2nd knee is clearly to the back of the head- clearly illegal. No question. 1st one looks illegal too. bottom line is you cant knee the head on the ground- you should now even do anything remotely close to it.
The 2nd knee is clearly to the back of the neck because of Renzo turning his head after the first knee.
mostly on the neck but part hit the head.
frank might have a legal case for a NO CONTEST
Thats what I'm saying and was telling him and Mo after the fight.
Oh well.
Are you really dumb enough to think that you can tell if a knee hit the head from a still photo? That is a serious question, because you would have to be one dumb fuck to believe that, or even try to argue it. You do realize that a knee can hit the head and then follow through to the neck right? you also realize that kneeing the back of the neck is an illegal strike right? How about the fact that Frank stated in the cage that he was intentionally kneeing Renzo in the head?
How about this gif that shows without any doubt that they were to the head?
That is not the best angle because of the foreshorten, I would say he could have got some of the head, but the majority is hit in the side of the neck.
You need multiple angles to judge properly.
relax with the insults
Agreed on the insults, my apologies. The overhead angle clearly shows knee/head as well. I honestly just didn't think anyone would even consider that a still photo was valid. Also the back of the neck is an illegal strike anyhow, so what difference does it make?
Also Frank states clearly in the cage during his interview that he was intentionally kneeing Renzo in the head.
My only issue is the 2nd strike if the first one is considered 'legal'.
Frank fires a legal knee (if it is) and than fires again, but Renzo turned his head exposing the back of his neck.
Frank should not get a foul for the guy tunring his head after the first one landed.
The first strike is square on the head. Frank then uses his hand and arm to position Renzo's head for the second strike. He also states clearly that he was intentionally hitting Renzo in the head.
Frank himself stated that he was kneeing him in the head, I don't really see there being much argument after that.
what someone says and where the knee actually landed are 2 different things. frank doesnt know what he is saying half the time, lol.
I wish someone had the overhead video, the only gif is from the angle you posted.
Hey Smac1,
Look at those "ineffective" knee's from the bottom.
LOL
Oh wait, they were only ineffective when Frank used his other knee. I get it now.
LOL @ you
A Fan of Frank,
I don't get your point at all.
Cheers,
Sean
But a question liquid rob, when does renzo turn his head? There's a moment after the first knee lands, that renzos head seems to move, but that movement seems to coincide with frank putting his arm on renzo's head/neck. So is the movement caused by renzo moving his head or from franks arm moving his head?
Also, from what I've seen, between the time when frank removes his arm, to when the second knee lands, I don't see any movement of renzo's head prior to the blow. Do you see this differently, or does another angle give you a different feeling about the timing here? thanks
This is getting to be like the JFK assasination tape
My point is that you have been saying that the knees from the bottom were ineffective and non-damaging, and therefore didnt score. Yet the exact same knee strike to the head was illegal, but damaging. So why is that knee damaging, but the knees to the body dont count for shit. Maybe because that puts a big ass hole in your arguments.
You have lost.
"But a question liquid rob, when does renzo turn his head? There's a moment after the first knee lands, that renzos head seems to move, but that movement seems to coincide with frank putting his arm on renzo's head/neck. So is the movement caused by renzo moving his head or from franks arm moving his head?
Also, from what I've seen, between the time when frank removes his arm, to when the second knee lands, I don't see any movement of renzo's head prior to the blow. Do you see this differently, or does another angle give you a different feeling about the timing here? thanks"
In the video from the overhead angle Renzo clearly turns his head on his own power than frank pulls the head and fires the 2nd knee.
'back and to the left' lol
SMAC'D-1
And btw for like the 5th time. I am just as big of Gracie fan as I am a Shamrock fan. I am able to watch this fight without any bias, something that you cannot do. This is why your arguments are weak.
"
In the video from the overhead angle Renzo clearly turns his head on his own power than frank pulls the head and fires the 2nd knee.
'back and to the left' lol"
Gotcha, if that's true maybe the ref had less leeway because he thought that although renzo moved his head, frank still had his arm around it prior to throwing the second knee, suggesting that he may have still had some awareness of the head's new position. But I'd like to see that other angle at some point.
.
"Yet the exact same knee strike to the head was illegal, but damaging. So why is that knee damaging, but the knees to the body dont count for shit. Maybe because that puts a big ass hole in your arguments."
Actually they were totally different strikes from a different position. All knees are not the same just like all punches are not the same. The fact that you state that I lost pretty much makes everything you say invalid. It proves that this is about winning an argument to you and has nothing to do with coming to the correct conclusion.
You state that you are unbiased, and then make a statement that only a biased person would ever make.
Notice that I am able to have a very reasonable discussion with liquidrob even though we disagree.
You seem to have no interest in the truth, or reasonable discussion, you only seem interested in arguing, and you seem more than willing to lie and make stuff up as you go along to support your position.
It's really boring to attempt to engage in meaningful discussion with someone who acts like you do.
I am biased in this case, I'm not denying that... but that does not mean that I am wrong, or that my points are not valid.
You add nothing to the discussion, quite frankly you are a distraction to anyone on either side of the issue.
Tell me once where I lied.
I guess I have distracted people by making points that go against what you say.
I started a thread "Shamrock Dominated?" and your first response was "Fail". This was nothing worth adding to the thread, no point was made, just a dumbass remark. I asked you a simple question on that thread, that you couldnt answer without changing your position, so you didnt answer (figures).
I add nothing to the discussion?
I believe that I am the only person on this forum that has broken down the first round of the fight in every aspect, but you are correct I added nothing.
"I am biased in this case, I'm not denying that..."
okay you are biased which means that no matter what points are made, you will never see the light.