FightMetric Report for WEC 43's Cerrone vs. Henderson

by Mike Fagan on Oct 12, 2009 6:34 PM EDT in News Comment 55 comments

Want a surefire recipe for MMA controversy? Start with a five round title fight base. Add in a healthy mix of all facets of the sport. Split four of the rounds evenly for the two combatants. Sprinkle a round of even action. Top off with a pinch of submission attempts. Bake for 25 minutes at 375 degrees. Allow five minutes to cool. Serves an unlimited amount of highly reactive fans.

In our WEC 43 live blog, I scored the fight 48-47 to Henderson, with Ben winning rounds 1-3 and Cerrone taking 4 and 5. I debated scoring the opening period 10-10. Embarrassingly, I must admit to forcing myself to score to one of the fighters after scoring multiple rounds 10-10 throughout the night. Around the 'net, all three Sherdog judges scored the fight for Cerrone (two of which had it 48-46). MMA Mania had the fight 48-47 for Henderson. MMA Weekly also had it 48-47 Henderson. Jordan Breen went so far as to Twitter the decision was "bullshit".

But let's be fair. Any time a fight comes down to a single, close round, there's going to be a lot of variance in the outcome. We've made that case here at Bloody Elbow over and over. And when our collective eyeballs are unable to reach a unanimous agreement, it's always useful to check out some data. FightMetric, fortunately, released their report on Cerrone vs. Henderson.

	Henderson	Cerrone	TPM Score
Round 1	40	38	10-10
Round 2	49	33	10-9 H
Round 3	76	46	10-9 H
Round 4	11	33	10-9 C
Round 5	14	57	10-9 C
Total	190	207	48-48

What we see here is the FightMetric Effectiveness Scores and Ten Point Must System scores by round and total. Breen and Mike Fridley scored round 5 10-8 for Cerrone, but the round falls far short of FightMetric's criteria for a 10-8 round (a fighter must score a minimum of 100 points and have 6 times as many as his opponent in a single round).

The caveat for FightMetric scoring is that the system can only account for the action it receives. It can't weigh additional judging criteria like cage control or aggression. However, I don't think either of those issues are the crux of round one. It comes back to the long-running debate of submission attempts vs. takedowns and mild striking from the top. FightMetric scores it a draw according to its system, and judging by the varying scores around the internet, it's hard to say the round definitively belonged to one fighter or another.

FightMetric's Rami Genaur elaborates:

My thoughts are simply that judging MMA is probably the hardest (or at least the most confusing) task in sports. I can’t think of any other judged sport that contains two completely equal components that contestants perform simultaneously. Imagine if figure skaters had to sing while performing and were judged on both the quality of their skating and singing. To make matters worse, judges can give only one score and there are no guidelines about which – the singing or the skating – is worth more, because every performance can contain a different mix of both activities, to the point where someone could win by just doing one and not the other. How would you judge such a competition? And in truth, MMA has it worse, because there are three components. As Henderson-Cerrone showed us, judges have to consider striking, takedowns/ground control, and submissions all at the same time. All that with virtually no help or guidance from the official rules.

It makes for an interesting problem: MMA’s greatest strength is the "mixed" part; the multiple facets and numerous techniques that can all be used at any time. This is what makes a true mixed martial arts bout so compelling. Unfortunately, the greater the diversity of action within a fight, the harder it becomes to pick a winner. It turns the sports’ greatest strength into a huge liability.

If an analogy comparing MMA and figure skating (well) doesn't say it all, I don't know what will.

WEC 43: Cerrone vs. Henderson coverage

0 recs | Comment 55 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That just proves to me what Cerrone said in an interview afterwards. He asked his corner what round it was and he said round 4 ( i think it was four) and Cerrone was like holy crap i need to get going. As soon as he does that, he starts winning. I really do believe that Cerrone is the better fighter. I cant say that im positive he won that particular fight though.

by Rabbit915 on Oct 12, 2009 6:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Cardio....

That’s why Cowboy wins late rounds. His pace is amazing. He did the same thing vs Varner, lost the 1st rounds, won the championship rounds.

