gillpad said:
Ok, I guess if you are going to talk about 'facts and logic being pretty plain and simple', you might use 'are' rather than 'is' -- sort of a basic rule of grammar. That being said, the facts aren't obvious, or we wouldn't be having so much discussion about it, and there is no logic to speak of. The only logic might have been in the ref's decision to halt the match. So what if Ken jumped up and argued right after the stoppage? How was the ref to know he would or could do that? Its not a guessing game, and this also isn't boxing, where thicker, padded gloves help to shield a head -- Tito's elbows, you may have noticed, were not padded, and they hurt quite a bit more than most punches.
Ah Yes....
You know, correcting someone's grammar on an Internet forum screams of insecurities, as does sad attempts to insult the intelligence of other posters of who you disagree.
It's kind of silly to have so much invested in this argument that it becomes O.K. to be insulting, wouldn't you say?
That said, sorry to break it to you and others, but it is pretty logical to say that the fight was stopped a bit too early.
First of all, one might want to review the litany of rules that UFC competitors must abide by, and realize that this is a sporting contest, not an unregulated blood bath:
http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules
There are many things in place that prevent fighters from getting permanently injured. Some actually say that one is less likely to get
Boxers Syndrome (for those not familiar, click here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3895196&dopt=Abstract ) from UFC type fighting then from actually boxing. The argument is that the larger gloves allow for contestants to withstand repeated head trauma that would otherwise end the fight, and it is the cumulative effect that causes the damage. Some would argue on many levels, that UFC is safer then boxing. I am not in agreement or disagreement because I don't believe the evidence is conclusive yet; I only know anecdotally that NHB fighting was more taxing on my body then boxing/kickboxing was. But none-the-less, the arguements are there.
My point is, the boxing analogy holds true because both boxing and UFC are legally sanctioned sporting contests that are both dangerous by their own rights. And in such sporting contests, the general consensus on criteria for stoppage is that the fighter should be physically unable to defend himself for a stoppage to occur. Not "Gosh... it might be dangerous if he gets elbowed to the face again" or "someone might get hurt."
If the general consensus for fight stoppage (same in boxing as in NHB, btw) doesn't hold true, then why let fighters fight at all? I hear that MTV has a new contest on TV where people do a bunch of physical skills like rock climbing and point sparring to see who is the better martial artist...we can just have PPV's for that and forget about all this sports fighting nonsense, right?
I think my point is clear. What wasn't clear was Ken Shamrocks apparent "inability" to defend himself; and that is why the stoppage was too early.
You and everyone else can disagree with me, and that is fine; I won't attempt to insult you for it. But understand that you are not thinking like a professional fighter when you do, which is what these guys are. None of these guys want a fight stopped because they are simply not winning or because they "might" get hurt. They go into these contests with the expectation of hurting someone, or being hurt themselves; getting hurt is part of the game. Plus, no one wants to win or be beaten indecisively. Ortiz would have been glad to continue to pound Shamrock until it was conclusive, and Shamrock would have rather had that happen where he might have had the chance to turn it around rather then to have the match stopped before it was conclusive. This was reflected in both interviews.
I would guess that most people who would disagree with the above have never been in a sporting contest like that before. So if that is the case, let me fill you in: people who fight competitively don't want to win or lose questionably.
Last but not least on this issue, you are right in saying that the evidence is not clear or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But that points to the notion that the fight was stopped too early as well; if the fight was allowed to continue until Ken could clearly not physically defend himself, then there wouldn't be a discussion. So the mere fact that there is points to the notion that the ref stopped the fight too soon.
But that is just my take on the issue. Feel free to disagree, but just try not to be an insult throwing *** about it if you do....
Paul
