The Official MMA Discussion Thread

[MrSelfDestruct]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="brashleyholland" data-cite="brashleyholland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Then you don't understand how MMA is scored. It was the closest round in the entire fight, and the only one that split the judges. <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Just sit down with a stopwatch and apply the scoring criteria. Even if you come back with a 10-9 for GSP, you'll see that it's a close round. </p><p> </p><p> How do you apply the scoring system to that round?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> 1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it's full time limit based upon the following criteria:</p><p> -Clean Strikes</p><p> GSP landed little jabs and nothing with a little bit of power at all, clean strikes, maybe, effective? not in the slightest.</p><p> </p><p> -Effective Grappling</p><p> Hendricks took this, obviously having quite the power advantage on the cage and in takedowns.</p><p> </p><p> -Octagon Control</p><p> Hendricks had him backing up, controlled it on the fence and on the feet.</p><p> </p><p> -Effective Aggressiveness</p><p> As said before, Hendricks was the aggressor and had GSP backing up.</p><p> </p><p> I do know it was the kicker round for the judges but I don't get it. it may be the 'closest round of the fight" but to ME, wasn't that close. Not a dominant round, but to me a clear cut nod goes to Hendricks.</p>

[bigtplaystew]

<p>I'm not trying to nuthug BH or anything but when it comes to MMA he's a known quantity who puts himself out here. He doesn't hide behind a fake persona like BigTplaysTEW. He's a real dude who has made money in and spent a considerable time around the MMA business and he's trying to explain in rational terms why the fight was a lot closer than some of the fans think it was. I mean I logged into this thread ready to rant on how Hendricks got screwed. So I disagreed with BH at first, but then read his points and realized why I was wrong. He's not trolling. He doesn't perpetuate silly arguments. Can we just differ to his opinion sometimes? He's just explaining what happened. And if you read his breakdown, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the dramatics Dana white wants us to believe. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

BTW I don't think it's an evil conspiracy from White. He's doing his job and posturing for a rematch that just about everyone (except GSP) wants to see so we all win. Just saying, that fight really was kinda close if you break down the criteria objectively and look at the 10 point must system for what it is and what it's designed to do, agree with it or not. </p><p> </p><p>

For the record, I would have given Hendricks round 1 but I was about ten Molson Goldens down the hatch at that point so I'm far from the authority on the subject.</p>

[Blackman]

<p>"Clean strikes" are strikes that don't glance or hit partially, but hit tout court. They don't have to do damage. It's about getting hit or not. If a fighter is down and not defending himself, the offensive fighter might even slap him on the cheeks for all I care. If they land, the fight might get stopped. (ok, that might be a little too ridiculous, but you get the point <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />). </p><p> </p><p>

I thought GSP landed enough clean strikes to make it close. I also had Johnny winning that round by a very small margin, but hey... It's about relative scoring. Afaik, there's no guideline for that. Seems like judges can pick orders at their leisure. Control-freaks (who often become judges) will opt for control of the cage in favor of striking dominance. But others (more sensation-seeking people) will score strikes higher.</p><p> </p><p>

I've been saying for a while that the scoring system needs to be objectified. There needs to be an order in the categorical variables used for scoring. I'm also more of a fan of scoring the fight on a whole, instead of calculating rounds. If a fighter wins the first 3, he's content on sitting back, not allowing the other guy a lot of ground to score. That said, he can still stall when scoring as a whole, but the relevance of a knockdown will far outweigh a minor advantage in exchanges during the rounds before.</p>

[bigtplaystew]

<p>I like round by round scoring. I actually think MMA scoring is fine. It's the morons who don't understand who screw it up. </p><p> </p><p>

If you let some of these fools judge an entire fight as a whole they'll make more bad decisions not less. A fighter's last minute crowd pleasing barrage of strikes will completely overshadow what might have been 2 rounds of dull but dominant work from his opponent.</p><p> </p><p>

MMA is a tough sport to score. I recognize that. Having to combine the various positions fighters find themselves and what consists of an attack vs defense isn't easy to spot in every situation unless you KNOW what to look for. Too many judges (especially in Nevada) have no idea what the hell they are looking at and simply do not understand what constitutes imposing your will. </p><p> </p><p>

So what needs to happen is either proper education or simply better personnel judging the fights. I think MOST decisions are good ones. But there are still way too many bad ones.</p>

