The MMA thread (mk1)

[Edward Yee]

Especially seeing as what Velasquez did to Rothwell in round 1 would have been scored as a 10-9 round to Rothwell. Or how do you score the Tibau v Neer fight? Sure Tibau was landing takedowns at will, but Neer was far more aggressive once it hit the floor than Tibau and could stand-up at will.

No, I had that 10-8 Velasquez. As for Tibau vs. Neer, I found it pretty easy to go with Tibau; Neer's takedown defense was useless until Tibau finally gassed (ironically probably due to said takedowns), and Tibau still got in that armbar attempt in round 2. While Neer's butterfly guard was strong and he escaped the submission before coming back, Neer could not match/exceed Tibau's strong early lead, nor did he decisively take advantage of Tibau's stand-up falling apart upon gassing in round 3, unlike Eddie Alvarez against Katsunori Kikuno. Whether scored 10-point must or "fight as a whole," I still had it for Tibau.

It just infuriates me that we have a match that is so close as that title fight being decided on the grounds that you have to award a round to someone - even when there isn't a clear winner.

What about in the case of "fight scored as a whole"?

[aerius]

I did have to watch the fight again though, since I was so surprised that Shogun was taking it to Machida that I didn't notice that Machida actually got quite a few licks in himself.

I think this has actually been influencing a lot of people's judging more than they realize.

I have the fight DVR'd and I've watched it several times, even using slow motion replay and watching it with the sound off so I don't have to listen to Joe Rogan's biased commentary. Machida did get in some good hits but a surprising number of were actually blocked by Shogun, in the echange near the end of the 3rd round it initially looks like Shogun got hit with around a dozen strikes by Machida, in slow-motion, only the initial punch, one knee, and one kick got through, the rest were either blocked or missed.

What about in the case of "fight scored as a whole"?

I wouldn't mind seeing fights judged that way, it was the way it was done in Pride though it sometimes had issues of its own. There were some wonky decisions there too, usually in favour of one of their star fighters. And while we're at, bring back stomps, soccer kicks, and knees to the head of downed fighters.

[Zadius]

I'd prefer the fights be judged as a whole, with things happening later in the fight having more weight. Ideally, fights would go on with no time limit until there is a decisive finish. It's just obviously not practical. So, since this is the reason we need a judging system in the first place, we should think of judging as a sort of extrapolation. Things later in the fight would then have more weight, and signs of fatigue would be factored in. Takedowns and dominant positions would be near the bottom of the hierarchy of judging criteria, etc.

[weemadando]

I'd prefer the fights be judged as a whole, with things happening later in the fight having more weight. Ideally, fights would go on with no time limit until there is a decisive finish. It's just obviously not practical. So, since this is the reason we need a judging system in the first place, we should think of judging as a sort of extrapolation. Things later in the fight would then have more weight, and signs of fatigue would be factored in. Takedowns and dominant positions would be near the bottom of the hierarchy of judging criteria, etc.

Don't get me started on that crap. I hate it when someone "steals a round" with a last second takedown. GODDAMN! You've just been getting beat up for five minutes, but because someone scores a no-risk takedown in the dying seconds (no chance to get submitted or lose position in the time left) they somehow "win the round" is bullshit. Similarly when a guy finally escapes from the ground where he's been in a world of hurt all round and lands a quick combo with seconds left and the idiot judge goes: "well, all those submissions attempts, ground and pound and complete positional dominance should be ignored, because that other man just hit him in the head twice."

I would NEVER want "whole of fight" scoring - it's just too subjective - round by round at least gives accountability in that a judge has to justify why they awarded a given round to someone. The current system is a good measure as long as the judges aren't fucking retards who think that they're scoring either a boxing or a wrestling match. Like the fuckheads who think Guida was robbed in the Sanchez fight because he was on top. Never mind he was eating multiple elbows every second adn never got past the guard - he was on top, therefore he should have one. That's shitty logic. And it makes for shitty judging.

And the time sensitive judging? That's terrible. It would just encourage inaction for the early rounds in favour of a late flurry - the same as the "steal teh round" with a flurry or takedown issue which I've already addressed.

