Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

UFC 98 Prediction Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UFC 98 Prediction Thread

    I haven't actually posted anything UFC at this site before. I've been a big fan for a long time and regularly write up previews to the PPV. I like to see how close I am to being right. Anyways, I hope anyone who appreciates the UFC appreciates what I've written.

    I do all my records according to Sherdog, who I know aren't exactly correct, but they're much easier to access than other sites.

    David Kaplan (2-2) vs. George Roop (8-4)

    Diamond Dave Kaplan comes into this fight with a UFC record of 0-1. In his last fight, he succumb to a Junie Browning arm bar in the 2nd round. Kaplan has a solid chin, good striking power. He must improve his submission defense if he hopes to make much of himself in the professional rankings. Could benefit from some seasons in lower MMA organizations, like the WEC.

    George Roop comes into this fight with an 0-1 UFC record, losing his last fight by Split Decision to Shane Nelson. Roop has decent hands and heart. There are concerns about his overall skill, such as his ground game. Against lesser opponents, he's had good success on the ground, but is it UFC level?

    Prediction: I'm going to go with David Kaplan. I think his problem in his last two fights stemming from TUF and TUF finale is that he's had to go up against Phillipe Nover and Junie Browning, two fighters who have alot of potential. I don't think Roop has that much potential, and overall isn't very skilled, while Kaplan has good wrestling, his submission defense could spell trouble, seeing as it isn't that good. I'd say he should have an advantage against someone like George Roop, who could be controlled on the ground and doesn't have a strong chin, which should open up Kaplan's wrestling and powerful hands on the ground.

    I'm going with a TKO, round 3, Kaplan wins.


    Brandon Wolff (7-3) vs. Yoshiyuki Yoshida (10-3)

    Brandon Wolff comes into this fight with a UFC record of 0-1. After taking a beating from Ben Saunders, losing via TKO (knee) in the first round, Wolff will look to return strong against UFC vet, Yoshida. Wolff has good hands, and trains with BJ Penn in Hawaii. Not known much as a ground fighter, Wolff's camp should keep him fluid in BJJ. His takedown defense might be his greatest hurdle in this bout. His weak chin might also be a concern of his.

    Yoshiyuki Yoshida comes into this bout with a UFC record of 1-1. Yoshida is highly reguarded for his judo. Also in his ansenol are good hands and good jiu-jitsu. Concerns for him would be his chin, after being brutally knocked out by Koscheck, which was a first in his career.

    Prediction: Yoshida is a real talent. That fight against Koscheck made him look bad, but ultimately his track record suggest a much different reality. Yoshida's takedown's are very good, as is his top control. He has good hands and usually a good defense against strikes. His loss to Koscheck was a reflection of his gameplan to focus on stopping takedowns, losing sight of Koscheck's striking. Against Wolff, his homework is much more simple, which is why I'm going to pick him to win a close bout, that comes down to his takedowns and top control.

    Yoshida, via decision.


    Andre Gusmao (5-1) vs. Krzysztof Soszynski (17-8-1)

    Andre Gusmao comes into this fight with an 0-1 UFC record, with his last fight being a loss via decision to Jon Jones. Gusmao has good power in both of his hands, and is well versed in grappling and submission. Question marks would be his conditioning and take-down defense.

    Krzysztof comes into this bout with a UFC record of 2-0. After TUF, Krzysztof has had back-to-back victories via Kumara, the latest victim being highly reguarded former WEC LHW Champion, Brian Stann. Krzysztof has developed a successful ground game to compliment is unorthodoz striking. Questions would be his conditioning and jiu-jitsu defense against seasoned BJJ vets, like Gusmao.

    Prediction: It's a tough call to make, Krzysztof didn't spend alot of time in the gym before taking on another fight, making back-to-back PPV appearances. I admire that, but question it at the same time. If Krzysztof is healthy, this fight could be his, but it's not all on his health. Can he withstand an opponent that can take him down? Can he survive on the ground against someone with BJJ credentials? I'm going to give this one to Krzysztof based on his improvements and that I think he'll be more than ready to stuff a take-down attempt made by Gusmao. I think it'll be a longer fighter, with much of the fight standing up.

    Krzysztof via decision.


    Kyle Bradley (13-6) vs. Phillipe Nover (5-1-1)

    Kyle Bradley comes into this fight with a UFC record of 0-2. The proverbial noose is around his neck, after 2 disappointing fights that resulted in knock out, (one being a 33 second loss to Chris Lytle) Bradley faces a very tough task in keeping his UFC career affloat, and toppling the promising Phillipe Nover. Bradley's strengths are his strong, quick strikes. There are growing concerns about Bradley's chin, after 2 straight KO losses.