If he had better wrestling he’d be an amazing fighter.

by Dexerion on Oct 12, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know how Henderson survived those subs or why Cerrone came out so flat for the first three rounds but in the last two he showed what he is capable of, this loss rest squarely on his performance to start the fight. If he had fought up to his potential the entire fight then there would be no need for discussions on the scoring but he let this one slip through his fingers.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I scored the fight for Cerrone

Round 1 was so close to a 10-10 and I’m just SOOOOOO over takedowns winning rounds. Submission “attempts” aren’t given nearly enough credit anymore.

It’s like throwing a punch, it landing solidly, but not KOing the guy thus, not receiving credit for that punch. He’s working for and getting the position needed to get those submissions but not given any credit because he can’t end the fight with them.

by Dexerion on Oct 12, 2009 6:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The problem there is that if you just score a submission attempt like a solid punch then Cerrone only would of got the equivalent of 2 or 3 punches off several minutes of submission work in the first round, Ben Henderson threw a lot more than just two solid punches on the ground that round. Scoring a sub attempt like a good punch (or a takedown) would get us to the same conclusion the judges had in this fight. You can have a guy in trouble with a sub attempt for a minute or more but do you still just count it as the same as one solid punch?

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think he’s saying that sub attempts should be counted as one solid punch; I think he’s saying that the logic of not scoring sub attempts is analogous to not scoring a solid punch because it didn’t result in a knockout.

Personally, I think close sub attempts should be counted for what they are: near-finishes. So the analogy would be to a hard punch that scores a knockdown and puts the receiving fighter on defense. With respect to Cerrone/Henderson: is it a coincidence that after the choke in the 4th round, Henderson looked a lot more sluggish? I doubt it.

by JRN on Oct 12, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you score a near finish? Seriously it just goes back to effective striking or an effective ground game for all we know serious sub attempts are scored exactly the same as a near finish from punches. So if you scored all the work Cerrone did with the sub in the first as a near finish then he still could of got out worked for the rest of the round because even though he was working it for several minutes it was just one attempt. I mean seriously a guy could get rocked a dozen times and still survive a round but when do you see a guy get off a dozen serious near fight ending sub attempts a round, hell how often do you see more than one? Unless you start scoring near fight ending sub attempts as just giving the round to that guy they are always going to be under-scored compared to striking because they happen at radically different rates during fights. A guy shouldn’t be worried about points going for sub attempts anyway because their sole purpose is to end the fight, heck what made this fight so amazing was that Cerrone couldn’t finish with those attempts.

When you get right down to it we can say it should be scored this way or that way but we really don’t know how fights are scored from judge to judge because it’s very vague and completely subjective. I mean they could of scored that fight exactly how you are saying you think they should have and we would still have no way of knowing.

I viewed the 4th and 5th rounds of the fight as Cerrone finally waking up and going after him. Henderson didn’t seem overly gassed he was just getting out worked those two rounds. If Cerrone had went out there with that kind of fire from the start there would be no question about who won the fight.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So if you scored all the work Cerrone did with the sub in the first as a near finish then he still could of got out worked for the rest of the round because even though he was working it for several minutes it was just one attempt.

Henderson may have outworked Cerrone for the latter part of round 1, but he never came close to finishing him. If you think Cerrone’s sub attempts in that round were sufficiently close (some people don’t), then giving Henderson that round would be like giving Nogueira the first round of Nog/Herring III because, except for that head kick that nearly knocked him out, he outworked his opponent. I don’t think anybody scored that round 10-9 Nogueira, y’know?

by JRN on Oct 12, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well there you have it, whether he was close to finishing or not is completely subjective to what the judges say (and all three of them apparently scored it the same way). Would you judge Cerrone’s sub attempt like the headkick Nog took or would you judge it like a knockdown from a punch, would you give Ben points for getting out of the sub attempt(getting out a sub requires more skill than just surviving a hard shot that drops you, particularly as in the Herring fight where the other guy doesn’t go for the kill)? It’s all subjective and you can’t just pull a sub attempt and compare it to a striking knock down because every sub attempt and striking near finish is different.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well there you have it, whether he was close to finishing or not is completely subjective to what the judges say (and all three of them apparently scored it the same way).

