Fighters you cant stand

[Mr. IWS]

I know this came up the other day, and at the time, I really couldnt think of a guy that i didnt like off the top of my head. Until I remembered Barnett. I cant fuckin stand this guy. Always coming off like his shit dont stink, "Feyodoor" is my best friend, blah, blah blah.

At least Josh Barnett is consistent.

For the third time in three attempts, Barnett, who at 24 became the youngest champion in UFC history, postponed Monday an appeal hearing in front of the California State Athletic Commission to address the regulatory body's decision to deny his license after an alleged positive test in July for anabolic steroids.

While Barnett's legal team cited the need to gather additional information from the WADA facility at UCLA that conducted the test as justification for delays in August and October, the latest setback was blamed on the blizzard that slammed the Northeast over the weekend. Among the many victims of flight cancellations was Barnett's New York-based legal counsel, Michael J. DiMaggio, who was set to travel to the West Coast on Sunday for the hearing in downtown Los Angeles.

Barnett's appeal was rescheduled for Feb. 22, 2010. If he fails to fight by the the end of January, it will mark at least 12 months between bouts for the talented 31-year-old mixed martial artist.

Because Barnett, who recently earned a black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu from Erik Paulson, took the July urinalysis as an unlicensed combatant -- it was required as part of the process leading up to what many considered among the most anticipated heavyweight fights of the year versus Fedor Emelianenko -- the third positive test for anabolic steroids in his 12-year career did not immediately warrant a fine or suspension.

Barnett's inability to gain licensure forced him out of the bout against the heralded Russian. It also was blamed for the eventual cancellation of Affliction's Aug. 1 card in Anaheim, Calif., knocked the clothing manufacturer out of the fight promotions business, landed Emelianenko in Strikeforce and established promotional battle lines in the latter half of 2009.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission nailed Barnett (25-4) following his UFC title-winning fight over Randy Couture in 2002 after three separate anabolic steroids were found in his system. The subsequent six-month suspension resulted in the UFC's stripping the belt from Barnett, whose contract with the promoter was up for renegotiation. A third positive exam, in 2001, during the early testing phase of the NSAC drug prevention policy, went unpunished.

Barnett denies ever using anabolic steroids, and has questioned the legitimacy of the test results in California and Nevada.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... z0fpWRqSRW
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription

[SPX]

I honestly have few thoughts on Barnett, mostly because I haven't seen that much of him being that I wasn't a PRIDE fan when the shit was still going on.

As for fighters I don't like, a few come to mind:

Anderson Silva
Jamie Varner
Matt Hughes
Shinya Aoki
Roy Nelson

. . . that's for starters.

[Mr. IWS]

Anderson? is that you Chael? LOL

I kind of dont like Hughes either. I love Nelson though.

[SPX]

Anderson? is that you Chael? LOL

I kind of dont like Hughes either. I love Nelson though.

I'm in the camp that thinks that Anderson's supposed "humility" is just a facade and he's really an arrogant prick. I actually think we're seeing this more and more lately as he's letting his true color's shine through. Also, I hate seeing someone be so dominant, though I can get over it if it's a cool guy like GSP.

I really should dislike BJ for the fact that he's a cocky fuck, but at least he is himself and keeps it real, so I cut him some slack.

As for Nelson, he's a fat fuck who's about to get shown that he can't hang with world class comp. If not in his fight with Struve, then soon after.

[Mr. IWS]

As for Nelson, he's a fat fuck who's about to get shown that he can't hang with world class comp. If not in his fight with Struve, then soon after.

Yeah, but he beat Kimbo right? Kimbo is tuff as shit from what I heard on teh intraweb.

[Mr. IWS]

Read this on sherdog. Sums up Barnett nicely IMO:

Humility is something certain people have to learn through adversity. This is particularly true in combat sports, where the central conceit -- I’m tougher than you are -- requires a minimum amount of bravado. Roy Jones swaggered on for years, untouchable, until he got stopped in succession. He’s since turned into a swell guy. Probably not coincidence.

If anyone in MMA has put themselves in a position to get knocked down a peg, it’s Josh Barnett. The former UFC heavyweight champion has tested positive for steroids no fewer than three times in his career dating back to 2002. When he melted a cup in the summer of 2009, it brought down an entire promotion. (Though, honestly, this shouldn’t really be a knock on Barnett: If an event can’t tolerate the loss of a fighter, it has no business being in business.)

