WEC 48

[SPX]

Re: WEC 48

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's two different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

[zY|]

Re: WEC 48

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's too different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

He interprets the rules the way he feels like, then tells those who disagree with them that they're wrong. A hypocritical broad constructionist, if you will.

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's two different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

Two different sports OMG you guys are great

This came straight from the Nevada State Athletic Commission MMA rules its not two different sports you goof

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's too different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

He interprets the rules the way he feels like, then tells those who disagree with them that they're wrong. A hypocritical broad constructionist, if you will.

I'm wrong ,the judges are wrong everyones wrong that knows the rules on how to score a fight but Zy's right that doesnt even know the rules how to score a round .OK that makes sense

[SPX]

Re: WEC 48

Two different sports OMG you guys are great

This came straight from the Nevada State Athletic Commission MMA rules its not two different sports you goof

Okay, you got me. I just scanned it and didn't catch the shit about strikes from the guard.

Either way, my point about the subjectivity of all of it still stands. You act like it's simple, but it's not. It may be in theory, but not in practice. That's why judging is in the state it's in in the first place.

[Ludo]

Re: WEC 48

Actually being on top and getting the takedown everytime(just about) covers effective grappling and octagon control. 2 is better than 1, not to mention strikes from the bottom do far less damage and if it wasn't for the fact that Mousasi landed a fuck ton of them Mo would have come out looking like a rose.

As far as Cerrone/Henderson 1 goes: http://fightmetric.com/fights/Henderson-Cerrone.html - FM scores it for Cerrone.

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/WEC-43 ... ults-20269 -Sherdog scores it for Cerrone.

http://mmajunkie.com/news/16450/wec-43- ... esults.mma Junkie scores it for Henderson.

Clearly this is another controversial decision, as it was at the time. It was a close fight that saw large swings in momentum. Henderson getting takedowns before Cerrone almost ended the fight with some really deep submission attempts. So lets abandon this "your an idiot if you scored it this way" nonsense, eh?

[zY|]

Re: WEC 48

L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded. Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it
in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations
that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the
criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is
imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
-octagon control
-effective aggressiveness

Luke thinks striking is more important because it comes first in the sentence. LOL!

[Ludo]

Re: WEC 48

Just how do you define effective striking, even using that criteria? The guy who lands 25 high percentage jabs that don't do any damage and one low percentage power punch that didn't phase his opponent or the guy who landed 10 jabs and 3 counter lefts that dropped his opponent for 2 knockdowns? Effective striking would dictate that the one who lands more would win the round but no way in hell the judges will give it to the guy who found himself on his ass twice.

Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking


Still sure strikes from the bottom count for shit? Judging using that exact criteria, shots from the top count more than shots from the bottom. Good thing they weren't in Nevada...

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

Luke thinks striking is more important because it comes first in the sentence. LOL!

Cerrone lost 3 of 4 categories how did he win the round ZY? You yet to explain how he won the round even though I did you just dance around the question like a politician.You started this by saying:

Even if you scored round 1 for Henderson (which btw not only makes you wrong but a bad person),

But you have gave zero reasons why ,you just poke insults at people and tell them they are wrong because you dont know the rules and score fights just as SPX said on "what you think is important"

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case

Still sure strikes from the bottom count for shit? Judging using that exact criteria, shots from the top count more than shots from the bottom. Good thing they weren't in Nevada...

I'm as sure as reading the sentence above .When you get outlanded 35-5 they mean something.Sure if it was 20-15 the top guy wins the round but the strikes in round 2 werent even remotely close

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

As far as Cerrone/Henderson 1 goes: http://fightmetric.com/fights/Henderson-Cerrone.html - FM scores it for Cerrone.

Somehow fight metric scores round 1 40-38 for Henderson says in a 10 point must system its a draw ,then gives the round to Cerrone.

Something has to be a mistake because you cant score a round 40-38 Henderson ,say its a draw and Cerrone wins it .Im not sure how that site works I've only been on it one other time

[SPX]

Re: WEC 48

Let me weigh in on the strikes from bottom argument.

I have often thought that having top position is very important for one reason: because in a real fight--and let's not get into the MMA is not a real fight discussion--the guy on top is in control and he can choose to keep it going or walk away. The guy in bottom is not in control. He doesn't have the choice as to whether or not the fight continues. But the guy on top can keep fighting or can end it at any moment.

For that reason, I've always felt like you should have to do some serious ass work on the bottom to steal a round.

And that's exactly what Mousasi did: some serious ass work. All Mo did in the second was lay there. He landed almost no strikes but got his head beat in by his opponent. Does Mo really deserve to win the round because he laid on top of Mousasi's stomach while getting punched in the face and head? That was one of the few instances of a fighter on bottom winning a round in my opinion, but that's exactly what it was.

[zY|]

Re: WEC 48

Luke thinks striking is more important because it comes first in the sentence. LOL!

Cerrone lost 3 of 4 categories how did he win the round ZY? You yet to explain how he won the round even though I did you just dance around the question like a politician.You started this by saying:

Even if you scored round 1 for Henderson (which btw not only makes you wrong but a bad person),

But you have gave zero reasons why ,you just poke insults at people and tell them they are wrong because you dont know the rules and score fights just as SPX said on "what you think is important"

I was refuting your holier than thou "I know how to score and you don't" overall attitude, not that one fight. Who's the politician dancing around?

But if you insist.

As SPX alluded to, there is no scientific way to measure this even with strict criteria. Yeah Henderson landed more strikes in Round 1, but I thought the incredibly deep, near fight ending submission attempts FAR outweighed the effectiveness of the strikes landed. And being as the fight is on the ground, it's a judgment call as to which is more effective. I'm well within the right to give it to Cerrone based on effective grappling.

For the other criteria, it's not so cut and dry either. Octagon control could go either way. It was about even. Cerrone controlled the first half, Henderson the latter half. Effective agression? Cerrone stalks people and never stops.

As for you being a bad person, well that's just the honest truth.

Also, funny that you're bragging about giving Mousasi the 2nd round vs Mo. Anyone with fucking eyes could see he won that round. Mo was on top but not doing a fucking thing but getting punched in the face. There was no effective grappling to be seen.

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

Luke, what did you think about the Shogun/Machida judging?

If I remember correctly I think I had that fight going either way.It was much like the Penn-Edgar fight imo some rounds were so close they could have been scored either way.If Sho Gun got the decision that night I think it would have been ok,Machida getting it was ok too imo.Anyone that said it was robbery is just a spazzed out fan

[zY|]

Re: WEC 48

And another thing...

M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and
control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike
-by submission attempt
-from a throw
-from clean strikes either standing or grounded.

^^That's pretty much the play by play to round 5. The only thing Bendo did was not get submitted. It should have been 10-8 all day.