Jump to content

Power, Speed and Knockouts Mean Nothing


The_Rebirth_Of_K22UFC

Recommended Posts

According to some people in the Ortiz vs Evans debate thread.

 

http://forums.ufc.production.sparkart.net/showthread.php?t=91760&page=3

 

What do you think is right in this...

 

 

your logic that technique means nothing is just ridiculous....sure you want the KO but what if you dont get it....guess what the more technical fighter will outpoint you getting hit does not mean you have to hit with ko power look at GSP using the jab. i find it hard to agree with you that rashad is a better striker than liddell...liddell had landed more shots and was undoubtedly winning on points before he got hit.

 

hitting with one shot and ko'ing someone does NOT mean you are a better striker...sorry.

 

WOW' date=' no offence but that is just one of the most foolish things I ever heard. Liddell was winning on points so Rashad's KO does not mean that he was the better striker that night. Are you serious?

In a boxing match if someone has won more rounds then the other guy so far in the fight but then gets knocked out does that mean that he is still better because he was winning?!?! Really...do you realise how ridiculous what you just said is.

And by the way, Ortiz is not the great technical fighter that you make him out to be. He is not half the striker that Liddell was.

 

And you call my logic that technique mean nothing ridiculous when you are using the logic that power and speed and knocking someone out means nothing and all that matters is who lands the most punches and who was winning on the scorecards until the fight ended. And by the way, I don't think that technique means nothing. But Ortiz' technique isn't anything special anyways.[/quote']

 

 

Ok, I can't be bothered quoting the rest of it. Its in the thread. Apparently Ortiz is a better striker than Evans aswell because he has better technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meh' date=' your too anti Tito for this to be a debate, you will have a response for Rashad being better than Tito at everything.

 

 

i like both fighters and i see Rashad with every chance to win but i also see Rashad being gassed for the 3rd round if Tito makes it a grappling battle for dominant positions.

 

Rashad does not have great striking he has one punch knockout power but Tito technically is better than him on the feet, Rashad landed the hardest punch of the fight possibly against rampage but he did not outstrike him, he did not outstrike liddell he just landed the hardest punches.

 

Rashad relies on setting up the takedown then shooting, Tito relies on powering through his opponents and taking them down which is why if that happens Rashad will gas trying to stuff Tito's TD's.

 

Rashad has good foot/head movement but he is not impossible to connect with as we see in most of his fights.

 

Even if Rashad takes down Tito i do not see him holding him down and eeking out a decision that way, Tito cuts from alot more than Rashad to make 205 and on that logic is stronger guy to hold down. we saw Rashad had trouble holding down the bigger Rampage and rampage was not in shape for that fight.

 

Either way Tito made a very good decision taking this fight, if he ever had a chance to beat Rashad and i think he did anyway, going into the fight with Rashads long layoff is the est thing Tito could have done. it puts him one shot away from a title fight and if he does lose he still gets to keep his job and get a big payday.

 

Where as if Rashad wins then he is back where he was a year ago...but if he loses it takes him out of the title picture for a few fights.[/quote']

 

"meh' date=' your too anti Tito for this to be a debate, you will have a response for Rashad being better than Tito at everything."

 

Dude, thats because I'm debating for Rashad to win like I think he will and I'm not just gonna sit on the fence. Anyways, this is nothing persona against either fighter for me, I want Tito to win but I [b']think[/b] he will get dominated and I'm giving my reasons for that. No need to try and turn an mma debate into a petty little online argument.

 

And you are telling me that I am too anti-Tito to have a debate with because I have a Rashad being better than Tito at everything. WELL THATS BECAUSE I THINK HE IS!! Whats teh big deal. One fight ago Tito was the laughing stock of the division and on his way out. And now I'm an idiot for thinking that Rashad, who was the #1 contender is better than Tito at wrestling and with stand-up.

 

"Rashad does not have great striking he has one punch knockout power but Tito technically is better than him on the feet, Rashad landed the hardest punch of the fight possibly against rampage but he did not outstrike him, he did not outstrike liddell he just landed the hardest punches."