Barnett has been inactive since. According to a recent interview with Mauro Ranallo, it’s someone else’s fault.

"As soon as any promotion out there stops bullsh-tting and comes correct, that's all, [I’ll fight],” he told Ranallo. “If they want me to fight, all they got to do is step up to the plate, throw me an opportunity and don't put something in front of me that's a slap in my face or ridiculous."

Let’s stretch an analogy a bit here and try to find some common ground between Barnett and the actor Robert Downey, Jr. In the late 1990s, Downey had documented issues with illicit drug use which eventually ended with his incarceration. When he was released in 2000, it was not Downey who stormed studio doors with demands for an eight-figure payday: Businesses forced to depend on human error considered him a high-risk employee. He got some TV work for a fraction of his usual compensation. (And promptly relapsed.) You know the rest of the bit. Downey eventually proved himself again, but not before circulating in smaller films and bolstering the confidence of potential employers.

Acts of criminal or moral ineptitude require a degree of contrition. If Barnett is insinuating he’s being lowballed by promotions, he ignores their need for risk assessment. If you’re popped for drugs, you cannot fight. If you cannot fight, you’ve wasted event dollars in promotion and have provoked an adverse effect on business.

It appears Barnett would prefer to skip the repaving stage and head directly to his former days of appreciable salaries. To be that audacious, you almost have to be on drugs.

[MMA_scientist]

I don't understand how anyone can hate Roy. I love Roy. He is fat, its hilarious. He may never be world champ, but he can definately hang with world class competition. He is one the very best HW grapplers out there. He has a win over Monson (an Abu Dhabi world champion) and Frank Mir in no gi submission grappling. He had Arlovski in a shit-ton of trouble before the ref decided to screw Roy. He can hang, he has already proved he can hang. Certain styles are going to give him problems though, and he won't be champion.

As for fighters that rub me the wrong way, I really cannot stand Serra. Koscheck also annoys me quite a bit. Mir, I dislike Mir's personality (or persona) a lot. I have actually met Mir, and he is a dick.

[Luke]

I don't understand how anyone can hate Roy. I love Roy. He is fat, its hilarious. He may never be world champ, but he can definately hang with world class competition. He is one the very best HW grapplers out there. He has a win over Monson (an Abu Dhabi world champion) and Frank Mir in no gi submission grappling. He had Arlovski in a shit-ton of trouble before the ref decided to screw Roy. He can hang, he has already proved he can hang. Certain styles are going to give him problems though, and he won't be champion.

As for fighters that rub me the wrong way, I really cannot stand Serra. Koscheck also annoys me quite a bit. Mir, I dislike Mir's personality (or persona) a lot. I have actually met Mir, and he is a dick.

Roy lost by decision to Munson even though he really won and was totally outclassed by Arlovski imo. The match with Mir was just a wrestling match without submissions in 2003 I dont think that shows much. Mir if submissions were involved could easily have won.

But Im with you Roy doesnt bother me

[Mr. IWS]

The Mir match was just grappling. If you wanna see some funny Roy Nelson, Look him up on Youtube grappling with Diego Sanchez...LOL

I saw that Monson fight, could have went either way, it was very close.

He had side control on Arlovski before that fight was stood up. I dont think I have seen a fight stood up when a guy had side control. He got KTFO'd right after the standup.

[MMA_scientist]

He did lose an MMA decision to Monson, but he defeated him in a submission grappling match.

Roy's match with Mir was submission grappling. They both go for subs alot, Mir nearly gets a kimura at one point. Roy has a good guard, he swept Mir. Here is is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dj5xMeXybs


Arlovski obviously dominated Roy in the striking, but the ref stood them up from side control while Roy was isolating an arm. You can't stand a guy up from side control, that is total bullshit. That is how Roy works, he is all position before submission. The ref was like "uh, you are not supposed to be winning, let me take away your dominant position." Worst stand-up ever. Roy still had 2:30 to work and Arlovski was going nowhere. I fervently oppose that standup and I reject that as a legitimate loss. Plain and simple, he had AA down for over 2 minutes, totally dominating him, and the ref stood it up because he wasn't throwing punches. There is more to mma than punching, he was obviously trying to isolate the arm for a kimura or americana.

