Who did you guys have winning the decision in the main event?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Who did you guys have winning the decision in the main event?
« Previous Page | Next Page »
POLL: Who won the decision?
Sanchez 28% (16)
Kampmann 72% (42)
Kpro
3/4/11 7:27:45AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Oh, now he's serious. *cracks knuckles*

Misleading they are because you're posting a percentage based striking and take-down system which is really only 1 component of judging criteria. As I said before in another thread, if I poke you in the chest 45 times before you throw an overhand right knocking me out, FightMetric has me winning the fight.

That being said, you're on the losing end of this argument with most experts AND fighters. You posted round two stats. Helwani, White, and Bonnar all scored the second round for Diego.

I think you could have made a more compelling argument, (now that you've made one), for Kampmann in the third than the second.

Also, addressing your point, as a qualitative and quantitative researcher, accounting for human bias and error, does not mean I agree with or wish to perpetuate the situation.

Anyone who's had a background with human subject studies can tell you that recognizing the limitations and biases within a study is actually considered a plus rather than a minus.

I'm not condoning what they do, I have just learned to recognize generalized patterns, nuances, and subtleties over the years that have enabled me to adjust my expectations and viewing lens accordingly.

Do I think the system needs a massive overhaul? Absolutely. But, under the current system, I find that judging the fights based on the aforementioned three criteria that has been established by the horrible MMA judging lessens my anger and frustration with the sport and allows me to view it at a more comfortable level.

I can't intentionally "reinforce" anything because my opinions, beliefs, or criteria have absolutely no effect on the current judging system. "Accounting for" & "reinforcing" are two, ENTIRELY, different things.

I sort of look at it like this; there's always those girls out there that you know you shouldn't chase. As men, we do it anyhow. I don't mind adjusting my expectations, knowing full, good, and well, that she's going to turn out to be exactly what I expected her to be. That being said, I welcome and embrace those instances where I'm pleasantly proven wrong and have the hope instilled in me that not every girl that looks like her, acts a certain way.




You're proving my point for me based on the way you view judging.

I'll start with the pointless things. To reiterate, once again, the stats are not misleading. There was no comment made with them, they were simply stats from the fight for a reader to interpret as they wish. if you want to talk about poking someone in the chest 45 times and compare that to compustrike stats from a UFC fight then you're intentionally going off on a patented BlueSkiesBurn tangent.

And since you're bringing up things you've said in other threads, I'll bring up something I said earlier in this thread: "It's very unfortunate how judges and many fans alike see technical fluid fighters landing repeatedly and fail to realize that they are throwing with a lot of power; they are just high level enough of strikers to use efficiency of motion to where it appears they aren't throwing "power punches". And then you have fighters who lack efficiency of motion, that throw haymakers and get credited for "power punching".

As far as your namedropping that analysts or fighters thought Diego won the 2nd; I could find just as many that thought Kampmann won the second, Rogan for starters. That all proves nothing, and in fact is going a completely different direction from my entire post which is regarding the way you let bad judging affect the way you, and unfortunately some others, see a fight.

There's a difference between thinking someone won a round, and thinking that someone won a round based on assuming bad judging based on previous experience. That is exactly what you are (and said) you are doing. Disregard anything but the Unified Rules of MMA to judge the second round without trying to "lessen your anger and frustration" with MMA judging by going with Diego simply because thats what you think a judge would've done based on events like a flurry. Using ONLY the Unified Rules of MMA, let me know who you think won round 2.

And if you try to take the conversation multiple directions other than what I'm specifically stating, I don't see any reason to continue this conversation with you. As far as I'm concerned our only topic of conversation is the way you view judging and willingly let bad judging influence your opinion on who wins rounds to lessen your frustration.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 7:58:39AM

Posted by Kpro
You're proving my point for me based on the way you view judging.

I'll start with the pointless things. To reiterate, once again, the stats are not misleading. There was no comment made with them, they were simply stats from the fight for a reader to interpret as they wish. if you want to talk about poking someone in the chest 45 times and compare that to compustrike stats from a UFC fight then you're intentionally going off on a patented BlueSkiesBurn tangent.

And since you're bringing up things you've said in other threads, I'll bring up something I said earlier in this thread: "It's very unfortunate how judges and many fans alike see technical fluid fighters landing repeatedly and fail to realize that they are throwing with a lot of power; they are just high level enough of strikers to use efficiency of motion to where it appears they aren't throwing "power punches". And then you have fighters who lack efficiency of motion, that throw haymakers and get credited for "power punching".

As far as your namedropping that analysts or fighters thought Diego won the 2nd; I could find just as many that thought Kampmann won the second, Rogan for starters. That all proves nothing, and in fact is going a completely different direction from my entire post which is regarding the way you let bad judging affect the way you, and unfortunately some others, see a fight.

There's a difference between thinking someone won a round, and thinking that someone won a round based on assuming bad judging based on previous experience. That is exactly what you are (and said) you are doing. Disregard anything but the Unified Rules of MMA to judge the second round without trying to "lessen your anger and frustration" with MMA judging by going with Diego simply because thats what you think a judge would've done based on events like a flurry. Using ONLY the Unified Rules of MMA, let me know who you think won round 2.

And if you try to take the conversation multiple directions other than what I'm specifically stating, I don't see any reason to continue this conversation with you. As far as I'm concerned our only topic of conversation is the way you view judging and willingly let bad judging influence your opinion on who wins rounds to lessen your frustration.



Since you brought it in to question, I'll attempt to address things as best I can.

First off, I'll start by addressing the opening statement in your final paragraph; I'm going to try to follow you, but to dismiss my argument as a "typical BlueSkiesBurn arguement," is greatly dismissive and, somewhat, offensive to me considering the amount of respect I have for your opinion.

I'm I'm off kilter, please let me know, I'll try to bring my arguments back to the topic at hand.


You're proving my point for me based on the way you view judging. I'll start with the pointless things. To reiterate, once again, the stats are not misleading. There was no comment made with them, they were simply stats from the fight for a reader to interpret as they wish. if you want to talk about poking someone in the chest 45 times and compare that to compustrike stats from a UFC fight then you're intentionally going off on a patented BlueSkiesBurn tangent.


Statistics prove nothing. There needs to be a theory behind them in order for them to have qualitative value. Otherwise, they're an quantitative variable that stands alone.

If, as you're saying, they're up for interpretation, then your posting of them was as arbitrary as a post of "3.14."

I've stated my case against CompuStrike several times before, I'm not about to belabor my opinion of them, once more, on this thread.


And since you're bringing up things you've said in other threads, I'll bring up something I said earlier in this thread: "It's very unfortunate how judges and many fans alike see technical fluid fighters landing repeatedly and fail to realize that they are throwing with a lot of power; they are just high level enough of strikers to use efficiency of motion to where it appears they aren't throwing "power punches". And then you have fighters who lack efficiency of motion, that throw haymakers and get credited for "power punching".


Once again I'll iterate that I don't "fail to recognize" anything. I, along with most, realize that Kampmann is the superior striker. He picked apart Diego the ENTIRE fight. Up until his hand was broken, Kampmann was, literally, creating a reconstruction of Sanchez's fight with BJ. Superior striker with excellent take-down defense.


As far as your namedropping that analysts or fighters thought Diego won the 2nd; I could find just as many that thought Kampmann won the second, Rogan for starters. That all proves nothing, and in fact is going a completely different direction from my entire post which is regarding the way you let bad judging affect the way you, and unfortunately some others, see a fight.


Rogan might have said this post facto, but he certainly wasn't preaching the same message during the second round. That being said, I don't let it "affect" me. I've already addressed this. Accounting for something and allowing it to influence my judgement are two different things.

I can try this a different way if you will. I THOUGHT Kampmann MIGHT have won the fight, but I anticipated and scored for Diego. Were it a perfect world, Kampmann would have won, but knowing that it's not, I hoped for a Kampmann W, but prepared and expected myself for a Diego victory. My mind processed the same fight three different ways.

The first of which was how, as you state, it SHOULD have been scored.

The second of which was how, it most likely, was seen.

And, lastly, how it was PROBABLY scored.


There's a difference between thinking someone won a round, and thinking that someone won a round based on assuming bad judging based on previous experience. That is exactly what you are (and said) you are doing. Disregard anything but the Unified Rules of MMA to judge the second round without trying to "lessen your anger and frustration" with MMA judging by going with Diego simply because thats what you think a judge would've done based on events like a flurry. Using ONLY the Unified Rules of MMA, let me know who you think won round 2.


Answering your question, Diego. I thought Kampmann SHOULD have won rounds one and three. I felt Diego won round two. Diego bloodied Kampmann that round and wobbled Kampmann several times. Despite the fact that Kampmann shut down every single one of his take-downs, he was pressed up against the cage and clearly out of his element in that round. That, to me, was enough for Diego to take it. Kampmann couldn't fight his fight in that second round, he had to fight Diego's fight.

gartface
3/4/11 8:37:07AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
That being said, you're on the losing end of this argument with most experts AND fighters. You posted round two stats. Helwani, White, and Bonnar all scored the second round for Diego.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Helwani and Bonnar say that Kampmann won the fight? I'm pretty sure I remember them saying he got robbed. So that must mean they gave him rounds one and three, like most people. They even referenced Nam Phan vs. Leonard Garcia, and maybe even Chan Sung Jung vs. Leonard Garcia if I'm not mistaken.

I guess you could maybe consider failed take down attempts and failed clinches against the fence as "Octagon control," but that completely defeats the purpose of that criterion. Even giving Diego round two, there's no way that he won round one and considering the pounding his face took in round three, I don't think you can give him that round either. I don't see how one take down and a quick get up by Kampmann.

Hey state athletic commissions, the unified rules have been in place for a while now...please teach them to your judges, thanks.

Oh well, it's over and done with. The Leonard Garcia game plan prevails again. It's like Greg Jackson tells his less skilled fighters to just go out there and swing for the fences and you'll probably win if you don't get put to sleep.
The_Metal_Maniac
3/4/11 8:52:25AM
Anyone have a link to post fight photos?
State_Champ
3/4/11 11:05:32AM
Kampmann won, in my opinion.

I thought Kampmann was more effective at controlling where the fight took place (stuffed all but one take down over the course of the fight, and got up promptly when taken down) and landed the more effective strikes (knees, punches, etc).

Diego was more aggressive. But, I think, Diego's aggression was not as effective as Kampmann's offense (punching/countering) , or Kampmann's defense/control (stopping so many take downs).

Diego appeared unable to take the fight where he wanted it and I don't think he was the more effective striker.
State_Champ
3/4/11 11:08:46AM

Posted by Aether

Pushing forward and swinging wildly while getting your face turned into hamburger and missing everything shouldn't give you the round. It's crazy to me. I firmly believe that judges need to be given some kind of monitor in a room sequestered from the cage so that they can see what the camera sees at any given angle and that this is the cause of most poor judging.

The idea that being physically closer to the cage gives you a better view is pretty moronic. I have like 10 HD camera angles with slow motion and replay features, some of them are bird's eye view, do you seriously want to tell me that because you're sitting at a table near the cage that you can see more? Are the judges running in circles around the ring and flying above it simultaneously?

Keith Kizer would have you believe so.





State_Champ
3/4/11 11:30:40AM

As I understand it, Octagon control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. (Examples: countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking, taking down an opponent to force a ground fight, creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.)

Also, effective grappling considers amount of successful executions of takedowns and reversals. (Examples: take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom-position fighters using an active, threatening guard).

I think Kampmann won, but the fight was close.


Diego is harder than a coffin nail.
Diego has impressive heart.
FlashyG
3/4/11 12:31:52PM

Posted by The_Metal_Maniac

Anyone have a link to post fight photos?



