After UFC 123 It's Obvious the 10 Point Must System Doesn't Work for MMA
by Nate Wilcox on Nov 21, 2010 1:58 AM EST
in UFC Editorial
Email
Print
Quinton Jackson knew he wasn't the better man at tonight's UFC 123 bout with Lyoto Machida.
After the fight Rampage immediately raised Machida's arm, then after the decision told announcer Joe Rogan that "Machida whipped my ass tonight. Even though I don't want to, I think an immediate rematch would be the fair thing."
But it's not the kind of decision where you can really pillory the judges for blowing the call. The problem is the round by round 10 point must scoring system, not necessarily the judging. It would have been perfectly reasonable to give Jackson the first two rounds 10-9 each. Both rounds were extremely close.
The problem is the third round was definitive with Machida scoring a knock down on the feet and utterly dominating on the ground with mounted position and a tight arm bar attempt.
The 10 point must system wasn't handed down by the gods. It was grafted onto MMA in the late 1990s by regulators familiar with boxing. Japan's Pride Fighting Championships used a very simple "pick a winner" scoring system that many still feel is more true to the essence of the sport. After all the point of MMA is to see who would win the fight, not who can best game the system and score more points.
Admittedly the Pride system is very open to abuse and offers even less insight to the thinking of the judges than the 10 point must system.
I'm open to a complete rethink of MMA scoring. Why not a 20 point system with most definitive rounds being scored 20-15 but close rounds being scored 20-19 or 20-18. That way Jackson could've been given the first two rounds 20-19 and lost the third 15-20 and then we'd have the rightful winner with his hand raised at the end of the night.
What do you think?
228 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This isn't new
I totally believe Rampage earned the W, but the 10 point must system has been proven to be shite for some time.
Moisture is the essence of wetness.
Machida DID NOTHING for 2 1/2 rounds of that fight. you score 3 rounds equally. Machida on top for part of 2 rounds and one flurry of punches in the 3rd round does not win a fight.
Gatti. Dekkers. Pele. Aoki. Kang. Vanderlei. Basillio. Harry Greb.
by theworldsoldestsport on Nov 21, 2010 1:59 AM EST up reply actions
Rampage did nothing for the entire 3 rounds
His most dramatic moment was when he hit the air 3 inches in front of Machida’s face.
"Do you find him to be, perhaps, sexier than the average human being?"
"I'm not gay, but..."
- Ariel Helwani and fan discussing Yoshihiro Akiyama
LMFAO!
He did land a solid uppercut in the second. But beside that he really didn’t do much offensively. Which amazingly enough, he agreed with!
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 5:22 AM EST up reply actions
“Rampage did nothing for the entire 3 rounds”
If Rampage did nothing, then Machida was non-existant for 2.5 rounds. Did you actually watch the fight ?
if you view the fight as a whole
which is my recommendation as the only valid way to view anything, Machida WON. He imposed his will, did damage and threatened to finish. Rampage showed some great footwork and threatened but he never landed a major shot and never hurt Machida.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Then don't have rounds
Reppin' the NYMMAI.
Black Lesnar aka Slap ya Favorite MMA Writer
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun . Imma write til the wheels fall off.
by S.C. Michaelson on Nov 21, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
^this is DUMB
Pro-wrestling and MMA: I have the best of both worlds.
by Rod Mapada on Nov 21, 2010 2:11 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The Pride System is even worse though
Nothing wrong with the 10 must, we just need more monitors for judges and better use of 10-8’s and 10-10’s.
Food goes in here
right. Machida scored a standing KD, that generally creates a presumption of 10-8. Not tonight, though. I think the system is fine, the problem lies with the judges, as it has.
"Yes Gina, I am a Wise Cracker"
what standing KD?
He peppered him up pretty good, but Rampage was on his feet. Machida grabbed him in the clinch and put him down.
Use more judges.
this
I’ve heard a couple people talk about a knockdown, and I can’t see where they’er getting it
Its safe to say that without Playboy we wouldn't have MMA as we know it today. - Jonathan Snowden
10-10s are key
with more 10-10s and 10-8s there wouldn’t be any problem.
But I say shake it up – go with 20 or 5 points or anything to change it around. We need judges to be instructed to specifically score more rounds as draws or half points or 2 point advantages.
The first two rounds of this fight were extremely close, the last round was not. They should not all be scored the same way.
It all reminds me of the college BCS system, we all know it’s terrible, but the powers that be won’t change it. Pisses me off as a fan.
by Django Z on Nov 21, 2010 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Meh.
I used the 10 point and called the fight 30-29 Machida.
It’s not the system I have a problem with….it’s the implementation.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
by Tonley on Nov 21, 2010 1:34 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
I understand it perfectly
If the judges don’t want to implement a tool available to them, you can’t blame that on the system.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
by Tonley on Nov 21, 2010 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I think he does understand it...
…and used it appropriately.
30-29 Machida is exactly the way that fight should be scored.
Nah, the system is fine but the application needs adjusting. More 10-8s and more 10-10s.
by Lynchman on Nov 21, 2010 1:34 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Agree
It’s not the worst decision I’ve seen but I don’t believe pressure and clinch earns the fight. I can also see how the first two rounds could have gone to Jackson…I mean the first two were flip a coin and the third round was obvioulsy Lyoto’s. I’m totally surprised how in the 10 point must there are few draws because neither round was clearly dominated in the first or second.
Why not go why Hamilton’s half point system? I could have easily seen rounds 1 & 2 as 10-9.5 for Rampage and 3 10-9 or 8.5 for Machida.
by John Nash on Nov 21, 2010 1:35 AM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Why not go with not why not go why, obviously.
by John Nash on Nov 21, 2010 1:36 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
My problem with half points is simply the criteria for giving someone half a point. What’s the difference from a 9.0 and a 9.5? With a different point system, there needs some sort of clear criteria for it in my opinion.
Check out MMA For You at http://www.youtube.com/user/Gobusiness123 for MMA reviews, predictions, and analysis.
they are all the same thing.
I don’t get why people think that the judges who refuse to score 10-8s and 10-10s now will somehow change their tune if you add in decimals.
by Phildo on Nov 21, 2010 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But they do. Here’s the current definitions
1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round;
2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
So a fighter who barely wins round gets a 10-9 but a fighter has to overwhelmingly dominate to get a 10-8. What happens if a fighter obviously wins the round but didn’t “overwhelmingly dominate”? How does using the 10-8 and 10-7 rounds help us with that now? If we make 10-9 a close win and 10-8 an obvious but not dominant win, does that mean we have to add 10-6 and 10-5 round to incorporate this new degrees of victory?
What the half-point allows for judges is subtleties, something currently lacking.
by John Nash on Nov 21, 2010 1:48 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Those are the definitions, that isn’t what judges do.
There are plenty of examples of rounds that people think should be 10-10 or 10-8 that aren’t judged that way, the same thing would happen if you add in the decimals.
I still don’t understand the need for decimals. You get the same result by taking whatever you want to call a 9.5 and calling it a 9, and calling whatever you want to call a 9 an 8, and so on down the line, with the added bonus of letting the people who have trouble adding up series of 10’s and 9’s not have to worry about the decimal point.
By the definition of 10-8 – “when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling” – I can see why they’re rarely scored." Overwhelmingly dominates" is a big hurdle to overcome.
As for why they don’t just make 10-9 10-8? well, that means if we added the half-point subtleties a 10-8 round would now be 10-6 round. Who wants to lose so badly you lose a round 10-6? that’s embarrassing.