Here is the video: http://www.mmaroot.com/andrei-arlovski- ... exc-video/
If you look at the comments, its all like WTF was that standup.

[SPX]

He is fat, its hilarious. He may never be world champ, but he can definately hang with world class competition.

I guess it depends on how you define "world-class." In a sense, you could say anyone in the UFC is world-class. After all, even the mid-level guys in the UFC could usually just go run shit in a smaller promotion. What I meant by world-class though was champs and contenders. I agree with you that he'll never be champ . . . but I say that he'll never even be Top 10. Who has Roy beat? No one important. He's lost to every top fighter he's ever faced . . . including Ben Rothwell who, while being a fine fighter, is mid-tier himself.

Not only that but he had a bad attitude on TUF, like he was too good to be in that house. If that's how he felt, then he shouldn't have signed on.

[SPX]

Plain and simple, he had AA down for over 2 minutes, totally dominating him, and the ref stood it up because he wasn't throwing punches. There is more to mma than punching, he was obviously trying to isolate the arm for a kimura or americana.

Well right or wrong, in MMA if you're not doing damage on the ground then you get stood up. That's part of the game and it's part of the sport and fighters have to adapt to that. If you're down and you are making progress then you get time to work, but if you can't get it together then the ref will stand it up. Nelson wasn't going to sub AA. AA's never been subbed by anyone in 22 fights. Roy may have been able to hold AA down until the end of the round, but that's it.

[MMA_scientist]

I disagree. Even if you are doing no damage, you don't get stood up from a dominant position. You can work for the sub without punching. If a guy has your back, he does not have to keep punching you. He can work for the choke without fear of the standup. I do not think I have ever seen a side control standup (or mount or back control) at a major show, aside from this one.

As to whether he would have been subbed, I guess we will never know. Even if he didn't, he could have regrouped between rounds and come out and got the takedown again. But, we'll never know, because the ref screwed him.

I do not think he will ever be top 10, but I could see it happening with the right matchups. Rothwell was ranked in the top 10 at the time they fought I think, or shortly thereafter. He is already top 20 though, IMO.

[SPX]

I disagree. Even if you are doing no damage, you don't get stood up from a dominant position. You can work for the sub without punching. If a guy has your back, he does not have to keep punching you. He can work for the choke without fear of the standup. I do not think I have ever seen a side control standup (or mount or back control) at a major show, aside from this one.

As to whether he would have been subbed, I guess we will never know. Even if he didn't, he could have regrouped between rounds and come out and got the takedown again. But, we'll never know, because the ref screwed him.

A couple of things. . .

1. There are plenty of complaints about standups. I don't know if I have ever seen a side-control stand up or not. I haven't paid enough attention to remember what position everyone was in. But I do know that you can get stood up from a "dominant position" because if you're on top you're in a dominant position . . and guys get stood up while they're on top all the time if they're not actively doing damage or going for a sub. Which brings me to. . .

2. All of Nelson's sub attempts were in the first round, while he got KOd in the second. Also, if you look, he's not stood up while he actually has a sub-attempt locked in. When he was actively going for subs, the ref let him work. It wasn't until he let go that the ref intervened. Was it a bad stand-up? Maybe. But not bad enough to be like, "I will not consider that a legitimate win," because if you're going to discount fighters' wins every time there's a bad stand up, or things don't go exactly how you think they should, then you'll have to throw out a LOT of wins. If there had been a bad stoppage, then I may be inclined to say the win is "illegitimate." But the fact of the matter is that AA legitimately knocked him the fucked out.

With that said, AA needs to improve his boxing defense. He gets hit too much.

[MMA_scientist]

The Mir match was just grappling. If you wanna see some funny Roy Nelson, Look him up on Youtube grappling with Diego Sanchez...LOL

I have never seen that, thanks. It was funny for a couple of reasons. Roy was not that fat then, they actually looked close the same size. Also Roy beat his ass, that was funny. He ragdolled him several times, including a pretty nice suplex. It was hilarious watching Diego get all pissed and mean mug him though. Glad I saw that, I have accomplished something today.

