|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Jan 5, 2014 0:47:55 GMT -5
I will go read your novel Pheonix.... but I gotta say from here and now, I'd say she lost. Not in a good way. But she lost. People loose badly. I won't be pushing play... lol seeing that once was quite enough, thank you. (as was Psycho Sid breaking his leg jumping off the top rope in a wrestling match. Yech.) Again, as I explained in the other thread, it has less to do with her losing than you'd think or that Sandman would lead you to believe. Sarah's lost plenty already and she'll likely lose again; her losing the fight was never the real issue at all.
|
|
Ferocity
Black Belt (5th Degree)
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by Ferocity on Jan 5, 2014 18:25:57 GMT -5
It is about her loosing. Or it wouldn't fucking matter. If she hadn't LOST and in that way then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I would love to know how within the sport this fight was 'unfair'. It is one of those things that seems unfair, because life sucks sometimes, but it is in NO WAY unfair according to the rules of MMA. It sucks but is not unfair- it follows all the rules that everyone knew.
Then we have a booker, who out of the goodness (or supposed goodness) of his black heart offered a rematch based on conditions which WERE NOT MET. (also I am sure he regrets this more than Dana White has EVER regretted anything).
The rematch DOES NOT OCCUR because the conditions of it happening were not met.
Where does any of the unfairness or supposed underhandedness happen?
|
|
|
Post by xx - Team GAP on Jan 6, 2014 2:42:07 GMT -5
ok so if carano had of lost due to a cut in 30 seconds would anyone be bitching?... and don't say no cause you damn well all would be.. Kruze is trying to do the right thing for all ofus.. and not just himself. (although I know some things may look that way)
lets all accept it, that it was a controvertial win for carano.. and realize a rematch shouldbe done in order to facilitate rules that change the game and make it better. I don't want to see garbage calls ruining the fun.
|
|
Ferocity
Black Belt (5th Degree)
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by Ferocity on Jan 6, 2014 9:26:25 GMT -5
I typed a response and then realized I was going to say the same thing over and over again.
Please follow the rules as they exist. Change them for next time. It's not an issue if D'Alelio is good enough to win a tournament and therefore have a chance of beating Carano.
Nothing unfair happened.
I don't think I can be any clearer. So: If the match happens I will be pissed, also, I will expect special treatment whenever I want it. But I'm pretty much done talking about it, as obviously there is not going to be an agreement on this topic. Good luck everyone.
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Jan 6, 2014 11:28:58 GMT -5
Let's all just accept that your fighters suck and mine are better.
|
|
Ferocity
Black Belt (5th Degree)
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by Ferocity on Jan 6, 2014 19:04:19 GMT -5
Let's all just accept that your fighters suck and mine are better. absolutely!
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Jan 6, 2014 20:17:03 GMT -5
ok so if carano had of lost due to a cut in 30 seconds would anyone be bitching? No, because just as when Anderson lost due to a cut, the owner of that fighter would accept the loss and move on. It's not that hard to do, really. And more importantly, people are glossing over a key point Ferocity made. If you think the rules are flawed, you discuss a change FOR NEXT TIME. You do not rewind the clock and redo a bunch of shit, or rematch it in the process of adding your own new rule. This is the same vein as the ML problem, where rules were changed so GAP and PHX could have ML predictor points, despite not meeting the required predicting numbers for that event. Interesting pattern here.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Team GAP on Jan 7, 2014 9:27:48 GMT -5
LIES!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by xx - Team GAP on Jan 7, 2014 9:40:19 GMT -5
And more importantly, people are glossing over a key point Ferocity made. If you think the rules are flawed, you discuss a change FOR NEXT TIME. You do not rewind the clock and redo a bunch of shit, or rematch it in the process of adding your own new rule. Maybe it's you who is glossing over key points as well as ferocity.. I think the rules are flawed. Phoenix thinks the rules are flawed. AND most importantly.. you do not discuss a change for next time.. you act immediately to fix any wrong doing or any flaws in the system as soon as it is noticed. which is what happened. there is no rewinding of the clock.. if phoenix was rewinding the clock he would say that any previous fights that happened due to the same thing happening need rematches also. but that was not said. immediately fixing something is the right thing to do. plain and simple. Now tell ya what sandmen.. since you like being on the hot seat. ferocity said if the rematch happens she will be pissed... and if the rematch doesn't happen.. i'll be pissed.. since your the big wig around here it's your problem to come up with a solution where both ferocity and myself are satisfied. Not picking ferocity's side and saying she's right but working it out and making it right for both sides... Such as: We are not rematching the fight but we will fix this situation by putting sarah directly into the finals of the next women's tourney. AND putting a rule up on the site where this situation will not happen again. therefore fixing everything..Give a little and take a little to make it all work out. BE FAIR!!!! THIS SITUATION NEEDS TO BE FIXED AND NOT IGNORED.