Truthfully though, I don’t care either way.I actually think this whole hoopla from Nate is because he lost money on the fight.
by John Nash on Nov 21, 2010 2:03 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
that's what I've been saying.
like 10-9 is for really close rounds,
10-8’s for clear cut victories.
10-7’s the way 10-8’s are normally scored today, when one fighter totally dominates.
and goddamit use 10-10 rounds!
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 21, 2010 2:09 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I thought you were going to say you thought Kid Nate lost money on the fight.
by John Nash on Nov 21, 2010 2:29 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I agree
If you’re going to revamp the scoring system, what’s the point in using decimals?
Make 10-8 the standard. 10-9 is for close rounds, 10-7 and 10-6 for dominating rounds.
Or just use something else entirely. Give each fighter a 1-5 on his effectiveness in each round, and add it all up. You know, like virtually every sport out there.
MMA doesn’t no longer needs to use a bastardization of boxing’s scoring system as a crutch for legitimacy.
By those definitions, judges should be way more liberal with their scoring choices than they currently are.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
They should be, but I think the “overwhelmingly dominates” language is the barrier. If they said something like 10-9 was for a close win, 10-8 was for a clear, definitive winner, and 10-7 was for overwhelming dominance, then you’d see them used a lot more.
by John Nash on Nov 21, 2010 3:01 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
contradiction...
The first two contradict each other pretty thoroughly. 10-10 is for when nobody “shows dominance,” but 10-9 is for “a close margin?” That’s very confusing. Do you have to show dominance or win by a close margin?
Use more judges.
That's what I'm sayibg
The guidelines for the judges make it hard for them to score anything but 10-9 rounds. They need better definitions of what constitutes each kind of round. I recommended Hamilton’s because it’s a system ready to be used and is already being tested.
by John Nash on Nov 21, 2010 11:42 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
+1
This entire notion that somehow these folks are being led astray by the system is down right ludicrous. How about this: if you score a round a 10-9 and then the other fighter does a degree above that to win the next round, then use a 10-8 instead. Jesus tap dancing christ.
"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 Nov 21, 2010 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
Fights are already allowed to be scored 10-10, 10-8, and 10-7. The problem is getting the judges to actually use it. A half point system or your 20 point system really changes nothing except the arbitrary increment being used.
by zY on Nov 21, 2010 1:36 AM EST reply actions 14 recs
also
3 round fights are garbage. Nobody won that fight. If this fight went 5 we’d have a much better idea of who was better.
by zY on Nov 21, 2010 1:37 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Came here to rec the first person that proposed this. No problem with the 10 point must… if there are enough rounds to score.
5 round fights, every fight, please…
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Nov 21, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
5 rounds just leaves more margin for error
and boring ass blanketing fights lasting even longer. And gassed fighters doing very little.
Exactly. Judges never use the 10-10 and it’s not that anyone wants to see more draws…but when there is no clear cut winner like the first round where it was circle, clinch, footstomp, knee to the thigh, release. That would have worked.
by Duane Finley on Nov 21, 2010 1:37 AM EST up reply actions
draws
Why would it lead to more draws? 10-10, 10-10, 10-9 Machida…
I’d love to see a “sudden victory” system if it ended up as a draw. Again, that would allow the judges to score what they see rather than giving a 10-9 for every frickin’ round.
Use more judges.
A lot of people feel that Rampage won the second.
So, 10-10, 10-9 Rampage, 10-9 Machida. Draw. That would happen just as often as split decisions.
This. Tell them to score with half points and they will score fights 10-9.5 instead.
by VirtualBalboa on Nov 21, 2010 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
He controled the cage ....
…. and controled the pace of the fight thats how Page gets the first Maddux . This is the flaw with Machidas style in my opinion .
" Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth. " ~
Mike Tyson
by MidWayMonster54 on Nov 21, 2010 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
Alot of people on this board seem to think walking someone down for an entire round and controlling the center of the octagon mean nothing.
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Nov 21, 2010 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Well when all your opponet ....
…. is doing is staying away from contact when you " walk him down " , or in a more correct manor of discription cut of the ring & aggressively stalk your opponet , you win the round because thats the only thing there was to judge . Maybe you should be going off about Machida not doing enough to win the fight . He could have been more aggressive and won the round , but did he ……. no he played it safe & lost a close round he could have won .
" Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth. " ~
Mike Tyson
by MidWayMonster54 on Nov 21, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/11/rampage-vs-machida-fightmetric-report.html
In round one, Machida landed only one punch to Rampage’s head. Granted, Rampage only landed four, but that just shows you why aggression and ring control was the clear difference in the round. Machida landed some weak, non-committal leg kicks, and Rampage landed knees and footstops up against the cage.
Rampage threw more, landed more punches to the head, landed the hardest shot of the round, was backing Machida down, and pinned him against the cage. If that’s not reasonable, I don’t know what is.
Rampage had an erratic offense in the first round
He had some success with clinching Machida against the fence but as soon as Machida started to reverse it he abandoned it and tried in vain to land something solid on the feet. Machida didn’t throw a single noteworthy punch to Rampage’s head in the first round. But he was landing leg kicks regularly and it was the only consistent offense the whole round. You say they were weak, but they were very effective they kept Rampage out of range and made him start to throw punches from way out of range as the fight progressed. Rampage walked forward and threw more punches in the first round, but he missed more as well.
The hardest shot of the round was a knee that Machida landed. He pinned Machida against the cage and had success with the footstomps and knees but as soon as Machida started to reverse him he abandoned that attack. You basically just subjectively discounted any of Machida’s offense in the first round. Rampage didn’t land a single clear punch the entire first round. Machida should have gotten the round for effective striking since his leg kicks were keeping Rampage effectively out of range. Rampage should have won for aggression. Neither won Octagon control because neither of them was controlling the Octagon. If Rampage had been able to consistently push Lyoto against the fence Couture style you have an argument. But he got reversed. And also, Lyoto’s game is to back peddle and make you miss. So he had Rampage doing exactly what he wanted him to do for most of the first round.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 3:11 AM EST up reply actions
If you can land one punch and backpedal the rest of the round without consequence, they you have the foundation for really shitty fights.
Machida’s knee was a body shot that didn’t land solidly and had no ill effects on Rampage. Rampage’s uppercut was to Machida’s face and his head snapped back. Machida’s leg kicks were weak. They’re weren’t like Shogun’s, Aldo’s, Barbosa’s, Alves’, etc. He fired a quick leg kick to score a point and moved out.
Rampage deserves credit for taking it to Machida. He was just as hard to hit, so don’t give me this crap about him doing what Machida wanted. Machida landed only one punch to Rampage’s head in the first round. ONE PUNCH.
Look, I think Machida won the fight under a better scoring system, but under the 10-9 system it’s perfectly reasonable to give either fighter the win. A split for Rampage is perfect.
The only consistent offense in the first round was Machida's
So now you’re agreeing with me. Sure the first round was shitty but that wasn’t the point of the debate. The point was how in the world could anyone score it for Rampage. He had an erratic and limited offense. Nothing was consistent or effective in the first round. He couldn’t find Machida’s face but Machida found his body and legs time after time. His offense was effective because he had Rampage punching at KICKING DISTANCE. Rampage could not close the distance after the first knee. It was solid and had Rampage guessing. Was any strike from Machida close to finishing Rampage in the first round? No of course not. But he did win the striking. However, I agree that Rampage was more of the aggressor with coming forward. As he himself said, it was the only thing he did right and the only thing that won him the fight. My point is that the judges forgot that Machida won the striking in the first round. If you give them both a nod then you have a draw in the first round. Or possibly give a slight nod to Machida for having more effective offense. But no way in hell can you give the round to Rampage. So then the fight is a draw which is pretty much the way everyone views the fight. The judges just didn’t have the balls to give the first round 10-10. They tried to force an argument that Rampage won the round which is retarded. You can’t argue he won the round at all unless you selectively ignore Machida’s offense. That’s why it was literally an ignorant decision.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 3:52 AM EST up reply actions
No way in hell?
