no where so maybe you should just call it a draw. Its just back and fourth with no one showing any sign's of giving up.


I've already shown that there were only four occasions where Leites fell to his back(well, yort did). That was the main thing I took issue with.

Most of the people who were arguing that it was all Leites fault, that he hit the ground constantly or that Silva was aggressive have given up.



Jesus Hexrei, read the thread. I'm not arguing that Leites falling to the ground was a good thing. I was specifically adressing people who were exaggerating how many times he did it.

I'd like to point out that Lutter took Silva down with some of the worst takedown attempts from far out that I have seen, so maybe Leites was watching them and decided to try and copy that.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

silva walked him down the whole fight, how is that not aggressive?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Silva barely engaged on the feet, and stayed on the outside to try and avoid the shot. He spent most of that fight waiting to counter. He had Leites against the fence and did nothing numerous times.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Ummmm, no. Because Leites only *fell to his back* four times. I think even Yort would admit that at this point(as he pretty much already did).
> 
> Did you misunderstand the grounds on which I would be changing my avatar to an Anderson Silva one?


No, it was 5 for sure, you're just stubborn.



TheNegation said:


> *Silva barely engaged* on the feet, and stayed on the outside to try and avoid the shot. He spent most of that fight waiting to counter. He had Leites against the fence and did nothing numerous times.


Dude go watch the fight again.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

he still did about 10x the work leites did. i think people are just spoiled by the fact that he usually finishes.


----------



## Wookie (Jul 20, 2008)

If I am po'ed about any part of this fight it is that Joe Silva set it up in the first place. Nobody is going to go into a fight like that and think that they are going to win by doing what the other guy is good at. That being the case and knowing the fighters styles why did he even set this fight up? And how did Leites even get the fight? A lot of the thought that went into this fight doesn't make sense. And you could tell Chuck was pissed because of the stupid question. Is there anywhere that has the entire post fight conference?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

yorT said:


> No, it was 5 for sure, you're just stubborn.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude go watch the fight again.


You are counting a failed takedown in there. We were over this already. Diving for your opponents leg, faileing to your side(facing your opponnent)and then scooting/turning around to your back does not equal falling to your back. If oyu can explain how it does I'd be delighted to hear it.

He did barely engage, particularly in the latter rounds.



HexRei said:


> he still did about 10x the work leites did. i think people are just spoiled by the fact that he usually finishes.


Theres a reason he didn't finish, he didn't try to.


----------



## vader (Sep 16, 2007)

I think the fight was boring, but I dont think it was Andersens fault.

Im going to miss Chuck he was good for the sport!


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Theres a reason he didn't finish, he didn't try to.


It's hard to engage against a guy who constantly walks away and fells to his back unless you want to go to his guard. Silva was not obligated to do that. And the whole reason Leites was hitting the ground so often was that he did not want to engage Silva, not the other way around.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> You are counting a failed takedown in there. We were over this already. Diving for your opponents leg, faileing to your side(facing your opponnent)and then scooting/turning around to your back does not equal falling to your back. If oyu can explain how it does I'd be delighted to hear it.
> 
> He did barely engage, particularly in the latter rounds.
> 
> ...


I didnt wanna get into this argument but there a few flaws to your arguments.

1. You say we cant be in Thales head so we dont actually dont know if he thought he had a chance to take Anderson down or if it was merely an excuse to go to his back and hope Anderson would engage. The same goes for Anderson head... We dont know if he thought he could finish the fight so we have no reason to assume that he didnt "try" to finish the fight.

2. If you wanna get technical with those lame ass excuses for take down attempts then technically when he realized his take down failed instead of getting up he decided to flop to his back thus flopping to his back more then 4 times.

3. Its a matter of opinion who you think stalled that fight so there really is no reason for this argument. If Silva decided to go in there and start throwing more combo punches he could have possibly finished the fight. If thales decided to strike with Silva he also could have made the fight more exciting and we could have possibly got a "finish". They both played their cards and Anderson Silva came on top. Cant blame the guy for wanting to win safely rather then wanting to win with a chance of loosing.


