July 6th, 2008, 12:46 AM
I can't either. I'm a big fan of his, but I honestly still don't see him winning that fight. I watched it two more times and I just can't understand it. Round two? Sure. Maybe another? Ok. At best I could give him two rounds. It just didn't seem like he did anything more than Rampage and, when fighting for the belt, you gotta beat the guy. He just didn't do it.
Originally Posted by ASUcruz
July 6th, 2008, 12:52 AM
ok. i don't normally watch this stuff, but i was at a party tonight and they had it on.
1) the 2nd (i think?... pardon me, i'm too drunk to recall properly) match, there was so so so so so much blood. i've worked in the medical field and srsly, that made me queezy. the dude he was fighting had a bleach blonde curly fro that ended up looking like a red tinged snow cone by the end of the match due to absorption of the other guy's blood. NASTY!!! yet... mesmerizing... it's like a car wreck. you can't help but look...
2) that forrest guy didn't seem like he ought to have won... but it didn't look too decisive either way...
July 6th, 2008, 01:16 AM
Round 2 I think was a clear 10-8 round for Forrest. So if you give Forrest another round it's basically a draw.
Originally Posted by SmytheKing
I think round 3 could have gone either way. 4 was a clear Rampage round. I think Forrest was winning round 1 until he got dropped.
Round 5 I gave to Forrest. I think he out hustled Rampage in that round.
I don't really buy into the whole theory of "you have to take the belt from the champion". Forrest had the most dominant round of the entire fight, and of the rounds he could have lost only round 4 was a dominant Rampage round.
I think the fight was closer than the scores indicate, but I do think Forrest winning was a fair result.
I don't like immediate rematches, but I wouldn't mind one in this case.
July 6th, 2008, 01:43 AM
I agree that the fight was closer than the scores indicated too. It's another example of having to do something about the 10 point must system.
Originally Posted by ASUcruz
As far as the 10-8 round, I don't know man. Forrest controlled the entire round sure, but did he do anything of note during it? He had Rampage mounted, but wouldn't posture up because of the fear of being bucked off. All he did was land shots that he could have if he was in full guard. If someone sat in guard for two minutes, they would have been stood up. It's my same thought about takedowns. If you get one, and fail to do anything with it, it shouldn't be counted for much. Forrest had a DOMINANT position for two minutes, and didn't even come close to finishing. Can you think of any other time where you've seen someone in mount for that long and they didn't land any dangerous shots?
July 6th, 2008, 02:36 AM
I think the judges went for the overall control and aggression. I thin Forrest won it clean, not all rounds of course ...but clean. I don't think Jackson had a problem with it, I think he knows he got beat. Either way, great fight!
July 6th, 2008, 06:14 AM
Wow. Just...wow. Congrats to Forrest. I had Forrest winning rounds 2, 3 & 5. But seriously, what was that judge watching that scored it 49-46 for Forrest?
ASU is right, round 4 was definitely Rampage, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "dominant." Forrest was the one going for the takedown, not Rampage, Page was just able to end up on top. Forrest did a great job of controlling Rampage's wrists to avoid any real damage due to GNP, he had the triangle attempt which was locked in tight, and when Rampage went for the slam, Forrest more or less nullified it. Then Forrest almost had the omoplata. Rampage did a great job of avoiding the submissions, and did land some GNP, so I gave him the round, but Forrest wasn't just sitting there taking it.
Smythe, Forrest did attempt a couple of americana's when he was in the mount as well.
July 6th, 2008, 11:07 AM
I guess my overall thought is that, even though Forrest did what he did in the mount, there was never any danger of Rampage losing. None of the punches were doing a lot of damage, and he sub attempts from there weren't too much of a threat either. So, if Forrest gets credit for nullifying a slam, doesn't Rampage get any for nullifying the sub attempts? I'm just saying that I don't think that is a 10-8 round is all. No doubt Forrest won it, just not by that score.
Originally Posted by OvertimeHero
For me though, that fight is too close to call, but if I had to pick it, I'd still say Rampage. By a hair, but still. Part of me thinks I'm saying that because Forrest had a guy with a busted knee middle of the second round and didn't really press the fight after that. Maybe I was disappointed.
Also, here are the punch stats from the fight. While not telling anything but numbers, still interesting to look at.
July 8th, 2008, 04:10 PM
FYI, as of today, still $50 seats available for the Affliction show. I've got my tickets (and plan to move down if they don't already force me to), but I still say this will be a monumental failure financially.
July 8th, 2008, 10:30 PM
July 9th, 2008, 01:04 AM
Terrible, there have been so many BS decisions lately. Gotta give credit to Rampage for not bitching about it. The fight was definitely much closer than the scorecards indicated.
The judge that gave Forrest 4 rounds needs his eyes examined.