Well, my personal feeling is that anyone who thinks Cerrone’s sub attempts in round 1 don’t deserve to be considered close is nuts. The judges may have even thought they were close. But either way they were weighting other stuff, like strikes and top position, more heavily, which I disagree with.

Basically, I think saying that whether those subs (especially the guillotine/anaconda combo) were good enough to be considered close is “subjective” is like saying “whether that punch dropped him or not is subjective.” Not if you know what you’re watching.

would you give Ben points for getting out of the sub attempt(getting out a sub requires more skill than just surviving a hard shot that drops you, particularly as in the Herring fight where the other guy doesn’t go for the kill)?

Absolutely not. A fighter does not deserve points for getting out of a position they should have stayed out of in the first place. There is no judging criterion for “effective defense.” Good defense is its own reward.

by JRN on Oct 12, 2009 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, my personal feeling is that anyone who thinks Cerrone’s sub attempts in round 1 don’t deserve to be considered close is nuts. The judges may have even thought they were close. But either way they were weighting other stuff, like strikes and top position, more heavily, which I disagree with.

How do you know what the Judges were thinking in their heads? Just because they weighed all the things Henderson did in the first more heavy than those couple of sub attempts doesn’t mean they weighed any individual move more heavily it could just mean they weighed the fact that Henderson was much more active later in the round and accomplished more than they did a couple of sub attempts that lasted for minutes of time but failed completely to stop the fight, for that matter they didn’t even seem to hurt Henderson at all. That is what is subjective, who knows how they saw those or scored them for that matter all we know is the end result.

Basically, I think saying that whether those subs (especially the guillotine/anaconda combo) were good enough to be considered close is "subjective" is like saying "whether that punch dropped him or not is subjective." Not if you know what you’re watching.

There is a huge difference between dropping a guy with a punch and nearly finishing a fight but the guy survives, every shot that drops a guy isn’t the same and isn’t scored the same. Heck guys get dropped all the time and get back up looking none the worse for wear and some guys get dropped and barely hang on to continue the fight and some guys get dropped and only survive because the other guy doesn’t follow up quick enough and there are all sorts of levels in between. The same goes for sub attempts, there is no simple answer because every attempt just like every punch that drops a guy has to be judges individually. It is very subjective in every aspect.

Absolutely not. A fighter does not deserve points for getting out of a position they should have stayed out of in the first place. There is no judging criterion for "effective defense." Good defense is its own reward.

So they get no points for getting out of the position and they get no points for defending the position but submission grappling should be scored more closely? Honestly that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, if you want grappling scored better you should want every aspect of it scored more closely not just one specific part of it. Heck a lot of times guys not only get out of positions they improve their own position in the process, obviously that kind of good defense scores points.

I also have to wonder a bit about a good defense being it’s own reward because a good submission is it’s own reward too, if you do it right you win the fight. Guys don’t try subs to score points they try them to finish the fight and keep it out of the judges hands, it is also it’s own reward if you do it right and if you fail then you don’t finish and the fight goes on.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you know what the Judges were thinking in their heads?

I don’t. But it seems self-evident that if they were weighing close submission attempts equally with near-finishes from strikes, they wouldn’t have given Henderson the round. The fact that Henderson won the round based on top control and strikes that didn’t come close to finishing the fight indicates that top control and strikes were being weighed more heavily than close submission attempts. Doesn’t take a mind-reader to see that.

There is a huge difference between dropping a guy with a punch and nearly finishing a fight but the guy survives, every shot that drops a guy isn’t the same and isn’t scored the same . . .The same goes for sub attempts, there is no simple answer because every attempt just like every punch that drops a guy has to be judges individually.

I’m not saying that all submission attempts be judged exactly the same way, I’m saying that close submission attempts should be given as much weight as near-finishes of other kinds. I brought up being dropped with a punch because I think that in some situations, like round 1 of Cerrone/Henderson, a submission being a near-finish is just about as clear as a guy falling down from getting punched in the face, i.e. not really as subjective as you’re suggesting.

