"Bouts are scored on a 10 point must system based on effective striking, grappling and Octagon control"

by pharmboy on Oct 26, 2009 6:42 PM EDT Comment 10 comments

These are the words uttered by Mike Goldberg at the start of every UFC bout, but what do they really mean to the judges? After reading many of the blogs and the hate towards Cecil Peoples (look folks there were 2 other judges who also scored the fight for Machida) and the rising calls of a Rua robbery I thought I'd just throw this out there.

First of all, I thought Rua did win the fight. I bought the fight on PPV because I wanted to see Machida beat up the out of shape, over-hyped Rua we've seen so far in the UFC and ended up completely impressed by Shogun. Now, after reading some of these comments along different threads as well as the one that features an interview with Cecil Peoples, I want to see how others view this. What does "effective grappling" mean? According to FightMetric, Rua attempted 4 takedowns and was not successful once. Now, if what Cecil Peoples says is true, Machida would have won the "grappling" component on every scorecard. If a takedown scores points when considering "grappling" then the converse must be true when a takedown is stuffed-points would be scored. When you've stuffed a takedown, you have used your grappling skills to prevent your opponent from imposing his will. That's worth something and it probably made the difference in the fight as lame as it may sound.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well

you also have to think, Shogun was really keeping Lyoto honest with those takedown attempts. He momentarily had him down in the 2’nd, and that plays a big factor. But to be honest, defense should be in no way, shape, or form a way to score points. Effective offense is the only real way to measure who wins a fight, and that’s why Fightmetric is such an effective system.

Peoples is way off base here; defending a takedown means nothing, unless it is used to transition to a dominant position on the ground (IE a choke, North/ South, Side, Back mount), and failing a takedown also holds no merit.

Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.

'09 is the year of the FW's.

by ElliotMatheny on Oct 26, 2009 7:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

good stuff I was thinking the same thing if your opponent is only able to defend shouldn’t that factor into scoring

by drano on Oct 26, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FightMetric is a great site for fans, but will never be used to judge a fight. It’s almost like the “CompuBox” numbers at every major boxing bout. Great to confirm what we want to believe and to back us up in case of controversial decisions. Takedowns are worth something in the eyes of the judges and therefore so are takedown defenses. Think about it- by preventing the takedown, you are nullifying the offense your opponent is attempting to mount. If your opponent is a ground and pound guy or a jiujitsu black belt how huge is that? That translates into more “Octagon control” for the guy stuffing the takedown because he’s controlling where the fight takes place- another point in his favor.

by pharmboy on Oct 26, 2009 7:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Blocking a jab doesn’t earn you anything, so why should blocking a takedown?

My opinion is pretty simple, defense is what you do to stay in the fight, offense is what you do to win the fight.

by Barry619 on Oct 26, 2009 7:47 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Blocking a takedown = dictating where the fight takes places and is evidence of octagon control.

Blocking a jab = avoiding damage.

That is the difference.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 26, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Attempting a take down = dictating where the fight takes place and is evidence of octagon control

by B Money on Oct 27, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t say defending a takedown should score points, but that’s exactly what Cecil Peoples is saying. When you factor that in, a Machida decision becomes less controversial. By defending takedowns, it looks like you are controlling the fight and nullifying your opponents offense.

by pharmboy on Oct 26, 2009 8:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Rules in Grappling Sports

In collegiate wrestling and BJJ you don’t get points for stopping a takedown or sub, so methinks that idea that in MMA you should is dumb.

Especially in a discipline like BJJ that emphasizes flowing from one submission to another based on your opponent’s reaction. If what you said was true unless you can lock on a submission you’re just hurting yourself by trying.

Or if in wrestling they gave you points for stopping a takedown everyone could just practice being sprawl-machines and not even worry about actually taking people down.

by IpullguardIRL on Oct 27, 2009 9:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Like Day Man mentioned above, stopping a takedown demonstrates evidence of Octagon control (where the fight takes place) and is part of the judging criteria. If the interview with Peoples is true, you are awarded points for that. If a fighter is attempting submissions whether it be from top or bottom position, I’m sure they are given credit for aggression and trying to finish the fight.

by pharmboy on Oct 27, 2009 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs