The Joe Rogan ExperienceJRE MMA Show #179 with Josh Thompson & "Big" John McCarthy
CHAPTERS
- 0:02 – 2:13
Show kickoff: why refs should be allowed to talk & the “McCarthy Mondays” workaround
Joe, Josh Thompson, and “Big” John McCarthy open by praising their MMA show chemistry and discussing why Josh stepped back when he returned to officiating. They argue that referees publicly explaining decisions would improve transparency and the sport overall, even if commissions dislike the controversy it can create.
- •Josh explains stepping away from regular podcasting to referee again
- •Commissions restrict referees from discussing promotions/fighters while officiating
- •“McCarthy Mondays” is created to keep John talking in a safer lane
- •Joe argues refs having a public voice benefits accountability and education
- 2:13 – 3:38
Unified rules whiplash: downed opponent definitions and the 12-to-6 elbow confusion
The conversation shifts to inconsistent rule adoption across states, especially New Jersey’s refusal to allow the newly legalized 12-to-6 elbows. They emphasize how changing rules by location is unfair to fighters and creates dangerous mid-fight decision burdens.
- •Rule changes need time for fighters to train and adjust
- •State-by-state differences force fighters to remember exceptions under stress
- •12-to-6 elbows: legalized broadly but still banned in some jurisdictions
- •Downed-opponent rule evolution happened largely due to long-term public pressure
- 3:38 – 5:15
What should actually be banned? Knees, kicks, and the reality of “damage as the job”
They debate whether any strikes should be illegal, using examples of catastrophic knee injuries versus long-term brain damage from head strikes. The group agrees fighters accept damage as part of the sport, but the goal should be eliminating unnecessary or inconsistent harm.
- •Knee destruction vs brain trauma: which is ‘worse’ isn’t straightforward
- •Examples: Rountree–Bukauskas knee injury vs Barboza wheel-kick altering careers
- •Principle: if you ban one injury mechanism, logically many others follow
- •Goal is consistent rules and avoiding ‘unnecessary’ damage, not sanitizing MMA
- 5:15 – 6:24
RIZIN/Pride rules and the stomp debate: what works vs what looks brutal
Joe raises RIZIN-style grounded knees, and the discussion moves into ring vs cage dynamics and whether stomps should ever be allowed. John argues stomps are mostly ineffective unless a fighter is already badly hurt, making them more spectacle than skill.
- •Grounded knees: John has advocated for them but doubts they’ll return in major commissions
- •Ring vs cage changes how kicks/knees can be avoided or trapped
- •John opposes stomps as largely non-essential and high-perception-risk
- •Pride-era examples are referenced but framed as situational rather than broadly effective
- 6:24 – 10:25
Pride nostalgia: Shogun’s peak, the Emelianenko mystique, and Alexander’s prison-tattoo energy
They reminisce about Pride’s golden era and how different fighters looked in that rule set and environment. The chat veers into Alexander Emelianenko’s infamous back tattoo, the “stoic Russian” vibe, and how those fighters carried themselves.
- •Shogun’s Pride run and the Rampage fight as a true breakout moment
- •Curitiba fighters’ hyper-aggressive style and why it stood out
- •Alexander Emelianenko’s unsettling tattoo becomes a comedic tangent
- •Contrast between Alexander’s chaos and Fedor’s stoic image
- 10:25 – 14:36
Inside Fedor: explosive speed, relaxed rhythm, and why he’s still in the GOAT conversation
John describes training with Fedor and realizing the key wasn’t brute strength—it was speed, timing, and endurance at high RPM. Joe breaks down Fedor’s striking angles, guard manipulation, grappling transitions, and signature armbar threats.
- •Fedor’s ‘relaxed then explode’ rhythm and deceptive hand position
- •Technical punching arcs around the guard, not just straight power
- •Elite transitions: hip tosses, body locks, and lightning armbars
- •How Fedor’s style compares to modern power threats like Ngannou
- 14:36 – 16:06
Cro Cop’s left kick, kickboxing-to-MMA translation, and the blueprint Fedor wrote
They pivot to Cro Cop’s unique explosiveness and how his one-shot power translated to MMA better than many elite kickboxers. Fedor’s approach—forward pressure, kick checks/catches, and grappling threat—becomes the template for beating Cro Cop in his prime.
- •Cro Cop’s left kick is framed as the best in MMA history
- •Why rhythm-based kickboxers struggled to translate compared to explosive stylists
- •Fedor’s pressure forced Cro Cop backward, neutralizing key weapons
- •Threat of grappling alters striking outcomes even for elite kickboxers
- 16:06 – 20:54
Aldo, soccer legs, and the athletic base debate (plus the economics of “make it make sense” matchmaking)
From Barboza’s kick dominance, they broaden into what athletic backgrounds translate best to MMA—soccer and wrestling get highlighted for cardio and grinding. Josh also explains how fight offers can be irrational for ranked fighters, creating career-risk without upside.
- •Edson Barboza: kicks far more threatening than his boxing early on
- •Jose Aldo’s elite takedown defense and why it’s underrated historically
- •Soccer’s stop-go sprinting and leg endurance as MMA ‘hidden advantages’
- •Josh’s “make it make sense” view of matchmaking and ranking incentives
- 20:54 – 30:55
The weight-cut trap: random weigh-ins, commission limits, and the ‘diminishing returns’ of size
They call weight cutting one of MMA’s dumbest and most dangerous traditions, then explore potential fixes and why they’re hard to enforce. Examples like Pereira at 185, Morales’ size, and massive rehydration swings illustrate the sport’s structural incentives to cut.
- •Weight cuts are framed as the grossest, most dangerous part of the sport
- •Proposal: random/ongoing weight limits vs the logistical limits of commissions
- •Examples of extreme size: Pereira’s jump from 185 to much heavier camps
- •Rehydration swings (20–27+ lbs) and kidney/health concerns
- 30:55 – 32:53
When weight cuts turn fatal: Rumble Johnson, AJ’s struggles, and why bodies eventually collect the debt
The discussion gets grim as they connect chronic extreme cutting to long-term health outcomes and even death. They use Anthony Johnson’s history and repeated ‘leaving pieces of yourself in the cage’ as a warning about cumulative damage beyond fight night.
- •Anthony ‘Rumble’ Johnson as the archetype of extreme cutting
- •How repeated dehydration can degrade durability and long-term health
- •The idea that even wins come with permanent physical ‘costs’
- •Broader lesson: fighters often cut to weights they never needed to make
- 32:53 – 51:34
Arlovski’s longevity lesson + the Rico–Usyk controversy: stoppages, mouthpieces, and judging integrity
They admire Andrei Arlovski’s career length and smart style evolution, then jump to Rico Verhoeven vs Oleksandr Usyk and argue it featured both a bad stoppage and questionable scoring. John explains modern mouthpiece procedures and why time-wasting shouldn’t benefit the hurt fighter.
- •Arlovski’s strategic shift to reduce damage and extend his career
- •Rico–Usyk: perceived ‘robbery’ scoring and the stoppage timing controversy
- •Mouthpiece protocol: old rinse-in-corner vs modern immediate replacement
- •Judging problems and gambling/betting incentives as an integrity threat
- 51:34 – 53:39
Are more judges the fix? How judging really works, bad optics, and why refs carry real consequences
Joe questions whether five judges would reduce bad decisions, while John argues it doesn’t solve the root issue: judge quality, angle limitations, and interpretation under pressure. They also stress that referees and judges affect livelihoods—unlike commentators—raising the stakes of every call.
- •Split decisions aren’t automatically ‘bad’—view angles differ
- •Five judges vs three: John says it rarely changes outcomes in practice
- •Judges historically had terrible sightlines; monitors improved but don’t ‘solve’ judging
- •Officials’ errors can directly cost fighters money and careers
- 53:39 – 1:01:31
Money habits and incentives: win bonuses, financial planning, and why fighters need guardrails
They debate win bonuses versus flat pay, arguing fighters already try their hardest and shouldn’t lose half their purse due to judging. The conversation widens into athlete money management—highlighting Sean Strickland’s frugality and the risk lifestyle choices pose to careers.
- •Joe opposes win bonuses; Josh proposes show-heavy splits (e.g., 80/20) plus finish bonuses
- •Bad decisions create ‘real robberies’—financial ones
- •Fighters mentally spend win money before fights, worsening volatility
- •Frugality examples (Strickland) and risk talk (motorcycles, injuries)
- 1:01:31 – 1:18:16
Brain damage realities: recovery time, warning signs, Freddie Roach’s hard lesson, and the APOE4 risk factor
They move into concussion science, emphasizing that the brain doesn’t “hurt” like other injuries so fighters don’t self-regulate well. Stories about Marvin Eastman, Freddie Roach’s career, and visible decline in fighters illustrate why rest and conservative return timelines matter.
- •Fighting too soon after a KO prevents true brain recovery
- •Concussion signs: light sensitivity, headaches, irrational irritability
- •Freddie Roach’s trajectory after ignoring warnings, and his later caution as a coach
- •APOE4 discussed as a gene that can increase CTE severity risk with repeated impacts
- 1:18:16 – 2:00:57
Prospects, heavyweights, and promoter politics: Gable Steveson, Francis/UFC fallout, and the case for ‘super heavyweight chaos’
They discuss the shallow nature of UFC heavyweight, why elite wrestlers like Gable could rise quickly, and how Ngannou’s absence leaves a massive talent gap. The weight-limit debate turns into a call for a higher threshold (or openweight) to allow freak-show matchups—while acknowledging PED realities.
- •Gable Steveson’s athletic upside and how fast heavyweights can reach title contention
- •Francis Ngannou’s UFC split framed as a major loss for fans and sport legitimacy
- •Heavyweight cap critique and the idea of adding a higher/openweight class
- •Pride-era ‘freak fights’ nostalgia and the inevitable PED/testing tension
- 2:00:57 – 2:07:18
“If you quit, you quit”: breaking down the Joe Schilling headbutt foul and reset procedure
Joe asks about the Joe Schilling incident where a headbutt led to a point deduction and a controversial restart request that ended with Schilling quitting. John explains the fouled fighter’s right to choose restart position, how refs attempt to restore the exact grappling configuration, and why emotions can derail rational choices.
- •Headbutt ruled intentional/malicious; point was taken appropriately
- •Fouled fighter can choose stand-up or grounded restart under the current approach
- •Beltran was still positioning hands/frames when Schilling opted out
- •John frames Schilling’s decision as emotional escalation, not a referee failure
- 2:07:18 – 2:44:41
MVP/Netflix card, bare-knuckle legitimacy, Coker’s return, and why stars still drive the casual audience
They evaluate the challenges of launching new promotions, praise the money and options alternative events can inject, and defend bare-knuckle as a sport with its own specialists (like Mike Perry). The episode closes on promotion economics, UFC’s weekly marketing problem, and the constant evolution of technique—from new submissions to front-kick KOs.
- •First-time promotions will be messy, but competition increases fighter leverage
- •Bare-knuckle rules and commission perception gaps vs MMA’s allowed weapons
- •Scott Coker’s $60M promotion: optimism tempered by the high cost of operations
- •Casual fans follow stars (Rousey/Conor), while hardcores value depth and technique evolution