Buddy, how many times to I have to fucking repeat this to get it through your thick head?
RAMPAGE OUTSTRUCK MACHIDA 4-1 IN SHOTS TO THE HEAD.
99% of MMA fans say that head shots count more than leg kicks (even Machida himself – go listen to his thoughts on his first fight with Shogun). QED.
Add in the fact that the leg kicks were the in-and-out type with little conviction, and they become even less meaningful. Where is it written that 12 leg kicks, 3 body strikes, and one punch to the head is worth more than 22 body punches/knees against the cage and four head punches? Where is it written that aggression and ring control are so worthless that it cannot be more important than this slight difference in offense? Where is it written that running back to keep distance from someone is ring control? Or that moving forward against the best counter-striker in the game without getting hit is not?
Your whole argument is full of pretentious subjective nonsense.
How many times do I have to tell you...
His punches in the first round were worthless. He didn’t land a single solid strike to the head in the first round. Compustrike isn’t part of the judge’s scoring. And Compustrike in and of itself doesn’t tell you who won a striking competition fool. You can have a guy land leg strikes all day and land a good power shot to the head, then the other guy land a single power shot to head and completely daze and stun the opponent. Compustrike or Fight Metric will say the guy landing more strikes won the round when in reality the guy that landed the only effective strikes won the round. Neither Compustrike nor Fight Metric measure effective striking because it is somewhat subjective.
None of Rampage’s strikes except possibly the foot stomps were effective. Not a single punch. Why? Because they didn’t rattle Machida’s game at all they did nothing to Machida. The scoring criteria is for EFFECTIVE STRIKES FOOL! Not quantity of strikes. Machida’s leg kicks and knee to the body were effective because they forced Rampage to throw punches from out of range. The only effective, consistent striking in the first round was Machida’s not Rampage’s. There is no scoring criteria that says the person with a higher brute quantity of strikes wins the striking. The Unified Rules state ‘Effective Strikes’. Damn man, you are dense!
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:21 AM EST up reply actions
Head shots count more than leg strikes...
…when you can land them effectively. Rampage could not for the entire first round. Fight Metric or Compustrike just do a brute force tally of quantity. Quantity isn’t necessarily a criteria that is considered in judging a round because the term is ‘effective striking’. Nothing Rampage did in the striking department was effective because nothing he threw out of the clinch landed clean. They were glancing blows or grazed Machida’s shoulder. His only clean shots were the foot stomps and knees to the legs of Machida. But they would have been effective if they had kept Machida in that position. But they did not. Machida reversed and broke free. And he resumed the only consistent and effective striking in the round. Like I said, at best it was a draw at worst a round for Machida. The judges tried to force a decision because they were too scared to have a draw in the main event. Nothing new.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:24 AM EST up reply actions
Learn what pretentious means
There is nothing pretentious in what I wrote. If I had said ‘Fight was a draw’ and ’I’m not going to explain myself because anyone that questions that doesn’t know anything about MMA’ that would be pretentious. The fact that I am explaining my argument to you is by its very nature the opposite of being pretentious.
Of course this is all subjective. The entire scoring criteria is subjective. There is no objectivity in scoring a round! The criteria uses terms like ‘effective’ and ‘octagon control’ and ‘aggression’ with no clear parameters as to how to measure this criteria. It’s up to the judges to interpret on their own. Pretty much any scoring system that depends on judges is subjective. However, I laugh at the judges trying to make a decision about who one the first round. It was almost impossible to determine. Nothing really happened except for Rampage staying out of Machida’s range…exactly what Machida wanted and not what Rampage wanted. The only good argument for anyone winning that round was MAYBE for Machida but it is a weak argument because Rampage clearly won the aggression criteria. The judges were the pretentious ones trying to force a winner of that round rather than have the balls to say they don’t know. But judges never want to say ‘they don’t know’ because it weakens their position of authority. Also promoters and fans hate draws in main events.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:30 AM EST up reply actions
Nothing pretentious?
How about you calling everyone who disagrees with you ignorant? Calling their opinion unreasonable, laughable, etc? Calling judges stupid, cowardly, and incompetent? The way you think your opinion is the only correct one? Especially when all objective measures are at odds with you?
I’m done talking with you. You’re too stubborn and immature for discussion to be worthwhile.
Ignorant means without knowledge
When the judges selectively ignore an aspect of a fighter’s performance that is by definition called ignorant. That is not pretentious. If I say it’s laughable that is not pretentious either. Pretentious is when you act like you know more than another person but aren’t willing to explain yourself. By definition, the judges are pretentious. I’m beating you at the argument and you’re crumbling. I understand. Happens all the time.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:52 AM EST up reply actions
Heres one word ...
….. you may want to put into your vocabulary ……. humility . Just sayin .
" Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth. " ~
Mike Tyson
by MidWayMonster54 on Nov 21, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
where was this knock down you speak of
are you High?
by P86 on Nov 21, 2010 1:38 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think you are overreacting somewhat.
I agree that there is probably some better system out there – likely not pride rules though becuase as you say that comes with its own set of problems – but is it obvious this system doesn’t work? It’s obvious that it’s not perfect, but more so then that i think it’s obvious that with better judges in general this system could be workable.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein"
- Goonisis
Give me the Pride scoring
It’s not perfect by any stretch, but round-by-round scoring makes ZERO sense in a three-round fight!!
Kid Nate, don’t get your panties in a bunch. Rampage outworked Machida for two rounds. Running away doesn’t count as fighting sir
Neither does swining and missing
Or else you should score missed submission attempts. Which judges clearly do not. To me they simply valued Rampages very limited success with the offense (foot stomps, occasional glancing blows, leg punches, clinching against the fence, single takedown, coming forward) more than Machida’s offensive success (leg kick counters, stunning Rampage and driving him against the fence, takedown and mount, missed submission attempts).
The first round was a draw or at best Lyoto’s round. Calling the first round Rampage’s round was ignorant.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 2:09 AM EST up reply actions
Ignorant my ass. Look at fightmetric’s objective stats.
Why do you ignore Rampage stunning Machida with an uppercut when scoring that round a draw or Machida’s, but bring up Machida stunning Rampage? The latter is completely irrelevent to the discussion because everyone agrees that it happened and Machida deserved the round.
I don't ignore Rampage's offense
He won the second round because of the takedown and the solid uppercut. it didn’t stun Machida he shook it off immediately. Stun was what Machida did to Rampage in the third round with the left straight. Rampage didn’t land that uppercut in the first round fool.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 3:12 AM EST up reply actions
Rampage didn't land a single effective punch in the entire first round...
…Didn’t make Machida change his game plan, didn’t stun him, didn’t do anything. He landed some glancing blows and got most of his offense in when he pushed Machida against the fence and landed footstomps and punches and knees to the theigh and knees. But Machida reversed him and they went back to what they were doing earlier and that was circling around with Machida landing an occasional leg kick. It was a draw pretty much in my eyes. Arguably a Machida round but by no means a Rampage round.