My 2 cents :thumbsup:


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

HexRei said:


> It's hard to engage against a guy who constantly walks away and fells to his back unless you want to go to his guard. Silva was not obligated to do that. And the whole reason Leites was hitting the ground so often was that he did not want to engage Silva, not the other way around.


Of course Thales did not want to engage on the feet, much like Silva did not want to engage on the ground. This doesn't change the fact that Silva was less aggressive thatn he used to be in his prevous fights.

Sideways
1.There is a distinction here as in one case the fighters ations contradict the opinion, in the other they support it.
2.Fighters never get straight bakc to their feet. Why? Because they get kicked/punched/kneed in the face. They almost always wait for the ref to hold their opponenet off and get them up.
3.Of courese it is. But I am not blaming Silva for wanting to win. I am disagreeing with his fans who say he was aggressive and exaggerate how defensive Thales was.


----------



## TERMINATOR (Jul 6, 2008)

When a bjj world class fighter starts flopping on the ground, why would anyone in their right mound follow him down there if they didnt have to.


----------



## evilstevie (Apr 19, 2009)

TheNegation said:


> Most of the people who were arguing that it was all Leites fault, that he hit the ground constantly or that Silva was aggressive have given up.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

You can say that if you want mister 5 posts red rep bar, but aside from Yort no-one has provided a decent argument for what they were claiming.

I don't hate Silva, I hate his mindless fans though.


----------



## SimplyNate (May 27, 2007)

I am in Dana's control.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> You are counting a failed takedown in there. We were over this already. Diving for your opponents leg, faileing to your side(facing your opponnent)and then scooting/turning around to your back does not equal falling to your back. If oyu can explain how it does I'd be delighted to hear it.
> 
> He did barely engage, particularly in the latter rounds.
> 
> ...


I don't see how this is any different then his flops to the back. He clearly flops to his butt, that makes 5.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> Of course Thales did not want to engage on the feet, much like Silva did not want to engage on the ground. This doesn't change the fact that Silva was less aggressive thatn he used to be in his prevous fights.
> 
> Sideways
> 1.There is a distinction here as in one case the fighters ations contradict the opinion, in the other they support it.
> ...



1. Sorry i dont blame you but im not really getting what your trying to say here. Please elaborate for me.

2. I knew you were going to say this and fighters also dont just rush in to make the fans happy when a guy lays on his back because they have a good chance of getting submitted which is why Anderson didnt want to engage when Thales would FAIL/FLOP, also no reason for a fighter risking to get KO'D when their clearly the only one trying to fight. Whenever Anderson would attack Thales would do a halfass takedown attempt and then roll to his back which is the same a flop to me because even i with high school wrestling experience could attempt a better takedown then what he did.

3.I dont think Anderson was super aggressive but i do think that he met Thales half way and Thales didnt do the same. The only time iv seen a fighter avoid a fight more then Thales did that night is Kalib Starnes. As a fighter you have NO RIGHT to just go to your back even once in the fight and hope the other person is just going to get in your guard. Their not in the GYM so i would never expect a fighter to think its alright to do that even once much less 4 times according to you.

I can see your point of view on everything but the only thing i cant understand is that you dont consider his take down attempts FLOPS. Even if its just for the sake of argument im having a hard time believing that anyone wasn't a bit bothered by those takedowns.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

yorT said:


> I don't see how this is any different then his flops to the back. He clearly flops to his butt, that makes 5.


Because he dives for a leg. He clearly reaches out with both his hands for a leg.

He didn't "flop to his butt", he fell sideways while facing silva.


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> Because he dives for a leg. He clearly reaches out with both his hands for a leg.
> 
> He didn't "flop to his butt", he fell sideways while facing silva.


