Let's say one fighter is pressing the action in a fight. This fight is completely contested on the feet. He lands 500 jabs in a fight, to the effect of minimal bruising, swelling, cutting or bleeding. No other strikes. Let's say his opponent lands 20 punches. He breaks his opponent's jaw, drops him three times and breaks his nose. It's a five round fight. Who won the fight?
lol you need to give WAY more information than that for anyone to be able to reasonably score the fight.
So, for instance, what if the 20 punches, broken jaw etc all happened in round 1, then the other guy landed 500 jabs in the following 4 rounds and the other guy is gassed from the output in the first round? In that case it would have to be something like 10-8 or 10-7 first round with the other 4 going to the jabber, then the jabber wins. Maybe if everything is evenly spaced it becomes a lot harder to score, there's a lot of missing variables.
Even if they're evenly spaced, to be honest the ratio that you gave of 25:1 would make it pretty tough for the guy who landed 20 punches to win no matter how much damage he did in my mind. It's hard to see a guy land 4 punches in 5 minutes, then get punched 100 times and win no matter how significant those 4 punches were.
Lol, Yeah I was thinking more of a 25:1 ratio per round.
Getting dropped almost loses you the round in most cases, I mean there all different scenarios.
I think dropping your opponent scores big in judges eyes like takedowns.
If fighter A gets dropped 3 times in 3 different rounds you might have to give it to fighter B.
20 punches is such a small number, however, if he did more damage than fighter A in 3 of the 5 rounds i personally give it to fighter B.
but, you have to realize, 500 jabs add up and they do a lot of damage so if fighter B didn't drop him i would give it to fighter A.
The guy getting dropped loses the fight i think. I think getting dropped is more than a take down...I dont think the broken jaw or cuts should matter in a fight.
As I go over this thread, I really don't know what my point was! lol. Maybe just getting into inconsistency in judging... I was just thinking, could it be possible that no matter how impartial we may try to be, are there subconscious biases clouding human judgement? Can anyone really ever claim to make an impartial call, even in a fight with two people we've never heard of? I wonder.
Why do certain fights that seem to fall under very similar criteria yield different results? How does Martin Kampmann lose to Diego Sanchez, yet Carlos Condit beats Nick Diaz?
Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, those circumstances aren't very similar, except for the wrong person lost in both decisions.
The person who was backing up, effectively countering, winning the grappling (I call stuffing 14 out of 15 takedowns controlling/winning the grappling, call me weird) and clearly winning the fight lost in Kampmann-Sanchez. And yet the fighter who was getting backed up, out struck in head strikes, landed ineffective leg kicks, and lost the aggression, octagon control, and grappling (in my book anyhow) wins in Condit-Diaz. The inconsistency drives me crazy.
Posted by pmoney
The person who was backing up, effectively countering, winning the grappling (I call stuffing 14 out of 15 takedowns controlling/winning the grappling, call me weird) and clearly winning the fight lost in Kampmann-Sanchez.
you aren't crazy...it specifically says in the rules if you defend your opponents take downs you are winning the grappling.