My preferences:
Round by Round judging.
No "must" in the 10pts - you can have 10-10 rounds which is what would have been appropriate in so many cases.
Judges are drawn from a pool of actual MMA judges (not boxing judges) or you have a mix of judges from various disciplines who ONLY score within their disciplines - which is probably needlessly complex, but prevents a lot of the issues I have with ground game scoring in MMA.

[weemadando]

Especially seeing as what Velasquez did to Rothwell in round 1 would have been scored as a 10-9 round to Rothwell. Or how do you score the Tibau v Neer fight? Sure Tibau was landing takedowns at will, but Neer was far more aggressive once it hit the floor than Tibau and could stand-up at will.

No, I had that 10-8 Velasquez.

The point remains that there are many people who WOULD have scored that 10-9 despite the domination, or we can look at many other rounds where a guy has dominated and gotten 10-9, but then we have a situation where you've got a completely even round and a judge has to say: "Well, I suppose guy A threw 2 more punches than guy B so I'll give it to him." It blows the balance of the scoring system out of the water. I'd rather see more draws and re-matches (or TUF style "sudden victory" rounds) than shit decisions that kill peoples records and pay checks (especially for the lower end guys who aren't taking home six figures just to show up).

As for Tibau vs. Neer, I found it pretty easy to go with Tibau; Neer's takedown defense was useless until Tibau finally gassed (ironically probably due to said takedowns), and Tibau still got in that armbar attempt in round 2. While Neer's butterfly guard was strong and he escaped the submission before coming back, Neer could not match/exceed Tibau's strong early lead, nor did he decisively take advantage of Tibau's stand-up falling apart upon gassing in round 3, unlike Eddie Alvarez against Katsunori Kikuno. Whether scored 10-point must or "fight as a whole," I still had it for Tibau.

Bad example, but the idea is there - how would you score it if someone could take down their opponent at will, but was then unwilling to stay on the ground because their opponent was too dangerous there and thus you had a scenario where it was a stalemate in the standup, but a guy was taking down his opponent, but then immediately standing again to avoid submissions? I'm not saying that this was the case in the Neer/Tibau fight, it was clear that Tibau was by no means dominant on the ground.

That of course leads into the next question of: what scores higher in your eyes - submission attempts or escapes?

It just infuriates me that we have a match that is so close as that title fight being decided on the grounds that you have to award a round to someone - even when there isn't a clear winner.

What about in the case of "fight scored as a whole"?

See my above post.

[Zadius]

I would NEVER want "whole of fight" scoring - it's just too subjective - round by round at least gives accountability in that a judge has to justify why they awarded a given round to someone. The current system is a good measure as long as the judges aren't fucking retards who think that they're scoring either a boxing or a wrestling match. Like the fuckheads who think Guida was robbed in the Sanchez fight because he was on top. Never mind he was eating multiple elbows every second adn never got past the guard - he was on top, therefore he should have one. That's shitty logic. And it makes for shitty judging.

It'll always be subjective, that's the reason why experienced and knowledgeable judges are needed, it's also the reason we need a better judging criteria. I don't understand how a judge writing "10-9" on a score card counts as justifying his decision. He should be expected to be able to justify his opinion within the confines of the official judging criteria, but if the judging criteria sucks in the first place... (and the current one does, for instance there is no official distinction made between a submission attempt and a takedown, as both are simply considered "effective grappling".)

And the time sensitive judging? That's terrible. It would just encourage inaction for the early rounds in favour of a late flurry - the same as the "steal teh round" with a flurry or takedown issue which I've already addressed.

There's no such thing as stealing a round if the fight isn't scored by rounds. And of course it would be silly to allow a few seconds at the end of a fight to outweigh the previous 14 minutes and 50-some seconds. I'm not suggesting that past events should diminish in value that fast. Not very fast at all, in fact. In practice, it would really be more of a tie-break mechanism, so that if one fighter dominated the first half of the fight, and the other fighter dominated the second half, the edge should go to the latter fighter.