So they get no points for getting out of the position and they get no points for defending the position but submission grappling should be scored more closely? Honestly that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me

The UFC and WEC judging criteria are effective striking, effective grappling, aggression, and octagon control. There is no effective defense category. I’m arguing in favor of more weight placed on close submission attempts in the effective grappling and aggression categories. Good defense is its own reward because it allows you to better implement your own effective striking, grappling, etc. Obviously if a guy escapes a bad position and gains a dominant position of his own, that’s both effective defense and effective offense, provided he does something with the opportunity.

by JRN on Oct 12, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t. But it seems self-evident that if they were weighing close submission attempts equally with near-finishes from strikes, they wouldn’t have given Henderson the round. The fact that Henderson won the round based on top control and strikes that didn’t come close to finishing the fight indicates that top control and strikes were being weighed more heavily than close submission attempts. Doesn’t take a mind-reader to see that.

How close was Cerrone to finishing with that sub? How close did the judges think he was to finishing with that sub? That is the part that is completely subjective here. As I pointed out not only was Henderson’s actions more active and visible they were also what the judges saw last in the round. To say that they judged a near finish sub as less than what Henderson did at the end is making an assumption at what level of near finish they put those two sub attempts at and we have absolutely no way of knowing that. Perhaps from their vantage point they just didn’t see them in the same way that you did?

I’m not saying that all submission attempts be judged exactly the same way, I’m saying that close submission attempts should be given as much weight as near-finishes of other kinds. I brought up being dropped with a punch because I think that in some situations, like round 1 of Cerrone/Henderson, a submission being a near-finish is just about as clear as a guy falling down from getting punched in the face, i.e. not really as subjective as you’re suggesting.

What your saying is that sub attempts be judges according to how close they are to being near finishes? If you are then that is a completely subjective judgment on your part, we really don’t know how close those subs were to finishing the fight, heck the fact that he had them applied for so long and couldn’t finish seems to speak to them not being as “near-finish” as you are implying they were. Henderson literally sat in them for minutes and didn’t tap or go out. Heck Henderson didn’t look worse for wear at all once he escaped and after that he took over the match for the next two and a half rounds. Perhaps that is the criteria the judges used to judge those moves, I mean if a choke is done right you can’t just sit there for a minute or more and not go out from it, from that perspective they weren’t that close to a finish. Once again it is all subjective, heck even talking about it on the internet a lot of fans seemed to of seen very different things watching the same exact fight.

The UFC and WEC judging criteria are effective striking, effective grappling, aggression, and octagon control. There is no effective defense category. I’m arguing in favor of more weight placed on close submission attempts in the effective grappling and aggression categories. Good defense is its own reward because it allows you to better implement your own effective striking, grappling, etc. Obviously if a guy escapes a bad position and gains a dominant position of his own, that’s both effective defense and effective offense, provided he does something with the opportunity.

And how do you know it wasn’t how the judges were scoring? As I have said just how close that was to a near finish is a very subjective thing and is going to be scored according to what the judges actually saw and actually thought about what they were seeing. You can’t say they didn’t score it one way or another unless you can actually get a statement from them as to how they viewed it during the fight. If they did view it as a very near finish and didn’t score it as high as what happened later in the round then I would agree with what you are saying but for all we know they just might of not thought it was that great of a sub attempt (being as it was a complete failure).

How they actually saw it is very subjective, I wasn’t sitting by the cage with them and I haven’t read any interviews any of them have done stating why they scored what they did so I’m not going to claim what their intentions were. From that standpoint we really don’t know what they were thinking at all during any of the fight and to be honest even looking at the scorecards we don’t know. Fightmatrix seems to of given a slight advantage to Henderson too, as did a lot of people who scored the fight on the internet, even with all these people watching the same fight there is nothing at all close to a objective position on that round, it all relies on who is watching and what they thought they saw.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at it this way: I scored the fight differently than the judges. If the judges had seen the fight the way I did, they would have scored it the way I did. They didn’t score it that way, so they couldn’t have seen it that way. That conclusion doesn’t require mind-reading.

But you’re right that I might be making an unfounded assumption about the judges that night, namely that they know enough about submissions to see the difference between one that’s close and one that isn’t. Given the general state of MMA judging, that assumption is probably too charitable.