It wasn’t until the second round that Rampage landed solid punches, very few, and got a takedown. But he also lost the clinch game more often and looked tired. Fight was a draw in my eyes and most fans eyes which is why everyone wants a rematch. The winner wasn’t clear even though the stupid judges act like there was a clear winner.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 3:19 AM EST up reply actions
Don't act like you speak for most fans
On Sherdog, where the writers scored the rounds in question as draws or for Machida (but agree that they could go either way), polls show something like 48% Rampage, 41% Machida, 11% draw.
Strikes to the head were 4-1 in favour of Rampage. Machida landed the occasional leg kick and knee to the body, Rampage landed knees to the leg against the fence and occasional body shot.
Are you so arrogant that you think anyone who weighs these factors differently from you is not reasonable? You don’t think shots to the head are more valuable?
Judges acted like there was a clear winner? Do you not know what a split decision is? And calling them stupid is real mature. Have you even hit puberty yet?
The only effective offense Rampage landed in the first round were foot stomps
The judges didn’t have the balls to score the first round 10-10. They were too afraid of having a draw in the main event. Not only were they stupid they were cowardly.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 3:53 AM EST up reply actions
By that logic, the only effective offense Machida landed was nothing. You can’t just discount everything that Rampage did.
And going by the history of the 10-9 system as applied to MMA, no, that wasn’t a 10-10 round. One guy was going for fight ending shots, landed more to the head, and was the clear aggressor.
Name one other round in any fight where that was the case and it was scored 10-10. You can’t.
I didn't discount it
I said he was more aggressive. It was a draw in my eyes. Just the judges didn’t have the balls to call it a 10-10. 2/3 of them actually thought there was an argument for Rampage winning even when he himself thought he lost the round!
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:31 AM EST up reply actions
You want me to name other 10-10 rounds
What is the question? There are plenty of 10-10 rounds in just the UFC alone. Not frequent and I can’t remember the last 10-10 in a main event but they happen in other lower card fights from time to time. But usually judges avoid 10-10 like the plague. By definition, what they do by forcing 10-9s is pretentious.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:35 AM EST up reply actions
Learn how to read.
I said find a 10-10 round where one fighter was a clear aggressor.
What you write is all over the place
You are now trying to use historical evidence that justifies you claim that Rampage should have gotten a 10-9 for the first round of the fight. But the whole point of the OP was that the scoring system is flawed. And I’m going further than that by saying not only is the scoring system flawed, but even worse the judges are incompetent and cowardly. I wasn’t terribly surprised by the decision because I knew the first two rounds were close and Lyoto couldn’t have gotten a 10-8 from the 3rd. But I thought about it, rewatched the first round and it is laughable that any judge thought anyone clearly won that round.
You are all over the place with your arguments. You are first saying that Rampage could have possibly won the first round now you are saying historical evidence proves he never could have lost that first round because he is coming forward. What Nate and what I’m saying is that this is proof that there are major flaws in the scoring from the 10-point must as well as the judges. To give Rampage 10-9 for doing nothing effective in the first round is ridiculous. Lyoto’s whole style is to retreat and he actually beat Shogun the first time because the judges gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first three rounds. This time they didn’t they gave Rampage the benefit of the doubt until the end when we realized that Lyoto was getting Rampage’s timing.
This is all subjective fool. Learn how to use your vocabulary properly.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:48 AM EST up reply actions
10-10 rounds in MMA fights
BJ Penn vs. Caol Uno
Ian Freeman vs. Vernon White
Wasn’t Tim Hague vs. Chris Tuscherer scored 10-10?
I’m blanking on any more right now.
Great discussion on why 10-10 rounds aren’t scored more often in MMA:
http://www.fightopinion.com/2010/05/25/talk-radio-10-10-rounds-mma/
"What happened was… seven/eight years ago there was a judge in New Jersey who scored a couple of rounds 10-10 and he’s never been seen again and every judge knows that story because they’ve all repeated it to me and so therefore they don’t judge 10-10 rounds very often." – Dave Meltzer
They are scared to score 10-10 rounds.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:41 AM EST up reply actions
He landed leg kicks fool
Which is what kept Rampage out of punching distance. The kicks were effective. The knee to the body most of all you saw Rampage much more cautious and try and clinch more after the knee.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:53 AM EST up reply actions
Most fans aren't satisfied with the decision
They don’t feel there was a clear winner. That’s why everyone is up for a rematch.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 3:55 AM EST up reply actions
Judges were either
A) Stupid
B) Cowardly
C) Incompetent
D) Stupid and Cowardly
E) Cowardly and Incompetent
F) Stupid and Incompetent
G) All of the above
I vote G.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 4:02 AM EST up reply actions
I’m open to a complete rethink of MMA scoring. Why not a 20 point system with most definitive rounds being scored 20-15 but close rounds being scored 20-19 or 20-18. That way Jackson could’ve been given the first two rounds 20-19 and lost the third 15-20 and then we’d have the rightful winner with his hand raised at the end of the night.
Judges are incompetent, and a new system will just add more confusion and will put too much subjectivity on deciding how many points the loser gets… (15, 16, 17, 18?) . I think they should just keep it simple, and score more 10-10’s and 10-8’s….
They could’ve given 10-10’s for either round…. and even if they don’t like that and give the first two rounds 10-9s, then the 3rd round is definitely a 10-8..
These weren’t incompetent judges. They scored a close round one way. The idea that round 3 is 10-8 is laughable.
by Jonathan Snowden on Nov 21, 2010 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
under the current way of thinking, it is laughable, but I wouldn’t be upset if we lived in a world where the first 2 rounds were 10-9 and the third was 10-8.
Why? It wasn’t a round that was wildly one sided.
by Jonathan Snowden on Nov 21, 2010 1:45 AM EST up reply actions
but it was more one sided than either of the first two.
It doesn’t count for anything now, but I don’t see why it’s such a radical idea that someone gets more credit for definitively winning a round than squeaking one out.
that is a good idea. it’s also a good idea to eb able to render a score that accurately represents what happended in the cage. quarter points easily accomodate this objective.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 1:50 AM EST up reply actions
only if you think that one fighter was always 10% more effective than theother fightrer. quarter pointa acknowledge the reality that the rounds can be much closer than that, while also acknowlwdging that a fighter can be much more effective than another fighter
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 1:54 AM EST up reply actions
but it's not really 10 points
Since you can only score down to 10-7 (or is it 6?), it’s not really about 10%. As it stands, you get 1 more point than you opponent for being 1% more effective. Occasionally, someone really unloads on someone and they get 2 points more than their opponent.
Suppose rounds were scored on a 100 point scale. Would we spend all of our time bitching about how someone scored a round 93, and someone else said 94? I think the 10-point system rounds these off so we don’t have to split those hairs, but the problem is it only rounds them off to 10-9.
Use more judges.
again, what's the point of using quarter scores?
that’s just gonna amount to human error when people are adding. They can score down to 10-6, they just choose not to… The solution is simple, Score more 10-10, and 10-8’s, and 10-7s.
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 21, 2010 1:52 AM EST up reply actions
dont use accurate scoring because judges cant add?
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 1:54 AM EST up reply actions
It's not the tool, it's the carpenter.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
by Tonley on Nov 21, 2010 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
A carpenter can do much with a shit tool
Look, a just-short-of-dominant round will be wiped out by two marginally won rounds, even with the best judges on the planet.
That’s plain wrong and has nothing to do with judging. The scoring system was always bad for MMA.
