|
Title: Rousey v Holm Post by: Tenshot13 on November 15, 2015, 11:08:02 am Did anyone else see this? Holm picked her apart then knocked her the fuck out! That kick was beautiful. One of the biggest upsets in UFC history.
I said to my friends before the fight started that if it stays on the feet, Holm could win. It looked like Ronda wanted to prove something on the feet, but that was a mistake. Holm is a champion boxer. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: MikeO on November 15, 2015, 11:41:22 am I saw it. Rousey has her lip split in half and it had to be sewed back together and she told people close to her a few hours after the loss that she is retiring.
I'm sure the $$$$ of the rematch might change her mind about that but I was sooooooooo happy to see Ronda lose Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: pondwater on November 15, 2015, 03:57:55 pm Rousey was a "Hype Train" that was derailed.
Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Spider-Dan on November 15, 2015, 06:40:26 pm Rousey can now enter the Gina Carano phase of her career.
Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Phishfan on November 15, 2015, 09:52:04 pm Rousey chased her and continually got hit in the face. Maybe she should have trained more and stayed off the tv so much.
Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Spider-Dan on November 16, 2015, 06:10:51 am I think Rousey got too caught up in her own press clippings and forgot what her one trick is.
Because she has been able to outbox the Subway employees they've been throwing at her, she was under the impression that she is a legitimate striker; she is not. She is a world-class judoka with a nearly-unstoppable armbar. Her attempts to fight on her feet will not work against a quality striker. Even in the second fight against Miesha Tate, she was losing in the standup... but for some unfathomable reason, Tate kept diving in trying to take Rousey down. I'm just glad to see someone shut Rousey up. I'm sick of her making her mean girl face and her endless trash talking. Let's see how much she has to say now. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Rich on November 16, 2015, 08:15:13 am Don't try to outbox a boxer. If your strength is judo, get her in the clinch and get her on the ground.
Holm wanted to piece of Rousey on the ground, but Rousey wanted a piece of Holm on her feet. That decided the fight. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: CF DolFan on November 16, 2015, 09:24:19 am This fight was rigged IMO. Rousey isn't a stranger to getting hit or even beaten in the judo world and she had already planned to walk away from fighting for a while. Lot's of people thought she was acting strange at the weigh-ins and I'm betting she was just over selling it. The rematch will make her more money than all of her other fights combined.
Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Tenshot13 on November 16, 2015, 10:00:46 am This fight was rigged IMO. Rousey isn't a stranger to getting hit or even beaten in the judo world and she had already planned to walk away from fighting for a while. Lot's of people thought she was acting strange at the weigh-ins and I'm betting she was just over selling it. The rematch will make her more money than all of her other fights combined. Rigged? I think that's a stretch. Rousey thought she was a better striker than a champion boxer. That's called having a big head. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Dave Gray on November 16, 2015, 10:31:22 am Rousey is a world-class Judo fighter, but her stand-up game has serious holes. Credit to Rousey for being so good at one aspect of the game, but her ability to be so dominant is also due to the women's game just not being up to par yet. There isn't a pool of well-rounded fighters that can beat Ronda at stand-up, while simultaneously having enough still to fend off her ground attacks.
This fight is great for the UFC. It shows, more than anything, that there's a crop of female fighters coming up that will have a variety of skills. You saw the same thing in the men's game, where Royce Gracie was dominant by taking dudes who would normally beat his ass and clinging to them in positions they just weren't equipped to handle. Eventually, those guys caught up and if you don't have a stand-up game, too, you're going to find it very difficult to win. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: bsmooth on November 16, 2015, 07:13:56 pm This fight was about who could fight to their strengths. Rousey tried three times to get Holm on the ground or in a submission move, and did not succeed. Holm picked her apart standing. Had Rousey gotten Holm on the ground and been able to establish position, this fight would have ended earlier.
Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: MaineDolFan on November 17, 2015, 09:00:03 am I always find it laughable when folks think an accomplished martial artist doesn't understand the art of striking. Rousey is a 4th Dan, which is exceptionally high. To believe her art taught her only holds, locks and sweeps would mean you simply don't understand Judo (yes, it's one of the arts I study).
