Judge Rami Genaur Scores the Bout 30-26 Diego Sanchez

by Mike Fagan on Jun 21, 2009 11:42 PM EDT in News Comment 47 comments

Fightmetric_logo_medium

You might have something wrong with you if you're not constantly refreshing FightMetric's website after close and controversial decisions on UFC cards. Rami weighs in on the Sanchez/Guida fight here:

What Good is Top Position...

...when you're getting beaten by the guy on the bottom? Round two of last night's fight between Diego Sanchez and Clay Guida was an object lesson in why top position is not always better. While Guida did maintain top control, he got outstruck 16-3 in power shots to the head, thanks to a bevy of elbows coming from Sanchez on the bottom. Joe Rogan made the comment that those might have been the most effective elbows from bottom that we'd ever seen, but we've seen those elbows used to pretty good effect before. Anderson Silva vs. Travis Lutter and Kenny Florian vs. Joe Lauzon are some other good examples of the devastating effect of this under-utilized weapon. They very well might be the most effective strike that most fighters will never use.

...

The scores from the fight show a victory for Sanchez 30-26, though that could very easily be 29-27, as Glenn Trowbridge scored it. Round 1 was a 10-8 round, using our objective criteria (score over 100 and more than 6x opponents' score) and Round 2 goes to Sanchez thanks to his offensive guard. Round 3 is basically a toss-up, which the system gives to Sanchez on damage, but could easily go Guida's way instead.

I gave Guida round two live based on top control and begrudgingly gave him a close round three. After hearing Jordan Breen explain his thought process and reading Bloody Elbow's own Luke Thomas scribe out his thoughts (in addition to the stances of many of our commenters), I warmed up to the idea of 30-26 or 29-27 Sanchez, though I felt he deserved the fight based on his performance in round one anyway.

Hopefully, this fight is part of a growing trend of judges getting over the fallacy that simply being on top or taking someone down is tantamount to winning or controlling a fight. Taking someone down is just that and nothing more. Putting yourself into dominating positions should weigh on a judge's mind. If you can't improve your position, you better be able to land significant strikes from inside your opponent's guard.

Take nothing away from Clay Guida, who showed a ton of heart last night. Unfortunately, holding a guy down without doing much damage for eight minutes of a fight shouldn't overshadow an absolute mugging in round one. Kudos to the judges (the two of 'em anyway) that got this one right.

*UPDATE* Rami e-mailed me and wanted this to get seen:

Saw the post on BE and wanted to see if you'd make a point in the post for me. I'm uncomfortable being called a judge and it's not quite fair to call the scores the FightMetric system puts out a "judgment." We're not claiming to call accurate winners or losers because the system doesn't adhere to the Unified Rules. The scores that come out are ones that measure effectiveness. That means that we're only basing things on what landed. We can't see things like aggression or "Octagon Control" explicitly in the numbers (though they do show up to some degree), so the scores we use to call rounds are not exactly what the judges use to call their rounds. There are definitely examples where we'd be right to call a winner based on our criteria and the judges would be 100% correct to call a winner based on their criteria. The FightMetric effectiveness score is a powerful statistic, rooted in demonstrated MMA effectiveness over 14,000 fights, but it's no replacement for expert human judges.

I mentioned it in the comments, but Rami's not an actual judge. Just a bit of fun with the headline.

0 recs | Comment 47 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Lutter wasn't so much on top of Anderson as trapped by Anderson

Guard is not a neutral position – if you’re in it, you are losing points based on position. Luckily, they score on things like Octagon control (again, advantage to the guy on top), aggression, grappling and striking. Round 2 is a ridiculously close round, like round three, because Guida basically wins the first two, loses aggression and striking and negates what Diego tries to do grappling-wise.

This fight has been a great venue for people to vent about how much they hate wrestlers that grind out decisions based on top control, but this fight doesn’t negate scoring for takedowns and being on top – it simply provides a template for winning a round from your back using superior striking and aggression. It can be done, and Diego sure did work Guida from the bottom on the second, but this is not going to be the great MMA bellweather event that causes judges to completely abandon position as a criteria for scoring fights. It’s never going away – being on your back sucks, and if you want to win decisions, don’t make a habit of being there for extended periods of time.

This was a razor close fight between two inarguably top ten (and arguably top five) lightweights. I have seen the fight three times now (and been involved in a few BRIEF discussions about it with people that disagree with me), and I can say with a straight face and clear conscience that I would have scored the fight 29-28 Guida. I do not fault others for scoring it otherwise – I just disagree with them.

by subo on Jun 21, 2009 10:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is a quote from mythbuster

I’ve seen people argue that attempting a sub should be worth points, and I’ve seen people argue that defending a sub should be worth points.

I’ve come to the conclusion that points should be awarded on whichever fighter the fan in question is rooting for.

I think this is very overlooked. There is no such thing as an unbiased judge – everyone has their personal biases, favorites and taboos. That’s why we don’t just feed the numbers into a computer and let it tell us who won.

by subo on Jun 21, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What??

