Everyone answers to somebody, so we, the staff at Sherdog.com, have decided to defer to our readers. “The Doggy Bag” gives you the opportunity to speak about what’s on your mind from time to time.
This week, readers weigh-in in a wide range of topics, including the controversial Georges St. Pierre-B.J. Penn bout at UFC 94, the elusiveness of Lyoto Machida, refereeing in the WEC and wonderful hate mail served up with a bottle of Probst Blue Ribbon.
Editor’s note: The first page of this week’s offering is dedicated solely to reader opinion.
Readers Sound off on GSP-Penn
If you look at the second round of the fight, Penn's legs around GSP's shoulders kept slipping away. Jackson’s camp knows that Penn's legs are dangerous! This is why Penn should have won in round two with a submission! A witch doctor should work with witches, not cheat to win!
-- J.
GSP thoroughly dominated BJ Penn on January 31, and I'm one who believes that the ill use of Vaseline had no effect on the outcome. However, I'm sure I'm not the only fight fan who has noticed a pattern with Greg Jackson's fighters. When Diego Sanchez defeated Nick Diaz in '05, Diaz made comments during a post fight interview about Sanchez feeling greasy. 18 months later, Tito Ortiz made similar, but more aggressive comments regarding now 205 lb. champ Rashad Evans, saying Rashad felt greasy during their UFC 73 draw. Now, St. Pierre falls into this group of alleged greased up Jackson fighters. Coincidences? I think not.
-- Tedros McCrary
OK so i have listened to a lot of crap coming from Penn regarding St. Pierre and his lack of heart.
But the Vaseline "controversy" is beyond ridiculous. From the opening bell, Penn was overwhelmed and did nothing in my eyes to show he had any advantage even if St. Pierre had slathered himself with Vaseline. And for [Nevada State Athletic Commission Executive Director] Keith Kizer to reference the first bout is completely pointless. Both were different fighters and GSP had the broken nose and poke to the eye.
-- Steve
What a furor has been raised by the events of UFC 94. As the sport of mixed martial arts continues its trek towards mainstream legitimacy, one of the markers of its true arrival will be when it is covered with the same depth and attention to detail as other sports. In the wake of events such as this, or the violent Lindland knockout at Affliction, it is important that the MMA community has strong central voices to turn to and rely on for information that is both timely, but moreover probing and accurate.
It is in the light of these above considerations that I felt compelled to write. A digital letter to the editor, as it were. The key to this entire controversy is that very few people seem to have actually considered the rules in question. Allegations of "cheating" are being bandied about, and official proclamations of impropriety dispensed without a reference to what codes have actually been violated. In this context without law, the discussions have been reduced to vitriol and speculation. These kinds of discussions even now overrunning popular fan-based discussion forums are I think, harmful to the community. They are polarizing. Where instead there could be healthy debate about the relative merits of the rules and their importance to the success and ascendancy of MMA, we have bickering and misinformed hysteria. I think the MMA press is an essential ingredient in the future success of the sport, and can have a role in crystallizing its fanbase into a positive mouthpiece for the sport and advocate for its success. That it be well-informed is key to this.
The Nevada Athletic Commission regulations are in fact readily accessible online, and I query why more hasn't been said of them in the MMA press? We've seen Mr. Kizer quoted on several MMA reporting sites, and perhaps most disturbingly, even the NSAC executive director seems unclear about the actual content of the Commission regulations.
He appears to have been confirming that there has been impropriety on the part of the fighter's corner, without specifying the basis for this claim, thereby fueling rampant speculation that somehow, merely the application of a greasing agent to any area but the face is in and of itself a punishable violation. Whether or not this is an accurate reading of the regs should not be left to speculation.
The regulation in question, at NAC 467.598(2) prohibits the "excessive use of grease [...] on the face or body." The remedy for a breach of this requirement, which is incorporated under the "physical appearance" heading of the regulations, is the removal of the excess grease.
In this whole controversy so far, it seems to have been lost the apparent fact that the actions of the fighter's corner are not in and of themselves prohibited. Reading the reg it seems a cornerman can put vaseline anywhere he wants. There is only a violation if it constitutes "excessive use." What constitutes excessive use? Actually an interesting journalistic question. A comparative analysis of other in-ring fouls and their relative consequences to this violation of "appearance" standards. Interesting journalistic question. These are the questions that need to be addressed by a respected voice in the community.
At any rate, as this mini-controversy has exploded over the course of the day, I've been shocked about the lack of clarity on what the rules actually are. As a fan of the sport, and someone who appreciates quality journalism, I just wanted to drop a note to commend you for the job already being done, and to say that indeed fans have a hunger for coverage with even more depth. Some fans are just in it for the clobbering, but some of us want to see in depth analysis of the rules, crediting the sophistication of the sport. What the community needs is less speculation, and more concrete commentary on what the rules are, and what violations of them actually mean. I would implore you to take up this torch.
-- Chris