Even for boxing it’s often bad. You can batter a guy for the last 5 rounds, but if he doesn’t fall, he’ll win for landing 5 more jabs in the other 7 rounds. It was just rare enough that people didn’t care.
is it hard to understand?
you can accomplish the same things with whole numbers.
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 21, 2010 1:56 AM EST up reply actions
yes you can, except a score should accurately represent what happened in the cage. you could differentiate just by using even number too. 10-8 , 10-6 , 10-4 , 10-2, 10-0. Plently of different ways to score a round but the score wouldn’t accurately reflect what happened.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 1:59 AM EST up reply actions
And again...
what makes you think that these judges would use those systems correctly?
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
well, it’s not that complicated so I think they can figure it out. the point is that if we trust them to score the fight, why not give them the tools to do it in a way that best reflects what happened in the cage.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:04 AM EST up reply actions
Because what you are suggesting
IS THE EXACT SAME as what is already implemented, and the judges fail to accurately use this system as is?
you read the definition of a 10-8 round right? we either have to significantly change that definition or just add fractional scoring. I favor fractional scoring because I believe it can best reflect the difference in efffectiveness in very close rounds AND in dominant rounds . when I say best reflect I mean most accurately reflect.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:16 AM EST up reply actions
There is no difference in how accurate you can score with quarter points and whole points with the same number of steps.
If you’re going to introduce new definitions for 10-9.5, 10-9.75, etc, then you can introduce new definitions for 10-5, 10-1, etc. This whole “give the loser of a round 9 points to make him feel better” is nonsense. Did GSP score only 13% more points than Fitch? Fuck no. That was 9-2 drubbing that you see in hockey or baseball.
Besides, how dumb would it sound with Buffer saying “Judge X scores the bout twenty-nine point two-five to twenty-seven point seven-five, judge Y…”
Please see my post below titled This is the Difference. I make the point that judges a far less likely to give a 10-7 than they would give a 10- 9.25. Even tho both scores reflect 3 units of difference the human brain percieves 10-7 to be a much larger gap than 10-9.25 and thus will be far less likely to be used.
insead of coming up with 10 definitions why not just make it simple and say a whole number represents 10% difference in efffectiveness while a quarter point could represent as little as 2.5% difference in efectiveness. (this is about the smallest margin that can be perceived w/o replays and fight metric etc..) This makes it easy for a judge to differentiate by several units AND has the added benefit of actually accuraetly reflecting what happened inside the cage.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 3:33 AM EST up reply actions
10-9 has NOTHING to do with percent difference in effectiveness. Most 10-9 rounds have the winner as 100% more effective. 10-8 rounds are like 1000% more effective (i.e. the dominant fighter scores 10 times as many strikes).
I gave you GSP fitch fight for a reason, not for you to ignore. FightMetric’s “effectiveness” score was 814-204, yet the best fit to the 10-9 system was 50-44. A 276% advantage gets compressed to 13.6%.
In other words, 10-7 is a gap that is MORE representative of the true gap in effectiveness than 10-9.25, not less.
“Most 10-9 rounds have the winner as 100% more effective.”
that is the problem we are trying to address.
Of course 10-7 is more of a gap than 9.25. Quarter point scoring is not a restraint of any kind. In other words, I would score GSP Fitch approx 50-40 in my system.
This scoring problem arises when there are CLOSE rounds . The quarter point system best allows the most precise scoring in close fights and is a none factor in blowouts.
Got it?
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 3:58 AM EST up reply actions
Since counting strikes while judging can be difficult , I think effectiveness has to be more subjective to each QUALIFIED judge. A 10-0 would have to mean there was a finish. Any fighter who defends somewhat effectively would score at least 4 and then add on from there…you get the idea. The overwhelming majority of judges are qualified and should be able to use their own professional judgement to determine the difference in effective techniques in close fights. If we are going to trust them to score the fight then they should be given the ability to score it as accurately as they can especially in very close rounds.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 4:20 AM EST up reply actions
Well, it’s not that complicated so I think they can figure it out.
So what’s their excuse for the current system?
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
They used the system exactly as the system was designed. 29-28 is probably the most accurate score this sytem will allow in this fight.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:34 AM EST up reply actions
They used the system exactly as the system was designed.
If that was true, the lack of 10-10s and 10-8s that people are going on about wouldn’t be happening.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
the system as designed surely does not call for a 10-8 round in this fight. 10-10 in the 1st could make sense tho.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:52 AM EST up reply actions
I know.
I didn’t call these specific judges incompetent. They did the right thing… I was talking about judges in general. They’re already having a hard time scoring fights, and I think it would just confuse people more if Nate’s idea was followed.
Scoring it 10-8 during our way of system in place is laughable, sure. but my point was if they were to alter anything from scoring, is that they should score wayyy more 10-10 and 10-8’s..
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 21, 2010 1:45 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, I agree. Can you imagine the chaos if they randomly scored these rounds on a more flexible scale? They can’t get 10-9 right. How will asking them to do 20-15 help?
by Jonathan Snowden on Nov 21, 2010 1:47 AM EST up reply actions
like 10-9 is for close rounds,
and 10-8’s for clear cut victories.
and 10-7’s the way 10-8’s are normally scored today, when one fighter totally dominates.
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 21, 2010 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
They ignored Lyoto's leg kicks in the first round
The only clear offense of the first round. The first round was either Lyoto’s or a draw. He landed clear leg kicks repeatedly. Rampage didn’t land anything clearly in the first round. A couple glancing blows and pushed Lyoto against the fence some, did some foot stomps and tried to charlie horse Lyoto but that was it. Lyoto was controlling the distance well with leg kicks and landing them regularly. To make an argument that the first round was Rampage’s is the only laughable thing.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 2:00 AM EST up reply actions
Machida won 2-3 minutes of the 3rd round. Maybe parts of rounds 1 and 2, but that’s it at best.
Gatti. Dekkers. Pele. Aoki. Kang. Vanderlei. Basillio. Harry Greb.
by theworldsoldestsport on Nov 21, 2010 2:00 AM EST up reply actions
Round 1 was a draw in my eyes...
…but I have no idea how anyone thought Rampage won that round.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
You can see it as even but have no idea how anyone could think Rampage did incrementally more?
by Jonathan Snowden on Nov 21, 2010 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
What did he do?
He landed some foot stomps? Had the clinch against the fence for about 30 seconds then got reversed? While the whole round Machida is landing leg kicks? Rampage did nothing incrementally more because if that were so he would have continually had Machida against the fence and chipped away at him Couture style. Once Rampage started getting turned over against the fence he stopped doing that in the first round. All he wanted was a knockout. The first round was a draw there is no clear argument that Rampage won the first round and even he will tell you that. Machida fans could make a slight argument to give him the first round because he neutralized Rampage’s offense and was landing the only regular offense during the round.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 2:11 AM EST up reply actions
Rampage did nothing incremental in the first round besides walk forward...
…The limited success he had with pushing Machida up against the fence he abandoned once Machida started to reverse him. Machida is the only one that landed a consistent offense in the first round and that was with the leg kicks. Still, I think if you go by the Unified Rules you could give Machida effective striking and give Rampage aggression for coming forward. Neither had more effective grappling in the first. Seems like a draw but no way a round for Rampage.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed. Isn’t the worst machida decision of all time. Period
by jordonk on Nov 21, 2010 2:09 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
not today
not in this case. The judges didn’t have the tools to score the fight accurately so this was the only outcome that could be expected
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 1:47 AM EST up reply actions
10-8 scoring isn't applicable in this case.
You’re right, This fight is the perfect illustration for the need for a 20 point sysytem or using .25 (quarter) points. The first 2 rounds would be 10-9.75 for Rampage and the third be a 10-9 for Machida.
People suggesting that the system is fine but just score more 10-8’s are overlooking the obvious problem that none of these rounds really warrants a 10-8 score even if you use 10-8’s more liberally. You would really score that last round 10-8 for Machida because he landed 3 clean shots and a takedown? That was not a 10-8 round under any system. It was , however, clearly more domint for Machida than the first 2 were for Page. With margins of victory and effectiveness being so narrow I dont understand the relunctance to allow judges to score a fight with more precision. What exactly is the problem with giving the judges the tools to eb more accurate?
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 1:46 AM EST reply actions
This makes no sense. What is the difference between changing the 3rd round from 10-9 to 10-8 and changing the first to from 10-9 to 10-9.5?
This is the difference
The main difference is that judges will never be inclined to score many 10-8’s let alone 10-7, or 10-6. Our brains wont allow us to give a score like that because the gap betwen scores is so great. However, they will be more inclined to differentiate using quater points because we all perceive it to be a smaller level of differentiation. for example, if quater points were allowed you could easily score round 3 10-9 or 10-9.25 for Machida. Mentally, that is a MUCH easier score for a judge to give out that 10-7 or 10-6 (10-7 and 10-6 being the equivalent of 10-9.25 and 10-9 respectively.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:46 AM EST up reply actions
The problem is that Nigel Hamilton’s 10-9.25 might be Cecil Peoples’ 10-9.5 and when you add them up, you’d still have problems. I think we’re just splitting different hairs.
I’m open to the concept of how the brain perceives the scoring system affecting what people use, but the fact is that they score EVERYTHING 10-9, which is a huge difference given the fact that most descriptions say that the first two rounds could have gone either way.
Use more judges.
What exactly is the problem with giving the judges the tools to eb more accurate?
If they can’t wrap their minds around a 1 point difference, what makes you think that a .5 point difference would work?
And no one is arguing any round tonight in Machida/Rampage was 10-8.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
peopl who advocate just scoring more 10-8’s as the best a way to differentiate between effectiveness are indeed suggesting that round 3 could be a 10-8. please read the above comments
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 1:51 AM EST up reply actions
The only suggestion I see of round 3 being 10-8 is some hypothetical situation where 10-9 are for close bouts.
This still ignores the fact that problem is the judges…not the system.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
scoring is a tool to differentiate effectiveness. using a whole number system is inheirently limiting the ability for more precise differentiation. why is that such a hard concept to understand?
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 1:57 AM EST up reply actions
why can’t you just adjust your fractional system to whole numbers?
Would the game of baseball change if every run was worth half a point?
to me it’s all about scoring accurately. Many rounds have such a small level of difference in effectivelness. maybe just 3 or 4% difference. fractional scoring can best reflect the difference in effectiveness.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
but you can do the same thing with whole numbers, give me an example of scoring 3 rounds with your quarter points.
well, in my above post i said i thought the the first 2 rounds could be 10-9.75 for Page and round 3 10-9 for machida….resulting in a machida win.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:12 AM EST up reply actions
ok, so 10-9.75, 10-9.75 and 9-10.
For 29-29.5 Machida wins by 2 quarter points.
How is that different from 10-9, 10-9, 6-10, 26-28, Machida wins by 2 points?
the outcome is the same but a 6-10 score suggests one fighter was 40% better than the other. The difference in effectiveness is relatively small in this case so I like to use a scoring system that reflects that.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
Not if you don’t look at it that way. In both fights Machida won by 2 units.
If every run in baseball was worth 10 points, would people be more impressed by a 20-10 victory than they are by a 2-1 victory under the current rules? The scale is what you make it. In both systems machida wins by 2.
that’s true, but I think judges will be more inclined to differentiat by 2 or 3 units if the units are smaller(more accurately represent differneces). For example, you agree that the scores I gave were very plausible scores right? Well, do you realy think that a judge would score rond 3 10-6 for Machida even if the commission emphasized the need for more differentiation among acores???
I think we both know the answer is no. The gap is just too big. Any judge is would be more likely to differentiate using fractions that whole numbers. Why? because it’s more ACCURATE.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:31 AM EST up reply actions
I think your score card makes sense
But 2 things:
-I’m not sure every judge would agree with your fractional parsing. The 10-9 seems reasonable, but who’s to say that they would mostly land on 10-9? Why not 9.25? Why would judges who are afraid to score 10-10s and 10-8s suddenly put it out that someone won a round by exactly 4 units rather than 1 unit?
-I still think the best scoring was 10-10, 10-10, 10-9. Both those first rounds were damn close. Why give Rampage those? If the third round was also close, we’d be parsing 10-9.75, 10-9.75, and then: should the third be 10-9.5 Machida (which might produce a draw)? 9.75 (Rampage win)? 9.25? It’d be the same problem.
I get the idea of trying to eliminate the kind of decision that we saw last night, where one fighter won a single round very clearly, but lost two close rounds. But the same decision can be eliminated by scoring the first two as 10-10.
Use more judges.
I don't get this point of yours
What on earth did Rampage do to earn more than 60% of the points that Machida did in the third round? For half the round neither really scored anything, and the last half was 100% Machida, and for the round he landed over 3 times as many significant strikes.
(BTW, you’re not very good at math. 10-6 would suggest one guy is 67% better than the other.)
OK
What if both fighters start the round at 0 and get credit for what they do rather than subtraction for the other guy doing better?
But in answer to your question: well, neither guy did much in the first half of the round (so the both get equal credit for that half of the round), Machida did great in the second half, but Rampage was able to neutralize the armbar attempt and fling Machida back to his feet (which was pretty cool). To 5-5 for the first half and 5-1 for the second half makes it 10-6? I don’t know, just playing around with it…
Use more judges.
since these fights are usually just 3 rounds it’s probably jsut best to score the fight as whole instead any round system
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Nov 21, 2010 2:07 AM EST up reply actions
What Knockdown?
There was not a knockdown. After Machida rocked page and threw the knees he TOOK rampage to the ground then got mount.
?
Why are people judging the entire fight based on a flurry Machida had in round 3?
"He wants to get in close to use that reach advantage." - Goldie
Because Machida was the only one in the fight that was actually close to finishing.
by ultima0chaotic on Nov 21, 2010 1:48 AM EST up reply actions
hmm........
But did he finish? NO….Could of should of would of.
Close to Finishing?
Rampage fired right back but was then taken down.
"He wants to get in close to use that reach advantage." - Goldie
Still the closest.
Machida did not get rocked, Machida didn’texperience and sub attempts
by ultima0chaotic on Nov 21, 2010 1:59 AM EST up reply actions
exactly what i said when they announced a judge scored it for him.
Gatti. Dekkers. Pele. Aoki. Kang. Vanderlei. Basillio. Harry Greb.
by theworldsoldestsport on Nov 21, 2010 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
Seems too subjective
Judges in all combat sports have enough trouble getting it right as it is, I can’t imagine the situation would get better by giving them more options.
This
“They can’t handle 2 + 2 = 4.”
“Well…that’s too bad. Now let’s move on to calculus.”
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
Food for thought:
Jeff Blatnick and Salvatore D’Amato both were the ones behind the disputed decisions. Each gave Jackson and Lentz the win.
I will laugh my ass off at the first person who insinuates that Blatnick is a stupid boxing judge who doesn’t understand MMA.
by VirtualBalboa on Nov 21, 2010 2:11 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, let's do the PRIDE system instead,
That way Rampage won’t win decisions that he doesn’t feel he deser—-
Oh wait.
by Rob Young on Nov 21, 2010 1:55 AM EST reply actions 6 recs
I don't know...
