Alverez should have lost that fight.

Rock the Gaspare - 29-28 Eddie. He controlled Pettis Phone Post 3.0

In the first round... Eddie wants the fight on the ground, pettis wants it on the feet.

The majority of that round was on the feet.


Eddie failing to take someone down and stalling is not "controlling"

JOESONDO - They should have docked him points for stalling. You shouldn't award that type of "fighting"


Stalling is intentionally delaying action to run the clock out without having to engage. Trying something that isn't working, or that is difficult to execute is not stalling.

kennyfrommd - 
JOESONDO - They should have docked him points for stalling. You shouldn't award that type of "fighting"


Stalling is intentionally delaying action to run the clock out without having to engage. Trying something that isn't working, or that is difficult to execute is not stalling.


As mentioned earlier, if that is the case then it was deadlocked for most of the fight, with Alverez trying to take him down and Pettis preventing it. Then Alverez was not implementing his game plan – unless it was Alverez's game plan to push him up against the fence without taking him down, in which case it was stalling.

Brock Lobster - Alvarez won the decision. It was boring and lacklustre, but he won based on grappling and octagon control. Phone Post 3.0

How is failing to take someone down octogon control?

Brockback Mountain - 
Brock Lobster - Alvarez won the decision. It was boring and lacklustre, but he won based on grappling and octagon control. Phone Post 3.0

How is failing to take someone down octogon control?

I addressed that but you didn't respond. He didn't fail to take him down. He took him down multiple times.

Bane170 -
JOESONDO - They should have docked him points for stalling. You shouldn't award that type of "fighting"
Its mma deal with it Phone Post 3.0
This. Phone Post 3.0

Brock Lobster - Alvarez won the decision. It was boring and lacklustre, but he won based on grappling and octagon control. Phone Post 3.0
I didn't think the fight was boring. I actually enjoyed the fight. Guess I'm fucking boring lol Phone Post 3.0

Brockback Mountain - 
Rock the Gaspare - 29-28 Eddie. He controlled Pettis Phone Post 3.0

In the first round... Eddie wants the fight on the ground, pettis wants it on the feet.

The majority of that round was on the feet.


Eddie failing to take someone down and stalling is not "controlling"

Obviously youre a Pettis fan and still sad that he lost.

Pettis had ZERO offence and was taken down three times in the first round.

And it wasn't stalling, it was a STALEMATE. Expecting Eddie to abandon his game plan and fight Pettis' fight and be at a distinct disadvantage is as silly as saying Pettis should have just pulled guard. I'm sure his game plan wasn't to be stuck against the fence the entire round.

Bane170 - 
JOESONDO -
Bane170 - 
JOESONDO - They should have docked him points for stalling. You shouldn't award that type of "fighting"
Its mma deal with it Phone Post 3.0

It's stalling. I'll "deal with it" by not watching Alverez fight and so will a whole lot of other people. You think the UFC likes that type of fighting on national TV when viewership is dropping as is?
He did what he had to to win. Fighting to entertain gets you koed. Why would he play into pettis's game? Not every fight will be exciting man. Its mma people will get wrestle fucked maybe he should have done a little more but a w is a w. Fight to win thats it Phone Post 3.0

No according to the UG experts you must Stand and wang, winning is not important!....lol

ChucoV -
JOESONDO - They should have docked him points for stalling. You shouldn't award that type of "fighting"
I enjoyed watching Eddie impose his game plan. Phone Post 3.0
Do u just enjoy the idea of it? Or are u saying you enjoy watching someone get pushed into a fence for almost 3 rounds with ZERO offense being generated by either guy. Phone Post 3.0

JOESONDO - 
kennyfrommd - 
JOESONDO - They should have docked him points for stalling. You shouldn't award that type of "fighting"


Stalling is intentionally delaying action to run the clock out without having to engage. Trying something that isn't working, or that is difficult to execute is not stalling.


As mentioned earlier, if that is the case then it was deadlocked for most of the fight, with Alverez trying to take him down and Pettis preventing it. Then Alverez was not implementing his game plan – unless it was Alverez's game plan to push him up against the fence without taking him down, in which case it was stalling.


I'm going to make a wild assumption that you do not fight, because you are not making sense.



First of all, Alvarez took Pettis down repeatedly from the clinch, and from pressing him against the cage, so I don't know where you are coming from in the first place.



Secondly, taking someone down, especially in a manner where you are implementing control from a specific position that inhibits movement, is a process. Sometimes that process takes time. Sometimes, inch by inch, you improve your position, and if unable, you may even continue trying. So when you say "Then Alverez was not implementing his game plan – unless it was Alverez's game plan to push him up against the fence without taking him down, in which case it was stalling."   it is actual nonsense. It literally makes no sense, and you sound ridiculous. His game plan seemed to be to limit his movement and control him, and from that position, drag him down. The fact that the dragging him down part of that plan wasn't easy does not mean he was purposefully trying to pin Pettis to the cage for the purpose of not engaging.



 

JOESONDO - 
Kid Salami - 
JOESONDO - They should have docked him points for stalling. You shouldn't award that type of "fighting"
There was no stalling in that fight. Alvarez was working hard for a takedown the entire time they were on the fence. I agree that "wall n' stall" is a thing, but it did not happen in this fight. This fight had a lot of wall, but no stall Phone Post 3.0

Fair enough. Then it was deadlocked for most of the fight, with Alverez trying to take him down and Pettis preventing it. Not sure how that is Alverez implementing his game plan – unless it was Alverez's game plan to push him up against the fence without taking him down, in which case it was stalling.


You don't see how poor the logic is of first acknowledging that Alvarez was trying to take him down and being prevented from doing so (which he wasn't) and then surmising that because he continued to try, his intent must have been that he wasn't really trying the thing that you just admitted he was in fact trying?



TJ also threw numerous strikes at Cruz in their fight that missed completely. Yet, he kept trying to hit him. That can only mean, by your logic, that he was throwing those punches that missed on purpose, to look active and stall. Otherwise, he would have bailed on the striking game plan entirely and just tried to take him down, right?

and then to make it worse. eddie wants a title shot after that. Im pretty sure dana wont allow that and just feed him to the eagle. if rda beats conor. who the hell wants to watch RDA vs Eddie? no one

Kid Salami - 
Brockback Mountain - 
Rock the Gaspare - 29-28 Eddie. He controlled Pettis Phone Post 3.0

In the first round... Eddie wants the fight on the ground, pettis wants it on the feet.

The majority of that round was on the feet.


Eddie failing to take someone down and stalling is not "controlling"

Obviously youre a Pettis fan and still sad that he lost.

Pettis had ZERO offence and was taken down three times in the first round.

And it wasn't stalling, it was a STALEMATE. Expecting Eddie to abandon his game plan and fight Pettis' fight and be at a distinct disadvantage is as silly as saying Pettis should have just pulled guard. I'm sure his game plan wasn't to be stuck against the fence the entire round.


No i am saying its a battle of control.


Eddie wants it on the ground, pettis wants it on the feet. most of the first round is on the feet.

Pettis wins on control (along with boxing alverez up in the few striking exchanges.)


Alvarez won round three because he actual did get pettis on the ground for some time and implemented his gameplan.

The problem here is how they score the fights . Under the regular mma rules they use then clearly Eddie won. 3 minutes of working for a takedown , only for the guy to get right back up for another minute of attempted takedown against the cage will win the round nearly everytime. Imo using the cage to control someone shouldn't be counted as control and a takedown shouldn't count as any points unless it was like a slam or looked damaging. We're taking about scoring a fight but no ones posted the striking stats round by round or damage done Phone Post 3.0

Alvarez/Pettis: http://mmadecisions.com/decision/6739/Eddie-Alvarez-vs-Anthony-Pettis

8 for Alvarez
9 for Pettis
1 draw.

MMADOG - and then to make it worse. eddie wants a title shot after that. Im pretty sure dana wont allow that and just feed him to the eagle. if rda beats conor. who the hell wants to watch RDA vs Eddie? no one


As far as entertainment value goes I would rather watch Eddie fight RDA, than Khabib. Or a bunch of other potential match ups.

Id like to rewatch because R2 was pretty close, maybe close enough to go either way but in R1, Eddie was pushing the action for the first 3 minutes or so pursuing the td against the cage but you could argue then after that Pettis' kicks in the remaining minutes should be weighed heavier than that 3 minutes of td pursuit.

DarkPlace Daz -
ChucoV -
JOESONDO - They should have docked him points for stalling. You shouldn't award that type of "fighting"
I enjoyed watching Eddie impose his game plan. Phone Post 3.0
Do u just enjoy the idea of it? Or are u saying you enjoy watching someone get pushed into a fence for almost 3 rounds with ZERO offense being generated by either guy. Phone Post 3.0
I enjoyed watching Eddie impose his will against the former lightweight champ. Phone Post 3.0

Wasa-B - Id like to rewatch because R2 was pretty close, maybe close enough to go either way but in R1, Eddie was pushing the action for the first 3 minutes or so pursuing the td against the cage but you could argue then after that Pettis' kicks in the remaining minutes should be weighed heavier than that 3 minutes of td pursuit.
Rd 2
Eddie 18-34 strikes 0-4 takedowns
Pettis 32-55 strikes 0-0 takedowns
Failed takedowns inherently score more points than defending takedowns because octogon control seems to be more important than who landed more strikes in a close fight Phone Post 3.0