Are you gonna put the spider on your avatar or are you pulling a Juanito Ibarra on us?:confused05:


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jcal said:


> Are you gonna put the spider on your avatar or are you pulling a Juanito Ibarra on us?:confused05:


Well since there is a gif right there of Leites diving for Silvas leg, I fail to see how I should, or am.

You are blind.


----------



## jhizzy (Feb 4, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Well since there is a gif right there of Leites diving for Silvas leg, I fail to see how I should, or am.
> 
> You are blind.


dude, everyone in this 19 page thread disagrees with you. Take and hint and let it go.


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> Well since there is a gif right there of Leites diving for Silvas leg, I fail to see how I should, or am.
> 
> You are blind.


you should be ashamed at yourself for saying that was a takedown attempt. Oh yeah its that new takedown ive heard about it the fallforwardscoot takedown. He reminded me of my dog scooting on the carpet trying to clean his butt.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I'm too drunk to taste this chicken.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

jhizzy said:


> dude, everyone in this 19 page thread disagrees with you. Take and hint and let it go.


Actually for the most part I do althoug I lost interest a couple pages ago.


----------



## SimplyNate (May 27, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> I'm too drunk to taste this chicken.


Thread derailed to chicken... what kind of chicken? The Thales kind? Oh snap.


----------



## China Blue (Apr 24, 2009)

Firstly, credit to Chuck, he's a great guy and a great ambassador for the sport, but sadly (and I mean that) it may be time for him to retire. I don't think he can effectively compete anymore at the highest level, which is where he belongs. He should take Dana's advice. Secondly, he's right, it's hard to attack a guy who's gameplan seems to have been to lie down like a dying dog at every opportunity. Silva was trying to attack, and the boos from the crowd were a bit harsh IMO. Thirdly, Leitis was a disgrace. Overawed, outclassed and embarrassing to watch. He should never be allowed in the octogon again. Evidently he just wanted to pick up a pay cheque at the fans expense and turned the entire 'fight' into a damage limitation excercise. Maybe he should start flipping burgers or something instead.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jcal said:


> you should be ashamed at yourself for saying that was a takedown attempt. Oh yeah its that new takedown ive heard about it the fallforwardscoot takedown. He reminded me of my dog scooting on the carpet trying to clean his butt.


Does he or does he not gor for andersons leg?


jhizzy said:


> dude, everyone in this 19 page thread disagrees with you. Take and hint and let it go.


Actually, it's mostly the same people who disagree with me, and it wouldn't matter if a million people did. I am right, and the lack of any proper argument on the other side shows this. 

Was Silva as aggressive as he used to be? No. Perfectly legit question from the reporter.

Did Leites constantly fall to the ground, or even close to it? No, he did not.


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> Does he or does he not gor for andersons leg?
> 
> Yes as he was falling down for no reason and he swiped at a leg, not really a takedown attemt. Look you like to train weights correct? That takedown attempt would be IMO about the same thing as you walking passed a benchpress bar with 3 plates on each side and you sat down and looked at the bar, touched it and got up and walked away. Then saying you made an attempt to push 315. Just put the spider avatar up for a month and everyone will be happy. You might even like it yourself. Jump in the waters warm. On a side note people who say Silvas plan was brilliant for kneepunching and whatever else he did are out of there minds to. He was not aggressive and if he was a real pfp king he would have went to the ground and hammered him down there. He also could have kicked the crap out of his legs while leites was laying there. I dont think he wanted to hurt Leites (conspiracy theory) In the replay were debating about Andrson could have easily hammerpunched him but yet he didnt. I know he trained with Thales trainers before and I just dont believe he wanted to put the arsenal on him, I think he knew it was a complete missmatch


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Actually, if you watch what happens, Leites drops as Silva comes in, then Silva stops up short leaving Leites grabbing the air. People get takedowns all the time off of their opponenet coming in and attacking.