[weemadando]

I would NEVER want "whole of fight" scoring - it's just too subjective - round by round at least gives accountability in that a judge has to justify why they awarded a given round to someone. The current system is a good measure as long as the judges aren't fucking retards who think that they're scoring either a boxing or a wrestling match. Like the fuckheads who think Guida was robbed in the Sanchez fight because he was on top. Never mind he was eating multiple elbows every second adn never got past the guard - he was on top, therefore he should have one. That's shitty logic. And it makes for shitty judging.

It'll always be subjective, that's the reason why experienced and knowledgeable judges are needed, it's also the reason we need a better judging criteria. I don't understand how a judge writing "10-9" on a score card counts as justifying his decision. He should be expected to be able to justify his opinion within the confines of the official judging criteria, but if the judging criteria sucks in the first place... (and the current one does, for instance there is no official distinction made between a submission attempt and a takedown, as both are simply considered "effective grappling".)

I'm more referring to the fact that in a round based scoring system at the commission level they can ask a judge: "Why did you score round 2 to Shogun" or similar and have more clearly defined oversight.

And the current criteria is ridiculous. Someone give me a definition of Octagon Control that doesn't suck.

[Edward Yee]

As for Tibau vs. Neer, I found it pretty easy to go with Tibau; Neer's takedown defense was useless until Tibau finally gassed (ironically probably due to said takedowns), and Tibau still got in that armbar attempt in round 2. While Neer's butterfly guard was strong and he escaped the submission before coming back, Neer could not match/exceed Tibau's strong early lead, nor did he decisively take advantage of Tibau's stand-up falling apart upon gassing in round 3, unlike Eddie Alvarez against Katsunori Kikuno. Whether scored 10-point must or "fight as a whole," I still had it for Tibau.

Bad example, but the idea is there - how would you score it if someone could take down their opponent at will, but was then unwilling to stay on the ground because their opponent was too dangerous there and thus you had a scenario where it was a stalemate in the standup, but a guy was taking down his opponent, but then immediately standing again to avoid submissions? I'm not saying that this was the case in the Neer/Tibau fight, it was clear that Tibau was by no means dominant on the ground.

I don't recall Neer ever trying for a submission on the ground in the first place, where Tibau at least got that "good" armbar. You sure you don't mean Neer? I would say that Neer didn't take advantage of his strength on the ground (i.e. the strong defense which I did recognize while watching this fight) to counterattack and lock Tibau down (if only to prevent him from getting more takedowns by keeping him on the ground), so I'd still give it to Tibau on his takedowns in rounds 1 and 2 plus the round 2 guard pass that led to the armbar attempt; Tibau's gassing and stuffed takedowns would have made round 3 close in my eyes, possibly 10-10, since I didn't see any clear winner for the stand-up there.

That of course leads into the next question of: what scores higher in your eyes - submission attempts or escapes?

For me it depends on the quality of the attempt. If it's poorly applied or out of position, then I'll favor the escape. If it's well-applied and from a good position (or at least one where it's clearly "working"), then the recipient will have to do something equally well for me to not favor the attempt, and personally I'd lean more towards some sort of technical escape, preferably quick, over brute-forcing one's way out or "gritting it out" until the applier tired or the recipient finally got out. Kikuno-Alvarez however interests me in being an outlier exception to this last rule of mine.

Like the fuckheads who think Guida was robbed in the Sanchez fight because he was on top. Never mind he was eating multiple elbows every second adn never got past the guard - he was on top, therefore he should have one. That's shitty logic. And it makes for shitty judging.

This right here. I also remember that Sanchez went for a kimura from the guard at least in round 2, which has influenced my recollection of that fight. Being in the other guy's guard is only as good as your ability to "pass" it in MMA terms... either by position (through the traditional guard pass), by beating the shit out of him from his guard, or grabbing a sub from his guard (i.e. any sort of leglock). If the guard is solid enough that the guy on the bottom can actually counterattack, I'm gonna go with him. The impression I've had of Sanchez vs. Guida has been consistently "Sanchez whooped Guida's ass fierce in R1, while Guida did not consistently bring the fight back to Sanchez enough in either round to match or exceed override that within the time limit." As you said, Guida getting elbowed, and as I said, the kimura attempt from the bottom.

No "must" in the 10pts - you can have 10-10 rounds which is what would have been appropriate in so many cases.
Judges are drawn from a pool of actual MMA judges (not boxing judges) or you have a mix of judges from various disciplines who ONLY score within their disciplines - which is probably needlessly complex, but prevents a lot of the issues I have with ground game scoring in MMA.

I like your idea of no "must," but I would want actual MMA judges instead of single-discipline judges... some stuff won't make sense in the context of one discipline due to their relevance to another discipline (i.e. stuff as basic as keeping the hands low enough to stuff a takedown, high hands to block upper body and head strikes, standing on one foot to check a kick even... and so on).

[Zadius]

Cecil Peoples would like to explain himself.

First of all what you need to understand is that from where the judges are sitting, we get to see things that the fans at home may miss. Mauricio Rua was being aggressive but it wasn't effective aggressiveness which is what we as the judges look for when scoring a fight. The way I saw it, Lyoto was landing the more cleaner and damaging strikes throughout the fight - if you take a look at the judging criteria clean strikes are valued more-so than the quantity of strikes landed. Although Rua threw a lot of low kicks they were not as damaging as Lyotos diverse attack in the earlier rounds which is why I scored the first three rounds for Machida.

You have to keep in mind we always the favor the fighter who is trying to finish the fight, and leg kicks certainly don't do that.

Leg kicks don't end fights? I think these people would disagree with you. There is nothing in the judging criteria that says or implies that leg kicks should be so disvalued.

When both fighters are engaged in a striking match what I always look for is the fighter who is being judicious, picking his spots, being accurate and landing the cleaner strikes which ultimately is what Lyoto did more effectively than Rua. Lyoto made Shogun come after him, he determined where the fight took place which in my opinion constitutes as effective Octagon control.

I recognize the fact that Rua did have a few takedown attempts during the course of the fight however Lyoto defended them all successfully which counts as effective grappling in his favor, where as unsuccessful takedown attempts are not scored at all. Therefore going by that criteria, I believe Lyoto won the fight clearly. I'm just glad the other judges on the panel saw it the same way and I'm sure the fans who understand the technicalities of the sport agree with the decision too.

You only think Lyoto was landing cleaner strikes because you don't think leg kicks count, you dumb ass. Rua landed significantly more strikes in the fight. Oh, and despite your insane definition of Octagon control, the official judging criteria states that since the fight was over 90% standing, clean strikes should be weighed the most, followed by effective grappling, followed by Octagon control, and finally effective aggressiveness.

Here's how it should have been called:
1. Clean strikes - Shogun
2. Effective grappling - Lyoto
3. Octagon control - Shogun
4. Effective aggressiveness - Shogun

Winner - Mauricio "Shogun" Rua.

And the current criteria is ridiculous. Someone give me a definition of Octagon Control that doesn't suck.

This is how the judging criteria defines it:

J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

Shogun won #1, Lyoto won #2, but since it wasn't a large part of the fight, #1 should count for more. #3 and #4 are irrelevant since the fight did not go to the ground. And yes, this is a stupid criteria.

[Edward Yee]

Lesnar vs. Carwin delayed on account of Lesnar being so ill that he wasn't able to train for three weeks but moved to UFC 108 (possibly hedging against any Anderson Silva drama about his distaste for fighting Vitor Belfort), Ortiz vs. Griffin II upgraded to the main event of 106 in the mean time.

[weemadando]

You want this, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.

Rampage flipping out is the greatest thing I've seen all week. Seeing that tosser so mad at himself makes me laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.

On the topic of the fight that caused the above reaction - Mitrione is clearly not in great shape and has poor form, but damn did he have some heavy hands for the sixty seconds or so it took him to get gassed. Scott Junk most definitely looked like he'd been in a fight.

The best part of this? Watching next weeks episode when we get to see yet more of Dana and Spike framing Rampage and editing footage so he ends up looking bad. His blogs are becoming increasingly paranoid and rambling. It won't be long until he's in his truck again. In fact, he'll probably mow down Liam Neeson on set in the A-Team van.

Also - I need to share with you the greatest zinger I've read this week - from the comments section of Five Ounces of Pain dissecting Jackson's UFC Black Helicopter psychosis:

Dude this guy loses cool points everytime he opens his mouth….I’m waiting for a piece of Wanderlei’s Knee to fall out of it.

