Do you really believe that Valentina isn't going to learn from this?

[nostradumbass]

She probably will, and will probably actually “win” a rematch with Taila. But, Taila won that fight. It’s just a shame that when fighting certain champions. The challenger must win 4 rounds, in the hopes of being given 3 of them. Because winning only 3 rounds isn’t enough against the UFC’s little darlings.

19 of 27 media scoring had Valentina winning, 2 of 3 official judges had her winning.

http://www.mmadecisions.com/decision/13234/Valentina-Shevchenko-vs-Taila-Santos

Significant strikes were 77 to 55 for Valentina, 3 TDs each, Santos was beat up after the fight while Valentina looked fine. Santos outgrappled her to win round 1 and I'd have given her the nod in round 3, but she only definitely won the 1st.

People get too excited when a huge underdog does well and are way too quick to grant them a win just for holding their own. It was a close fight, but Valentina clearly won rounds 4 and 5 and Santos clearly won the 1st, so she needed the judges to give her both of the rounds that could have gone either way.

 

[Shaddows]

You haven't made a single valid argument, and now you just devolved your responses into insults. But you are the smart one...

nah, kid.
You are the one who started with the argument "agree with me or you don't know what you are talking about".
That's a dumbass statement by someone who thinks of himself just too fucking much.
And if you have this attitude, it is obvious that YOU are unwilling to listen.

 

[Iroh]

Yes you're absolutely correct imo. BUT there's still controversy within the fight that needs to get settled. Like the unfortunate head clash that changed the course of the fight. Or allegedly. These are things that people won't shake off until they fight again.

Yeah, that headbutt is indeed unfortunate. Though as I don't think it was intentional, unlike say certain eye pokes in certain fights which often don"t even really get requests for rematches but warrant them more, IMO, it still influenced the fight. So yeah, that's a good reason for it, too. Though stillI I'm okay with either.

 

[Iroh]

nah, kid.
You are the one who started with the argument "agree with me or you don't know what you are talking about".
That's a dumbass statement by someone who thinks of himself just too fucking much.
And if you have this attitude, it is obvious that YOU are unwilling to listen.

Don't listen to me. Listen to the video I posted and listen/read the scoring criteria. Those are the rules, bud. Can't just create your own narrative that doesn't follow the rules.

Didn't say agree with me even once, BTW. I'm just saying you are wrong, because you're making arguments towards StonedLemur that don't comply with the actual rules set out to judge fights.

And you are on your high horse because you think your opinion matters more than Valentina's opinion, while she is just basing her opinion on the actual scoring criteria and you'd know that if you knew the scoring criteria, but instead you just said she was making excuses .

It's funny that you keep ignoring how incredibly arrogant your post was that I initially responded to and now try to turn it around on me. Despite me pointing it out repeatedly. You want to pretend that we all just have our opinions on how to score fights and it's all so hard to guage, but you were acting like she just needed to accept your exalted opinion as it would bestow honor upon her.

 

[StonedLemur]

And Taila wont? I believe Valentina wins the rematch but everyone pretty much saying that the only one that will get better is Valentina is kind of silly.

No sir, my thread was a reply to all the people saying she outright lost.

Both will make adjustments, but Valentina has shown herself to be incredibly hard working and very bright.

 

[StonedLemur]

19 of 27 media scoring had Valentina winning, 2 of 3 official judges had her winning.

http://www.mmadecisions.com/decision/13234/Valentina-Shevchenko-vs-Taila-Santos

Significant strikes were 77 to 55 for Valentina, 3 TDs each, Santos was beat up after the fight while Valentina looked fine. Santos outgrappled her to win round 1 and I'd have given her the nod in round 3, but she only definitely won the 1st.

People get too excited when a huge underdog does well and are way too quick to grant them a win just for holding their own. It was a close fight, but Valentina clearly won rounds 4 and 5 and Santos clearly won the 1st, so she needed the judges to give her both of the rounds that could have gone either way.

Well said sir.

 

[flairleguccijoints]

Why do you care what the fans believe, or is this some weird attempt at reverse psychology to assuage yourself?

 

[StonedLemur]

Why do you care what the fans believe, or is this some weird attempt at reverse psychology to assuage yourself?

Why do you care what I wrote, or is this some backwards ass way of talkin to talk?

 

[flairleguccijoints]

Why do you care what I wrote, or is this some backwards ass way of talkin to talk?

You tell me, you’ve seemed to mastered it without answering the first question.
Sherdog is thousands of users, there is no “you”, so again who are you talking to?
Assuaging your concerns after that fight, it’s cool you won’t admit that’s why you started the thread, no need to invent strawman.

 

[StonedLemur]

You tell me, you’ve seemed to mastered it without answering the first question.
Sherdog is thousands of users, there is no “you”, so again who are you talking to?

I was asking a general question to people that thought she lost, and also the ones that flat out hate her sir.
Im pretty sure I'm still allowed to do that, yeah?

 

[cade187]

People seem to believe that adversity makes everyone better. The truth is adversity makes most people worse.

 

[StonedLemur]

People seem to believe that adversity makes everyone better. The truth is adversity makes most people worse.

Historically its made Valentina better sir.

 

[Shaddows]

Don't listen to me. Listen to the video I posted and listen/read the scoring criteria. Those are the rules, bud. Can't just create your own narrative that doesn't follow the rules.

Didn't say agree with me even once, BTW. I'm just saying you are wrong, because you're making arguments towards StonedLemur that don't comply with the actual rules set out to judge fights.

And you are on your high horse because you think your opinion matters more than Valentina's opinion, while she is just basing her opinion on the actual scoring criteria and you'd know that if you knew the scoring criteria, but instead you just said she was making excuses .

It's funny that you keep ignoring how incredibly arrogant your post was that I initially responded to and now try to turn it around on me. Despite me pointing it out repeatedly. You want to pretend that we all just have our opinions on how to score fights and it's all so hard to guage, but you were acting like she just needed to accept your exalted opinion as it would bestow honor upon her.

Nah, kid. That's what you took from my post, which is not even close to what I meant.
And because you took my post (which was not even directed to you) as an arrogant post, you responded with an attitude.
I don't care who you are or how much you think you know. But you are the one that keeps stating "I don't know" the rules merely because it disagrees with how you see.
Then you tell me I am the arrogant one.
SO curb your attitude, and we can discuss the nuances of the rules (or the point I made for Valentine which you keep trying to defend so valiantly).... you do know she does not care about my point at all... or yours for that matter, right???

 

[Iroh]

Nah, kid. That's what you took from my post, which is not even close to what I meant.
And because you took my post (which was not even directed to you) as an arrogant post, you responded with an attitude.
I don't care who you are or how much you think you know. But you are the one that keeps stating "I don't know" the rules merely because it disagrees with how you see.
Then you tell me I am the arrogant one.
SO curb your attitude, and we can discuss the nuances of the rules (or the point I made for Valentine which you keep trying to defend so valiantly).... you do know she does not care about my point at all... or yours for that matter, right???

Lol, it's very plain language you were using. No need to backtrack. Stand by your words instead of trying to weasel out of it. Though it's all you have been doing this entire time...

I give a short description of the video with a side note that it's weird that it took him a second watch for him to come to the conclusion he did. You instantly try to twist it into me disagreeing with him, while anybody with common sense could understand I wasn't disagreeing with him because he eventually came to the same conclusion, as I stated. I then explain this to you even though this was obvious. You straight up ignore it. And ignore the whole substance of his video to begin with. No argument on the content. Just immediately either intentionally, or just because of poor reading comprehension, twist it in order to not have to address the content and the actual arguments, weaseling yourself out of an actual discussion. Classic deflection.

Ironic that the YTer's name is The Weasle.

You can see it as an attitude, I see it as just being direct and not pussyfooting around the subject. You couldn't handle it. You couldn't make a substantive argument and you became triggered as hell.

Buddeh, never said or implied she cares about any of our opinions. That's a strawman.

Also, not merely because you disagree, I have already stated that you are making arguments towards stoned lemur, that show you don't know the scoring criteria, like your weird argument about Maia also a strawman, because nobody said that damage is the only criteria, but it is the main criteria, you'd know that if you knew the official scoring criteria. And also because you said Valentina was making excuses while she literally just was basing her explaination on the scoring criteria. You dismissed that. Though you will undoubtedly try to backtrack and deny it now and say you didn't mean it that way. Bud, are you related to Amber Heard by any chance? This cognitive dissonance you're exhibiting really is similar to hers.

Have you watched the video yet? With what do you disagree? If you want to argue nuances, you could have already done that based on that video.

 

[Shaddows]

Lol, it's very plain language you were using. No need to backtrack. Stand by your words instead of trying to weasel out of it. Though it's all you have been doing this entire time...

I give a short description of the video with a side note that it's weird that it took him a second watch for him to come to the conclusion he did. You instantly try to twist it into me disagreeing with him, while anybody with common sense could understand I wasn't disagreeing with him because he eventually came to the same conclusion, as I stated. I then explain this to you even though this was obvious. You straight up ignore it. And ignore the whole substance of his video to begin with. No argument on the content. Just immediately either intentionally, or just because of poor reading comprehension, twist it in order to not have to address the content and the actual arguments, weaseling yourself out of an actual discussion. Classic deflection.

Ironic that the YTer's name is The Weasle.

You can see it as an attitude, I see it as just being direct and not pussyfooting around the subject. You couldn't handle it. You couldn't make a substanive argument and you became triggered as hell.

Buddeh, never said or implied she cares about any of our opinions. That's a strawman.

Also, not merely because you disagree, I have already stated that you are making arguments towards stoned lemur, that show you don't know the scoring criteria, like your weird argument about Maia also a strawman, because nobody said that damage is the only criteria, but it is the main criteria, you'd know that if you knew the official scoring criteria. And also because you said Valentina was making excuses while she literally just was basing her explaination on the scoring criteria. You dismissed that. Though you will undoubtedly try to backtrack and deny it now and say you didn't mean it that way. Bud, are you related to Amber Heard by any chance? This cognitive dissonance you're exhibiting really is similar to hers.

Have you watched the video yet? With what do you disagree? If you want to argue nuances, you could have already done that based on that video.

OK, kid.
Your first words are "no need to backtrack" and you tell me I am the arrogant one?
Kid, I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post, because my answer is same as I gave you above: Fuck you.

 

[Iroh]

OK, kid.
Your first words are "no need to backtrack" and you tell me I am the arrogant one?
Kid, I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post, because my answer is same as I gave you above: Fuck you.

 

[cade187]

Historically its made Valentina better sir.

I’m not saying she won’t get better from this, but it’s definitely not a given. And in general, the idea that adversity makes people better is mostly false. It does make some people better though.

 

[StonedLemur]

I’m not saying she won’t get better from this, but it’s definitely not a given. And in general, the idea that adversity makes people better is mostly false. It does make some people better though.

I agree that it hurts some people but Valentina has proven that she's honest enough with herself to grow from these situations sir.

 

[Judoka1532]

I agree to an extent. Santos was getting the better of her in the clinch and often when she was going for a hip toss, but when Valentina used inside trips more towards the center, it worked pretty well for her and she ended up on top in guard or half guard and didn't get her back taken, I think. She just needs to limit the choice of takedowns, because Santos' length and grappling skill helped her get the better of the rotations in the tosses and scrambles, because she could reach and create leverage where Shev couldn't.

Yea I mean val can still fight in every aspect. Lesser women would have got sub'd.

The largest issue to me is that she was clearly a better striker, and at that point you have to exploit your opponents weakness instead of playing into their strengths. Even if both are weak, or both are strong, exploit the weaker of the two.