Holm isn't a pure boxer and didn't beat Rousey standing toe to toe with her, ala Clubber Lang. Holm really elevated her own game and, prior to that beautiful kick - Holm also managed to escape a takedown, an arm bar, landed two sweet backhand elbows (she is getting all this pub for her straight jabs, I don't think Rousey was right after the first back fist, a new trick up Holm's sleeve). Rousey is a perfectly capable striker who prefers to go to the mat; there is a difference between that and "she can't strike." In this case she committed the ultimate sin no black belt worth their salt should ever commit: underestimating the skills of their opponent. While everyone saw the big kick and punches, it was the little things Holms worked into this match, items Rousey wasn't expecting, that got her the "W." Rousey was expecting, and ready, for the "big guns." Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Spider-Dan on November 17, 2015, 11:48:25 am So here's a blog post from 4 months ago:
http://fightland.vice.com/blog/killing-the-queen-ronda-rousey In this blog post, the author describes exactly what he believes a fighter should do to beat Rousey; he picks apart the holes in her game and gives a strategy to exploit them. It practically reads like a play-by-play of the fight on Saturday. He called everything that Holm did. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Spider-Dan on November 17, 2015, 01:18:52 pm (http://giant.gfycat.com/ExhaustedWindingDassie.gif)
Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Dave Gray on November 17, 2015, 02:16:38 pm I like this gif of Rousey's boxing form:
(http://giant.gfycat.com/LiveSeveralIncatern.gif) Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on November 17, 2015, 03:42:58 pm Wow, if you told me 20 years ago any womens sport would be this popular with men to get this level of attention I would have told you that you are insane and that is as unlikely as a black president.
Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Spider-Dan on November 17, 2015, 04:35:52 pm Wow, if you told me 20 years ago any womens sport would be this popular with men to get this level of attention I would have told you that you are insane and that is as unlikely as a black president. (https://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptustenexperts/Maria-Sharapova-holds-latest-trophy.jpg)(http://gothamsn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Serena-Williams-with-US-Open-2012-trophy.jpg) Besides, I don't think that's an accurate description of the situation; there are people who don't really care about boxing but despise Floyd Mayweather. Similarly, while I'm an MMA fan and I'm quite aware of Rousey, all of her opponents save one (Tate) were total unknowns to me. Unless Holm's next fight is against Rousey (or Cyborg), I doubt any of us will be discussing it here. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Phishfan on November 17, 2015, 05:02:40 pm Besides, I don't think that's an accurate description of the situation; there are people who don't really care about boxing but despise Floyd Mayweather. I don't think this is an accurate comparison either. The people who don't like Mayweather and don't care about boxing are not discussing his technique at all. They are discussing him being a woman beater and his personality. This discussion is completely about the sport which means someone (all of us commenting) is paying attention to women's sports. So put me on Hoodie's side of this, people were paying attention to women in sports in this instance. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on November 17, 2015, 05:36:33 pm Both those photos were from relatively recently not 20 years ago. Nor in either case did the women's event eclipse the men's event.
In this case you had a fight card where the MAIN EVENT was the women's fight. That's like the the NCCA women's basketball final getting a larger male audience than the mens. Or the women's world cup getting more attention from men than the mens. Or an LPGA tournament getting more attention than a PGA one from guys. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Dave Gray on November 17, 2015, 05:39:35 pm I fully pay attention to women's UFC. It's the only sport I can say that about.
Rousey is just polarizing. She's not the best in terms of sportsmanship. And she's a media darling, despite having some serious flaws in her stand-up, that the MMA community has been barking about for a while now. So, for her to get beaten soundly in exactly the fashion that the community has been barking about is pretty noteworthy. I'll say it again: This is great for the women's game. The fact that there exists primarily stand-up fighters that can fend off Rousey's excellent judo means that the sport has come a long, long way. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Spider-Dan on November 17, 2015, 06:28:42 pm I don't think this is an accurate comparison either. The people who don't like Mayweather and don't care about boxing are not discussing his technique at all. I think it's a very fair comparison.I objected earlier both to Rousey's lack of quality competition (i.e. the sport) and to her lack of class (i.e. her attitude outside of the ring). Many people who are not "boxing fans" object to Mayweather's style (e.g. "he is boring and just turtles," a complaint about his technique) and to his general attitude and criminal history (which have nothing to do with the sport). During the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, even among casual viewers there were people rooting against Mayweather because of his style. I think it's completely fair to say that both Mayweather and Rousey generate strong opinions based on their actions outside of the ring. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Spider-Dan on November 17, 2015, 06:31:06 pm Both those photos were from relatively recently not 20 years ago. (http://slam.canoe.com/SlamTennisGrafRetiresImages/graf_14.jpg)Quote Nor in either case did the women's event eclipse the men's event. At this year's US Open, the biggest story by far was whether Serena would win. It totally eclipsed everything on the men's side.In this case you had a fight card where the MAIN EVENT was the women's fight. Women's tennis has been extremely popular (at least on parity with men, possibly even more popular in stretches) for many decades. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Phishfan on November 18, 2015, 01:22:52 am Or the women's world cup getting more attention from men than the mens. I would bet this regularly happens in this country. Our women's team gets a lot of support. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: CF DolFan on November 18, 2015, 08:44:50 am I would bet this regularly happens in this country. Our women's team gets a lot of support. No it doesn't. The men still get all the money and more support. It's crazy with all of the success our women have had. Last time I looked with endorsements aside ... Alex Morgan who is the current face of women's soccer makes less than $500,000 to play and most make far less than $100,000. They aren't bringing in the money you would expect and butts in seats and ratings equate to money. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on November 18, 2015, 08:54:43 am I would bet this regularly happens in this country. Our women's team gets a lot of support. if the men don't make the world cup and the women make it to the finals then yes the team in the finals will get more press than the one sitting home. But if they are having equal success they don't get equal attention. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Tenshot13 on November 18, 2015, 09:10:14 am I think we've gotten off topic.
So how long do you think Holm will hold the title? If I recall, she's already 34. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Phishfan on November 18, 2015, 09:29:35 am No it doesn't. The men still get all the money and more support. It's crazy with all of the success our women have had. Last time I looked with endorsements aside ... Alex Morgan who is the current face of women's soccer makes less than $500,000 to play and most make far less than $100,000. They aren't bringing in the money you would expect and butts in seats and ratings equate to money. I get that but it isn't what I meant by support. I meant compare the ratings of the Women's World Cup team against the men's. People watched that last game that I bet never watched the men play in their last tournament. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Phishfan on November 18, 2015, 09:33:12 am if the men don't make the world cup and the women make it to the finals then yes the team in the finals will get more press than the one sitting home. But if they are having equal success they don't get equal attention. Case in point, the U.S. men's team has not failed to make the World Cup since 1986 (seven tournaments) so that really isn't of discussion to think that it is because the men didn't make it. Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: Spider-Dan on November 18, 2015, 11:23:53 am So how long do you think Holm will hold the title? If I recall, she's already 34. I'd really like to see Holm vs. Cyborg, but I think Dana White correctly realizes that a loss by any of his champions to Cyborg pretty much nullifies the last 6 years of the sport.Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: MikeO on November 18, 2015, 11:28:59 am I don't see Cyborg ever making weight (135) and fighting in the UFC.
Title: Re: Rousey v Holm Post by: CF DolFan on November 18, 2015, 05:06:26 pm Case in point, the U.S. men's team has not failed to make the World Cup since 1986 (seven tournaments) so that really isn't of discussion to think that it is because the men didn't make it. Our men have always sucked while our women have been the leaders in women's soccer from the beginning but yet our women do not get the support from fans or even our country. They get much less to work with than their male counterparts although it is getting better. You'd think their 3 World Cup titles and 4 gold Olympic medals against zero for the men would be enough but after the big game everyone goes home and forgets about them while the men still get more support. Recent attendance records for home games Year Men/Women 2012 - 33,210/16,251 2013- 33,803/16,479 2014-34,374/10,657 2015- 36,030/12,986 |