The issue was the judges ignored Lyoto’s leg kicks in the first and second rounds. You can argue Rampage won the second round with the takedown (which he did nothing with) and the limited success with the stand up and coming forward. But the first round was either a draw or Lyoto’s round. Rampage didn’t land anything noteworthy in the first round and Lyoto was landing leg kicks regularly. If Rampage had been landing jabs they would have given him the round with no question. A leg kick is very similar to a jab. Should be scored the same way. Judges only seem to give leg kicks credit when they are crazy leg crushing kicks like Forrest Griffin’s or something and the opponent is spinning like a top or doubled over in pain. To me it was more of an issue of judges not understanding striking.
LMAO!
Good one! But wasn’t it Cecil Peoples that said you can’t win a fight with leg kicks and not Soares?
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
Watch the UFC 113 countdown where Soares talks about the first Shogun/Machida fight.
The hilarious thing was that this was shot before his guy Jose Aldo beat Urijah Faber with leg kicks, but originally aired days after it happened.
Lyoto wins the worst decision in the history of MMA and the same people who defended it are crying about this one? This fight clearly could have gone either way.
Lyoto wins the worst decision in the history of MMA
Beebe/Easton > any horrible decision in the past few years
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
Really? And what was the significance of Beebe/Easton? There were probably dozens of fights that nobody on these boards has ever seen across the world that were technically scored worse than any fight we can recollect, but none of them were for the championship of the marquis weight class in the entire sport.
And what was the significance of Beebe/Easton?
A decision so horrible it put an entire AC under fire?
And I (and others on BE) thought Lyoto won the first fight with Shogun the first time around on first watch.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
I don't see how anyone could have argued Rampage winning this fight...
…but I could see a draw. Rampage hardly landed any clear offense the whole fight except for a take down and one glancing uppercut. Shogun vs. Machida I could have gone either way.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 2:05 AM EST up reply actions
Get over it… Stfu about 10 point system.. It is what it is.. It aint poker, I win 2 hands but he gets me all in.. Sorry.. Forget about it YOU aint changing shit! It was a close fight, machida lost to shogun the first fight. What goes around comes around
by jordonk on Nov 21, 2010 2:06 AM EST via mobile reply actions
scintillating analysis
I love how “it is what it is” is such an easy identifier now. Just listen long enough and if that comes out of someone’s mouth they are either embarrassed or incapable of making an intelligent argument.
No, people just need to learn how to use 10-10's
If you score the first 2 rounds 10-10 being so close, and the third for Machida, you get 30-29, which recognizes how close the fight was but gives recognizes the true winner.
Stop pandering to “subjectivity” by saying it’s ok or allowed for the round to be scored for either fighter because it “looks” like they’re landing more effective strikes. There is a real truth to every fight that can be found without a new system.
How about
PRIDE style scoring of the fight in total but the judges have to keep notes during the fight and do a short write up on why that person won while the decision is being announced and before the next fight. If there is a clear sign of incompitence or abuse, the judge gets the axe and isnt welcomed back. That covers accountability, right?
PRIDE ostensibly had that. What we got were hilariously one sided diatribes on the internet from Matt Hume defending why it is he scored Noguiera beating Ricco Rodriguez because he moved his hips once in awhile from the bottom.
by VirtualBalboa on Nov 21, 2010 2:16 AM EST up reply actions
You know what.
In the case of Machida, it was just too little too late. Machida needs to trust in his hands because he has KO power.
He basically Thiago Silva’d/Rampaged vs Rashaded.
I agree...
…He seemed unusually nervous the first two rounds. It was like he wasn’t comfortable until Rampage clipped him with the uppercut and he shrugged it off. It was like then he knew he could deal with Rampage’s power and had the confidence in his hands again.
by Daniel Humire on Nov 21, 2010 2:16 AM EST up reply actions
Machida can take a shot.
Against Shogun, he was unfortunately insta-mounted and Shogun bounced his head with his fist on the canvas like a basketball. Any fightere would be KO’ed from that.
Machida needs to honestly stop being too elusive, trust in his fists because they can hurt anybody.
by ultima0chaotic on Nov 21, 2010 2:17 AM EST up reply actions
No.
Chin up, shoulders down, hands chambered, no sideways head movement = KO’d if he stays in punching range and exchanges. The only reason Machida’s style works with these weaknesses is that he keeps it at long range most of the time. It looks like his head would be easy to hit because it would be, a few feet closer.
He took on a direct uppercut from Rampage.
He can take as good a shot as any.
by ultima0chaotic on Nov 21, 2010 2:40 AM EST up reply actions
This also applies to Rampage, who is known for having a good chin...
…and getting rocked by one Machida’s straights while Machida didn’t get rocked from any of Rampage’s stiff shots.
by ultima0chaotic on Nov 21, 2010 2:41 AM EST up reply actions
Being able to take a shot is not a good basis for a gameplan. See Chris Leben. My point is, good chin or not, Machida’s lack of punch defense in close will lead to him getting hit more, which will erode his ability to take a shot, whether quickly or slowly. Brain damage is cumulative.
If he started keeping his hands up and moving his head, that’s a different story.
I can agree on that.
But then that turns him into a regular boxer.
by ultima0chaotic on Nov 21, 2010 2:49 AM EST up reply actions
Right, but there’s a reason boxing is so common. It works, in close. Which is why using too much aggression is a problem for Machida, he needs range to keep his defense.
Definitely.
I thought of this before, if Machida could blend in traditional boxing into his Karate game, he would be a beast: elusive foot work AND head movement which will give him all the confidence to be able to trade without too much fear of getting tagged hard. He can also tag people with his powerful straight punch consistently.
by ultima0chaotic on Nov 21, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think Machida dropped Rampage in the third Nate
He stunned him but Rampage never went down. He got him against the fence and once Rampage tried to fight back he took Rampage down with a clinch takedown. If Machida had been able to hold top position and done some damage with GnP I might see an argument for giving him a 10-8. But he gambled it all going for the arm bar. I think it sort of cost him the fight. He should have gone for a safer submission like especially against someone famous for slamming out of arm bars.
People say that Lyoto Machida showed how to beat Rampage Jackson
Then why DIDN’T Lyoto Machida beat Rampage Jackson?
AHWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
“Son, I am disappoint.” – Yoshizo Machida
I thought about some punishment dealing with urine
and made myself gag.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
Yoshizo's urine isn't a punishment.
It’s how they rehydrate at Black House.
LMFAO!
HAHAHA! And I’m such a big Machida fan. I bet his dad is going to make him hit the makiwara all night tonight.
Definitely not the worst decision in the world, but not a good one either. I had it 10-10, 10-9 Rampage, and 10-8 Machida, based on my wondrous new scoring methodology. A lot of ideas have been floated to improve scoring. Half-points, more 10-8’s, etc…But what I’ve been trying to do lately is, when I actually bother to score a fight, to use a sort of scoring curve from round to round. Curious what you all think of this.
