FightMetric Report for Kimbo Slice vs. Houston Alexander
by Mike Fagan on Dec 8, 2009 10:00 AM EST
in MMA News
Email
Print
Two things struck me following Kimbo Slice's victory over Houston Alexander. First, the UFC did an amazing job finding someone that Kimbo could outgrapple. Second, the athletic commissions need to inform their officials that 10-10 is suitable scoring for a round.
FightMetric released their analysis of the fight. The Effectiveness Scores by round as follows:
| R1 | R2 | R3 | Total | |
| Kimbo Slice | 10 | 164 | 56 | 229 |
| Houston Alexander | 13 | 46 | 56 | 115 |
Those scores extrapolate to a 30-29 score under the ten-point must system, with rounds one and three being scored 10-10 and Slice taking round two.
There's been a mild uproar about the judge who scored the bout 30-27 for Slice. Looking at the numbers, however, and I would argue that any controversy should center on the continued resistance of the judges to score a round 10-10.
While FightMetric's Effectiveness Score ended up as a dead tie in round three, round one makes a better case for a 10-10 score (and a round I scored 10-10 live). As the volume of offense increases, it becomes less difficult to separate the winning fighter from the losing fighter, even if they ultimately land a similar amount of offense. Round one, on the other hand, was such an anemic period it drew comparisons to Kalib Starnes' infamous performance against Nate Quarry.
The futility of the round breakdowns as follows (by amount of strikes landed):
| Slice | Alexander | |
| Head Power | 0 | 1 |
| Head Jab | 4 | 0 |
| Body Power | 0 | 0 |
| Body Jab | 0 | 0 |
| Leg Power | 0 | 4 |
| Leg Jab | 0 | 7 |
Ouch.
And just when we all thought we were in for a snooze fest, Slice and Alexander picked up the pace in round two. The two combined to line 39 strikes in the frame, but the real surprise came three minutes into the round when Kimbo hit a thunderous suplex that would make Scott Steiner proud.
Slice demonstrated his grappling value, scoring three takedowns in the round, gaining mount and back control twice, and getting credit for a rear naked choke attempt. It seemed intuitive that Alexander, a veteran of fifteen fights, would be able to handle himself on the floor, if the fight somehow turned in that direction. Whether it was Kimbo's time at ATT or the size advantage he held over the natural light heavyweight in Alexander, those prognostications couldn't have been further from the truth.
56 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fight Metric Can't deal with the Kalib Starnes impression
Seriously Round 1 was a joke because of Alexander. While I understand that there was no combined offense and Kimbo’s lack of technical striking made it hard for him to generate offense, Houston Alexander had no “Octagon Control”.
Rules aren’t just about some objective fairness criteria they also are supposed to make the sport better for fans. We shouldn’t encourage Alexander’s gameplan in round 1 with a 10-10. 10-9 Slice is the right way to score it.
Round 3 could go 10-10 IMO.
well…. seems like we are on the same page.
by davidhamilton83 on Dec 8, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with the 10-10, it’s Kimbo’s job to push the action just as much as Houston’s and neither of them made an effort to engage.
The only thing Jon Jones does better than Matt Hamill is hear.
(And smash faces)
by ufc4 on Dec 8, 2009 11:00 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Kimbo just took tiny steps forward and was completely unwilling to engage as well. It was both their fault for not trying to mount any kind of offense.
Good post.
I’d like to see more 10-10 rounds personally. Sometimes they are just to close to call.
by HappyLittleTreez on Dec 8, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
We shouldn’t encourage Alexander’s gameplan in round 1 with a 10-10. 10-9 Slice is the right way to score it.
And what about Kimbo’s gameplan of “stand there and occasionally get kicked in the leg?”
Most people are blaming Houston for round 1, as though Kimbo had nothing to do with it. I think that’s bullshit. Neither guy was doing much of anything to press the action, but Houston outlanded Kimbo 12-4 in that round. 10-9 Houston, IMO.
by JRN on Dec 8, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
I honestly had no problems with the judge that scored it 30-27 for kimbo simply because you cant say that circling around the octagon like houston did is a form of octogon control. With the refusal of huston to engage in the fight along with the refusal for a 10-10 round I do not think you can give a guy a round when he refuses to fight. Even when he did throw kicks in the first round he was not committed to them (see 3rd round when he did finally commit to one, and only one).
by davidhamilton83 on Dec 8, 2009 10:26 AM EST reply actions
I think this fight clearly illustrates why the 10 point must system is a bad fit for mma
Kimbo clearly won the fight, yet you could make a reasonable argument for scoring it for Houston under the current rules.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Dec 8, 2009 10:33 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
exactly, I had Houston winning rounds 1 and 3, but the fight as a whole I’d give it to Kimbo. MMA should be scored as a whole instead of round by round IMHO.
cagar é uma filosofia profunda...
a merda bate na água e a água bate na bunda.
I’ll point out the things I hate about it again.
1) it would be scored by the same people who score fights now, I can promise you we wouldn’t see less controversy. Cecil Peoples isn’t going to magically understand the value of leg kicks…etc
2) No paper trail. I am not comfortable with a sport that is gambled on heavily not having a paper trail of HOW a judge came to a decision. Simply saying “I thought he won the fight” doesn’t show me how you came to that conclusion. At least under the 10 point must I can see how a judge decided a winner even if I think he is wrong.
3) It places too much emphasis on the end of the fight. Human nature means the fighter who finishes strongest is going to win a lot of decisions. Even if fighter A were to dominate the first 10 minutes and fighter B were to dominate the last 5…B is probably getting the decision.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 8, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I think the MMA community will never come to a consensus to what would be a perfect judging system, but you can always find wholes in arguments for every type of system, it’s an endless debate really. For example, your first point is a null point to either side, since we don’t pick judges, bad apples will continue to judge fights regardless to what system we’re using.
Your second point about the paper trail, to me at least, still doesn’t answer how a fighter came to win a fight. Sure, you can add the points to see who won, but why did fighter A get 10 points while fighter B got 9 and so on? It comes down to perceptions, fighter A in this case impressed the judges more than fighter B, and therefore got 10 points. If scored as a whole, which fighter impressed the judges more? To me it’s basically the same principal.
On your third point, which could be true, a fighter who finishes strong could also impress the judges to steal a decision for himself. We know however that fighters who finish each round strongly could also get the nod. If a fight goes for 3 rounds and in each the fight was competitive and one fighter finishes a round strong, usually that fighter gets more credit for doing so and it counts on the judges score cards. I think I read one of Kid Nate’s comments where he uses an analogy of a fighter who is finishing strong in a fight deserves more credit than a fighter who is not. If a fighter who goes two rounds doing nothing but successful take downs and nothing more, and gasses as a result, and in the third round you have the other fighter picking him apart as a result, shouldn’t that third round count more in the fight?
I’m rambling on here, I can understand where you are coming from though, at the end of the day the system will continue to be a 10 point must system. I’m just a far bigger fan of judging fights as a whole instead.
cagar é uma filosofia profunda...
a merda bate na água e a água bate na bunda.
If a fight goes for 3 rounds and in each the fight was competitive and one fighter finishes a round strong, usually that fighter gets more credit for doing so and it counts on the judges score cards
See: Rampage vs. Jardine
by pdl on Dec 8, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
I think the solution is 10-10 rounds. If people were willing to call rounds a draw than this fight is a pretty cut and dry 30-29.
I would also love to see 10 minute first rounds
by xbuckeyex05 on Dec 8, 2009 11:18 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I hate draws so much. They’re much worse for the sport than controversial decisions. and more 10-10 rounds = more draws
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 8, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
Even if that were true, which I’m not sure that it is, I would much prefer deserved draws to undeserved victories.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Dec 8, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
Increased use of 10-10 rounds must be joined by a more liberalized use of 10-8’s and 10-7’s.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Insofar as the rounds are being scored properly, the 10-point must system will reward the correct fighter. It’s a question of competent judges, not of a broken system.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
That's a fine rape choke there..
Wandi would be so proud.
by HappyLittleTreez on Dec 8, 2009 10:34 AM EST reply actions
that's not a rape choke!
but it is effective nonetheless :P
cagar é uma filosofia profunda...
a merda bate na água e a água bate na bunda.
Why 10-10 though?
Just curious. The winner gets 10, right? So if neither guy wins the round, shouldn’t it be a 9-9 round?
I think unless there is a point taken one fighter must get 10 in each round.
by Beyondadrenalin on Dec 8, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
Hence the name “10 point must”.
The only thing Jon Jones does better than Matt Hamill is hear.
(And smash faces)
by ufc4 on Dec 8, 2009 11:03 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Right...
it basically means “both guys won the round” rather than 9-9 which would be “neither guy won the round”
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 8, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
I like the K-1 system. Adapt it to MMA. 3 x5, 2 extension rounds. Draws are quite possible. If its 30-30, they go an extension round. If that is a draw, another extension round. If that is a draw, it’s a draw.
You get 5 round fights for close fights without having to give 5 rounds to every fight, you get a less arbitrary judging system than now, where judges apparently feel like they need to flip a coin.
"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.
But how are they going to program a PPV with that (time wise)? Also, how would championship bouts differ? 5 rounds +2 extensions if needed?
cagar é uma filosofia profunda...
a merda bate na água e a água bate na bunda.
I’d guess you’d see a lot more of the undercard as you’d have to assume a 25 minute fight. K-1 manages to make time somehow, though there is a fantastic amount of garbage between bouts. Or you could have one extension round and cut it to 20.
Maybe make championships a mandatory five with one extension round if it’s still a draw.
It just seems to me that the K-1 system has the right balance; it has draws for when a round is too close to really call, but it also makes draws relatively rare with the sudden death rounds. Seems to me there are less WTF scores in K-1 than there have been lately in the UFC. But then again they do have an easier time scoring just because the sport is less multi-faceted.
"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.
I’m kind of curious to see Kimbo vs Wanderlei Silva for some reason.
Keep firing Assholes!
Fedor has accomplished nothing until he fights Kimbo.
by Ubernoober on Dec 8, 2009 11:00 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
they need to give Kimbo easy opponents, Wandy would kill him.
cagar é uma filosofia profunda...
a merda bate na água e a água bate na bunda.
Kimbo is much much bigger than Wandy
but Wandy should be able to handle him. Although I saw more than enough of Wandy vs heavyweights in PRIDE
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Yeah...
but Kimbo isn’t exactly hitting as hard as Mark Hunt and prime Cro Cop
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 8, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
I was pulling for Houston
big time in that fight, but I was glad to see Kimbo rewarded for his performance in that fight. Since we know leg kicks don’t count in MMA anymore, really Kimbo had a 4:1 striking advantage in round 1, thus the 30-27 card.
Am I alone in thinking there should be more 10-8 rounds and that Round 2 was a clear-cut example?
Give the 10-8 when someone is dominant, and that’ll cancel out two rounds in which you flip a coin and it comes up for the other fighter.
More 10-8s and 10-10s in general would help avoid these fights in which one guy dominates one round and fights evenly in two, yet loses 29-28.
by Beau Dure on Dec 8, 2009 11:51 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
In theory...
this is great.
In practice it’s still in the hands of the same people.
I’d like to see the current system in place with people who UNDERSTAND the fight game.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 8, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
I agree, but...
There is no indication the the judging controversy in this case was clearly caused by people who don’t understand the fight game. I think there is a case, maybe one you don’t agree with for round 1 to go to Kimbo based on “Octagon Control”. So I don’t see how that’s the issue here.
the UFC did an amazing job finding someone that Kimbo could outgrapple.
This was the most surprising thing in that fight. When I was picking Houston, I knew Kimbo would be bigger, and it looks like that, along with the training at ATT did give him some advantages, but I thought to myself, “Houston sucks on the ground, but he can’t suck more than Kimbo, could he?” Apparently I was really wrong. During round 2, I kept thinking, “WTF is going on?”
I love me some Sexyama!
Radical rule change
Which I never expect to see but if we are going to improve judging and prevent fighters from squeaking out two even rounds after getting killed in one or having fights judged on the totality of the contest – why not get rid of rounds and go with one 10 minute fight (for title fights 15 minutes)? Judging would then boil down to the basic question of who won the fight.
Stops are good for saftey
In between rounds, the doctors can check on a fighter, the corner can throw in the towel. How many more punches would BJ penn potentially take to the head.
We’d also have less exciting KOs I think without the rest period.
This is pretty bad. To give some idea, this means in the first round Kimbo threw a strike once every thirty seconds and Houston every 23 seconds. That’s like Tai Chi speed
those numbers are by strikes landed...not thrown
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 8, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
That's what my heart says that card was.
But my head says otherwise.
by pdl on Dec 8, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