Here's what Diego looked like after 3.

prozacnation1978
3/4/11 12:42:11PM
Call me biased but I actually had diego by slit decision
It was kammpman fight to lose

One reason why I took diego was. Brawls aren't martin's thing
And I knew at one point it was gonna happen
emfleek
3/4/11 12:53:18PM

Posted by prozacnation1978

One reason why I took diego was. Brawls aren't martin's thing
And I knew at one point it was gonna happen



A shaved head isn't Diego's "thing" either. That doesn't mean he did enough to win.

I personally had it 29-28 for Kampmann with Diego winning R2. I'm okay with the decision, though.

Diego's going to get decapitated with a knee one of these days when he shoots in for a takedown.
ncordless
3/4/11 2:05:06PM
A lot of people argue about the rules. Here they are:

13:46-24A.13 Judging

(a) All bouts will be evaluated and scored by three judges.

(b) The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

(c) Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.

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

(e) Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal heavy strikes landed by a contestant.

(f) Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.

(g) Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.

(h) Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.

(i) Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.

(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear 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.

(k) Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:

1. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:
i. Effective grappling is weighed first; and
ii. Effective striking is then weighed

2. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:
1. Effective striking is weighed first; and
2. Effective grappling is then weighed

3. If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.

--------------------------------------------------

A couple of points on those based on what has been said in this thread.

1. A quantitative assessment IS what determines effective striking. According to the rules, not only do numbers mean something, they are determinative of the outcome.

2. In this fight, the fight stayed on the feet for the majority of all three rounds, so the striking in each round is the most heavily weighted category.

3. Stuffing takedowns is a factor in both octagon control and defense.

4. Aggresion only matters if it is effective i.e. leads to landing a legal strike.

5. In the context of how the fight played out, a fighter who won the effective striking, octagon control, and defense should have beat the fighter who won the effective grappling and defense

State_Champ
3/4/11 2:30:11PM

Posted by ncordless

A lot of people argue about the rules. Here they are:

13:46-24A.13 Judging

(a) All bouts will be evaluated and scored by three judges.

(b) The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

(c) Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.

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

(e) Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal heavy strikes landed by a contestant.

(f) Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.

(g) Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.

(h) Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.

(i) Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.

(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear 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.

(k) Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:

1. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:
i. Effective grappling is weighed first; and
ii. Effective striking is then weighed

2. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:
1. Effective striking is weighed first; and
2. Effective grappling is then weighed

3. If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.

--------------------------------------------------

A couple of points on those based on what has been said in this thread.

1. A quantitative assessment IS what determines effective striking. According to the rules, not only do numbers mean something, they are determinative of the outcome.

2. In this fight, the fight stayed on the feet for the majority of all three rounds, so the striking in each round is the most heavily weighted category.

3. Stuffing takedowns is a factor in both octagon control and defense.

4. Aggresion only matters if it is effective i.e. leads to landing a legal strike.

5. In the context of how the fight played out, a fighter who won the effective striking, octagon control, and defense should have beat the fighter who won the effective grappling and defense





(a) All bouts will be evaluated and scored by three judges.

(b) The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

(c) Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.

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

(e) Kampmann

(f) Kampmann?

(g) Kampmann

(h) Diego?

(i) KAMPMANN
Franklinfan47
3/4/11 2:30:43PM
I had Kampmann for reasons already mentioned.

2 1/2 rounds of getting peppered > a half round of haymakers and 1 takedown.
Kpro
3/4/11 3:34:39PM
Thanks ncordless, I was going to post them also. It's not even worth debating that Diego won if strictly adhering to the Unified Rules of MMA when scoring.

Diego won by the human impact of judging.
Kpro
3/4/11 3:45:39PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I'm going to try to follow you, but to dismiss my argument as a "typical BlueSkiesBurn arguement," is greatly dismissive and, somewhat, offensive to me considering the amount of respect I have for your opinion.

I'm I'm off kilter, please let me know, I'll try to bring my arguments back to the topic at hand.




I'm not going to quote your entire post because it's obvious that my point is that the Unified Rules would declare Kampmann victorious and yours is that referencing previous judging makes the case for Sanchez being victorious.

Those aren't opposites, so really we're running in circles as both are true, the latter being of the unfortunately true variety.

