I know this has been done on here before but I just watched Forrest vs. Rampage again on Spike and I still have never seen another example of a title fight that was so close that went to the challenger.
What is the argument for Forrest winning this fight given the fact that Rampage had the belt? Any parallel examples that anyone can think of?
should have been an immediate rematch. Him having to beat Wandy and now Jardine to get another shot is ludicrous. Can't say much more than that.
Yep, i'm old school. You have to beat the champ to be the champ.
Close calls...the champ should get the benefit of the doubt.
I also noticed (and maybe it was just me) that Jackson seemed a little smaller in the neck and shoulders for this fight. was he dealing with any injuries that limited his training before hand or was it another case of a Pride fighter mysteriously looking a little flat physically in the UFC?
HMIC2 - I also noticed (and maybe it was just me) that Jackson seemed a little smaller in the neck and shoulders for this fight. was he dealing with any injuries that limited his training before hand or was it another case of a Pride fighter mysteriously looking a little flat physically in the UFC?
He beat Liddell and Henderson before this fight... I think such accusations are silly in Rampage's case.
I look like a total Rampage nuthugger. I really don't even like the guy. He's entertaining, and by simply looking at the facts, that man deserves a title shot.
Irule -IRANmymouthagain - Yep, i'm old school. You have to beat the champ to be the champ.
Close calls...the champ should get the benefit of the doubt.
Or you just have to win the fight to win the belt... makes a lot more sense that way.
If you are saying that you think Forrest clearly won that fight, I just didn't see it (again).
^ I took it as him agreeing with you.
^^ My bad.
Its the same with people arguing for Franklin
you should give the champ the benefit of the doubt
oh, wait Franklin wasnt the champ
Irule -manny99 - ^ I took it as him agreeing with you.
Nope, I thought Forrest won the fight. I just hate the "close calls go to the champ argument. Two of three judges scored Forrest winning, you want them to give it to Rampage just because it was close?
Oh I miss understood. I don't really care who won that particular fight, its just that when a fight is that close, an immediate rematch should take place to diffuse any speculation as to who won.
"What is the argument for Forrest winning this fight given the fact that Rampage had the belt?"
They score by the round, they can't go back and cross out the scores at the end of the fight if the challenger won more rounds than the champ .
I don't understand it either. In my opinion, Rampage won rounds 1,3,4 and don't see how anyone can see it anyway. I guess the round in question was round 1, but Griffin threw a lot but didn't land much other than some leg kicks. Rampage, however, landed some major shots. In an ideal world, I would call it a draw being that round 2 was a 10-8 round.
manny99 - should have been an immediate rematch. Him having to beat Wandy and now Jardine to get another shot is ludicrous. Can't say much more than that.
Agreed.
I could see MAYBE him having to win one fight then get another title shot, but I wouldn't have complained if it was an immediate rematch. The fight was that close.
To have him beat Wandy so convincingly and now he's facing Jardine.....well, that's just bullshit!
I had Rampage 1& 4
Forrest 2 & 3 with 2 possibly 10-8
Forrest 5
One thing we have that the judges do not is the luxury of watching the fight over and over....watching it live, I believed Forrest won the fight....I've watched the fight twice since, and while I still believe Forrest won, I can at least look at it and see where some might attempt to argue a victory for Rampage....
I also don't understand the point in Rampage having to fight two more times, and win two more times, in order to earn another title shot....it would be different if Quinton was completely dominated in his loss, but that wasn't the case....I think an immediate rematch should have been the call....
I don't know why the UFC has sort of backed away from immediate rematches in fights that were truly down to the wire, especially title fights....in the past, we've had fights like Couture/Rizzo 2....Couture/Belfort 3....hell, even an immediate rematch for Ken Shamrock after a "controversial" stoppage in he and Tito's second fight....
We've seen it in boxing dozens of times over the years, with a bout coming down to the wire, or a split decision that could've gone either way....so, they lace 'em up, and do it again.....it's good for the sport, and good for the fans....
If nothing else, if the champ loses by a slight margin in a very close, back & forth fight, I think he should have an immediate rematch....if the challenger comes close, but is unable to pull out the victory - well, then you can tell him to go out and win a fight or two, and then come back and give it another shot....