[MMA_scientist]

I disagree. Even if you are doing no damage, you don't get stood up from a dominant position. You can work for the sub without punching. If a guy has your back, he does not have to keep punching you. He can work for the choke without fear of the standup. I do not think I have ever seen a side control standup (or mount or back control) at a major show, aside from this one.

As to whether he would have been subbed, I guess we will never know. Even if he didn't, he could have regrouped between rounds and come out and got the takedown again. But, we'll never know, because the ref screwed him.

A couple of things. . .

1. There are plenty of complaints about standups. I don't know if I have ever seen a side-control stand up or not. I haven't paid enough attention to remember what position everyone was in. But I do know that you can get stood up from a "dominant position" because if you're on top you're in a dominant position . . and guys get stood up while they're on top all the time if they're not actively doing damage or going for a sub. Which brings me to. . .

2. All of Nelson's sub attempts were in the first round, while he got KOd in the second. Also, if you look, he's not stood up while he actually has a sub-attempt locked in. When he was actively going for subs, the ref let him work. It wasn't until he let go that the ref intervened. Was it a bad stand-up? Maybe. But not bad enough to be like, "I will not consider that a legitimate win," because if you're going to discount fighters' wins every time there's a bad stand up, or things don't go exactly how you think they should, then you'll have to throw out a LOT of wins. If there had been a bad stoppage, then I may be inclined to say the win is "illegitimate." But the fact of the matter is that AA legitimately knocked him the fucked out.

With that said, AA needs to improve his boxing defense. He gets hit too much.

I guess we just define a dominant position differently. Being in someone's guard or even half guard is considered a neutral position. You don't have any advantage just by being on top... so a standup from there is not the same as a standup from side control, which is a true dominant spot. You can sub a guy or sweep him from guard, you can't do a thing from under side control, or mount. You have to first get to a neutral position, by either re-guarding or standing up.

Personally, I think ALL standups are BS. But I don't even think there is an argument about standing a guy up from side control. If the guy on bottom wants out, he has to escape.

As for the KO, yes. BUt at that point, we were already in a BS parallel universe where Roy wasn't controlling AA. So to borrow some legal parlance, anything after the standup is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and should be suppressed.

[SPX]

As for the KO, yes. BUt at that point, we were already in a BS parallel universe where Roy wasn't controlling AA. So to borrow some legal parlance, anything after the standup is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and should be suppressed.

Well again, most of Roy's ground dominance was in round 1, not round 2. So I don't see how it really mattered. Roy may very well have won the first round on points as it is. But really, is this to say that you discount EVERY win in which there was a bad standup?

As for all standups being BS, well, that's the sport. Maybe it's me being selfish as a fan, but I honestly want some safeguard against LnP. It's fucking boring to see a dude just lay on top of someone without doing any damage. If there were no standups, would it change the outcome of a lot of fights? Sure it would. But the fighters know that that's part of the game, so once you get your opponent down you better do something with it. As long as they understand that, then it's all good.

[zY|]

If the guy on the bottom can't offer any offense or get up, then tough shit. I'm against standups almost entirely. Getting rid of shit judges who score for the guy on top who isn't doing anything would fix the problem. Look at Diego/Guida Round 2. Sure Guida was on top of Diego most of the round, but Diego outstruck him like 5-1 with power shots from the bottom. Clearly offense and winning the round, yet one judge gave him the round for just being on top and doing nothing. I believe it's getting better but still.

I'm not going to go so far as to say it was not a legitimate loss for Roy, but it was definitely the worst standup I've ever seen. I'll just blame EliteXC.

Anyways, that's just my take on it.

[MMA_scientist]

^^ I pretty much agree.

the judges are all idiots, so that it is the main problem. I think they should not reward the lay and pray, and there would be no incentive to do it. Problem solved. But this holding on and looking at the ref for help is crap, it will ruin the sport if it continues. The commissions seriously need to get some legitimate judges though.

That and referee stoppages. "Well he has hit him in the shoulder like 20 times, I guess I should tackle him very dramatically."

[zY|]

That and referee stoppages. "Well he has hit him in the shoulder like 20 times, I guess I should tackle him very dramatically."

Oh lord don't even get me started on this.