And I didn't say "typical BlueSkiesBurn argument", I said "typical BlueSkiesBurn tangent" which is a huge difference in my opinion. It's not a negative on you or dismissive. Maybe it is attributed to post length, but you do go off on tangents more than any other PG poster so I thought it fit. No disrespect was intended obviously.


EDIT: Thanks everyone, I went from 467 props to 737 props after the post at the top of this page.
ncordless
3/4/11 4:17:12PM

Posted by Kpro

Thanks ncordless, I was going to post them also. It's not even worth debating that Diego won if strictly adhering to the Unified Rules of MMA when scoring.

Diego won by the human impact of judging.



Just because it has continuously been done wrong in the past does not mean it is right when it is done wrong again.

The process of deciding a winner in an mma fight does not include analyzing past fights to see if the decision in this one fits the precedents of stare decisis.
Neither is it in any way based on the behavior/personality of the judges.

Predicting that Diego would be named that the winner because of how the judges have got it wrong in the past, sure. But saying that Diego should have won because the judges get it wrong. . . no way.
Kpro
3/4/11 4:21:39PM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by Kpro

Thanks ncordless, I was going to post them also. It's not even worth debating that Diego won if strictly adhering to the Unified Rules of MMA when scoring.

Diego won by the human impact of judging.



Just because it has continuously been done wrong in the past does not mean it is right when it is done wrong again.

The process of deciding a winner in an mma fight does not include analyzing past fights to see if the decision in this one fits the precedents of stare decisis.
Neither is it in any way based on the behavior/personality of the judges.

Predicting that Diego would be named that the winner because of how the judges have got it wrong in the past, sure. But saying that Diego should have won because the judges get it wrong. . . no way.



Not sure if it was an accidental quotation or misread of my post, but that's exactly what i've been saying for a few pages now. Agreed 100%.
ncordless
3/4/11 4:27:52PM
Also, I think that the unified rules are flawed because effective striking is defined as the number of quality of strikes instead of taking into account the comparative effectiveness of the strikes. One fighter who lands 20 hard blows that have limited effect shouldn't beat out a fighter who lands 5 hard blows that destroy an opponent.

But that is something that should be changed by the people that write the rules, not the people that apply them.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 7:26:47PM

Posted by gartface

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Helwani and Bonnar say that Kampmann won the fight? I'm pretty sure I remember them saying he got robbed. So that must mean they gave him rounds one and three, like most people. They even referenced Nam Phan vs. Leonard Garcia, and maybe even Chan Sung Jung vs. Leonard Garcia if I'm not mistaken.




The argument, with the quote from me you cited, wasn't about the fight, it was about round two. You're not wrong, you just missed that part. Bonnar and Helwani gave Diego round 2.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 7:35:29PM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by Kpro

Thanks ncordless, I was going to post them also. It's not even worth debating that Diego won if strictly adhering to the Unified Rules of MMA when scoring.

Diego won by the human impact of judging.



Just because it has continuously been done wrong in the past does not mean it is right when it is done wrong again.

The process of deciding a winner in an mma fight does not include analyzing past fights to see if the decision in this one fits the precedents of stare decisis.
Neither is it in any way based on the behavior/personality of the judges.

Predicting that Diego would be named that the winner because of how the judges have got it wrong in the past, sure. But saying that Diego should have won because the judges get it wrong. . . no way.



What I've been trying to say, and I feel I've done as good of a job trying to say it as I can, is that you can have Diego winning the fight without actually thinking Diego won the fight.

As I've already stated, my mind processes fights in three ways.

1. How it SHOULD have been scored.

Kampmann should have won this fight (He was my pick mind you)

2. How it, most likely, was seen.

I won't argue with the judges thinking Diego landed the harder shots and was moving forward most of the fight while Kampmann appeared to be defensive. See Machida vs. Rampage

3. How it was PROBABLY scored.

I pretty much figured it would be a SD for Diego

You don't have to subscribe to something to account for it. I realized a long time ago what the judges are looking for and how they score fights. I'm not always right, but I can tell you that I'm a lot less angry at the end of the scores announcements than most people on this thread.