I gave that comment the thumbs up.

Well, at least Rampage has one victory this season. He sure as shit beat the door. Don't let it hit your arse on the way out Quinton.

[The Spartan]

The most damning thing, well, things, that I've seen on TUF, aside from abandoning his fighters in the ring so he can go throw a temper tantrum, are him making excuses along the line of, "I'm not a coach, I'm not a coach" this past episode and, in the same episode, saying that he wanted to get his first win. Not ours. His.

[Edward Yee]

That, and just look at the look on Kimbo's face when the blame for the losses is deflected onto the fighters themselves.

Worst part about Mitrione-Junk is seeing what might be in store for the next season. (Seriously, this is some pretty cool rolling at the TUF11 tryouts... too bad all the 205ers got cut because at the last minute it got changed to 185 only. )

[weemadando]

This is the PPV to see in Dec:

KSW 12 Mariusz Pudzianowski (5 times World's Strongest Man) vs Marcin Najman (a heavyweight boxer moving to MMA).

Now, is it too much to hope for to see that man deliver a suplex from hell?

[Darth Fanboy]

Saw CBS ads for their broadcast of Fedor's Nov 7th fight, could be worth recording it seems.

[weemadando]

Why on Earth are they exclusively pushing Fedor? It's like they want to repeat the one-trick pony events of the Kimbo days.

Why not also push some of the other marketable talent on the card?

Like that guy who has his own fucking top rating TV show v another top flight guy

Or two decent Brazilian heavyweights? Or Mousasi v Sokoudjou?

[Darth Fanboy]

Why on Earth are they exclusively pushing Fedor? It's like they want to repeat the one-trick pony events of the Kimbo days.

Why not also push some of the other marketable talent on the card?

Like that guy who has his own fucking top rating TV show v another top flight guy

Or two decent Brazilian heavyweights? Or Mousasi v Sokoudjou?

According to this article it is because Fedor vs. Brett Rogers is the ONLY fight currently booked for the show.

[weemadando]

That's an article from September...

[Darth Fanboy]

That's an article from September...

Well shit so it is. I guess this just goes to further your point about not advertising the rest of the card then because despite seeing the ad run twice plus a look at CBS' main MMA page told me almost nothing about the rest of the card until I looked a little further.

So...yeah my bad.

[Edward Yee]

A must-see moment from the Fedor vs. Rogers press conference.

[weemadando]

Besides Roger's looking shifty, what am I looking at here?

[Edward Yee]

One of these two ladies is scheduled to die at Cyborg's hands, and if this (a rematch) goes the way it did last time, it will be the one on the right. The mental image of Cyborg versus her, Roxanne Modafferi, is... I'm not sure where it is on the border between funny and cruel.

[weemadando]

I don't want this to sound mean, but there's plenty of chin to aim at there.

[Edward Yee]

That's not mean at all, but it's not as bad as Antonio Silva may have it.

EDIT: Didn't come down to that either, Marloes Coenen saved Roxy by armbar from death at Cyborg's hands.

[aerius]

I'm not sure what Mayhem's strategy was, he could've won the fight cleanly if he kept it a long range striking match so that Shields would have a harder time shooting in and taking him down, but he kept closing in to brawl and then got clinched and taken down again & again. Yeah he's good on the ground and damn near unsubmittable and it was one of the best technical grappling matches I've seen in a while, but why is he playing down there in Jake Shields' world? Keep it standing and punch him silly, Jake still has no damn standup skills so just stay on the feet and tool him.

Mousasi wins again, and Sokky folds under pressure once again on the ground. Both of them got some nice throws & reversals on each other in the 1st round, but when Sokky got put on his back in the 2nd he just folded and got punched out.

Rogers nearly got the upset, if he had better top control & balance he could've punched Fedor's head through the mat, but he didn't, and almost got armbarred when Fedor went for the escape. He was scoring solid punches on Fedor with his ground & pound but he just couldn't maintain his position, I thought for a few moments that Fedor was about to get pounded out. Then in the 2nd round, boom! Fedor puts everything into a massive right and drops Rogers onto the canvas, couple punches later and it's all over. Fedor wins again, and all is right with the world.