McG - Maliganiganananini sparring videos

cottagecheesefan said:
He is a blackbelt in Judo and a world class boxer/athlete.. I am prettty sure he could beat a lot of people.
Click to expand...

where the hell are you getting from he was a black belt? In all the stuff I've ever seen he just said he did a little judo/karate/bjj but nothing serious
 
mozfonky said:
one thing i learned watching clips of conor, he is super athletic, which is going to be useless, it's not going to matter how he can do cartwheels and shit in the fight. He can do some demanding stuff, i've seen it, but i also saw how bad his wind is in the diaz fight, a better gas tank would do infinitely more for him than all that hopping around.
Click to expand...

well he went 12 hard with paulie and had gas to get two 10-8s in 11 and 12, so?
 
Minowafanatic said:
Lol@ the phrasing of "since the beginning of humans". Modern humans use tools. This makes a lot of things a potential weapon. Does that mean people haven't in the past, and don't continue to fight each other with their bare hands? No. But what's your point? You don't have one. What does any of that have to do with why there's any significance in Conor McGregor potentially being able to beat Floyd Mayweather in a highly contrived scenario which has 0 chance of ever happening?

My argument can be taken out of context to say something dumb about an adjacent and different topic. That's to be expected with any argument. Your argument in its context is still dumb and meandering, and just getting blurred with self defense because you don't really have a clear idea of your own logic, just a gut feeling that it should be important with no rationality behind it.
Click to expand...

He does have a point you're just ignoring it.

Just because MMA has rules and weapons can be used in street fights, doesn't mean it's not a much closer representation of fighting than boxing. There's thousand of fights every single day that don't involve weapons, I'm not sure why street fighting is an apparent no go because MMA has rules. The rules in boxing limit fighting much further, ergo you can make the argument that is being made. Your saying it means nothing because someone could pull out a weapon, which has nothing to do with how effective the art is in the streets in comparison to another.
 
D 1 Wrestler said:
well he went 12 hard with paulie and had gas to get two 10-8s in 11 and 12, so?
Click to expand...

The official that refereed this sparring session is a vet, Joe Cortez, and he ruled it not a knockdown. You can see in the footage that he had just started to wave it off before the clip conveniently ends. Therefore, it wasn't a 10-8 unless Conor really put a beating on him for that whole round (must be very dominant) to where it could be scored as a 10-8 with no knockdown. We don't have the rest of the footage to know. Per the ABC's uniform rules (the unified rules inherit them) you aren't legally allowed to control the head while punching your opponent. In fact, it's an explicit foul. That right uppercut also didn't connect. The same hand (left) Conor used to push down on Paulie's head he also used to push him to the ground with after he threw and missed the uppercut to make it appear as if the "knockdown" came from the uppercut. Conor actually missed both punches that he threw where the left missed its mark and wrapped around the back of his head in order to muscle him around. He was already off balance and his posture was further broken by the illegal head control. No competent ref would rule this a knockdown. Knockdowns need to be both clean & clear enough for a ref to make a proper ruling on at their discretion.




Here's a list of explicit fouls in pro boxing per the ABC. Number 3 could also potentially be applicable as you can "hold" the head (headlock, hold it down, etc), though, it would normally only apply to one of the opponent's arms (what's informally known as "holding & hitting"). Conor was clearly roughing & pushing which is why Cortez didn't rule it as a knockdown.
Fouls

A foul is an action by a boxer, identified by the referee, that does not meet the standard of a fair blow or the conduct of a responsible professional fighter. Fouls may include, but are not limited to, the following types of contact or acts:

1. Hitting an opponent below the navel or behind the ear;
2. Hitting an opponent who is knocked down;
3. Holding an opponent with one hand and hitting with the other;
4. Holding or deliberately maintaining a clinch;
5. Wrestling, kicking or roughing;
6. Pushing an opponent about the ring or into the ropes;
7. Butting with the head, shoulder, knee, elbow;
8. Hitting with the open glove, the butt or inside of the hand, or back of the hand, the elbow or the wrist;
9. Purposely falling down onto the canvas of the ring without being hit or for the purpose of avoiding a blow;
10. Striking deliberately at that part of the body over the kidneys;
11. Using the pivot blow (pivoting while throwing a punch) or the rabbit punch
(punches thrown to the back of the head and neck areas);
12. Jabbing the eyes with the thumb of the glove;
13. Use of abusive language;
14. Unsportsmanlike conduct causing injury to an opponent that does not meet the standard of a fair blow;
15. Hitting on the break;
16. Intentionally spitting out the mouthpiece;
17. Hitting on or out of the ropes;
18. Holding rope and hitting;
19. Biting/spitting;
20. Not following referee’s instructions;
21. Stepping on opponent;
22. Crouching below opponent’s belt;
23. Leaving neutral corner; and
24. Corner second shouting.
Click to expand...
http://www.abcboxing.com/abc-regulatory-guidelines
 
Canelo said:
He does have a point you're just ignoring it.

Just because MMA has rules and weapons can be used in street fights, doesn't mean it's not a much closer representation of fighting than boxing. There's thousand of fights every single day that don't involve weapons, I'm not sure why street fighting is an apparent no go because MMA has rules. The rules in boxing limit fighting much further, ergo you can make the argument that is being made. Your saying it means nothing because someone could pull out a weapon, which has nothing to do with how effective the art is in the streets in comparison to another.
Click to expand...
My point on this was, in case it got lost in my wall of text, that being very good at a range of martial arts would give you advantage in a street fight, if you assume they didn't get in range of a powerful puncher without a decent guard, and assuming it doesn't end up as several people jumping in or grabbing the closest blunt object to them, neither of which is certain. No ref is clearly a benefit to someone trained in boxing.
 
I am surprised how many people are falling all over this calling it a knockdown. It's so blatantly a pull-down behind the neck that I keep watching it wondering how it is so clear to me, yet people that'd I would expect to have an even more critical eye than I do, are vehemently calling it a knockdown.

Even the ref is waving it off and not calling it a knockdown. How is this being slanted as anything else?!
 
Speedy1 said:
I am surprised how many people are falling all over this calling it a knockdown. It's so blatantly a pull-down behind the neck that I keep watching it wondering how it is so clear to me, yet people that'd I would expect to have an even more critical eye than I do, are vehemently calling it a knockdown.

Even the ref is waving it off and not calling it a knockdown. How is this being slanted as anything else?!
Click to expand...

There are similar situations like this in boxing that do incorrectly get called KDs (it's not drastically different than Roldan's supposed KD of Marvin Hagler). More important than any technicality (and by all definitions, that shouldn't be called a KD) is that there clearly wasn't anything remotely hurtful landed in that sequence (which simply confirms that he didn't hit the deck because of a punch, confirming that this has all been bullshit from day one). They'll try and bleed everything possible out of this ridiculous situation, though, as I guess they have no choice but to do at this stage.
 
mozfonky said:
i want to see some. I was gonna fight this guy a month or so ago, he had something in his hand so i just told him to put it away, i couldn't see it. He wouldn't, and I could tell he didn't really want to fight, i was also surprised at how calm and bored i felt, it wasn't exciting like it was when i was young. So, i just walked off, grabbed a chunk of concrete and ran at him with it. Streetfights ain't necesarily "fair". I saw a couple guy fighting awhile ago too, they fought for a good five minutes, it looks like they both gassed but five minutes is an eternity for a streetfight, i thought they did pretty good, and honestly, considering all the deaths and gunshots we get today, I think a good old fashioned brawl is way more desirable and even leaves both guys feeling respectful in some cases.
Click to expand...
I'll post some and gunshots and deaths were an 70s-90s thing.
Less people fight today and less people shoot each other today.
 
Robocok said:
You knuckleheads don't quit. Sunfish was the one that mentioned "in da streetz" in the first place. I already clarified that my argument for mma fighters having an advantage in a fight was in unarmed, one on one combat.

Minow trying to claim that unarmed one on one combat between McG n Floyd is unlikely therefore irrelevant is even dumber though.

Self defense without weapons or tools does matter and is the reason we come to this website in the first place. Just because a guy might have a gun doesn't make unarmed combat pointless.

I called you out on making a very stupid point that unarmed combat has no value in the real world and now you're trying to save face. It's not that my point is meandering and vague but that you're simply unable or unwilling to follow it.

Most users on sherdog are fans of unarmed combat. When it comes to true unarmed combat.. grappling and striking with punches, kicks, knees, and elbows, high level mma fighters are the kings of the mountain 9 times out of 10.

It doesn't mean that boxing sucks, but that it's only one form of fighting and will have a disadvantage by itself against other styles. There are exceptions like Mercer and Silva, but for the most part that doesn't happen.
View attachment 262367
Click to expand...
I'll post some videos of your so called "kings" of unarmed combat losing to "peasants" in the streets
 
DeJulez said:
I'll post some and gunshots and deaths were an 70s-90s thing.
Less people fight today and less people shoot each other today.
Click to expand...
statistically, thats probably true, hard as it is to believe. However, there is a different scenario to earlier deaths. some cops have said you see more senseless killing today, more psychopathic. we aren't training men to be men at all anymore, no rituals no rites of passages so who knows? maybe that's why we get some of the nuttier types of shootings we have today. they do say we are getting less violent as a species, that's kind of hard to believe, at least in some ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,885
Messages
55,452,299
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top