[brashleyholland]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Afaik, there's no guideline for that. Seems like judges can pick orders at their leisure. Control-freaks (who often become judges) will opt for control of the cage in favor of striking dominance. </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> There is a clearly defined order for the UR scoring criteria. Effective striking/grappling is weighed first, and most heavily. Then aggression, then ring/cage control. Effective striking and grappling is also weighted according to how much of the round is spend standing or grappling. So if the fighters are standing for 3.5 minutes, and on the ground for 1.5 the guy who dictates the pace with his jab/low kicks should (all things being equal) get the round over the guy who gets a TD or two and passes guard etc. </p><p> </p><p> Just going back to GSP/Hendricks rnd 1, the grappling was pretty much a wash as not much happened. Hendricks landed some knees to the legs in the clinch, GSP landed some knees to the body (usually weighed heavier all things being equal). The round will have been mostly scored based on effective striking.</p>

[brashleyholland]

<p>BT Sport (the UFC's UK broadcast partner) rounded up a few media types for their verdict on the GSP/Hendricks thing. Some good reasoning here (aside from the one idiot - see if you can spot the odd one out). </p><p> </p><p>

Also, there is a video on that link from Marc Goddard - should be able to watch it outside the UK - his explanation is probably the best. </p><p> </p><p>

<a href="http://sport.bt.com/moresporthub/ufc/comment-stpierre-v-hendricks-was-close-but-no-robbery-S11363851179321" rel="external nofollow">http://sport.bt.com/moresporthub/ufc/comment-stpierre-v-hendricks-was-close-but-no-robbery-S11363851179321</a></p>

[bigtplaystew]

For what it's worth, Ricardo Lamas and Dominick Cruz were on Opie and Anthony and both agreed that GSP won the fight by scoring standards. Though Lamas made the distinction, "I think gsp won the competition but Hendricks won the fight. HE said something like "If I slap Dominick 20 times and he hits me once and breaks my nose, I probably wouldn't go running around saying I won that fight."

[brashleyholland]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="bigtplaystew" data-cite="bigtplaystew" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>For what it's worth, Ricardo Lamas and Dominick Cruz were on Opie and Anthony and both agreed that GSP won the fight by scoring standards. Though Lamas made the distinction, "I think gsp won the competition but Hendricks won the fight. HE said something like "If I slap Dominick 20 times and he hits me once and breaks my nose, I probably wouldn't go running around saying I won that fight."</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Completely agree with that notion. Don't think there are many that'd argue about who got the better of the 'fight'.</p><p> </p><p> Anybody watching GLORY right now? Another sick night of fights so far, and possibly the biggest upset in kickboxing in one of the tourney fights.</p>

[brashleyholland]

<p>Shane Del Rosario's life support is likely being turned off at some point this evening US time. </p><p> </p><p>

For those who didn't know, he suffered a massive cardiac arrest a few days ago, and has lost all brain function. He's currently being kept alive by way of a life support machine. I understand that although it was a foregone conclusion yesterday, his family wanted to give him 24 hours just in case. </p><p> </p><p>

Tragic thing to happen to someone so young.</p>

[MrSelfDestruct]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="brashleyholland" data-cite="brashleyholland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Shane Del Rosario's life support is likely being turned off at some point this evening US time. <p> </p><p> For those who didn't know, he suffered a massive cardiac arrest a few days ago, and has lost all brain function. He's currently being kept alive by way of a life support machine. I understand that although it was a foregone conclusion yesterday, his family wanted to give him 24 hours just in case. </p><p> </p><p> Tragic thing to happen to someone so young.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> so tragic, such a talent. Guy has been injured nearly his whole UFC career but I always expected big things. Such a shame</p>

[Blackman]

<p>Too bad. At least he got immortalized in a game (wasn't he in MMA Undisputed?). </p><p> </p><p>

TUF Finale was kinda boring imo, but the Diaz fight was entertaining as usual, especially when it was time for the post-fight talk. Those guys are unbelievable. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p>

<a href="http://www.sherdog.com/videos/videointerview/Miesha-Tate-Reacts-to-TUF-18-Finale-5385" rel="external nofollow">http://www.sherdog.com/videos/videointerview/Miesha-Tate-Reacts-to-TUF-18-Finale-5385</a></p><p> </p><p>

Wow, didn't expect such a great analysis from Tate. I might even put my money on her when the fight comes.</p>

[Jaysin]

<p>An update on Shane which features some good news.</p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Hospitalized UFC heavyweight Shane del Rosario is now off life support and breathing on his own, according to friend and training partner Erik Apple.</p><p> </p><p> Sherdog.com confirmed the news with Apple via text message on Saturday afternoon. Ross Finkelstein initially posted a tweet on Saturday indicating that del Rosario had also registered brain activity and squeezed his mother’s hand, and Apple verified that both statements were true.</p><p> </p><p> Though the news is encouraging, Apple also relayed that del Rosario, who suffered cardiac arrest on Tuesday, is still very much in a fight for his life.</p><p> </p><p> “All of these are positive signs. However, we just have to be patient and wait,” Apple told Sherdog. “These are not definitive signs. They could mean something, or they could mean nothing.”</p><p> </p><p> Apple told Sherdog on Thursday that del Rosario was found at home by roommate Ian McCall and was taken to Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, Calif. ESPN.com then reported that del Rosario had been placed on life support and had “no brain activity remaining” after undergoing a procedure on Wednesday that doctors hoped would jump-start body and brain function.</p><p> </p><p> The fighter’s manager, Jason House, issued a statement on Friday relaying that doctors believed a rare heart condition called Long QT Syndrome may have been the cause of del Rosario’s sudden hospitalization.</p></div></blockquote>

[Blackman]

<p>Couldn't see Invicta Live this time, but apparently the stream failed again and it's available for all to see on youtube. Lucky me.</p><p> </p><p>

I like Mo, but he's not a really good colour commentator imo. He also doesn't really know much about the fighters in general. He's comparing Leslie Smith to "a new age Diaz brother". I guess there are some similarities, but it's a different style imo. Nakamoto is the "modern day Ali", and that while she mainly seems to use her feet. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but he should have more insight for a high level martial artist. His comments are also trending to the same topics. </p><p> </p><p>

Miesha on the other hand offers insightful comments. Lately I'm very surprised by her. She took her opportunity in the spotlights and nailed it. She's obviously way better off than Rousey in terms of promoting herself. Unfortunately for her, it doesn't win matches. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p>

One of the title fights couldn't take place because of (seemingly weight-cut-related, though I first heard it was an infection) issues. Must be so frustrating to the other woman to have it cancelled twice. I really hate the phenomanon of weight cuts. I'm still repeating my preference of another weight cut an hour before the fight, where not making the cut would result in the entire purse being forfeited.</p><p> </p><p>

The fights themselves were decent enough. Still need to see the rest.</p>

[Blackman]

Also: RIP Shane. Deaths like this are always sad.

[Blackman]

<p>Does anybody (Brad?) know the origin of the 10 point must scoring system? I know it's borrowed from boxing, but why the 10-9 structure as opposed to just awarding 1 point (or 2) for the round? It makes no sense to me. You only have 10-9 and 10-8 (does a 10-7 score even exist in practice?). It must have some reason, but I just don't see it. In boxing you could have 12 rounds and it would've been, what, 112-116? That's ridiculous... If it was a standard 10 rounds I might've understood.</p><p> </p><p>

A fighter wins two rounds to one, and the judges score the contest 29-28? Casual fans are going to be like: "huh?". It's much clearer to say: "2-1 for this guy".</p>

[Guest codey]

<p>The problem with a strict 1 point per round one system comes in if someone is down 2 rounds and delivers a dominant final round without finishing. On the 1 point scale, he still loses, but with the current system he can still come back and earn a draw or, with a 10-7, win.</p><p> </p><p>

Judges seem incredibly wary to hand out scores like 10-10s and 10-8s, though. The recent Bader/Perosh fight is a great example. Bader mauled Perosh and still couldn't earn a 10-8 from the judges.</p>

[fullMETAL]

<p>Anybody catch UFC on FOX on Saturday?</p><p>

What a flash finish in the main event, right?</p>

[brashleyholland]

Does anybody (Brad?) know the origin of the 10 point must scoring system?

 

boxing originally brought it in to supplement their existing systems, which as boxing evolved proved inadequate. Originally fights were fought 'to a finish'; literally until one fight could not continue, regardless of whether that took 10 rounds or 60 rounds.

 

As it became more of a spectator sport, a finite number of rounds was needed and if it went the distance the ref would decide the winner by raising his hand. Hands up if you can spot how this could lead (and frequently did lead) to corruption :-p

 

Judges were eventually added (first one, then two, now three) as outside adjudicators separate from the ref. They originally scored by simply awarding the round to a fighter, with the winner being the fighter who had won the most rounds.