 

Thats just a silly argument. Evans just coincidently knocked out Liddell, and Forrest. It had nothing to do with him being the better striker. This is the argument taht people used against Daley aswell and its annoying because peope try and act like power means nothing in terms of striking and if you knock someone out your still not a better striker than him because he has better "technique". Look how easily Griffin was beating Ortiz up onn the feet, well Griffin is a guy who is a very good techical striker, but Ortiz isn't. His striking isn't on the level of guys like Griffin or Evans. He is too slow for those guys for a start. I guess speed and power mean nothing anymore and all that matters is Tito's supposedly great technique.

I'll post this and then respond to the rest. I'm worried that I'll end up accidently deleating all that I have written again.

 

.

"Rashad has good foot/head movement but he is not impossible to connect with as we see in most of his fights."

 

Heres the thing' date=' here are the only three guys who I remember hurting Evans recently.

[b']Thiago Silva, Rampage Jackson, Lyoto Machida.[/b] Tito Ortiz' striking is not in the same league!!! Just because Machida caught Evans doesnt mean that Ortiz will. Of coarse there is a chance that he will just like there is a chance that anyone can catch anyone but I don't see it happening. While we are throwing out this word Tito isn't even nearly as "techincal" as those guys like Rampage and Machida and he doesn't have as much power either by a long way.

 

"Even if Rashad takes down Tito i do not see him holding him down and eeking out a decision that way, Tito cuts from alot more than Rashad to make 205 and on that logic is stronger guy to hold down. we saw Rashad had trouble holding down the bigger Rampage and rampage was not in shape for that fight."

 

You could be right, he probably will have trouble holding Ortiz down. I don't think it matters though as like I said I think Evans is better on the feet.

But I will also mention that Hamill managed to hold Tito down pretty easily but this is a different fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I wanted to see what other people think about this subject' date=' because him saying that KO's mean nothing and that all that matters is who lands more punches is ridiculous.[/quote']

 

Lets say for example someone gets KOed by someone then in their next fight with that same person they destroy them with technical striking and finish them not a KO but a finish.

 

Now your going to sit here and tell me because someone gets a KO they are a better striker?

Please STFU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say for example someone gets KOed by someone then in their next fight with that same person that destroy them with technical striking and finish them not a KO but a finish.

 

Now your going to sit here and tell me because someone gets a KO they are a better striker?

Please STFU.

 

No, this all started by hiim saying that Ortiz is the better striker over Evan because he has slightly better technique and Evans speed and power means nothing basically.

And I'm saying that on that night the guy who got the KO was the better man. On that night you cant deny that. Same as a boxing match, a guy might be behind on the scorecards but if he gets a KO then he won and he was the better fighter that night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No' date=' this all started by hiim saying that Ortiz is the better striker over Evan because he has slightly better technique and Evans speed and power means nothing basically.

And I'm saying that on that night the guy who got the KO was the better man. On that night you cant deny that. Same as a boxing match, a guy might be behind on the scorecards but if he gets a KO then he won and he was the better fighter that night.[/quote']

 

Do you agree with this. Just because a guy gets a Ko does not make him a better striker.

 

If you do, we are done here. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GSP jabbed Koscheck for 25 minutes and ruined his eye' date=' pretyt much dominated him.

 

Lets say Koscheck caught GSP out of no where with a power shot and knocked him out in that fight, you think that would mean Koscheck is a better striker??? Please tell me no...[/quote']

 

No of coarse, but if GSP did knock him out then on that night then on that night he was the better man and he deserved his win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree....but I dont think Ortiz is the better striker than EVans....

 

Ok we were about to be done here lol....

 

I can not comment because Tito's striking looks improved to me and We have not seen Rashad's in over a year.

 

So I believe it would be best to see when they fight because we have not seen enough of the reinvigorated Tito Ortiz's striking and without seeing Rashad strike for a year there would be no way to accurately compare their current striking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres what im hearing.

 

TAKE JOHNNY VS BURT

 

1) johnny is outpointing burt and wins the fight.

 

2) johnny is outpointing burt and loses the fight from a KO by burt.

 

 

A) Johnny obviously had the better boxing. In both fights

B) Burt caught Johnny in #2 and KO'ed him.

 

Which is better? Well you tell me. A win is the BEST.

 

So what im saying is technique and everything all goes into boxing. If i were to outbox you but you KO'ed me. I still will have better boxing than you, but since you KO'ed me you get the WIN.

 

This thread is useless btw. idk why i responded......:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No of coarse' date=' but if GSP did knock him out then on that night then on that night he was the better man and he deserved his win.[/quote']

 

Alright and I would have to say he got lucky if he did that lol. Luck was on his side that night, I wouldnt say he was the better man if before the KO if he was getting picked apart and desimated by GSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok we were about to be done here lol....

 

I can not comment because Tito's striking looks improved to me and We have not seen Rashad's in over a year.

 

So I believe it would be best to see when they fight because we have not seen enough of the reinvigorated Tito Ortiz's striking and without seeing Rashad strike for a year there would be no way to accurately compare their current striking.

 

Ya, I'm saying I think. In terms of my prediction on the fight. Obviously we dont know for sure until it happens but I think Evans will be too fast for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright and I would have to say he got lucky if he did that lol. Luck was on his side that night' date=' I wouldnt say he was the better man if before the KO if he was getting picked apart and desimated by GSP.[/quote']

 

But the thing is, I was debating with the other guy about the Liddell/Evans fight. And he was saying how Liddell was better just because he was ahead on the scorecards. And I disagree but then all of a sudden these examples are getting used of things like this and the Kongo/Barry or Roller/Tavares fight.

Yes, I think Tavares would win a rematch with Roller because he is the better striker but Evan's win over Liddell or his win over Griffin wasn't a flukey punch like the one Roller or Kongo got.

Evans beat those guys because of his speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the thing is' date=' I was debating with the other guy about the Liddell/Evans fight. And he was saying how Liddell was better just because he was ahead on the scorecards. And I disagree but then all of a sudden these examples are getting used of things like this and the Kongo/Barry or Roller/Tavares fight.

Yes, I think Tavares would win a rematch with Roller because he is the better striker but Evan's win over Liddell or his win over Griffin wasn't a flukey punch like the one Roller or Kongo got.[/quote']

 

I am Tito fan and do not like Liddell that much but it may have been I would have to rewatch those fights again to be sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya' date=' but I think the difference is that teh first time they fought that was really still Evans the wrestler. His striking in that fight wasn't nearly as developed as it is now.[/quote']

 

Not to be arguementive with you but he just head kick knockout'ed someone when he fought Tito. So his striking was obviously doing well but after a year layoff, we have seen how that affects people poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be arguementive with you but he just head kick knockout'ed someone when he fought Tito. So his striking was obviously doing well but after a year layoff' date=' we have seen how that affects people poorly.[/quote']

 

It wasn't at the level of the striking that knocked out Griffin and who did well on the feet against Rampage aswell and made him look very slow.

Personally, I think his striking is on another level since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't at the level of the striking that knocked out Griffin and who did well on the feet against Rampage aswell and made him look very slow.

Personally' date=' [b']I think his striking is on another level since then[/b].

 

I agree with the bolded. His striking is on another level and while Tito's may not be on the same level (according to most) I do not think it that far off from what I say with Bader but again I only have one or two fights to judge it on because he looked better against Hammil and again good against Bader.

 

I also feel as I have mentioned, the layoff effects you ("cage rust") no matter if you want to admit it or not. His timing may be off, his conditioning may not be the best and I hope he really drilled his ju jits su because Tito Ortiz has good ju jits just has not had to use it until recently.

 

To be fair while he did look good in the Rampage Fight, Rampage was coming off a huge layoff, did not take it seriously and looked slow because of that. If the Rampage that fought Wanderlei or Machida fought Rashad I have a feeling it would have been a different fight.

 

The Thumbs up is for having a discussion without trolling or without bad mouthing the other person or fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually do agree that just because you K.O someone does not mean you are the more technical striker.

Eg. Henderson vs Bisping.

Technically Bisping is more sound but look what happen. Dan works best when he shoots a few take downs and then goes for that overhand right because you think his gonna shoot-you wake up with a flashlight in face.

Does it mean Henderson is more technical? No but it does mean he is very effective with his 'style'. At the end you want great technique so the power follows with it. A lot of guys can punch hard because they are just gifted with ridiculous power but not many guys have that so they need to perfect their technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...