    Phillipe Nover comes in with a UFC record of 0-1. After losing in TUF to Efrain Escudero in his last fight, Nover looks to bank on the praise of Dana White and many fans, who see his ability to finish fights, crisp striking, and overall well-rounded game as an inside look to a future superstar in MMA. Nover has questionable wrestling abilities.

    Prediction: This is a tough fight for Bradley. I believe in Nover, who has those quick hands and a very good ability to finish his opponents off. I think Nover's explosiveness will be on display against Bradley, who really has no edge in this fight.

    Nover via KO, first round.


    Pat Berry (4-0) vs. Tim Hague (9-1)

    Pat Berry comes into this fight with a UFC record of 1-0. After his debut performace against Dan Evensen (TKO from leg kicks, first round), Berry will look to repeat his performance against another legit heavyweight in Tim Hague. Berry has crisp standup with elite leg kicks. Because none of his fights have gone to the ground and his arsenol based around kickboxing, you have to wonder how he'll fair on the ground. Solid chin.

    Tim Hague will be making his UFC debut. Hague is a hulking man standing at 6'4, weighing over 265. Hague has brutal power and can max out his bench press at nearly 500. His hands are brutally powerful and his chin is very strong. He has good takedowns, but only moderate wrestling ability. His conditioning is a concern, as he's not exactly ripped and he's shown in the past a vulnerability in latter rounds of fights from exhaustian, often showing in his striking which becomes wild and sloppy, and turns into him dropping his hands completely.

    Prediction: Berry has great striking, like I've said. Hague has good takedowns, as he has shown in the past. If he takes Berry down, then this could spell trouble. However, Hague doesn't have great conditioning, and I don't think he can stop Berry. The first round should be competitive, but Berry's striking eventually will wear Hague down, especially those leg kicks.

    Berry, via TKO Round 2.


    Brock Larson (25-2) vs. Chris Wilson (14-5)

    Brock Larson comes into this fight with a 2-1 UFC record. In his last outting, he took out highly reguarded Jesse Saunders early in the first round with a rear naked choke. Larson's strengths are his wrestling and conditioning. He often wears out opponents with his wrestling, and possesses a good submission aresenol to completment him. Questions about his abilities are his striking, which isn't necessarily a weakness, but not something he often uses on his feet.

    Chris Wilson comes into this fight with a UFC record of 1-2. Wilson suffered a controversial loss to John Howard in his last outting. In his 3 fights, he has had to endure tough opponents, his first foe being Jon Fitch, who he worked to a decision defeat. Wilson has good hands and conditioning. His wrestling and ground game in general is questionable, albeit not exactly weak.

    Prediction: This fight should be good. Larson is always looking to take a fight to the ground, and will definately test Wilson's heart, conditioning, and take-down defense. Larson has a good chin, so Wilson will have a fun time trying to knock Larson out. I'm going to say Larson will win this fight, probably a tough one, I admire Wilson's heart and desire, and think while this fight isn't exactly one-sided, Larson has the tools to beat him.

    Larson, via decision.


    Frank Edgar (9-1) vs. Sean Sherk (33-3-1)

    Frank Edgar comes into this fight with an impressive 4-1 UFC record with notable wins over Spencer Fisher, Hermes Franca, Mark Bocek, and Tyson Griffin. Edgar is a dominant wrestler, using his superior conditioning and relentless attack to dominate his opponents. His one loss coming against rising undefeated UFC star Gray Manard. Edgar's striking is somewhat questionable, although not necessarily bad.

    Sean Sherk comes into this fight after a very exciting bout against Tyson Griffin. Sherk, the former lightweight champion, owns a 7-3 UFC record. His world renown cardio and wrestling weren't on display in his bout with Griffin, as he used superior boxing and head movements to dominantly win a decision. Sherk has a solid chin and has only been knocked out by fellow UFC elites BJ Penn and Georges St. Pierre.

    Prediction: While Edgar might rise to the occasion and be able to out wrestle the phenominal wrestling machine that is Sean Sherk, he won't be able to win a stand-up battle. Sherk's striking has gone to the next level and look for Sherk to exploit that fact.

    Sherk via decision.


    Dan Miller (11-1) vs. Chael Sonnen (21-10-1)

    Rising UFC star Dan Miller comes into this bout with a UFC record of 3-0. Miller possesses a superstar mix of jiu-jitsu, muay thai, and wrestling. Miller has a good chin, and usually fights to his strengths. His striking isn't exactly a weakness, but could use more polishing.

    Chael Sonnen comes into this fight with a UFC record of 1-3. In his last outting, he lost to Demian Maia by way of submission (triangle choke). Sonnen is an outstanding wrestler, who uses his relentless attack and good conditioning to wear out his opponents. His weaknesses would be his submission defense and overall grappling.

    Prediction: Dan Miller has shown an ability to find ways to win. Which makes this matchup all the more interesting for me. Miller has dominating wrestling, as well as good ground and pound, complemented with good submission abilities. He's deadly in the clinch with his knees as well. Sonnen's best chance in this fight is in a ground-and-pound feat, which sounds very hard to accomplish against such a good wrestler. Further more, Dan Miller has great submissions and Sonnen's track record suggests that this might be Dan Miller's oppertunity, which I'm banking on.

    Dan Miller, via submission round 1.


    Xavier Foupa-Pokam (20-10) vs. Drew McFedries (7-5)

    Xavier Foupa-Pokam comes into this bout fresh off his debut loss to Denis Kang at UFC 97. Pokam has elite stiking and muay thai. Pokam took this fight because he wanted to quickly erase his loss to Kang. Pokam's ground game is a big question, which was taken advantage of the ground savvy Kang.

    McFedries comes into this bout with a UFC record of 3-4. McFedries has powerful, quick hands. He burst onto the seen with a very impressive victory over the highly reguarded Alessio Sakara. Since then, he has been rapidly inconsistant, often falling victim to superior ground attacks. McFedries chin isn't solid, either.

    Prediction: The UFC likes Pokam and his explosive stand up, and so do I. I think Pokam will be to much for McFedries, standing up. McFedries might actually have a slight advantage on the ground, albeit slim. This fight should be over quickly, with my nod going to Pokam.

    Pokam, via TKO round 1.


    Matt Hughes (42-7) vs. Matt Serra (9-5)

    Matt Hughes comes into this fight fresh off knee surgery. Hughes owns a UFC record of 15-5. The former UFC Welterweight Champion and future Hall of Famer is coming off of a loss to Thiago Alves, via TKO in round 2. Hughes is well known for his superior wrestling, modest jiu jitsu, and powerful hands. Hughes chin has been a question mark, and his lack of striking ability has led to many to conclude that his style has been surpassed by an ever evolving MMA.

    Matt Serra comes into this fight after losing his Welterweight title to Georges St. Pierre over a year ago. Serra holds a UFC record of 6-5. Serra is BJJ black belt, has very powerful hands, and an annoying voice. Serra's weaknesses would be his wrestling and to an extent, his conditioning. Serra's health is also a concern, having only fought twice since 2006.

    Prediction: I'm going to call this one right here, and right now. Matt Hughes will destroy Matt Serra. Serra's only hope is a knock-out, which will be difficult to come by, as I still believe Hughes has a good chin, has just been outclassed and caught by younger, more explosive foes (GSP, Alves). Serra isn't that. I expect Hughes to outclass Serra, and ultimately end this fight on the ground.

    Hughes, TKO Round 1.


    Rashad Evans (13-0-1) vs. Lyoto Machida (14-0)

    Rashad Evans comes into this fight with a record of 8-0-1. Evans is the defending Light Heavyweight Champion. Evans possesses very quick, solid hands, excellent wrestling solid chin, and submission defense. In his last fight, he won the title after a TKO of Forrest Griffin. Evans, the winner of TUF season 2, has won 4 of his last 5 fights by KO or TKO.

    Lyoto Machida comes into this fight with a UFC record of 6-0. Machida is known for his unorthodox Karate stance which confuses his opponents. Machida also has good jiu-jistu, muay thai, take-downs, and accurate striking. His ellusiveness is his main strength, which he uses to avoid damage while inflicting it.

    Prediction: This fight most likely won't end early. I don't think Evans can catch Machida, and I don't think Machida will finish Evans early, if at all. If Evans catches Machida, Machida's guard is excellent, in which he is very capable of getting back to his feat, in the few times he's been off of it. His takedown defense is also fantastic. Destiny may very well be on his side for this fight.

    If Evans has a chance, it's going to be on the ground, in a ground-and-pound type of victory. He stands almost no chance of actually catching Machida standing. Evans is a counter-striker, and when forced to engage will usually ends up paying for it. Trying to force contact with Machida is a sure way to lose. That is what makes this fight interesting. If anyone has a chance to catch Machida on a shot, it would be Evans, who is probably that fastest LHW. But even catching Machida is not easy task, just ask Tito Ortiz, who when actually getting his arms around Machida, was thrown around.

    I'm going to say, Machida wins the LHW crown, via decision. Evans will eventually get tired of trying to wait for his oppening and be more aggressive, and that will be were Machida takes advantage, scoring points and inflicting the most damage towards the latter rounds.

    Machida, by decision.
Working...
X