Talk:Phil Davis (fighter)

}}

Untitled

The submission he got Tim Boetsch with was not a Kimura, and was not something he made it. It was a 'Hammerlock' I don't understand why nobody (Especially Joe Rogan) didn't recognise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.0.107 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC) People keep editing the page saying the sub was a kimura. lock it? --- It was a modified kimura, which UFC commentator Joe Rogan, Phil Davis himself, and respected MMA journalist Dave Meltzer called a "Mr. Wonderful". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.252.46 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On WP we use the official name of the move not a nickname that was used. On the official record, it is shown as a kimura, not a modified one. Look at all of the records for the fight and see the move's name. Please stop changing it. (MgTurtle (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Submission move problem

I looked everywhere and see the problem. The official record on both the mmajunkie UFC 123 results and Sherdog say that the move was just a kimura. On the main card recap, mmajunkie states that it was a kimura variation and that Davis himself named the move "Mr. Wonderful". Either way the move should be named by what's on the official record and not by what the fighter called it. This way it would be clear what type of move it was. Hope this clears some confusion up.(MgTurtle (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

The official records are incorrect. As a Brown belt in Jiu-Jitsu who has drilled this move MANY times, I am confident it was a Modified Hammerlock submission —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.0.107 (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have to go by the offical record not what people say. (MgTurtle (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

They didn't even know. When bruce buffer called it he just said "Tapout due to a submission" meaning the commission had no idea what it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.0.107 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay but a source would be needed to state that the move was a hammerlock. (MgTurtle (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Here's one thing; A video of a hammerlock being used. A hammerlock is no different from a Kimura, really. It can be finished with one or two hands, but what separate's them is that the Hammerlock is behind the back. Observe; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot7XK_C3uWQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.0.107 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically it is not a Kimura, it's a variation of a Kimura. I agree with it being a hammerlock. It's more like the hammerlock and not a Kimura, a kimura is the use of grasping with two hands and is unheard of with one hand.. On the other hand hammerlocks can be finished more like Phil Davis did, phil did more of a hammerlock then a kimura, so- it should be officialy a hammerlock. --TornEditor (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cfrietsch, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Phil Davis DID NOT win his last fight by Kimora. He won by a submission called a Hammerlock. There is a difference and it should be corrected.

Cfrietsch (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Walk-around Weight

Totally random question, but does anyone know what weight he talks around at? He looks like a pretty big light heavyweight once he gets in the ring. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 230 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.55.146 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Total lack of objectivity in the machida coverage.

The guy is a black sports fighter, in a game with some alarming tenets of underlying racism and spectacle over sport.

Can we iron out the machida section of this to non advisory language, and non opiniated language.

Factually speaking Davis won a unanimous decision against Machida. He did not win a controversial UD, as CUD doesnt exist as a winning title. The controversy followed. And it followed from sources that are extremely impeachable. Dana is a promoter who is known for lying and saying things specifically to further the product. This clashes with the sport of mma. Furthermore, fans and fans with a hall pass, pretending to be journalists, do not equal a competent source of comment. 13 ufc affiliate sources thought machida won. so what? ESPN which is no longer ufc affiliated and is one of the biggest sources on the planet, thought davis won. espn is bigger than the entirety of those ufc affiliated websites combined.

furthermore, in the fight itself, davis routed the ground battle and effectively stalemated the striking, therefore winning.

Lastly, in popular polls, a quarter of the people thought davis won. Frankly though, its like asking children about their favourite sports team. these people are neither experts, not reliable, nor competent, as fight after fight, and fighter after fighter shows. the most important opinion is the unified rules and the judges, which clearly had davis.

wikipedia is becoming ridiculous, with all these subjective side commentaries in the articles. effectively an unpopular black fighter is being attacked by the herd and this is bs.

Also an SP Nation fanpost is not a legitimate source. Its biased and deletes UFC criticism and critics and is a fan post. Its not a legitimate source.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phil Davis (fighter). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100404084318/http://www.bjjlegends.com:80/bjj/bjj-jiujitsu-grappling-nogi-tournaments/tournaments/item/278-no-gi-worlds-final-results-2009.html to http://www.bjjlegends.com/bjj/bjj-jiujitsu-grappling-nogi-tournaments/tournaments/item/278-no-gi-worlds-final-results-2009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)