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Jan 7, 2014 11:27:46 GMT -5
NO YOU!
|
|
Ferocity
Black Belt (5th Degree)
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by Ferocity on Jan 7, 2014 16:47:49 GMT -5
People's inability to accept that sometimes things suck amazes me.
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Jan 7, 2014 20:28:47 GMT -5
[BE FAIR!!!! THIS SITUATION NEEDS TO BE FIXED AND NOT IGNORED. I am being fair. I am listening to the league, rather than Phoenix's bullying, and his cohort. 3 people outside of PHX and myself voted. 2-1 against an immediate rematch. The solution for PHX is to EARN ANOTHER REMATCH. He is not being ignored, he is just not bullying his way into an immediate rematch. Nor are you, his clearly biased protege.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Team GAP on Jan 7, 2014 23:03:17 GMT -5
BUZZER SOUND....... WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so very wrong... fairness is looking at both sides of an arguement and making it work for both sides... that has not been done. you are only taking your own side and saying your side is fair when it really isn't.. i'm not bullying anything.. i'm simply explaining myself and stating my opinion.. and hoping that you can learn how to be fair to BOTH sides. and not be biased.
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Jan 8, 2014 0:54:16 GMT -5
Side 1: She should get a rematch. - A direct rematch was offered, based on 3 conditions being met (Me, PHX, and the league not objecting). Only 2 were. Failed. Done. - A different route was suggested for PHX (that he be creative and find a way to earn his rematch now with the infrmation available in N1C (i.e. CHALLENGE ZOILA FOR HER #1 CONTENDER SPOT). PHX did not listen to this suggestion, nor offer a viable solution in time for the fight to take place. Failed. Done. - Time refused to stand still while a viable solution was presented, or even rationally discussed. A bickery bitch fest took place instead of presenting alternative solutions to the "problem". The timeline for a rematch expired. No time for fight. No rematch can happen. Done.
Side 2: She should EARN her rematch - 2 of 3 members feel this way, majority wins. Done. - Historically, this has always been the case. Precedent. Done. - No special rules were made or altered for anyone else, and no complaints were tabled by yourself or PHX at the time of those previous examples. Does it look like PHX is giving himself special treatment? Yes. Do we give staff special treatment? No. Done.
Side 3: Changing rules - We do these when we notice a problem MOVING FORWARD. Not in an effort to get a self-serving rematch. Always has been that way, always will be. Done. - We have to agree there is a problem. This has not been done. Only 2 members of 11 seem to be saying there is one. Want change? Post a poll, as we always have done in the past. THEN impliment change moving forward, not backwards. Fair? Yes. Done. - We change rules when the time is right. 1 event before a title fight is not the time, nor the place for a rematch. Common sense ignored. Change rules in this case? Of course not. Done.
If anything done over this whole scenario was unfair, it was me offering a rematch I was not in the position to offer. The league spoke up and felt it unfair, so the offer was withdrawn. Everything was done correctly in that case. It is done now. If you want change MOVING FORWARD, get some information gathered and post a poll with solutions for the NEXT TIME something might happen. Because as everything stands, the rules, the history, the precedent and the protocol for this circumstance was followed exactly as it always has been. There is nothing unfair about that.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Jan 8, 2014 1:00:28 GMT -5
im not biased I just want o know why Sarah is warranted a rematch and hughes-franklin fight wouldn't be they both ended in cuts so whats the reasoning other then it was a title fight your trying to make a rule like no cut but cuts happen and stop fights so im not biased at all you just seem to think that
|
|