Come on man there are often hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line in these fights. Not to mention MMA is trying to gain credibility as a professional sport. We can’t have judges awarding extra points for favorites. That is absurd.

by zacd on Jun 21, 2009 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boxing has survived much larger judging issues than we have here

There is no way to stop them from doing so.

There isn’t a justice on the Supreme fucking Court that doesn’t let their personalities weigh into their decisions.

People are not robots.

The only way to do what you propose is to say ‘There Is A Right Way And A Wrong Way To Score MMA Fights’, in which case, why have judges? Why not put stats and numbers into software and let it tell us who wins?

by subo on Jun 21, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There has to be some sort of standardization though or else MMA will turn into a farce. For this fight we had some people scoring this fight 30-26, 30-27. 29-27, and 29-28 for Sanchez. Some people scored it 29-28 Guida. Obviously that range of scores are more than just someone giving a close round to their preferred fighter. There is some serious misunderstanding of what the proper way to score a fight is.

by zacd on Jun 21, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or it was a really, really close fight.

by subo on Jun 21, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except that it wasn’t. One round was really really close. One looked close, but wasn’t. And one was a complete blowout.

And I’d be on board with computer judging. Good luck getting fighters, managers, promoters, etc. to agree to a criteria.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 21, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok man, you’ve got your opinion on this fight, I have mine.

by subo on Jun 21, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

“Luckily, they score on things like Octagon control (again, advantage to the guy on top), aggression, grappling and striking. Round 2 is a ridiculously close round, like round three, because Guida basically wins the first two, loses aggression and striking and negates what Diego tries to do grappling-wise.”

The five criteria aren’t and shouldn’t be weighed equally.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 21, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since the UFC just names them in a group, isn’t it up to the judge to pick and choose which to elevate?

by subo on Jun 21, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UFC doesn’t determine the judging criteria.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 21, 2009 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unified Rules:

(d) Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in © above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 21, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s great to see people, judges in particular coming around to this way of scoring a fight, props to Rami Genaur. If it continues, it will give the lay & pray types something to think about, and may force them to upgrade their styles or at least be more active.

With Karate being brought back into the spotlight by Lyoto Machida, and young guys like Rumble Johnson bringing more unorthodox skillsets to the cage, along with the more critical judging, it’s like we’re watching the the next step in the evolution of our sport.

I gave Sanchez the round based in large part on the elbows off his back, and if more fighters would fight like that from guard, they could win a lot more rounds (in my eyes, anyways).

"The path to enlightenment is through suffering"

by RearNakedChoker on Jun 21, 2009 10:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Just to counter point.

“it will give the lay & pray types something to think about, and may force them to upgrade their styles or at least be more active.”

The same could also be said about people who are lousy at striking, but stay busy enough to eek out a decision on their feet. If you are on your back, it’s not the fault of the person holding you there, you must do something to get out from under them. It’s not the person on top that necessarily needs to upgrade a certain skill set, the person on the bottom needs to work on their game as well. How many times have we seen black belt BBJ guys ‘lay n pray" until almost the end of a fight before secure a submission, or a wrestler do the same before pounding someone out. It works both ways, you know takes two to tango. Like I said, it’s like a guy just throwing jabs all night long, not doing any damage but doing just enough to score points.

by proflex on Jun 22, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

29-27 Diego

I threw Guida a bone even though he got raped from the bottom in rd 2. Dude looked like Carrot Top at the end of the fight.

Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, growing up as a child Kimbo Slice was never given any bread with his meals. This is why he insists people... give him his bread."

by xFenixKnightx on Jun 21, 2009 10:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

While Guida did maintain top control, he got outstruck 16-3 in power shots to the head, thanks to a bevy of elbows coming from Sanchez on the bottom.

After watching the fight repeatedly that is complete bullshit, Clay delivered his fare share of hard elbows and hammer fist from the top while keeping Diego on his ass the entire round in the second.

Not to mention on in the world did Sanchez do more damage in the third when he was outstruck the entire round?, seriously what fight where these people watching.

It’s clear that the people over there are about as good at their job as the people at mma weekly are at rankings meaning not at all.

by Raker on Jun 21, 2009 10:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It isn’t bullshit. It’s obvious to anyone not actively rooting for Guida.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Jun 21, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you are a hoot and a half

by George Lucas on Jun 22, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At least you don’t still think Diego paid off the judges.

by Riney on Jun 22, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love how people only read one of your posts and ignore the rest it must be some great skill that is practiced all across the internet.

by Raker on Jun 22, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it is really simple.

Since there wasnt really any significant sub attempts on that round.

If a guy gets beat up in a round, he loses.. End of story.. So what if you were on top, you got beat up badly and did nothing there..

It has nothing to do with hating wrestlers or anything. He got beat up and got badly hurt.. Therefore he loses the round.

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Jun 21, 2009 10:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah!!! thats how i scored it too!

"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 Jun 21, 2009 10:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

blood factor

I re-watched the fight too. One thing i wonder is if Clay didn’t get cut open and let the blood spill, would people still be looking at this the same way? And i do think Clay landed his fair share of shots. They were not power strikes, like you may be able to designate Diego’s elbows as, but he was landing strikes and i think he landed more than Diego.

And lastly, i just really would like it if the athletic commissions and judges were more involved with discussions like this, I know for myself i would have more faith in them. Not to say they have to justify their numbers, but i know the criteria to be a judge in some states may not be the best qualified person.

by mo dogg on Jun 21, 2009 11:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

that would be kind of interesting

to see how clay bleeding affected the out come
i think people would look at the fight differently

Before you build yourself up, you must tear somebody else down.

by Zennedy on Jun 22, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, he didn’t just spontaneously burst forth with blood. He was bleeding because Diego hammered away on his dome. The blood was a result of strikes, so I think it should be a factor.

by jebushchrist on Jun 22, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah no arguement here
Fun fight to watch

Before you build yourself up, you must tear somebody else down.

by Zennedy on Jun 22, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes and perhaps if he had not been elbowed so much the decision may have been different??

by George Lucas on Jun 22, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FYI, Sanchez landed 27 of 43 strikes to Guida’s 21 of 42 in round 2. There’s no distinction made between standing strikes and ground strikes, but that shouldn’t matter much in the grand scheme of the round. Sanchez held a 17-5 lead in power shots for the entire round.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 21, 2009 11:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It says there was only 1 strike from diego standing in that round, so everything else was on the ground.

If you get outstruck 26-21, and the guy on the bottom had more power strikes, and you didn’t attempt a submission, I don’t care if you had the guy mounted, you lost the round.

by Phildo on Jun 22, 2009 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had Barnett losing on points while mounting Yvel!

by klown on Jun 22, 2009 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

First those numbers sound iffy I thought that both Diego and Clay landed about the same number of shots in that round, second what constitutes a power shot?. Because people really seem to be hyping up Diego’s elbow but not giving Clays elbows and hammer fists the same respect again that’s suspect just like their outcome.

by Raker on Jun 21, 2009 11:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you can’t find the answers at FightMetric.com I’m sure Rami can answer your question directly with an e-mail.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 22, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice to hear a judge’s explanation and nicer to see that being on top isn’t the be all end all that it used to be.

The score may be debatable but Sanchez won that fight. Period.

by jebushchrist on Jun 21, 2009 11:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Rami isn’t an actual judge, for the record.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 22, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We’re all actual judges. I’m silently judging you right now.

by jebushchrist on Jun 22, 2009 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

lol

by Tonley on Jun 22, 2009 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think giving 10-8 for Diego in round number two is almost as biased as giving Clay round number 3.

by Scott Whitt on Jun 21, 2009 11:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Who said anything about Round 2 being 10-8?

by Richard Wade on Jun 21, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lolz.

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Jun 22, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had it

29-29. I really really thought it was going to be a draw as Rogan mentioned during the telecast.

Draft guru in training.

by tj.hendricks on Jun 22, 2009 12:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Just want to point out there’s an update from Rami in the article now.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 22, 2009 12:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, it’s a subtle difference, really. :-p

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the problem with decisions

There is something dissatisfying about decisions, and especially close decisions. We all feel the same distaste for them. Pointless controversies erupt when the blatant truth is, nobody wins a fight like that, and nobody loses.

It’s easy to define a decisive victory: submission, knockout, or unrelenting domination. If no fighter surrenders, loses consciousness, or gives up his will to fight, it makes no sense to call a winner. Think Rampage-Jardine. Hughes-Serra. Davis-Hardy. Henderson-Franklin. Stevenson-Diaz. Even Royce Gracie’s last fight with Sakuraba…

if there is no decisive winner after a fight one of 2 things should happen.

1. A draw should be declared. A whole slew of recent decision (and especially split decisions, often controversial) are really draws, and I think that’s intuitively obvious to most of us. That’s the cause of all the controversy. There’s no clear winner, so people will disagree, simple

2. An additional round or rounds can be fought

by klown on Jun 22, 2009 2:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Except this fight wasn’t all that close.

by Richard Wade on Jun 22, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Personally I’m happy to finally see a split decision go the way of the more active guy off his back. It shows judges are paying more attention to the subtleties of the sport.

How crazy was the first 30 secs of round 1 though??!

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Jun 22, 2009 2:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

On the feet neither guy is automatically given points

even though one of them usually has an “advantage” based on reach.

Perhaps the correct answer is to remove the assumption of advantage on the ground based on comparative location. Being on top, perhaps, should have no sense of advantage given to it and the bottom shouldn’t have a negative connotation either. This is just as different position to work from.

Points should be awarded based on activity, not postioning. Now, how you get to that postion should be considered, since a take down can cause damage or transistion to something important.

by Razreshat on Jun 22, 2009 8:49 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs