glfpunk Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Maybe. But what's worse between that and thinking you're up and then coasting to the end to find out you lost? Bottom line is fighters should fight to win every round, especially in a championship fight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Natural Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 The corner does a disservice to the fighter so many times. So often you see a round that one guy wins clearly and then in the other guys corner they're telling him "you got that round." Exactly. That's the biggest thing open scoring would help. “You won the first two rounds, you can coast this round!” – Advice given to Brian Caraway (by Miesha) prior to the start of the third round of his fight with Takeya Mizugaki. Caraway would then lose the bout via split decision. Shit like that is the worst. Yep. It's also good to see a corner tell a fighter they need to finish and they go out for it. Boetsch against Okami at UFC 144 is the example which came to my mind. Agreed. More honesty is needed...but then you have to hope the judges scored that round correctly. Makes me think, if you have open scoring, and there's a WTF decision on one particular round in the middle of the fight, that probably messes with a guy's mindset. Aye. I scored the fight to Johny Hendricks 3-2 on the night but I was fading. Woke up at 12:30am for the show which started at 1am with the TV Prelims till 3am and the main card was 3am to 5:45am in the morning. Brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Maybe. But what's worse between that and thinking you're up and then coasting to the end to find out you lost? Bottom line is fighters should fight to win every round, especially in a championship fight. I think 90% of all of the disputed decisions in the sport would be rectified if people just did their damn jobs. The judges should do their due diligence on learning about what makes effective striking, grappling and octagon control. The fighters need to fight to win every round. The cornermen need to push their fighter to win every round, and the athletic commissions should fire judges who don't know what the fuck they are watching. If they did this we would live in an MMA utopia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Spanish Waiter Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Split decisions are money though, you see them far too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Natural Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 The worst UFC Title fight decision out of the ones I've seen (never watched Machida vs. Rua 1 as I didn't have Setanta Sports which had the rights back then) is Benson Henderson vs. Frankie Edgar 2. I've watched that fight two maybe three tines and always thought Edgar clearly won. Be interesting to think what the division might be like if that decision went Edgar's way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 The corner does a disservice to the fighter so many times. So often you see a round that one guy wins clearly and then in the other guys corner they're telling him "you got that round." Exactly. That's the biggest thing open scoring would help. “You won the first two rounds, you can coast this round!” – Advice given to Brian Caraway (by Miesha) prior to the start of the third round of his fight with Takeya Mizugaki. Caraway would then lose the bout via split decision. Shit like that is the worst. This. Corners need to reinforce the killer instinct. Someone should've reminded Johny that his only loss was by DEC and to avoid leaving his fate to the judges at all costs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannon Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 The judges should do their due diligence on learning about what makes effective striking, grappling and octagon control. How much of a consensus is there on what constitutes octagon control? Are there any quantitative measures for analyzing octagon control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 The judges should do their due diligence on learning about what makes effective striking, grappling and octagon control. How much of a consensus is there on what constitutes octagon control? Are there any quantitative measures for analyzing octagon control? It does seem like a "we need to put something in here to explain why we thought that one guy won when he did less" rule. I don't understand what it means that couldn't be explained by effective striking and grappling. Is it a way to judge good footwork and the ability to cut off the cage? I hate that the state commissions, who generally had next to no MMA expertise drafted the rules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcosLoura Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 No, it makes sense. It's one fight in reality but in scoring terms it's actually five separate fights that have nothing to do with one another. The flaw is the scoring system. They don't utilize the numbers to accurately reflect the difference between Hendricks winning the second round and GSP winning the first round. They are scored the same and they really only ever use 10-9 so a fight that goes to decision is essentially how many rounds you won versus how many your opponent won. No that's just stupid. Haven't you read muhammedboehm post?! 10 point must system is awful, specially if you just 7,8,9 and 10. Too bad no one can actually put something together that's better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannon Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 What would happen if there was a mandate for close rounds to go to the more aggressive fighter to provide more incentive to take risks going for a KO or submission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 What would happen if there was a mandate for close rounds to go to the more aggressive fighter to provide more incentive to take risks going for a KO or submission? The more aggressive fighter isn't necessarily the better fighter. (I know I'm about to open a can of worms, but here I go.) The Carlos Condit/Nick Diaz fight was one guy masterfully picking his spots to strike while avoiding his opponents offense. The entire fight was Condit doing every single thing he wanted to do, but Diaz was the more aggressive fighter. There is no way Diaz should have won that fight despite the fact that it was pretty close. The way to win a close fight is to land more strikes, get more takedowns, and to improve position in the grappling game. We don't really need any more fluke Leonard Garcia wins just because he never stops winging punches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Natural Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 What would happen if there was a mandate for close rounds to go to the more aggressive fighter to provide more incentive to take risks going for a KO or submission? The more aggressive fighter isn't necessarily the better fighter. (I know I'm about to open a can of worms, but here I go.) The Carlos Condit/Nick Diaz fight was one guy masterfully picking his spots to strike while avoiding his opponents offense. The entire fight was Condit doing every single thing he wanted to do, but Diaz was the more aggressive fighter. There is no way Diaz should have won that fight despite the fact that it was pretty close. The way to win a close fight is to land more strikes, get more takedowns, and to improve position in the grappling game. We don't really need any more fluke Leonard Garcia wins just because he never stops winging punches. ; ) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagan Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I think I give the first round to Johnny, but honestly it's such a toss-up. It's a 10-10 round. The real loser in all this is Dana White. He basically came across as a less eloquent Don King. I firmly welcome more fighters letting him know that they're in charge, not him. Not that UFC isn't doing fantastic, but with all the various issues happening you wonder when he'll say or do the wrong thing one too many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Spanish Waiter Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 He will, he has. But nothing will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagan Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 True, but there's always the "one time too many." I was flabbergasted when so many people supported him over the Jon Jones thing, but he seems to have gotten a lot of media backlash over his behavior after this one. And since I'm typing, I honestly don't know how to fix the scoring. You can't do Pride-style because that's going to put way too much emphasis on the last bit of the fight, and it allows for far too much emotion. Half-points can work but it starts getting wonky with that. Even the 10-8 or 10-7 is ineffective with just a short round fight. Let's say a guy just knows he gets a 10-7 round in the first round. You think he's going to stay aggressive? You can't get rid of rounds (though that would solve the issue). I guess we need open scoring, but I just see this system as so entrenched. But yeah, I would have given Johnny the first round, but how can you say a 5 round split-decision, where a contender loses two rounds fairly clearly to the champ (who inherently gets the benefit of the doubt), is an outrage? "Oh man, it's a fucking bullshit that Johnny didn't win this very narrow, closely fought fight." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glfpunk Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'd like to see a round scored as 10-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigertooth Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I really know the answer to this question, but why does Dana have his panties in such a twist that GSP wants to take some time off? I think a big part of it was that he was caught off guard by it. Fighters are supposed to clue in the office about stuff like that so the office can answer questions from the media. Dana got caught with his thumb up his ass saying "I don't know what he's talking about." That's not fun. Does anybody have actual numbers on how often judges use the various available scores: 10-10, 10-9, 10-8, and 10-7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiztor Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 i think they're only allowed to use 10-8 once every 4 months, and they only get three opportunities in life to use either 10-7 or 10-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muhammedboehm Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 How would people feel if the judges where made available at the post fight press conference like the fighters are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie M. Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 How would people feel if the judges where made available at the post fight press conference like the fighters are? I think this is a thing all sports fans want but would be horrified if they actually got a glimpse into the simpletons we entrust to do all these important (in context) jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 How would people feel if the judges where made available at the post fight press conference like the fighters are? I think this is a thing all sports fans want but would be horrified if they actually got a glimpse into the simpletons we entrust to do all these important (in context) jobs. As a sports fan?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? I'd speculate that 75% of all people in all industries are either underqualified, incompetant, dumb, or lazy. Or in the words of George Carlin, "The world is filled with nitwits, fuck ups, jerkoffs, and assholes." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throughsilver Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Can you imagine how stupid it would be if the NBA and NFL scored the final winner of their games by how many quarters each team won? Yeah, that's what we have in fighting. Is it stupid that tennis matches are based on who won the most sets rather than who won the most games or points? It would be if the sets were fixed time periods. As it is, each set ends with the equivalent of a TKO or sub - someone wins it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epwar Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 MMA Fighting is reporting this show did between 600,000 and 650,000 in sales. That might sound good, but was GSP's lowest PPV in years. The FS1 deal is really hurting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 19, 2013 Author Share Posted December 19, 2013 MMA Fighting is reporting this show did between 600,000 and 650,000 in sales. That might sound good, but was GSP's lowest PPV in years. The FS1 deal is really hurting them. I am putting this on Hendricks. Not exactly a captivating fellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epwar Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I'd buy that had GSP vs. Jake "Personality" Shields not drawn 800,000 buys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now