I don't think you can compare Leites ACTUALLY going for a leg and someone not going through with something correctly.

It was a takedown attempt. A shit one, but an attempt none the less. Nobody would simply fall like that without some intent, it puts you in too much of an awkward and vulnerable position. And if he had been doing that, he would have been using his hands to block, not grope at Silvas legs.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> Actually, if you watch what happens, Leites drops as Silva comes in, then Silva stops up short leaving Leites grabbing the air. People get takedowns all the time off of their opponenet coming in and attacking.
> 
> I don't think you can compare Leites ACTUALLY going for a leg and someone not going through with something correctly.
> 
> It was a takedown attempt. A shit one, but an attempt none the less. Nobody would simply fall like that without some intent, it puts you in too much of an awkward and vulnerable position. And if he had been doing that, he would have been using his hands to block, not grope at Silvas legs.


The thing is you think your right but your not. Anderson was as aggressive in this fight as he is in the other ones. He rarely goes on the atack just to go on the atack, usually he needs to smell blood first.

If you wanna consider Thales takedowns takedowns then every punch Anderson Silva threw was meant to finish the fight which in that case he was being aggressive the whole time. Discussion over.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Because he dives for a leg. He clearly reaches out with both his hands for a leg.
> 
> He didn't "flop to his butt", he fell sideways while facing silva.


He trys to grab a leg after falling to his butt. This is an over exaggeration of "diving." Just face you are wrong and put Anderson in your Avy.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

yorT said:


> He trys to grab a leg after falling to his butt. This is an over exaggeration of "diving." Just face you are wrong and put Anderson in your Avy.


Wrong again. Leites grabs at Silvas leg before his ass comes close to hitting the mat. THE GIF IS RIGHT THERE MAN!




SideWays222 said:


> The thing is you think your right but your not. Anderson was as aggressive in this fight as he is in the other ones.


This is a whole new level of blind nuthuggery lol...


SideWays222 said:


> If you wanna consider Thales takedowns takedowns then every punch Anderson Silva threw was meant to finish the fight which in that case he was being aggressive the whole time. Discussion over.


Uh.....no. First of all, that comparison doesn't even make sense, as the logical one would be "If you wanna consider Thales takedowns takedowns then every punch Anderson Silva threw was meant to connect." I don't think Silva was throwing many punches not trying to connect.

Secondly,even if Silva had theoretically been trying to end the fight with every punch it wouldn't change the fact he spent a lot of time not attacking.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> Wrong again. Leites grabs at Silvas leg before his ass comes close to hitting the mat. THE GIF IS RIGHT THERE MAN!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nope. You dont know whats going on inside his head. For all you know even the push kicks he threw were meant to end the fight. GG


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Wrong again. Leites grabs at Silvas leg before his ass comes close to hitting the mat. THE GIF IS RIGHT THERE MAN!


You must be blind, so let me slow this down for you.










Thales' first motion is backwards, not forward. Not sure what leg "takedown" that is when your first move is to go back and land on your butt then try to grab a leg. THE GIF IS RIGHT THERE MAN!


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

SideWays222 said:


> Nope. You dont know whats going on inside his head. For all you know even the push kicks he threw were meant to end the fight. GG


What does that have to do with what I said?
I never siad Silva wasn't trying to end the fight with every punch. I'm going to stop replying to you now until you at least post something that makes sense.


yorT said:


> You must be blind, so let me slow this down for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, what does that have to do with what I said?
You


> He trys to grab a leg after falling to his butt


Me


> Leites grabs at Silvas leg before his ass comes close to hitting the mat


You



> Thales' first motion is backwards, not forward.


Do you not see the gap in logic on your part?

Thales is clearly grabbing at Silvas leg, while falling, with his ass NOT ON THE GROUND in that gif at 3.25 What is so complex about that?


What direction you are moving has nothing to do with whether somehting is a takedown or not. You can be moving backwards, sideways, forwards, up, down......any direction you want so long as you are trying to TAKE YOUR OPPONENT DOWN TO THE MAT.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

the grab happens right as his butt hits the mat. that is NOT a takedown, lol. seriously, go to any local bjj/wrestling/mma gym and ask them if that constitutes a takedown, i can't imagine who would consider it so. that is what we call a desperation grab. by someone who is afraid to stand and either too tired or scared to enact a real shot or throw takedown.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Thats not the point. The point is he didn't fall to his back for no reason.


----------



## JusPlayin (Mar 24, 2009)

Where can I see the rest of the interview?


----------



## BrianRClover (Jan 4, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> Thats not the point. The point is he didn't fall to his back for no reason.


Did Anderson Silva kick you in the balls at some point, or do you just really have a thing for Leites?

I'm just trying to figure out why you are insistent on fighting this to death? Wait are you BJ Penn?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I don't even like Leites haha.

I hate misconceptions about fights. I think it is partly also due to the Ryo Chonan thing aswell. People get pissy when it is their favourite fighter and refuse to see logic, it is the same with Penn fans, Fedor fans etc.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Thats not the point. The point is he didn't fall to his back for no reason.


no, he fell because he was worried anderson was going to punch him or kick him some more. did he fall because he thought he had a reasonable chance at taking silva down? i doubt it.


----------



## yorT (Apr 22, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Thats not the point. The point is he didn't fall to his back for no reason.


It's starting to get pathetic now.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> What does that have to do with what I said?
> I never siad Silva wasn't trying to end the fight with every punch. I'm going to stop replying to you now until you at least post something that makes sense.


My point is that Silva was trying to finish the fight and only reason he couldnt was when every time he tried Thales would fall down and attempt to grab a leg. This is not a takedown attempt and i wanted to show you how silly it is for you to think so. Its as silly as me believe that Silva was trying to finish the fight when he did his push kicks. You obviously didnt understand that. :fight03::fight03::fight03::fight03:


----------



## BazDaManUk (May 27, 2007)

I don't think Silva would have finished the fight at any point simply because he has stated many times he was unhappy at fighting Leites because he's a fellow Brazilian and also a good guy. This affected his mentality imo, we will see in his next fight if Silva really has gotten bored like many champions have or he wants to continue dominating. I can't see a middleweight out there that will excite him to go out there and destroy them, unless someone starts talking trash about him.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

HexRei said:


> the grab happens right as his butt hits the mat. that is NOT a takedown, lol. seriously, go to any local bjj/wrestling/mma gym and ask them if that constitutes a takedown, i can't imagine who would consider it so. that is what we call a desperation grab. by someone who is afraid to stand and either too tired or scared to enact a real shot or throw takedown.


:happy01:


----------



## evilstevie (Apr 19, 2009)

yorT said:


> It's starting to get pathetic now.


It was pathetic a week ago. Thales flopped over a dozen times, and everyone saw it.

Exept those who blindly hate Silva. 

Hatred trumps logic in all cases.

I wouldn't waste any more time on it if I were you.


----------



## mihklo (Jun 18, 2008)

evilstevie said:


> It was pathetic a week ago. Thales flopped over a dozen times, and everyone saw it.
> 
> Exept those who blindly hate Silva.
> 
> ...


i dont blindly hate andersen one bit. i have always enjoyed watching his fights except for the last 2. leites had alot to do with the way the last fight went, but i still feel andersen could have done more than what he did and that he is partially to blame for the lack of excitement in the fight. 

this is like every other argument on this and pretty much any other board out there. people are gonna have their own opinions, and no matter what is said they will keep their opinions. without these different opinions this place would be awfully boring! but in the end each person is right in their own mind.


----------



## Village Peasant (Mar 5, 2009)

Shogun's left hook probably felt like a 40 lb dumbell by the time it reached Chuck's chin.......


----------

