The only thing to do is Run it back .... let’s go !!!$ get Matt a one fight deal . Play this back in vegas . Let’s go Dana .
It's like Fedor. Everybody including fellow fighters considered them undefeated. Jon will eventually lose and that dq "loss" won't mean shit.
It doesn't matter if YOU don't think the elbow was illegal.....
I’m cool with it as long as all the times he popped positive get put down as DQ losses.
superCalo -Has matt hamill heard about this? Would be shocked if he had, interesting to hear his reaction
No Matt likes the idea that he’s the only one who beat Bones.
1 Like
what about his other 2 losses?
Well I agreed the most part of his career that it should have been overturned, but he definitively lost vs Dominick Reyes and was gifted a decision, so let's call it even now.
BRZ -superCalo -Has matt hamill heard about this? Would be shocked if he had, interesting to hear his reaction
No Matt likes the idea that he’s the only one who beat Bones.
superCalo needs to stand on a chair.
maybe all fighters that were winning fights and break the rules resulting in a DQ should have their losses overturned.
why DQ them at all am I right? it doesnt matter if you break the rules as long as you were winning
yomamafool -maybe all fighters that were winning fights and break the rules resulting in a DQ should have their losses overturned.
why DQ them at all am I right? it doesnt matter if you break the rules as long as you were winning
We have a No Contest option for a reason.
Picture on the next fight card, a fighter is killing his opponent and gets DQ'd after he lands a leg kick, and everyone is confused. Then it's explained that his kick partially landed on the ankle, and you can't land on the opponent's ankle unless the kick is delivered with less than a quarter turn of windup.
Everyone would say that to enforce a DQ loss because of obscure rule that makes no sense and nobody's ever heard of, when the fighter was clearly not intentially committing a foul, is fucking retarded. And in a case such as that, a No Contest makes perfect sense.
it doesn’t matter. Everyone knows the story behind it.
BRZ -superCalo -Has matt hamill heard about this? Would be shocked if he had, interesting to hear his reaction
No Matt likes the idea that he’s the only one who beat Bones.
Somehow you missed Calo's oh so funny joke about Hamill's disability.
Should have been a NC but egg might be the only one who cares.
Quite honestly I’m not sure a clean JJ ever beats Cormier - clean JJ might be 0-2 against Cormier.
The Hammer smushed him, move on!
ranier wolfcastle -not illegal
bjm explained if the strike has an arc, its legal
only a linear strike from 12-6 is illegal
bjms explanation, not mine
I appreciate that this looks like a definitive and useable distinguishing component. However, it's not cut and dry. The human body is 3D with lots of moving joints. Which part makes the arc? The tip of the elbow? One part might arc while the other appears linear. Then there's also the issue of everyone's anatomy being a bit different, so the movement of some individuals will exaggerate an arc while others may hide it (this is both a visual/perception and mechanical issue). And then there's the issue of view angle: most curves/motions through that space are going to arc, but almost all of these arcs will appear like a linear motion from something like 1/4 to 1/2 of the viewing angles (the issue here is "projective planes").
Last, but importantly, if you zoom in on the strike it will almost always look like a curve due to random deviation in motion, whereas zooming out will almost always look linear. Almost every strike will look curved due to this issue, if you look close enough (i.e., use replay).
My point is that it's not cut and dry.
FYI: the rule is ridiculous and needs to go. It's based on TMA nonsense.
Break the rules, get penalized.
The End
Complete BS and I agree with Dana on this.
- It wasn’t an illegal strike in the first place
2. Even if it was, it should have been a point deduction
If I were Matt Hamill I would protest that win myself.