That does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that I agree with the judging in MMA. I just realize that they're incompetent and prepare myself accordingly.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 7:44:57PM

Posted by ncordless

A couple of points on those based on what has been said in this thread.

1. A quantitative assessment IS what determines effective striking. According to the rules, not only do numbers mean something, they are determinative of the outcome.

2. In this fight, the fight stayed on the feet for the majority of all three rounds, so the striking in each round is the most heavily weighted category.

3. Stuffing takedowns is a factor in both octagon control and defense.

4. Aggresion only matters if it is effective i.e. leads to landing a legal strike.

5. In the context of how the fight played out, a fighter who won the effective striking, octagon control, and defense should have beat the fighter who won the effective grappling and defense




1. It is an assessment of effective striking, but as you pointed out right here


Also, I think that the unified rules are flawed because effective striking is defined as the number of quality of strikes instead of taking into account the comparative effectiveness of the strikes. One fighter who lands 20 hard blows that have limited effect shouldn't beat out a fighter who lands 5 hard blows that destroy an opponent.


It's not difficult to imagine that the judges believe this, too. Whether they ought to be doing it or not is another debate, but I think you'd be hard pressed to make an argument that the judges don't score fights based on your above opinion.

2. See above

3. The key word there is factor. Diego was using those take-down attempts to put Kampmann up against the fence where he was able to get Kampmann in, as Rogan put it, a "dog fight."

He might not have turned the corner on the take-down, but by attempting it and forcing Kampmann from the center of the octagon, where he was doing the most damage, the fight, UNDENIABLY, took a different turn. That's also octagon control.

4. There were no illegal strikes thrown in this bout, so this point is moot.

5. If you account for the possibilities I mentioned above, it's not so clear cut.
ncordless
3/4/11 8:29:58PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by ncordless

A couple of points on those based on what has been said in this thread.

1. A quantitative assessment IS what determines effective striking. According to the rules, not only do numbers mean something, they are determinative of the outcome.

2. In this fight, the fight stayed on the feet for the majority of all three rounds, so the striking in each round is the most heavily weighted category.

3. Stuffing takedowns is a factor in both octagon control and defense.

4. Aggresion only matters if it is effective i.e. leads to landing a legal strike.

5. In the context of how the fight played out, a fighter who won the effective striking, octagon control, and defense should have beat the fighter who won the effective grappling and defense




1. It is an assessment of effective striking, but as you pointed out right here


Also, I think that the unified rules are flawed because effective striking is defined as the number of quality of strikes instead of taking into account the comparative effectiveness of the strikes. One fighter who lands 20 hard blows that have limited effect shouldn't beat out a fighter who lands 5 hard blows that destroy an opponent.


It's not difficult to imagine that the judges believe this, too. Whether they ought to be doing it or not is another debate, but I think you'd be hard pressed to make an argument that the judges don't score fights based on your above opinion.

2. See above

3. The key word there is factor. Diego was using those take-down attempts to put Kampmann up against the fence where he was able to get Kampmann in, as Rogan put it, a "dog fight."

He might not have turned the corner on the take-down, but by attempting it and forcing Kampmann from the center of the octagon, where he was doing the most damage, the fight, UNDENIABLY, took a different turn. That's also octagon control.

4. There were no illegal strikes thrown in this bout, so this point is moot.

5. If you account for the possibilities I mentioned above, it's not so clear cut.



1. Even if we allow that judges suck and can't apply the rules correctly and somehow that matters as to who really won the fight, I still think Kampmann won all three rounds on the feet. Round 2 was close, but the two flurries didn't make up for the rest of the round in my mind. Round 3, the numbers actually favor Diego, but the hardest punch of the night came in round three from Kampmann where he broke his hand and Diego's face, and in a purely qualitative sense I think that punch was more effective than anything Diego did that entire round.

3. But failed takedown attempts are not part of octagon control under the definition. Neither is putting someone against the cage. However, stuffing takedowns is the number 1 factor in octagon control.

4. Not the point. The point is aggression only counts if it results in landing a punch. So the only time Diego's moving forward matters at all is when he lands. I still think that Diego got the better of this category, but it is the 4th most important, and cannot overcome getting dominated on the feet.

postman
3/4/11 8:36:24PM
I personally scored it 29-27 Kampman. 10-8 Kampman 10-9 Deigo 10-9 Kampman and round 2 I was really questioning.
Kpro
3/4/11 8:38:13PM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

3. The key word there is factor. Diego was using those take-down attempts to put Kampmann up against the fence where he was able to get Kampmann in, as Rogan put it, a "dog fight."

He might not have turned the corner on the take-down, but by attempting it and forcing Kampmann from the center of the octagon, where he was doing the most damage, the fight, UNDENIABLY, took a different turn. That's also octagon control.



3. But failed takedown attempts are not part of octagon control under the definition. Neither is putting someone against the cage. However, stuffing takedowns is the number 1 factor in octagon control.




Yeah, that's just unbelievable to me for you to call the failed takedown attempts octagon control and turn around and completely discount the guy stuffing the takedown attempts as octagon control. Gotta pick your battles more wisely BSB.

As ncordless said, stuffing takedowns is the #1 factor in octagon control.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 8:38:13PM

Posted by ncordless
1. Even if we allow that judges suck and can't apply the rules correctly and somehow that matters as to who really won the fight, I still think Kampmann won all three rounds on the feet. Round 2 was close, but the two flurries didn't make up for the rest of the round in my mind. Round 3, the numbers actually favor Diego, but the hardest punch of the night came in round three from Kampmann where he broke his hand and Diego's face, and in a purely qualitative sense I think that punch was more effective than anything Diego did that entire round.

3. But failed takedown attempts are not part of octagon control under the definition. Neither is putting someone against the cage. However, stuffing takedowns is the number 1 factor in octagon control.

4. Not the point. The point is aggression only counts if it results in landing a punch. So the only time Diego's moving forward matters at all is when he lands. I still think that Diego got the better of this category, but it is the 4th most important, and cannot overcome getting dominated on the feet.




1. I agree minus Round two, but I knew how it WOULD be scored. Does that make sense?

3. I have been of the opinion, for quite some time, that take-downs need to be addressed. That being said, you're right.

Allow me, if you will, though, to point out that Kampmann was fighting Diego's fight after round 1. Not his. If that's not the definition of some form of control, then I don't know.

Again, I feel Kampmann SHOULD have won the fight, I'm just making the case for Diego since I knew he WOULD win the fight.

4. I understand you now and won't disagree with you. I do feel that moving forward, even if you're not landing, can win you a round. see Machida vs. Rampage.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 8:42:47PM

Posted by Kpro


Yeah, that's just unbelievable to me for you to call the failed takedown attempts octagon control and turn around and completely discount the guy stuffing the takedown attempts as octagon control. Gotta pick your battles more wisely BSB.

As ncordless said, stuffing takedowns is the #1 factor in octagon control.



Whoa, whoa, whoa, I NEVER said it wasn't octagon control to stuff them. I said that the take-down attempts COUPLED with Diego forcing Kampmann in to a dog fight because of them, was more controlling than the lone act of stuffing them.

If Kampmann had stuffed them and picked Diego apart like he did in the first round, I'd say that Kampmann was controlling it because that's HIS fight. As it was, Diego forced Kampmann in to a less technical battle with wild punches.

I have never stated that Kampmann stuffing the take-downs wasn't controlling. I just added that Diego used is failed attempts to force a different type of fight.
Kpro
3/4/11 8:49:48PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I NEVER said it wasn't octagon control to stuff them. I said that the take-down attempts COUPLED with Diego forcing Kampmann in to a dog fight because of them, was more controlling than the lone act of stuffing them.

If Kampmann had stuffed them and picked Diego apart like he did in the first round, I'd say that Kampmann was controlling it because that's HIS fight. As it was, Diego forced Kampmann in to a less technical battle with wild punches.

I have never stated that Kampmann stuffing the take-downs wasn't controlling. I just added that Diego used is failed attempts to force a different type of fight.



Someone has to not only stuff a takedown but also follow that up by picking the other person apart with strikes to have it tip in their favor for octagon control?

I think the main thing you and everyone else on the board who has weighed in disagrees with you on, is that Diego getting stuffed and holding a leg against the fence is viewed much more heavily as a positive by you than anyone else.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 8:59:14PM

Posted by Kpro

Someone has to not only stuff a takedown but also follow that up by picking the other person apart with strikes to have it tip in their favor for octagon control?

I think the main thing you and everyone else on the board who has weighed in disagrees with you on, is that Diego getting stuffed and holding a leg against the fence is viewed much more heavily as a positive by you than anyone else.



If the act of attempting a failed take-down leads to an advantageous position or moment for another fighter then it's not a complete failure.

If fighter A stuffs Fighter B's takedown, but then proceeds to get rocked and wobbled along the cage because the position that Fighter A put Fighter B in BECAUSE of the attempt, you do not reward fighter B for simply "stuffing" the attempt.

Diego hurt Kampmann several times because his take-down attempts placed Kampmann up against the cage and limited his effectiveness.

This is for round two only. I'm only arguing round 2.

I'd even go as far to say that Diego's attempts led to more damage, in round two, on Kampmann than the actual take-down he DID get in the third.
Kpro
3/4/11 9:08:53PM
You seem to have pre-determined thoughts on when a fighter is imposing his gameplan, based on preconceived notions about what YOU think a fighter will do.

Pop quiz for you.

Mark Hunt faces Demian Maia. Hunt lands a few token shots on the feet, Maia finally gets a takedown on his 4th attempt less than one minute in. Hunt somehow bucks onto top position in full guard at the one minute mark. He lands a few blows and spends the final 4 minutes on top nullifying 2 triangle attempts while landing some average ground and pound and attempting 2 kimuras. Who won the round? Did Maia control almost the entire 5 minutes of where the fight took place because Hunt didnt' want to be on the ground?

Based on your preconceived notions of Hunt not wanting to be on the ground, does that make Maia win the round in your book?

Or are we looking at two fighters where you should throw away preconceived notions of where YOU think the fight should be taking place for each fighter and realize that Hunt took the round as a mixed martial artist.

EDIT: And if you have to ask how this relates to your analysis of Martin/Diego then I give up on trying to get you to understand the way MMA scoring is written.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 9:18:08PM

Posted by Kpro

You seem to have pre-determined thoughts on when a fighter is imposing his gameplan, based on preconceived notions about what YOU think a fighter will do.

Pop quiz for you.

Mark Hunt faces Demian Maia. Hunt lands a few token shots on the feet, Maia finally gets a takedown on his 4th attempt less than one minute in. Hunt somehow bucks onto top position in full guard at the one minute mark. He lands a few blows and spends the final 4 minutes on top nullifying 2 triangle attempts while landing some average ground and pound and attempting 2 kimuras. Who won the round? Did Maia control almost the entire 5 minutes of where the fight took place because Hunt didnt' want to be on the ground?

Based on your preconceived notions of Hunt not wanting to be on the ground, does that make Maia win the round in your book?

Or are we looking at two fighters where you should throw away preconceived notions of control being scored based on where the fight is taking place and obviously know that Hunt took the round as a mixed martial artist.



It's not a preconceived notion. Visibly watching the fight and seeing that Kampmann was less effective and taking much more damage doesn't require me to be aware of Kampmann's game-plan.

He still got rocked and wobbled several times in the second round. That's why Diego took the round. Kampmann does not do well in slugfests. You don't need history or a game-plan in front of you to notice that in round 2.

Your analogy isn't quit the same thing because people are generally aware that the judges don't really score sub attempts that favorably. They do know that the judges score blood favorably and that's what Sanchez drew once he was able to put Kampmann up against the cage.

Again, I think Kampmann won. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

My argument stems from the "I know what the judges saw and would do" viewpoint.

BTW, nobody won the round because Maia has never fought at LHW or HW.
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Related Topics