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?
POLL: Who won the decision?
| Sanchez |    |
28% | (16) |
| Kampmann |    |
72% | (42) |
Kpro
3/4/11 9:22:38PM
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
My argument stems from the "I know what the judges saw and would do" viewpoint.
I think the actual rules of scoring in MMA versus that statement sums up this thread perfectly.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 9:30:22PM
Posted by Kpro
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
My argument stems from the "I know what the judges saw and would do" viewpoint.
I think the actual rules of scoring in MMA versus that statement sums up this thread perfectly.
That's what, in effect, I've really been saying.
Knowing what someone WILL do and AGREEING with the decision are two entirely separate matters.
I know my friend will go out drinking and drive with 2 DUI's. I know it, I expect it, I account for it, and I don't get in the car with him. I do not, however, agree with it.
I'm making the case for Diego based on judging incompetency. Not my personal view of the fight. Kampmann won, in my opinion. Kampmann is one of my favorite fighters. I could watch that guy strike all day long. I could watch his ground game, as a primary striker, all day long.
I just know that the judges are idiots and braced myself and scored the fight 3 different ways.
Kpro
3/4/11 9:35:13PM
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Kpro
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
My argument stems from the "I know what the judges saw and would do" viewpoint.
I think the actual rules of scoring in MMA versus that statement sums up this thread perfectly.
That's what, in effect, I've really been saying.
18 posts ago by me ----->>>>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.<<<<<
Hopefully we don't need another 18 posts to hit the same conclusion.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 9:37:06PM
Posted by Kpro
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Kpro
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
My argument stems from the "I know what the judges saw and would do" viewpoint.
I think the actual rules of scoring in MMA versus that statement sums up this thread perfectly.
That's what, in effect, I've really been saying.
18 posts ago by me ----->>>>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.<<<<<
Hopefully we don't need another 18 posts to hit the same conclusion.
You're right, I just was addressing the components of the argument. Should have just let it die there.
Kpro
3/4/11 9:40:04PM
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Kpro
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Kpro
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
My argument stems from the "I know what the judges saw and would do" viewpoint.
I think the actual rules of scoring in MMA versus that statement sums up this thread perfectly.
That's what, in effect, I've really been saying.
18 posts ago by me ----->>>>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.<<<<<
Hopefully we don't need another 18 posts to hit the same conclusion.
You're right, I just was addressing the components of the argument. Should have just let it die there.
at least we came full circle.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 9:56:21PM
Posted by Kpro
at least we came full circle.
Pookie
3/4/11 10:26:03PM
OK Here's how i percieved the second round and how it fits into the judging criterion, and ill rewatch the round before i post this reply.
As most of the round was spent striking: Effective striking should be weighed heaviest(k). Kampmann landed more punches. Thats all the rule(e) says, and therefore Kampmann wins effective striking. I think the terminolgy needs an overhaul. I think that more damaging blows should be weighed heavier perpetually. And that it largely is. With that said, Kampmann landed an equal amount of times as Diego did in his most fruitful of exchanges against the cage. The power of the shots landed has its value when its stops the other fighter. But because Diego's punches didnt hurt kampmann anymore than Kampmann hurt diego, the power of diego's punches shouldn't supercede the amount of punches Kampmann landed.
Second came grappling: At no point in this round did it touch the ground, so transitions and reversals dont matter. The only thing left is " judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown". Kampmann stuffed 7. Diego successfully executed 0.
Kampmann wins effective grappling, and any judge who saw otherwise should be fired as they obviously dont know what they need to look for. This is not even disputable.
(3 and 4 are weighed equally)
Third came octagon control: "Who is dictating the pace, position and location of the bout". Pace, an arguement can be made either way, but lets say Diego for being the aggressor. Position, that was definitely Kampmann for the same reason he won effective grappling; he completely nullified diego's positional battles. Location, the round happened against the cage and thats because of Diego.
Whoever you feel dictated the pace of their exchanges should rightfully win this criteria. I'll give it to diego by a slim margin.
Fourth comes effective Aggression and Defense: Which can be summed up as "moving forward and landing a legal strike[,]" and "avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks".
I feel Diego used his failed takedowns to enforce a tactic of wall n stall that opened up his striking. By itself the takedown attempts were 1/3 of Octagon control and failed effective grappling. But coupled with striking it counts as effective agression.
I feel Kampmann counter-punching strategy helped him avoid being struck, and taken down throughout the round. And because he countered with offense more than Diego, while landing at a higher ratio than Diego he exhibited Effective Defense throughout the round while Diego exhibited Effective defense only in a handful of occasions.
Kampmann won that round.
Bottom Line: Athletic Commissions need to test Judges. Pop Quizzes where they review a fight and write an analysis on who won the fight in accordance to the scoring criteria. Then give out letter grades.
Anybody who gave this fight to diego based on criteria failed at their job. They deserve an F. All three judges gave this fight to Diego.
Make the judges accountable for themselves, and the problem is solved. The Rulebook doesnt need a change. We just need to measure the competency of our Judges with testing.
As most of the round was spent striking: Effective striking should be weighed heaviest(k). Kampmann landed more punches. Thats all the rule(e) says, and therefore Kampmann wins effective striking. I think the terminolgy needs an overhaul. I think that more damaging blows should be weighed heavier perpetually. And that it largely is. With that said, Kampmann landed an equal amount of times as Diego did in his most fruitful of exchanges against the cage. The power of the shots landed has its value when its stops the other fighter. But because Diego's punches didnt hurt kampmann anymore than Kampmann hurt diego, the power of diego's punches shouldn't supercede the amount of punches Kampmann landed.
Second came grappling: At no point in this round did it touch the ground, so transitions and reversals dont matter. The only thing left is " judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown". Kampmann stuffed 7. Diego successfully executed 0.
Kampmann wins effective grappling, and any judge who saw otherwise should be fired as they obviously dont know what they need to look for. This is not even disputable.
(3 and 4 are weighed equally)
Third came octagon control: "Who is dictating the pace, position and location of the bout". Pace, an arguement can be made either way, but lets say Diego for being the aggressor. Position, that was definitely Kampmann for the same reason he won effective grappling; he completely nullified diego's positional battles. Location, the round happened against the cage and thats because of Diego.
Whoever you feel dictated the pace of their exchanges should rightfully win this criteria. I'll give it to diego by a slim margin.
Fourth comes effective Aggression and Defense: Which can be summed up as "moving forward and landing a legal strike[,]" and "avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks".
I feel Diego used his failed takedowns to enforce a tactic of wall n stall that opened up his striking. By itself the takedown attempts were 1/3 of Octagon control and failed effective grappling. But coupled with striking it counts as effective agression.
I feel Kampmann counter-punching strategy helped him avoid being struck, and taken down throughout the round. And because he countered with offense more than Diego, while landing at a higher ratio than Diego he exhibited Effective Defense throughout the round while Diego exhibited Effective defense only in a handful of occasions.
Kampmann won that round.
Bottom Line: Athletic Commissions need to test Judges. Pop Quizzes where they review a fight and write an analysis on who won the fight in accordance to the scoring criteria. Then give out letter grades.
Anybody who gave this fight to diego based on criteria failed at their job. They deserve an F. All three judges gave this fight to Diego.
Make the judges accountable for themselves, and the problem is solved. The Rulebook doesnt need a change. We just need to measure the competency of our Judges with testing.
Budgellism
3/7/11 10:32:51PM
The poll speaks for itself on this one. I had Kampmann 29-28 but it honestly could have went either way. All that matters in my mind was how awesome that fight was on a pretty decent free card.
Related Topics