Jump to content

Talk:Maurício Rua

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tapping to strikes

[edit]

Who keeps reediting the LHW Champion section to include the alleged "tapping to strikes"? The ruling was a TKO (Referee stoppage) in the third round, NOT a submission. Stop putting it in there, it is not a fact just some people trying to slander this page. Shogun did not tap to strikes, it was not the official ruling, PERIOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.22.180 (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

We need a ruling from the moderators on this one. There is an editor that keeps attempting to place false information into the article claiming the fight resulted due to Rua tapping to strikes. The official fight result from all credible sources was a TKO due to strikes (knee and punches). This is facts. They need to be in the article. Opinions or slander should not be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.247.250 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Still waiting for the person who is in a relentless pursuit to put something on this page to come to the talk page as ordered. Come discuss why Rua's hand touching the mat twice after the fight had been stopped needs to be in the article.

---

So, this is the place to discuss and reach a consensus. Very well.

To address the paragraph above, what is being called false information, opinions and slander is actually the facts. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua did tap to strikes in his loss to Jon Jones, as can be viewed here http://i53.tinypic.com/34y4kmd.jpg from the article that acknowledges as such here http://isportsweb.com/2015/08/05/top-5-ufc-championship-beat-downs-of-all-time/. What bearing that had on the official result of the fight is not in dispute. If I thought it was, I would've also made the necessary edits to Mauricio "Shogun" Rua's mixed martial arts record, and changed it to a submission(strikes) loss. Due to the way fight results are recorded, a submission due to strikes is often recorded as a technical knockout. However, that does not negate the means of which the TKO was achieved, and due to the confusion surrounding Mauricio "Shogun" Rua's loss to Jon Jones, some examples of which can be viewed here http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/312105/Did-Shogun-tap-to-Jon-Jones-strikes/ http://bleacherreport.com/articles/641017-ufc-128-results-mauricio-shogun-rua-tapped-to-jon-jones-strikes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDyUGdX6RkE it is necessary to go into enough detail that Mauricio "Shogun" Rua's indisputable tapping should be mentioned in the result of the fight, but not necessarily be the result of the fight.

To address the ongoing edit war started by 153.48.247.250, a consensus was reached on 14th January 2016, which while i favor my own choice of words, i am happy to settle for those words chosen by 153.48.247.250. However, after a moderator stepped in, 153.48.247.250 still proceeded to make further edits despite the fact that i had concurred with the words 153.48.247.250 chose as part of the consensus. On January the 19th 153.48.247.250 began another edit war in spite of the consensus(which i had not violated) and since then i have been reverting the page to that of the 14th January, which are 153.48.247.250 own words and those same words that i have reverted to, despite the fact i could still edit as i please.

Even after the consensus was reached, with the indisputable evidence i provided, 153.48.247.250 still proceeds with his edit war.

153.48.247.250 in question has a history of vandalism as can be seen from checking his "contributions" to Wikipedia, and the lengths the moderators have had to go to control him. The latest and worst of his abuse can be seen in his edit summaries directed at me which feature expletives, and also a homophobic slur. As someone who's ancestors suffered, died and were forced to flee Europe to escape such bigoted views, i find that particularly disturbing.

To close, i am fully supportive of the consensus reached on the 14th January, which are the words of the above editor, and the same words i have stuck with since 153.48.247.250 reignited the edit war. 86.170.154.149 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

The edit timestamped 17:24 14 January 2016 is an accurated representation of what occured during the fight and the only consensus I can make with somebody that refuses to abide by the rules. However, you keep making edits that "Shogun tapped to strikes." The hand did tap the mat AFTER Herb Dean stepped in to stop the fight (signaling that Dean stopped the fight before Shogun made any hand gesture). Once a fight is stopped, the official time was recorded and the New Jersey Athletic Commission (as well as other repuatable sources such as ESPN and Sherdog) made the result of the fight (facts) a TKO (Knee and punches). Please provide info in which fights, especially under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey State Atheltic Commission, ended in which an opponent submitted to strikes that was recorded as a TKO victory.

We can add that his hand tapped the mat. However, it must be an accurate respresentation that not only did his hand tap AFTER Herb Dean stopped the fight, but also that the offical result was not a submission to strikes but s TKO due to strikes. As you can see on Spencer Fisher's page, this is accurate representation of "tapping to strikes." Multiple users have already discussed that adding "tapping to strikes" on this article is unobjective and not an accurate representation of the facts of the fight. THe hand did touch the mat, but it occurred after. If you want it in there, it must be ACCURATE all the way. Period.