 

As the system developed, there was a need to expand the scoring. If a fighter lands 200 punches in a round, but is knocked down three times by the only three shots his opponent throws, how do you judge that? Point deductions for fouls also had to be factored in, as things had progressed beyond the bare knuckle days when a cheeky headbutt or biting someones nose off only warranted a ticking off from the ref and was laughed about in the pub afterwards.

 

Potentially you could have one fighter scoring a number of knockdowns, and committing a number of fouls...so who wins then? Also, in vary rare cases, points can be deducted for corner misconduct. The 10-point system allows for posotive and negative attrition of points.

 

Keep in mind that back in the day bouts were sometimes fought over 20+ rounds, so there was lots of scope for lots to happen, points-wise.

 

Some places use a 5-point must, others use a 1-point must (although 10-point must scores are still kept in case of a draw) and some places in the UK still use the hand raise. I've seen a couple of refs raise a hand and make a run for the car park :-p

 

MMA is making the best of the system, and honestly, it's the least subjective one out there when the criteria are applied properly by competent officials. The Pride system was horrible, despite appearing 'noble' on the face of things.

 

While we don't have set posotive deductions for knockdowns etc, there are criteria for 10-8's, 10-10's, 9-9's and 10-7's...I've even seen a 9-7 round in MMA.

[Capelli King]

<p>The way the point system works needs a rework. Takedowns, moving forward (called octagon aggression or control) and cuddling in particular get way too much credit. In particular you see many fighters which take someone down and get beaten up, but still get the point for the round simply because they were on top and got the takedown. Or you get someone win a round which was even simply because they got a takedown which they did not take advantage of.</p><p> </p><p>

How i see it, a takedown is only worth something if you were active and did damage.</p>

[brashleyholland]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Capelli King" data-cite="Capelli King" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The way the point system works needs a rework. Takedowns, moving forward (called octagon aggression or control) and cuddling in particular get way too much credit.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Takedowns constitute effective grappling, and as such should figure heavily in scoring. </p><p> </p><p> Effective aggressiveness is the fourth criteria, and is weighed least. It's also not just 'moving forward', it's effectively pressing the fight and instigating legal exchanges. </p><p> </p><p> Control of the fighting area is the third criteria, and also isn't weighed as much as effective grappling/striking (which are equal). Like 'aggression', it usually only comes into play when the other two are even. Here's the official description </p><p> </p><p> <strong><em>Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler's attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking, taking down an opponent to force a ground fight, creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.</em></strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>In particular you see many fighters which take someone down and get beaten up, but still get the point for the round simply because they were on top and got the takedown. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It happens, but it's difficult to win a fight from the bottom under the criteria. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Or you get someone win a round which was even simply because they got a takedown which they did not take advantage of.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> If the round was even aside from the takedown, then they should absolutely win the round regardless of what they did/didn't do with it. Without point deductions, it should be very, very difficult to score a round a draw. </p><p> </p><p> While judging isn't perfect, I maintain that most people reasons for wanting it changed stem from them not knowing how to correctly apply the criteria to a fight. </p><p> </p><p> Watch this....</p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://sport.bt.com/video-01363814401986?videoid=2946957941001" rel="external nofollow"><strong><span style="text-decoration:underline;">Judging Criteria Discussed</span></strong></a></p><p> </p><p> ...debunks a few things.</p>

[alphadraighon]

Silva vs Weidman II...damn is all I can say. Did not see that coming.

[Rickymex]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="alphadraighon" data-cite="alphadraighon" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Silva vs Weidman II...damn is all I can say. Did not see that coming.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Poor Weidman he will never get the chance to prove himself.</p>

[Synticha]

I doubt Silva will make a comeback...

[alphadraighon]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Rickymex" data-cite="Rickymex" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Poor Weidman he will never get the chance to prove himself.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think he was proving himself pretty damned well based on round one. And even though what happened was a freak accident, the match wasn't exactly going Silva's way thus far.</p><p> </p><p> I mean, you can't exactly give him credit for what happened, but you can't say he wasn't winning that fight up to that point.</p>

[alphadraighon]

<p>Saw this on Facebook from Bec Hyatt...</p><p> </p><p>

VERY hard to watch, so don't if you've got a weak stomach.</p><p> </p><p>

<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fwmi1mLjZW4/Ur-yN3P4U4I/AAAAAAAA_Rc/sVtJRvpIYJg/s1600/6.gif" rel="external nofollow">http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fwmi1mLjZW4/Ur-yN3P4U4I/AAAAAAAA_Rc/sVtJRvpIYJg/s1600/6.gif</a></p>