If you are then that is a completely subjective judgment on your part, we really don’t know how close those subs were to finishing the fight, heck the fact that he had them applied for so long and couldn’t finish seems to speak to them not being as "near-finish" as you are implying they were.

By the same token, we don’t know when a guy looks “rocked” whether or not he’s actually close to being knocked out or TKO’d. That’s a subjective judgment too, but in most cases, it’s also a no-brainer as to which judgment is the right one to make.

With respect to Cerrone’s sub attempts in round one, I would score them as near-finishes on the basis that whatever it was that was keeping them from getting Henderson to tap out—be some very minor detail of application, some unusual physiological quirk of Henderson’s, whatever—it was invisible. Frank Mir, a guy who knows a thing or two about submissions, couldn’t tell you why that anaconda choke didn’t work. It’s similar to how not every punch flush on the jaw scores a knockout, and we don’t know why. But when one of those punches lands, the guy goes down, and he’s on defense for a while regaining his senses, we make a subjective judgment to score that a near finish, right? Right.

by JRN on Oct 12, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not entirely sold on Nogueira/Herring III round 1 being 10-9 Herring.

Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Oct 12, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, I stand corrected: at least one person may have scored that round for Nog.

by JRN on Oct 13, 2009 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

for all we know serious sub attempts are scored exactly the same as a near finish from punches.

You know that just isn’t true. We are stuck in boxingville scoring. How often does someone get a solid knockdown and lose the round? It’s an automatic round winner in MMA still yet.

I can’t put my finger on it, nor do I know what the solution should be, but grappling is UNDER scored in MMA right now by a long shot. There needs to be a meeting of the minds and determine what techniques are “scoring” and what are not and how much weight should be given to said techniques.

by Dexerion on Oct 12, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s all subjective, heck in MMA we also know that the later in the round is scored differently than the first of the round because it is fresher in the judges mind, a near KO at the start isn’t scored as high as a knock down at the end of the round (or an near submission for that matter). It is a extremely subjective system that depends as much on who the judge is and where they are sitting and when something happens in a round as it does to any structure on how many points a given move should be awarded.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought Henderson was rather tired late. He just didn’t show it much because he is so well conditioned and determined.

Cerrone took his legs out with a low leg kick once, was pretty much shoving him to the ground at times, and I found Ben’s movements to be a little lazier than they were early on. And he didn’t have much success with the takedowns late mainly because Cerrone stepped up his TDD but also because he was tired.

by bigweeze on Oct 12, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That cage was a freaking slip ’n slide.

A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

by iiowyn on Oct 13, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The decision certainly wasn't "bullshit."

I think the table from Fight Metric tells the story. I’m not into 10-10 rounds. I may be wrong in this aversion, but I like to pick a winner. Honestly, I was really watching with an eye for scoring it, and I wouldn’t have been surprised with either man being awarded the victory.

What you have was the first three rounds being fairly close (maybe 3 not so much). Cerrone was throwing up sub attempts, but he was on the bottom. All other things equal, being on the bottom generally isn’t fruitful with respect to scoring points in an MMA match. We can debate whether this is right or wrong. Maybe, judges should be more savvy of the bottom game. I always remember BJ Penn stating how important it is for BJJ player to be on top and not work off his back when competing in MMA. In the average MMA judge’s eyes, working from top position scores more points than working from one’s back.

Cerrone really turned it on, and I think dominated the two final frames. I believe the Fight Metric numbers back up that assessment. The last 10 minutes of a 25 minute fight were clearly won by one fighter. That does leave an impression on fans. However, if you scored the first three rounds for Henderson, you really can’t give the bout to Cerrone despite the fact he was winning at the end against a gassed opponent. That is, unless you gave Cerrone one or more 10-8 rounds. I, generally, have to see a blowout round to score it 10-8; I didn’t see one during this fight.

Bottom line: the end result was warranted given what we know about the current tendencies of the average MMA judge.

by Cannon Jacques on Oct 12, 2009 6:38 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I screwed up

It should say at the beginning that: “…I wasn’t really watching with an eye for scoring it…”

by Cannon Jacques on Oct 12, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

rec. Nice breakdown there.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought the first round could’ve (probably should’ve) been a draw but gave it to Henderson on a slight edge. I used to subscribe to having more 10-8 and 10-10 rounds, but the way MMA is set up it would create far too many draws.

