In UFC 139 Cung Le lost to Wanderlai via knees and punches. Some of Wandy's finishing punches where in my opinion illegal: back of the head. Also Cung was still wrestling when fight was stopped. In next day Cung Le made that ambiguous statement about his back of the head hurting more then face. Most of fans and commentators said that Cung Le is all ''soar grapes'', that his traditional background wouldn't have allowed him to win anyway despite the fact that he rocked Wandy in first round, that after the knees he was done anyway, that Wandy wasn't in his prime still Cung couldn't beat him (BTW Cung is 39, four years older). A Lot of smack talk. Don't get me wrong. I like both guys very much. Wandy kneed him very hard; Cung was in huge trouble. I am not saying that Cung would have won. However it was sad to see that Cung got hard beating on his back of the head, and ref even didn't warn Wandy against those punches. If he was done after those knees stop the fight, if he wasn't done warn fighter and if needed give Cung time to recover.
Now UFC 142 is getting so controversial. Fans get on the both sides. Some say that ref was right others say that he was wrong. Dana has very strong opinion. Rogan who mentioned that Cung le in ufc 139 was stopped while still wrestling, now goes in octagon and questions referee and tell who is winner in his opinion. A lot of discussion about rules, ref job, replay possibilities.
I'm not picking sides, but I just see very different treatment for different fighters. Wandy was many peoples champ, he was going downhill in his career, and his win against Cung was very welcomed. Plus I saw a lot of hate against Cung ''unrealistic fighting style'', his previous carrier in Strikeforce, him being too much kickboxer. Any comments that too much of damage was allowed in 139, was translated as unwillingness to admit his defeat. Any comment that fight was stopped too early was translated as unwillingness to admit that ''he was done anyway''.
What do you think? No similarities between how fights ended? Not different levels of discussion about stoppage?
Now UFC 142 is getting so controversial. Fans get on the both sides. Some say that ref was right others say that he was wrong. Dana has very strong opinion. Rogan who mentioned that Cung le in ufc 139 was stopped while still wrestling, now goes in octagon and questions referee and tell who is winner in his opinion. A lot of discussion about rules, ref job, replay possibilities.
I'm not picking sides, but I just see very different treatment for different fighters. Wandy was many peoples champ, he was going downhill in his career, and his win against Cung was very welcomed. Plus I saw a lot of hate against Cung ''unrealistic fighting style'', his previous carrier in Strikeforce, him being too much kickboxer. Any comments that too much of damage was allowed in 139, was translated as unwillingness to admit his defeat. Any comment that fight was stopped too early was translated as unwillingness to admit that ''he was done anyway''.
What do you think? No similarities between how fights ended? Not different levels of discussion about stoppage?