---

Once again, the claim is made that the result of the fight is being disputed when it has been repeatedly stated it has not been. Clearly, 153.48.247.250 has another agenda here based on his abusive posting and a history of vandalism.

As for recent examples of fighters who tapped to strikes but it was not recorded as such, you can look at Rafael Cavalcante Vs Igor Pokrajac, Shawn Jordan Vs Pat Barry and Rashad Evans Vs Chael Sonnen.

As of writing this 153.48.247.250 at 20:43, 22 January 2016‎ has conceded(unsurprisingly not without more abuse) that Mauricio "Shogun" Rua did tap in his fight against Jon Jones and is including it in the most recent edit to Mauricio "Shogun" Rua's Wikipedia page. Assuming that 153.48.247.250 does not try to start yet another edit war, i am happy to acknowledge and support his concession. 86.170.154.149 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

I am NOT making a consensus that Rua "tapped out to strikes." The only consensus I am willing to make (because I believe in negotiation and compromise) is that Rua's hand did touch the mat once (and possibly twice) in a tapping motion similar to "tapping out" AFTER the fight had already been stopped. If that fact means that much to the above editor, we will keep it in there. It must be noted that the referee and athletic commissions decide what the final result of the fight is based off of facts and circumstances. Clearly Herb Dean, the NJSAC deemed the fight was stopped due to strikes, that is the fact and that will remain. As someone whose mother had to escape the Illegal Occupation of Palestinian land from the ruthless Israeli invaders, I must object to the constant occupation and presumption of lies that the above editor continues to make. I still have relatives suffering from the constant fear of occupation and war crimes that the IDF imposes on people whose land was arguably taken by force. I cannot sit here and allow this editor to constantly occupy and portray this fight in a false light. If the Referee stops the fight due to too much punishment, that is the fact and the result. But unlike the Israelis, I am willing to come to a consensus for peace.

---

Clearly, you're not that willing to make a consensus otherwise you would've stuck with the edits made on January 14th. So those are empty words.

Again, 153.48.247.250 mentions the referee's verdict of the fight when that is not in question. Perhaps, because he has been proven wrong on Mauricio "Shogun" Rua tapping to strikes and been given follow up examples of similar incidents, 153.48.247.250 is having trouble admitting that he is wrong. We will just have to wait and see whether he tries to start another edit war in the future.

What the war between the Israelis and Palestinians has to do with the persecution of my Gypsy ancestors in response to the bigotry of153.48.247.250 is also baffling. 86.170.154.149 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

I thought it would be a good idea to chronicle the recent attempt by 153.48.247.250 to undo the consensus established on January 22nd from when he was badly defeated here on the talk page and was forced to concede. On February 4th 2016 153.48.247.250 once again attempted to undermine the consensus(which i reverted). As expected from a persistent troll with years of Wikipedia vandalism to his name, he is struggling to come to terms with being proven wrong in his loss to me, so i will be keeping a watchful eye on this page and ensuring the consensus from January 22nd is upheld because 153.48.247.250 clearly is not a man of honor.

In related news, the other IP that the troll posts from 174.50.188.109 also made a recent vandalism attempt on UFC on Fox: Johnson vs. Bader. 165.120.186.240 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

February 23rd 153.48.247.250 has once again violated the consensus with the following edit summary "Revert back to original "truth" since the persistent Gypsy cunt can't shut up" which is only an excuse for more bigotry and not a valid reason for violating the consensus. Fortunately, a moderator reverted the edit and warned 153.48.247.250 for edit warring. Inhumanite (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

153.48.247.250 has returned after a long absence to violate the consensus once more. He undermined the consensus on December 22nd 2016 at 23:16 and i have today undone his unnecessary edits and trolling Inhumanite (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

I make no consensus. The fact that he tapped the mat has no bearing on the result of the fight and does not be there. The fact that you are anal about this minor issue is inherently obsessive. Moderators, please chime in and make an executive decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.247.250 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

We did establish a consensus when you were proven wrong. Now, you are repeatedly violating that consensus along with all the other acts of vandalism you've committed across wikipedia. Inhumanite (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on but someone keeps adding false information to this page. I will continue to edit facts. The fact is Rua lost the fight to Jones via TKO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roimozer888 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unobjective text in the Jones fight

[edit]

"Rua subsequently lost the belt on his first title defense to Jon Jones via TKO after being dominated for 3 rounds. According to MMA Junkie, Rua also tapped with his right hand after eating a knee to the skull at 2 minutes and 37 seconds into the third round. According to a CompuStrike report, Jones landed some 87 total strikes in the contest; Rua just 13, and he was hardly recognizable after the fight."

1. "Being dominated" is a subjective phrasing ill befitting an encyclopedia.

2. The official fight record is by (t)ko, not "tapping by strikes".

3. "Hardly recognizable" is completely out of place. In what sense? He was clearly the same man visually. He was beaten up - as many fighters have been. But he was hardly "unrecognizable" and this is absurd to put in an article.

Please, someone edit this to have a semblance of objectivity. We needn't turn an encyclopedia into a proving ground for who has the biggest e-peen. That is what crappy threads on Sherdog.com are for. 24.42.93.217 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

First UFC Fight

Hi, not sure how to edit this but if anyone else thinks this is interesting, here's a cool stat. Since coming into the UFC, Shogun has fought 5 times.

Every single match, he's fought a person that either has held, or goes on to hold a UFC championship at or above 205 pounds.

This stat seems like it's going to continue, as it's likely he's fighting former UFC LHW champion Evans in his next fight.. making that 6 fights against championship caliber fighters. Even the way he won the belt is so impressive - up until his fight with Machida, Machida had never lost around and was statistically the least hit fighter in the history of the UFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.105.18 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better pic to use for shogun

[edit]

use this one, its more recent and has him holding both the pride GP and ufc light heavyweight title http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4622974409_6d11dde9a1_o.jpg Delinquent1904 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shogun's Submission Wins

[edit]

In regards to his supposed submissio win over Diabate via Stomps. He did not win this fight via submission, proof of which can be found here http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Mauricio-Rua-5707 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.6.178 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism I cant fix

[edit]

Someone has vandalised his win/loss record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.38.76 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New to wikiedia editing so if this is not the right format, I apologize. Fight metrics has the fight stats from UFC 104 up. http://fightmetric.com/fights/Machida-Shogun.html this clearly shows that shogun rua landed more strikes in every one of the 5 rounds. I think that is important to add to the article. The following MMA related journalists and members of the established community scored the fight as follows;

FightMetric: 49-47 Rua Yahoo Sports / Cagewriter: 48-47 Rua BloodyElbow : 48-47 Rua USAToday: 48-47 Rua, 49-46 Rua ESPN / Jake Rossen: 49-46 or 48-47 Rua MMA Fanhouse / Michael David Smith: 48-47 Rua CagePotato: 49-46 Rua MMATorch : 48-47 Rua MMAJunkie : 49-46 or 48-47 Rua MMAMania : 50-45 Rua 5 Ounces of Pain : Rua (no score given) Fightlinker : Rua (no score given) ProMMA.Info: 50-45 Rua Sherdog: Jordan Breen -- 48-47 Rua Brian Knapp -- 48-47 Rua Mike Fridley -- 50-45 Rua


this should be added to clarify why it is widely believed that he won UFC 104, despite not gaining the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron014 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


We need some info on who he is gonna fight next.

These statistics do not prove that Rua won the fight. A UFC match is scored on more than just strikes landed.


Judging Criteria for a UFC match can be found here; http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/ufc-judging-criteria-nsac-640304/

Using that criteria, you will find that the Judging in the match should have favored Shogun Rua MORE using the UFC scoring criteria rather than just number of strikes landed alone. He landed harder shots which did more damage, and more of them (this is the definition of winning a rounds based on strikes in the judging criteria). He was also the aggressor through the entire fight, backing Lyoto into corners for 25 minutes. This is exactly how you score in UFC, the decision was clearly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.22.248 (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If you actually watch the fight you will clearly see that Machida had just as much control, if not more, than Rua. There is more to control than just chasing the person around the ring. Countering plays a big part in scoring. Machida blocked 4 takedown attempts made by Rua. Sorry, but you don't get points for failed attempts. You do however for successful blocks. Big ones. Not to mention that Machida was able to land counter strikes to many of Rua's advances. Machida was just as aggressive as as Rua, and in some cases even more aggressive. The judges have a better view of the fight and a much better knowledge of the rules of scoring and how to apply them than you or I do. They all agreed that Machida won the fight. Get over it.


The UFC judging criteria clearly states that strikes landed while moving forward count more than strikes landed while moving back. If RUA landed the majority of his strikes moving forward (which he did), and Lyoto landed most of his strikes while moving backward (which he did), and Rua landed more overall strikes, then it is very easy to see who was scoring more points. 4 stuffed takedowns that get turned into a muay thai clinch and lead to the person having their takedown stuffed kneeing and landing strikes will either be a wash, or favor the aggressor. The only people with pro MMA experience that scored the fight in Lyoto's favor were the 3 judges. Every pro fighter, or MMA journalist, or other member of the MMA community had Rua winning, to include both of the non human, scoring metrics which analyzed the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.22.248 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



I'm fighter for justice and I don't care about reliable sources, this is trash and corruption...I understand that there should be rules and bounds which we should follow in order for Wiki not to look like some forum in anarchy but just as there are rules and bounds for such behavior, there should exist some bounds for THAT as well! otherwise we all would become machines instead of reasonable humans with the sense of justice and emotions...Everybody who gives the decision to Machida in this mach is IMO whether corrupted, or just too big fan of Lyoto(heck I totally like Lyoto as a fighter a lot! but I don't want to lie! that was ridiculous!). We urgently need to write some article! where more reliable sources you'll get than official MMA sites, critics and analysts, and most of them so far criticized this decision very badly--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fightsport.com cite

[edit]

A black belt in Muay Thai is something I've never heard of before, and having a fightsport.com cite to back up the claim just makes it more incredulous. Fightsport.com is notorious for not just posting bad rumors but blatantly false information. I'm tagging that sentence with {{fact}}, and am considering removing it altogether if it isn't properly cited after too long. hateless 08:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I've followed suit for every other Fightsport reference on Wikipedia. east.718 at 12:11, September 24, 2007
There is no such thing as a black belt in Muay Thai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.81.246 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Fight

[edit]

Okay, in the interest of avoiding an edit war (fat chance, it seems...), let's discuss my specific complaints here:

1. "...the popular winner of the Ultimate Fighter 1,..." Unnecessary commentary, adds nothing to an encyclopedic entry.
2. "Griffin, who had suffered a TKO loss in a prior fight to Keith Jardine, saw the opportunity to fight Shogun as a gateway to top contender status for the UFC Light Heavyweight title." Who cares why Forest took the fight? This entry is about Shogun, not Forest.
3. "Rua narrowly lost the first two rounds according to judges' scorecards." Technically, this isn't really possible, and I'm not even sure it's true. If he lost, it would have been 10-9, which isn't really "narrowly" in terms of MMA scoring. I've seen landslide round victories result in a 10-9 from all three judges. I'm also not certain he even did lose both rounds on all three judges' scorecards. The listed source doesn't really make clear if the author saw the actual scorecards or if he's just speculating that Griffin did win them in his eyes. If it's the former, then that's fine, but I'd prefer a better source for the actual scorecards. If it's the latter, then we can't include that speculation in Shogun's article.
4. "...and Griffin on the verge of certain victory,..." See #3. Unless we have the official judges' scorecards to show that he'd definitely won the first two rounds, nothing is certain (see Hamill v. Bisping). I'm also not sure why this statement is really necessary for the encyclopedia entry.
5. "The submission was decisive but unnecessary as Griffin was ahead in points and would have won had the fight gone the distance." The third time this is mentioned. That alone should be enough to eject it from the article, at least in an effort to keep the article more concise, not to mention the problems listed above with knowing the "official" round scoring.

...that's about it for now.Tuckdogg 00:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps some people are better suited to fixing blatant vandalism than judging what is relevant, factual material suitable for a bio entry... To address the above complaints, I'm open to suggested copy that actually provides the key elements of the fight in a descriptive way. This entry is about the UFC 76 fight between Rua and Griffin within the context of Rua's professional career. We could simply reduce Rua's biography to a list of his name, nickname, birthplace and date of birth and show the standard MMA table outlining all of Rua's fight results if contributors are not allowed to describe his fights in detail or, in other sections, provide supplemental information -- where do you draw the line? Providing context around the participants involved in a fight adds value to the entry in my opinion. I feel that one can appreciate the circumstances in and around both the fight and fighters when there is some descriptive information provided. Clearly you have a different opinion. I can accept that copy can be better articulated, but the edits and reversals I've seen relating to the Griffin fight haven't really been an improvement. Regarding point #3, please suggest a better way to communicate to readers that the fight was indeed close in the first two rounds (as was evident to anyone having watched the fight, and which has been written in many publications), and that numerous sources state that the rounds were scored in favor of Griffin by the judges. It really does not seem unreasonable to describe how and why the rounds were close and in what manner Rua lost them -- and the fight -- to Griffin.

Acesfull11 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said you're not allowed to add context? The problem with the way it's currently written is that, stylistically, it's unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia entries are not meant to be filled with flowing, highly descriptive prose that is injected with the author's opinions (even if many others share those opinions as well). All that's needed is a concise, neutral description of what happened and why it's important to Rua. Try this:
"In his UFC debut, Rua took on The Ultimate Fighter 1 winner Forrest Griffin. Widely regarded as the top light heavyweight in the world at the time of the fight, Shogun was considered a heavy favorite to win(citation). The first two rounds were relatively close, with most commentators giving Griffin a slight edge (citation, possibly even to the recent MMA Weekly article where Rua's camp argued that Rua should have won rounds 1 & 2 to support it being close). By the third round, a visibly exhausted Rua was no longer able to keep pace against the more aggressive Griffin and repeatedly gave up his back while scrambling on the ground (citation needed!). With only 15 seconds remaining in the fight, Griffin secured a rear naked choke, forcing Rua to tap out (citation).
And there you go.Tuckdogg 13:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your approach Tuckdogg. One thing I want to comment on is that perhaps we shouldn't say the first two rounds were close, we should say something more conservative and citable like "neither fighter established dominance" or "neither fighter completely dominated".it's one of the most controversial decisions in UFC history hateless 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like that better. Change made! Tuckdogg 14:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rua vs. Liddell

[edit]

http://sherdog.com/news/news/liddell-shogun-to-carry-ufc-97-15815

SDRXD (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected info on when Rua started MT and BJJ

[edit]

He started MT at age 15 and BJJ at age 17 and got his Black Belt at age 25. This article is wrong someone change it. Source = recent interview regarding Coleman bout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.17.52 (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. He also said so in a Pride interview. I have corrected the article accordingly. -- Tim314 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reach

[edit]

76 in = 193 cm not 190 cm. I've seen these mistakes in other fighters' pages. There's something wrong with the conversion between inches and cm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.166.18 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 104

[edit]
Before changing the results of this event to anything even remotely resembling "fixed" or "rigged" or "under investigation", verifiable and reliable sources need to be referenced to support such a change. Failing that, especially since UFC does not provide judges for their events, the results need to remain as "unanimous." This is getting to be a pretty pathetic edit war, which may result in the page being protected against IP editing. Alan (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever connection the UFC and the NSAC and the other sanctioning bodies have will be hearsay forever - even if there was some connection between them, it can not be proven. But I'd like to request that someone put some fight statistics up in the UFC 104 section. http://fightmetric.com/fights/Machida-Shogun.html should be a good enough source for this. Helge123 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Fighting For The Title" I think it's relevant to add that many fans in attendance and at home: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Machida+Judges+refs+draw+boos+event/2146962/story.html experts: http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/cagewriter/post/UFC-104-judge-Peoples-Good-fans-understand-why-;_ylt=A0LEa5mKBuZK5M0AAglXEo14?urn=mma,198213 fighters: http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/cagewriter/post/After-dubious-decision-peeved-fighters-back-Sh?urn=mma,198021 computer simulation: http://fightmetric.com/fights/Machida-Shogun.html as well as the President of the UFC Dane White: http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/machida-rua-agree-to-immediate-rematch-20544 came to a different decision than the judges at UFC 104, as this is a matter of credibility and has ramifications with regard to an athletes legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.134.253 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the fact that the decision is unpopular and disagreed with by many should be noted/sourced. It ought to be kept very brief, however. This is not a page on the Machida-Rua bout, it's for Rua's entire life/career. We already have White's conflicting opinion included. Senor Vergara (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rematch

[edit]

I see no source for the rematch being at 108 and have heard no such announcement anywhere, only speculation. I am removing it until a credible, firm declaration is provided. Senor Vergara (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people honestly going to consider Fightmetric as realiable when you don't have their official medical records immeadiatly after the fight (the upper lip laceration on Lyoto caused not mental damage and wasn't even operated on till days after the fight). The left wrist injury is stated to exist on Lyoto as a previous condition. We could go on about how Lyoto hit the better targets and with better technique in terms of penetration (see Rua's black eye, etc...) but I am saying that using Fightmetric is unreliable. It is supposed to be guys who have PHDs in statistics judging a fight based on what they though was power. You have no monitoring of consciousness, heart rate, x-rays,etc...all you have is heresay and a biased opinion. Fightmetric is not used on Lyoto's page either because it is biased. It even records Rua's leg kicks to Lyoto's legs as more powerful than Lyoto's round kicks to the body; a clear biased view of Maui Thai compared to Shotokan Karate especially since Lyoto's legs are traveling a slightly further distance and hitting a more vulnerable area (ribs, kidneas, liver, intestines, you be the judge). Enough with the biased views, FightMetric is not valid and I say that any who relie on its pseudoscience is a one-sided fool. If they where hooked up with equipment that didn't hinder there abilitys to record the Force i.e. F=MA or Force= MasX Acceleration and if they could at least clock the speed of the kicks and the mass of Rua's legs as compared to Lyotos I might back Fightmetric, but until then it is not good evidence of anything but a for profit site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggalama (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth

[edit]

The date of birth at the top of the page is given as November 26 1981, while the one in the sidebar is in September. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.196.57 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait.

[edit]

Nougeria also had a Pride championship and a UFC championship so WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.74.191 (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shogun's Height

[edit]

According to UFC.com http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Mauricio-Rua he is 6'1 (1.85 m) not 5'11 (1.82 m). Does this need to be corrected?

Edit request from 99.249.120.164, 19 March 2011

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Jon Jones "method" says the date of the event, instead of the date section

99.249.120.164 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking for. The tables are correct for "Method" and "Event" and "Date". Perhaps your browser is displaying it improperly for you? It is correct when I view it. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you're asking for? Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also see the date in the date column, not the method column. It has looked odd at times recently ([1], [2]), but it seems to be fixed now. — Bility (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're "soccer kicks" not "football kicks"

[edit]

The name of the move is "soccer kick", not "football kick". It really doesn't matter if Americans are the only ones who call association football "soccer", and Brazilians and everyone else call the sport "football"; the mixed-martial arts move that Shogun utilized in Pride is properly called the "soccer kick" by English-speakers. Even Bas Rutten (Dutch) called it the "soccer kick", even though the Dutch call the sport of soccer itself "football".

Better consistency in "Unobjective Text".

[edit]

An edit was made in the description of the Rua/Jones fight because a user claimed that the words "Jon Jones Dominated Rua" was subjective and "ill befitting an Encyclopedia". The description of the fight was changed to the point that it barely reflected what actually happened in the bout. This on its on would not be a big issue if it were not for the fact that earlier in the article someone used those same "ill befitting" words to describe a fight that Shogun had won against Quinton Jackson. Here is the text in question.

"Jackson had been the runner-up in the Pride 2003 Middleweight Grand Prix, but Maurício dominated the favored fighter from beginning to end, breaking Jackson's ribs with knee strikes and ending the fight in dramatic fashion with soccer kicks to the face in the first round."

So why is it OK to use those same supposed "subjective" words when describing one of Shoguns victories but not one of his defeats? An encyclopedia is unbiased and most importantly consistent. No one has had a problem with the description of the Shogun/Rampage fight in the many years it has been on here because it is not subjective that Rua dominated the Jackson fight just like it is also not subjective that Jones dominated the Rua fight.

I changed the fight description of the Jones fight to more correctly reflect what actually occurred in the bout. I was just as careful not to embellish on Jones's victory for his fans as I was not to sugar coat Rua's defeat for his fans. Jones did indeed overwhelm Rua from start to finish and it began with a flying knee mere seconds after the round one bell which even Mauricio himself admitted to greatly affecting the rest of his performance for the rest of the fight.

For now I will leave out the fact that Rua did indeed tap as he had not noticed the referee coming in to call the fight behind him. Officially it was after the bell and does not deserve mention in the official fight record below. However, it doesn't change the fact that Rua thought the fight was still going on when he tapped after receiving the knee to the body. Just like how significant events before and after fights deserve mentioning I could see how someone thought it was relevant to say that the fight was officially called a mere second before Rua tapped. Darrylreevs (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know Rua tapped? He never admitted it and that provides nothing to the article. His hand did bob once, but the fight was over.

File:Mauricio Shogun Rua.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Mauricio Shogun Rua.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mauricio-rua.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Mauricio-rua.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maurício Rua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maurício Rua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Maurício Rua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maurício Rua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname in the opening

[edit]

Throughout the article, he is refereed to as shogun but it isn't listed as a nickname anywhere that I can see. this could be confusing for someone unfamiliar with Rua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.173.72 (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurício_Rua&oldid=1204995505"