For me the first round has to be won pretty obviously to receive a 10-9. I score a lot of 10-10 first rounds. I parse the second round a little deeper to award a 10-9 to whichever fighter did a bit more. Then I simply base scoring later rounds in comparison to the first round I gave to someone. If either fighter has a substantially stronger 3rd round than the winner of the 2nd, then I’ll award a 10-8, and the victory. If the third round is closer than the second, then it’s another 10-10 round. In a title fight, I’ll just sort of expand on that idea. Basically, I try to be pretty conversative with points early in the fight, wait for someone to clearly win a round to set a marker, my strike zone if you will, then compare later rounds to that one. The obvious drawback to this is the occasional draw, but if it’s a draw, then it just is. And coincidentally, this actually came from all the debate over the first Machida/Shogun fight, and just trying to incorporate the idea that who’s winning the fight at the end should get a little extra weight in their side of the scales.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Nov 21, 2010 2:37 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
i dont think the 3rd was a 10-8 round at all
getting one decent flurry and getting to mount isnt 10-8
10-8 is when you drop someone twice in 1 round
or dominate for all 5 mins
not just 45 secs
by Richard Doughty on Nov 21, 2010 2:45 AM EST up reply actions
I know I’m just talking crazy here:) And I agree that the 3rd round isn’t what generally would get scored a 10-8, and it’s not even close. But the third is a 10-8 to me, when compared to a basically even 10-9 second round for Rampage. Relative scoring. You don’t have to take this fight as an example necessarily, the point is to give more weight to how the fight ends. I want the fight to better reflect who was winning when the fight ended. If you don’t finish your opponent in the early rounds, or at least do some damage, or nearly submit them, then they don’t mean as much as who was getting the upper hand, and most likely to win if they kept going. And of course, I’m a huge Machida fan. However, this type of scoring would have given Shogun 10-8 rounds late in the first Machida/Rua fight, as they were better rounds than Machida’s early 10-9’s.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Nov 21, 2010 3:42 AM EST up reply actions
intriguing
cheers for a good idea.
Use more judges.
Dead On Nate
I am firm supporter of the half-point system which is the effective equivalent of scoring more rounds 10-10. Judges are deathly afraid of scoring rounds 10-10 since it would appear they are not doing their job. Half-points would allow judges to slightly give the edge to Rampage in the first two rounds(10-9.5) and rightfully give the last round to Machida 10-9.
The question is, would casual fans be willing to except so many more draws? My gut instinct as a semi-hardcore fan is screw casual fans and let them deal with it. But this is a business so I just don’t know. Five round fights in main events + a half-point system would resolve many of these issues however.
Johnny Ringo: [Ringo steps up to Doc] And you must be Doc Holliday.
Doc Holliday: That's the rumor.
Johnny Ringo: You retired too?
Doc Holliday: Not me. I'm in my prime.
so still a draw
which would kinda suck
this fight should of been 5 rounds
by Richard Doughty on Nov 21, 2010 2:45 AM EST up reply actions
This I definitely agree with.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Nov 21, 2010 3:42 AM EST up reply actions
Sudden Victory!
How long does it take to add those numbers up. Fight one more round if it’s a draw!
Use more judges.
This fight was close and close fights get people talking. That’s all there is to the discussion about this particular fight, close fights by their very nature are controlversial and that’s what will happen regardless of the system used to judge it.
Overall I don’t think the issue is the scoring system it’s the judges. There is no system out there that will change a judge who gets it wrong into a judge who gets it right, a sub-par judge is a sub-par judge. There is also a real issue on what they are actually scoring, it seems that judges just look for different things and put different weight on what action they do see. When you combine vague match scoring criteria with sub-par or inexperienced judges you are going to have a mess regardless of the scoring system used.
I have not seen this fight, but this is something I’ve been thinking about, like many of you, for a long time. I don’t claim to be a diehard MMA fan, but I do love the sport and watch as much as I can, and am familiar with the ten-point must system from boxing, of course. I don’t think it works for MMA unless judges are far more willing to score 10-8 and even 10-7 rounds, and even more 10-10 rounds where there’s not a CLEAR winner. I don’t have an answer for what WOULD work, because I don’t know the sport well enough, but there just are not enough rounds (be it 3 or 5) for the boxing standard autopilot 10-9, 10-9, 10-9 stuff to work the way it does over 8, 10, or 12 rounds, and I think a lot of judges work on that autopilot. Oh and get judges that deeply understand the sport. That, obviously, would probably help greatly. The half-point thing might work — at this point, almost any change is worth a try, since this just doesn’t work the way it was originally designed to work. It’s a different sport.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Nov 21, 2010 2:55 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
Well guys, tak to Dana on Twitter about it.
He respects things that come from Twitter, but not from the Internets.
Yes, Twitter is on the Internet, I know lol
LOL @ people saying Machida won.
The decision was not a robbery (and I’m a Machida uberfan).
Rampage was the aggressor by cutting angles, moving forward and landing the most serious strikes for 2.5 rounds.
Sure, Machida landed about 5 punches in round three, rocked Rampage – who still regained enough senses to stay up, evade and counterattack.
Rampage won the two first rounds, get over it.
It’s funny that the author quotes Rampage but forgets that Rampage himself said at the press conference that his reaction was mostly due to the fact that he wanted to KO Machida and he didn’t succeed.
The author of this article also stated in another article (earlier today) that Machida earned the only knock down of the fight…. what ?
Before criticizing the judges, look at yourself ? Did you actually watch the fight ? The were no knock downs… sorry, but making these delusional statements and bending facts don’t make for a good analysis,
what REALLY disgusts me...
Is listening to guys conduct interviews after the fight, such as dana white, and hearing them discuss how rampage DEFINITELY won the first two rounds, and how lyoto didn’t do ANY damage. What fight were you people watching? Rampage didn’t do ANY damage but for one uppercut! And lyoto completely shook that off. First two rounds were boring but anyone with integrity knows they split those rounds (loyoto first, page 2nd). Oh yea Rampage won with foot stomps and punches to the hips. What garbage. I’m not saying its a robbery either, but lets not say it was soooo obvious that rampage won – because he didn’t. He lost the first and CLEARLY lost the third. Dana white and the UFC want rampage to win because rampage is the draw. And I know he doesn’t control the judging, but if you listen to the interview white does with Helwani, he says, and I paraphrase, that lyoto didn’t do any damage at all in the entire fight compared to all the damage rampage did. So its pretty obvious that he was looking for an outcome, and now he’s selling the outcome to all his superfans.
In regard to Nate’s article: (a) Lyoto won the fight; If you are judging the OVERALL fight (as in Pride), instead of 10-point must, Lyoto wins, clearly; and this is because (b) If you bring these two out for another round or two, rampage is gassed and Lyoto crushes him.
First off, great article Nate. I completely agree with the point you’re trying to make. Second, I’ve gotta say that the Pride judging made the most sense. The 10 point must system is just plain bad, end of story. In what world does Rampage actually win that fight last night? I hate seeing time and time again bad decisions. It’s getting to the point where we’re seeing a bad decision at least once every single card no matter what the promotion is. I don’t know if using the old Pride judging is the solution but we definitely need to change things up.
I scored the fight a DRAW.
What is really starting to bother me is in fights like Rashad/Silva, Rashad took more damage in his fight against Thiago Silva and still won. We are seeing more and more of the point fighting to not lose.
10 point must can/should be scored 10-10 for close rounds. 10-8 for knockdowns, serious ground and pound or deep submission attempts. Everything else is 10-9. Takedowns should be scored the same as a Mauy Thai clench. Its nice to gain but if no damage results from it, its worthless. And I have no issues giving an active fighter the round off his back.
What needs to be fixed is the whining system
Reppin' the NYMMAI.
Black Lesnar aka Slap ya Favorite MMA Writer
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun . Imma write til the wheels fall off.
by S.C. Michaelson on Nov 21, 2010 4:25 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