Judges do need to learn the ground game better, but I still think a fair amount of credit should be given to the fighter who has top position. After all, how many fighters would choose to be in bottom position over top position?

And how much credit should be given to a failed choke that doesn’t damage or tire the escaping fighter? Really, I think it is fair to minimize that value.

Submissions are almost the equivalent of throwing a hail mary or trying to hit a walk-off home run. If you hit it, you win, if you don’t, you’re probably no better off than you were before the attempt. Look at a fight like Radach/Smith. Radach had Smith reeling from strikes and went for a choke that failed and got knocked out a minute later. How valuable was that sub attempt, really? I really think the sub attempt’s value should be rather close to what it is – successful execution wins you the fight. At least a strike that doesn’t end in a KO has damaged your opponent, and a takedown generally has or leads to negative effects for the person being taken down as well.

A notable exception where I would credit a failed submission is Dos Anjos vs. Griffin where he put him in a compression lock that had Tyson gimpy for the next few minutes.

by bigweeze on Oct 12, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m in favor if judging criteria that encourage attempts to finish the fight, which is what submission attempts are. Not awarding them a prominent place in judging criteria would seem to discourage a major aspect of the sport, which I think would be real shame.

Just like we can’t feel the punches from ringside, we can’t ever really know what it feels like to be in a particular hold. But we see punches land, so we give them deference. I think close sub attempts should be given deference as well. If you’re trapped in a hold designed to cut off the oxygen to your brain, it’s going to take something out of you even if you eventually escape. And sometimes fighters only reveal the toll of failed submissions after the fact—a recent example would be Ricardo Almeida talking about the damage Kendall Grove did to his arm after their bout.

by JRN on Oct 12, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The object in a fight should always be to not let it go to the judges scorecard and that is where the real value of a submission is, a successful one ends the fight and makes the judges irrelevant. If anything the screwy judging system should push fighters to finish fights which is the best criteria of all, knowing how bad it is should be all the encouragement a fighter should need to finish the fight. Seriously who goes for a sub attempt hoping to score some points? Fighting for a decision on points isn’t much better than just leaving it up to a coin toss if the fight is at all close and any fighter who doesn’t go out there intending to finish the fight pretty much is risking the win no matter how he performs.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think part of the reason I tend to discount submission attempts is because they fail so often when highly-skilled fighters face each other.

Fighters already have a rather large incentive to finish with a submission – the opportunity to win the fight outright. It’s hard to say why a failed sub should be treated better than Dan Henderson loading up and missing a big right hand.

I do agree that it can be difficult to know the particular effects of a failed submission. That’s probably why I would value them slightly, but not necessarily give them significant weighting unless its clear that they’ve affected the fighter physically.

by bigweeze on Oct 13, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s hard to say why a failed sub should be treated better than Dan Henderson loading up and missing a big right hand.

For you, maybe. For me, it’s pretty easy. A missed right hand necessarily does no damage and is an example of completely failed offense. A close sub attempt represents successful offense that has broken through, or exploited holes in, an opponent’s defense, puts a fighter in danger of losing, and often does damage to boot.

They’re really only similar in that neither one successfully ends the fight. But to imply that only things that end the fight should count in judging obviates the whole point of having judges.

by JRN on Oct 13, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

war 10-10 rounds!!

seriously

"I’m not going to stop yelling because that would mean, I lost the fight!"-Kenny Powers
shooter/cutter for AllElbows.com

by ekc on Oct 12, 2009 6:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I am with this. The first round was a 10-10 round.

The only way I can see to change the scoring is to implement a Pankration style scoring guide but that doesn’t work for MMA.

by SanDiegoMMA.net on Oct 12, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rami’s description of the difficulty of mma judging is incredible. To explain that to someone I wouldn’t even want to paraphrase, I would want to quote that verbatim.

"I want to tell me what you see, let's go ahead and see by the fight what you saw, in the ring"

by crinow on Oct 12, 2009 6:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Rami’s always ridiculously good at this sort of thing. I did an interview with him awhile back and he made an MMA-baseball comparison that was really apt too.

Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Oct 12, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

These debates, and our screaming about referees, judging, etc., aren’t likely to go away. For every Beebe/Easton, there’s a hundred other fights than reasonable, knowledgeable people will disagree about. The only help I can think of is to list the judges’ scores round by round. At least the fighters will have an idea where they stand. I realize this could lead to fighters, ahead on points, fighting only to not get submitted or knocked out, but it might also lead to fighters knowing when they’re behind, and unleashing everything they’ve got.

by Kwisatz Haderach on Oct 12, 2009 6:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The athletic commissions take up the cards from the judges every round, they don’t want the judges to be influenced by what they scored previous rounds as and they keep them private because they don’t want the judges (or the fighters) influenced by what other judges are scoring for the fight. Making the scores public between rounds creates it’s own set of problems. In general fighters know if they are behind or not going into the later rounds just by how the fight is going.

What the system needs is better trained judges and better fleshed out and explained system that isn’t so reliant on subjective judge opinion. Even for good judges it is complex and for the boxing judges that really don’t understand what they are seeing in a MMA fight it’s a real mess.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fighters should be unleashing everything they’ve got regardless of how judges are scoring a fight. As with any sport, playing not to lose is a recipe for failure.

Don't argue for the sake of arguing....

by Screwface on Oct 12, 2009 7:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, I agree with ya. I don't want to see guys fighting over a scoreboard...

but I can’t see how knowledge of the scores can be a bad thing. Obviously fighters generally know if they won or lost a round anyway, so it doesn’t really change anything to tell them their scores, except to clarify the kind of close round we saw in Round 1 of Cerrone/Henderson. I just don’t see how judging is ever going to more than subjective, when even the critics of scoring, on this site and many others, don’t agree at all on scoring this fight. I certainly think that better training and qualification is needed, but mistakes, and differing opinions will still occur. In my mind, transparency is the best way to minimize the damage done by mistakes. Every umpire in baseball calls balls and strikes differently, despite the rock solid iteration of what the strike zone is. But because it’s transparent, you can adjust your game, even in the middle of an at bat. If for example, Cerrone knows that he lost the first round, he’s then aware that sub attempts aren’t going to do much for him unless he finishes, vs. Henderson knowing that strikes landed in guard are scoring more. They can then adapt. I realize that we want them to fight for finishes, and I’m not talking about announcing the scores publicly, just to the fighters’ corners, but it still seems strange to me for a fighter to not definitively know where they stand. There are almost always bonuses for finishes, so they’re already incentivized to finish the fight. I agree with “who me” that they generally know where they stand, but not always, and if they know where they stand anyway, then what’s the harm in just being honest and open about it. Maybe I’m about to get flamed over this, but if it’s educational, I won’t mind :)

by Kwisatz Haderach on Oct 12, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have no problem with fighters being made aware of the scores between rounds, I just don’t know that it’ll change anything. I honestly don’t know if educating judges to death would fix anything either.

I give very little credit to failed or loose sub attempts. I understand that the person performing the submission hold is dictating the fight, but the same could be said of LNPers and guys who get guard pulled and somehow stand back up, yeah you’re “dictating” where the fight takes place, but you’re not doing anything to deserve points.

Judging is called such because it is exactly that; one’s judgment.

Don't argue for the sake of arguing....

by Screwface on Oct 12, 2009 8:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

A sub attempt has only one purpose, to end the fight it’s not a set of moves designed to score points with to start with and it really only has to ends either it succeeds or it fails and the fight continues. Yes a good attempt takes a lot out of the fighters but really it takes a lot out of both of them, it’s not like the guy trying the sub doesn’t burn a hell of a lot of energy doing it too.

by who me on Oct 12, 2009 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Submission attempts are often used to gain position as well. Like how people will give up the mount to defend against a guillotine.

A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

by iiowyn on Oct 13, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See I don't quite agree with that...

A sub attempt can be used to control an opponent, in the same way that a takedown and top control can. It lacks striking damage , but IMO it’s equal to a guy on top maintaining control, but landing next to nothing. From the bottom, kimuras, armbar attempts, guillotines, that are held for a period of time, whether locked in or not, are effectively control. I like to see control scored more on the basis of who is defending something, than just who’s on top. I realize there’s a gulf between attempting subs that aren’t even close to finishing, and those that cause a tap. But going for subs, especially by a high level BJJ player, is also used to set up control and improve position by reversals or sweeps, or just to stand back up. I didn’t have a problem with Cerrone/Henderson as I would have given them each control of half the round, but Henderson inches ahead by landing more shots. So 10-9 in my book. I guess my point being that if Cerrone knows the score in the first, maybe he uses his jits to stand up, instead of continuing to attempt to sub the Unsubable Man. It might not change anything, but I think there’d be less to complain about. Fighters don’t seem to complain about them much anyway, knowing that if it goes to a decision, you didn’t definitively win the fight, and can’t complain much. As I said above, I totally agree that judging will always be a subjective art. I just like the idea of guys knowing what’s scoring in a fight, so they don’t waste effort on moves or strategies that are failing to score. I’ve seen plenty of fights where someone gets a takedown, spends 4 minutes on top, escaping sub attempt after attempt, lands a couple punches, and wins the round, even though the fighter on bottom isn’t at all hurt. I’ve also seen it scored the reverse of that, in a similar type fight. In such cases, I think it’d be useful to know how the judges saw and scored control in such a round, as top doesn’t always equal control. I realize top position is given priority in the guidelines, but it isn’t always scored that way…

by Kwisatz Haderach on Oct 13, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Knowledge of the scores can be bad for the exact reason you think they can be good.

If Henderson knows that he’s up 39-27 on all 3 cards going into the 5th round, and he’s gassed, he has absolutely no reason to do anything in the 5th round.

by Phildo on Oct 12, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

39-37, math brain fart

by Phildo on Oct 12, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well he would still need to do something, you don’t want to lose a round 10-8 if you’re only up by two.

Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.

by ufc4 on Oct 12, 2009 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you know how hard it is to lose a round 10-8? There are tons of ways he could fight the round and never be in danger of losing the fight or losing the round 10-9.

Some places are doing this in boxing and I don’t pay enough attention to know how it’s changed things. But if it improved things as much as people say it would, I think it would have caught on more.

by Phildo on Oct 12, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah you're right...

But then Cerrone knows he’s got a gassed opponent, and throws everything he’s got into finishing Henderson. I totally see both sides to this, and I don’t necessarily want it all out in the open for the viewer and crowd, but it just seems to me that more openness about how fights are being scored will make the system more transparent over time. When you hear a BJJ player as good as B.J. Penn say that in MMA you’ve got to acheive top control, and never fight off your back, I wonder a lot about how the way scoring is handled affects fighters and their strategy.

by Kwisatz Haderach on Oct 13, 2009 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the decision was fair...i had it scored the same...

IMO ..and also ask any good BJJ guy…going for a subb is easier then getting out of subb. so if anyone complains that Cowboy didnt get points for going for subbs….Ben should have gotten the double points for getting out of them.

by 1WAYtiket on Oct 12, 2009 7:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

See I don’t see attempts as being more than acheiving control for however long they’re held. If it’s tight enough to control your opponent, you’re scoring for control, not just because you keep throwing your legs up trying for something. When the fighter on top gets out of the hold, he’s back in control, and scoring for top control again. So if a BJJ player feels he can’t finish his opponent, he should be trying to transition through sub attempts, locks, whizzers, and whatnot to stand up, or reverse position, but I’m giving him control as long as he’s the one forcing the action in this way. And of course, this is just how I see it, obviously the guidelines have a different view. But if there’s points for escaping the sub attempt, apart from just acheiving dominant position again, then should slipping and blocking punches count for something?

by Kwisatz Haderach on Oct 13, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You dont get points for geting out of bad spots that you should have never let let your self get into in the first place. I could see a possible draw but there’s know way Henderson won that fight,IMO.

by TLAoutlaw on Oct 12, 2009 7:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs