Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

UFC 251: Usman vs. Masvidal (7/11/2020) - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UFC Fight Island)


Elsalvajeloco

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jiji said:

Who has the wrestling and power necessary to stop Usman from dictating where the fight goes?

The Durinho one is going to be intriguing because he can't just be in top position. Other than that, basically no one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheVileOne said:

Three ufc title fights on one card should never happen ever again. Ever. 

Apparently you don't remember some of the first three title fight cards. All those went well into the night. I'm totally use to it now.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Apparently you don't remember some of the first three title fight cards. All those went well into the night. I'm totally use to it now.

It's only the sixth UFc event to ever do it. UFC 217 is one of the best MMA shows ever. Only show to have all three titles change hands: GSP, Thug Rose and Dillashaw.

Edited by The Natural
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Apparently you don't remember some of the first three title fight cards. All those went well into the night. I'm totally use to it now.

Into the morning for me. It's 07:10am right now. Enjoyed the show and chatting with y'all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Apparently you don't remember some of the first three title fight cards. All those went well into the night. I'm totally use to it now.

I remember all of them. That's why I don't want it to happen again. Having three title fights just drags the pacing of an event and you risk having three five-round fights or decisions. It's just a bad idea in general. 

 

Edited by TheVileOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheVileOne said:

Having three title fights just drags the pacing of an event and you risk having three five-round fights or decisions.

They're usually better than the Brazilian cards on FS1 back during the Fox era. Man, you want to talk about dragging. This one had four entertaining fights. I will take 4 out of 5. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the hell are people complaining about that card when it gave us two classics back to back, Amanda Ribas, and a close title fight in Holloway/Volkanovski? I don't even mind watching Usman pressure the life out of his opponents because I'm watching true greatness at an aspect of the sport. I can get it if you're on the east coast or pulling a Natural but it ended at around 12:30 or 40 central, no? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jiji said:

How in the hell are people complaining about that card when it gave us two classics back to back, Amanda Ribas, and a close title fight in Holloway/Volkanovski? I don't even mind watching Usman pressure the life out of his opponents because I'm watching true greatness at an aspect of the sport. I can get it if you're on the east coast or pulling a Natural but it ended at around 12:30 or 40 central, no? 

This card lasted 8 hours basically. It's a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheVileOne said:

This card lasted 8 hours basically. It's a lot.

All these cards are 6 1/2 to 7 hours save for the few exceptions where you get guys get finished left and right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Elsalvajeloco said:

All these cards are 6 1/2 to 7 hours save for the few exceptions where you get guys get finished left and right. 

Exactly. So adding three title fights on top of that potentially adds another hour if not more. Some of these cards could stand to lose a few fights to spread them around more. Look at a card like Kattar vs. Ige now that it doesn't have Munhoz vs. Edgar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheVileOne said:

Exactly. So adding three title fights on top of that potentially adds another hour if not more.

Technically it would be basically the same length with two extra rounds because they always kill time on the PPV. It's an extra 12 minutes at most (5 5 5 3 3 as opposed to 5 5 3 3 3). Remember they always show more movie trailers and shit if fights end earlier. So it's pick your poison.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holloway was robbed.  Again.  Also, what was up with that nine foot tall security dude following Volko?  Made him look tiny!  Did some of the judges give Volko rounds 1-2 where Holloway had knockdowns?  MMA judging always sucks. 

Happy Thug Rose won, but she was getting wrecked in that third round.  If they went to championship rounds, I think she gets knocked out. 

Usman and Masvidal was what I expected -- I guess Jorge's takedown d was better than I thought, but it still got him pushed him up against the fence and footstomped and shoulder shrugged to death.  I'd like to think that with a full camp to prepare it might be different, but who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alexander-volkanovski-max-holloway-ufc-251-scorecard.jpg?w=1000&h=563\

Is there an argument against open scoring in combat sports? 

MMA Junkie suggest the following issues:

Quote

The arguments against open scoring are plenty. The possibility of judges seeing their round scores differing from their peers and then trying to rectify the error by leaning a different way in subsequent rounds is a real possibility. Ditto for when fan feedback comes in from the posted scores.

While it might seem like a stretch, judge safety is an issue, as well. If the crowd doesn’t like a particular round score, what’s to stop them from hurling objects in the judges’ direction, potentially injuring people cageside or at least delaying the event? Again, that might seem like a stretch on first mention, but we’re only five months removed from Mexico City fans pelting the octagon with debris after Yair Rodriguez vs. Jeremy Stephens was declared a no contest at UFC on ESPN+ 17.

Speaking of fouls, consider how open scoring could conceivably influence how a fighter handles being struck with an illegal blow during a contest. If a fighter knows he’s up 20-18 heading into the final frame of a three-round contest and is hit with a kick to the groin, what motivation is there to carry on fighting? Simply state that you can’t continue while holding your crotch and wincing a lot, and you’ve just guaranteed yourself a victory when it’s directed to the judges’ scorecards.

Not sure I buy the last one because in the majority of fights, rounds are not super close and those are pretty bad reasons to go against open scoring. 

Edited by Jiji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can come up with any variety of crazy scenarios when it comes to open scoring, with a good number likely already occurring WITHOUT opening scoring. You don't think some lone dissenting judge in the prelims doesn't get affected by being the only one to score a fight totally different than the other two people? Yes, many times if a guy has a bad score earlier in the night, he likely will have another later on. However, you can argue that probably comes from him trying to stay in line with the other judges and figuring out what criteria they're using. As for fighters looking for a way out, hell I just saw a fight not too long ago where someone basically took the DQ win when he was getting his ass whooped. It wasn't a technical decision, but he knew he was going to get his hand raised. Some fighters are just gonna take the easy way out. You cannot really do anything about that.

My whole thing with opening scoring is what is the end game? Transparency? Okay but you have to explain why there isn't too much transparency now. I am not saying that judging has gotten better tenfold, but if you look at the UFC even five years ago, questionable judging certainly isn't as frequent as it use to be. Why? When it comes to judging (and refereeing), the UFC isn't worried about the lack of transparency perception. Why? They don't use the local yokels to do their work anymore as opposed to boxing where that's been an issue for several decades (including the renowned Nevada and New York judges/refs). That's why on HBO boxing, they use to bring up graphics just after a title fight has ended and went the distance (or ended earlier on a unintentional foul/cut caused by headbutt) and have Jim Lampley go into great detail about the judging experience of the judges in that particular fight. He would tell you who the reliable judges were and which ones were not based on the explicit scores from recent past title fights.

Remember when we had that whole discussion/debate about judging in Brazil and how there might be some local bias? In all of their shows in Brazil since UFC 134, the UFC might have used two or three native Brazilian judges. That's it. They basically bring their own crew of guys with them. Check the names of all the guys assigned to the co-main(s) and main event from the tweets I usually post before a big card. Those are all guys that have been there before on multiple occasions. Yeah, you might get an odd show in Texas with some abysmal judges from the state. However, UFC only goes to Texas once MAYBE twice in a calendar year. Otherwise, it's their guys essentially. None of the guys they used last night are local. When Herb Dean isn't reffing somewhere in Slovenia or Serbia on some random weekend, he's a lock for being at the UFC show. Sometimes, if he is reffing somewhere overseas on Friday, he can make it back for the UFC that Saturday. Leon Roberts don't live in Abu Dhabi either last I checked. The UFC is basically self regulating itself everywhere as opposed to years ago when they only did that if it was a foreign place with no commission or an inexperienced one. That's my issue. Ideally, a legit sporting entity in prize fighting is not suppose to do that. Imagine if Don King (hell he probably did who knows) brought his favorite judges and referees everywhere he went. Keep in mind that Don King use to run shows everywhere week in and week out just like the UFC does now back in the day. People would want his head on a pike or for him to be strung up. So imagine the UFC not only doing that but getting away with it because the commissions just naturally trust their judgment on these matters. That pretty much gives them unlimited power. They already do their own drug testing through USADA that's way more stringent than the actual commission testing. So what the fuck do they need the commission for? The commission for MMA is now what the alphabet orgs are for boxing. They just take their fee, make largely unimportant unilateral decisions, grandstand, and lay back. That's it. So how is open scoring going to fix all that? If a guy has had a streak of bad judging or has a really bad scorecard that stands out, trust me, the UFC won't use him anymore or at least not on a regular basis. They can do that now because that's seen (at least in the eyes of fans) as the right thing to do. So not only do you have the commission on your side, but you have the vocal support of fan opinion. The UFC cannot lose in that case. The only people who can lose is the actual fighters because it's a flawed design inherently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the UFC has made adjustments in what they can control. However, with that first problem you mention, would open scoring not promote judges wanting to find a common ground rather than doing whatever the fuck some of them are doing right now? Usually I'm for divergent thinking, but maybe less so in terms of scoring combat sports. Many still overvalue takedowns that lead to no offense (Volkanovski landed one in the third, right?), modified rules or not. 

And while I think it could be problematic to throw a fighter off their game when they find out about a bad score midway through a fight, they at least can then alter their strategy to try and overcome shitty judging rather than thinking what they're doing is working and of course the judges will see that. 

I don't think there's a clear answer here, but I'd like to see open scoring with either a modified 10-point must system in which the broader range of numbers are used (the modified rules have started to bring in more 10-8s but fuck, you're basically scoring fights on a 3 point scale right now and only over 3 or 5 rounds) or Dave's half-point system. If we had either of those systems in place last night, Max Holloway is the champion without a shadow of a doubt and it's more objective than scoring the fight as a whole like judges in Japan do. I think the scoring system is more crucial than the open or closed scoring part, to be honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jiji said:

Yes, the UFC has made adjustments in what they can control. However, with that first problem you mention, would open scoring not promote judges wanting to find a common ground rather than doing whatever the fuck some of them are doing right now?

Meaning they change their mind during the fight or for fights later on? I mean if two judges have one guy up 20-18 when he probably should be down 18-20, then short of a finish or a 10-8/10-7 third round,  that's a wrap buddy. For title fights, it might make a big difference. However, while I'm not really opposed to open scoring, not all fights fit into a round box.

Quote

Usually I'm for divergent thinking, but maybe less so in terms of scoring combat sports. Many still overvalue takedowns that lead to no offense (Volkanovski landed one in the third, right?), modified rules or not. 

And while I think it could be problematic to throw a fighter off their game when they find out about a bad score midway through a fight, they at least can then alter their strategy to try and overcome shitty judging rather than thinking what they're doing is working and of course the judges will see that. 

I don't think there's a clear answer here, but I'd like to see open scoring with either a modified 10-point must system in which the broader range of numbers are used (the modified rules have started to bring in more 10-8s but fuck, you're basically scoring fights on a 3 point scale right now and only over 3 or 5 rounds) or Dave's half-point system. If we had either of those systems in place last night, Max Holloway is the champion without a shadow of a doubt and it's more objective than scoring the fight as a whole like judges in Japan do. I think the scoring system is more crucial than the open or closed scoring part, to be honest. 

And that leads me to my next point. For the middle three fights of the main card last night, I thought to myself, "Man, I wouldn't want to be a judge right now cause I don't really see a totally wrong answer." Fortunately, with Petr Yan/Aldo, we didn't need the judges. The previous fight I don't think anyone had a problem at all with Rose winning partly cause now we can do a trilogy down the line. The problem is Volkanovski/Holloway where Max clearly won those rounds but he didn't win them super big save for a flash knockdown in a specific moment. This is just my conjecture, but since I'm one of the few who watch the entire card from top to bottom, it seems like judges get close prelims fights like that right more than big fights. Part of that could be you don't have the potential of two more swing rounds, but part of that could be the pressure of judging objectively in title fights. It's the pressure of wanting to get it right and not easily taking the belt off the champ (aka "well, you gotta beat the champion"). I mean it's all bullshit really, but it might be very real at the same time. With judging, the two biggest issues come when either nothing happens or a whole lot of shit happens. When the latter happens, all bets are off because you don't have the automatic one point deduction on knockdowns (or gloves touching the canvas) like in boxing. In those instances, I don't think there is going to be much common ground unless you have judges that have the exact same philosophy on the scoring criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long-term I think open scoring would lead to conformity of judging philosophy and criteria because there would be even more direct pressure on judges to not be fuck ups. I think that's a good thing.

Holloway, if he is able to maintain the level he demonstrated last night, probably beats 8 or all 9 of the other top 10 featherweights. He can get back to a third Volkanovski fight and it's not hard to sell because of how controversial the decision was. I don't think a tonne of people would be lining up to pay for it, just like I don't think a lot of people will line up to see Usman fights, but they can stick a trilogy fight with something more attractive and it could do okay. And while it's important for them to maintain interest in their product, pressure for every PPV to be a big deal isn't the same as it once was. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having 1/3 of the media judges score the fight for Volkanovski is hardly a robbery.  Argue about how 10-9 rounds are handed out (as opposed to 10-8, 10-7, etc.) or if fights should be judged as a whole (i.e. Pride) but with the scoring the way it is now, I'm not sure how any sane person can argue that Volkanovski got away with robbery.

Edited by AA484
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...