Jung vs Garcia results

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » Jung vs Garcia results
POLL: Who did you score as the winner?
Jung 80% (32)
Garcia 20% (8)
Playground_Samurai
4/25/10 12:07:02PM
IMO, Jung got jacked. I think he clearly should have won that fight on the scorecards at the very least 29-28. I haven't looked at the fight metric yet, but i'm confident he landed more clean shots and i'm absolutely positive he was closer to finishing the fight on more occassions that Garcia. What do you guys think?
CaranoGirl
4/25/10 12:09:13PM
Jung should have won that fight for sure. They both wailed on each other for 3 rounds, hurting each other both equally. The difference was that Jung got Garcia's back and got him to the ground and was pushing the pace the entire time. That is the 2nd controversial decision in a row for Garcia. Awesome fight though the crowd was absolutely insane. If those guys had bigger names this would definatly be fight of the year!
Playground_Samurai
4/25/10 12:18:36PM
Almost 2,700 votes on sherdog right now, and 87% of the votes are for Jung.

Link
sbulldavid
4/25/10 12:51:48PM
Yeah Jung won but I don't care it was a great fight and neither one is a top contender, so let's do it again.
seanfu
4/25/10 12:59:31PM
I thought Garcia won, but maybe not idk, I just remember evertime I looked Garcia was the aggressor, ineffective, but forward and aggressive with Jung eating shots.
Franklinfan47
4/25/10 1:07:27PM

Posted by seanfu

I thought Garcia won, but maybe not idk, I just remember evertime I looked Garcia was the aggressor, ineffective, but forward and aggressive with Jung eating shots.



With all due respect, I think you need to watch again. Jung was coming forward waaaay more than Garcia. I personally thought Garcia took the third, but Jung should have taken it 29-28. Close fight to call though.
seanfu
4/25/10 1:11:22PM

Posted by Franklinfan47


Posted by seanfu

I thought Garcia won, but maybe not idk, I just remember evertime I looked Garcia was the aggressor, ineffective, but forward and aggressive with Jung eating shots.



With all due respect, I think you need to watch again. Jung was coming forward waaaay more than Garcia. I personally thought Garcia took the third, but Jung should have taken it 29-28. Close fight to call though.



Maybe, I was busy taking care of a squarmy ass baby while watching.
grappler0000
4/25/10 1:13:32PM
Yep, Jung stalked Garcia pretty much the entire fight...just like zombies do.
sclasclemski
4/25/10 1:24:53PM
I for sure felt it was going to be a split dec but I absolutely thought jung was better and should have won...at worst I would have been happy with a draw...I think the judges gave the fight to Garcia because he was smiling the whole time...but the fact is Garcia was the best at getting hit squarely...more oftent then not Jung was connecting and avoiding garcia's strikes...i would love to see a rematch and big names or not...I hope I remember this one when it comes time for the Fighters Only MMA award nominatinos because this one was great.
grappler0000
4/25/10 1:25:01PM
Fight Mextric:

30-28 Jung
cowcatcher
4/25/10 2:01:00PM
great fight. i thought jung won, but when guys are going at it like they did its got to be tough to score from cageside.
marcoDGK
4/25/10 2:12:32PM

Posted by cowcatcher

great fight. i thought jung won, but when guys are going at it like they did its got to be tough to score from cageside.



exactly! they don't have the camera angles we do. They do their best to score the fight how they see it from where they see it.

This was such a great fight. I want to watch this again asap.
mrsmiley
4/25/10 2:28:22PM
Jung got robbed.
It's funny because before they announced the decision I just said to myself,"Zombie is getting screwed". It's almost to the point where you can smell a bad decision coming. I could have understood possibly a draw but not a victory for Garcia.
postman
4/25/10 2:53:52PM

Posted by marcoDGK


Posted by cowcatcher

great fight. i thought jung won, but when guys are going at it like they did its got to be tough to score from cageside.



exactly! they don't have the camera angles we do. They do their best to score the fight how they see it from where they see it.

This was such a great fight. I want to watch this again asap.



Thats why they need monitors. Garcia for what ever reason gets put over by the judges I'm sorry but just beacuse you smile after getting punched in the face you shouldn't win a round. I really think this is worse then the BJ fight Which I gave BJ 4 rounds to 1.
lohmann
4/25/10 4:49:00PM
Judges need as much technology to get the best possible reading of a fight. All those strikes Garcia threw could easily be seen as landing when instead most of them were way off the mark.

Jung got straight-up robbed. Garcia landed a few nice shots, but he was mostly hitting air. Jung was way more effective in landing combinations in bunches.

There's a lot of problems with FightMetric, but when that many more strikes connected on the part of Jung than on the part of Garcia, it's pretty indicative of how that fight really went.
grappler0000
4/25/10 7:58:19PM

Posted by lohmann

There's a lot of problems with FightMetric...



Could you elaborate on the problems?
NatedawgThaM
4/25/10 8:10:00PM
hell of a fight. was rooting for Garcia but Jung definitely won. hell of a fight. definitely what MMA needed after those last few cards. Loved this event. Absolutely phenomenal. Lived up to the hype!
lohmann
4/26/10 3:24:27AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by lohmann

There's a lot of problems with FightMetric...



Could you elaborate on the problems?



FightMetric uses an algorithm to determine their own effectiveness score, sometimes at the expense of what the criteria for judging is.

For grappling:

Grappling actions have equal opposite reactions - The same number of points granted to one fighter for a position change (e.g., gaining mount) must be awarded to the other fighter should he work his way out of it. This particular rule ignores the way judging is handled and instead inserts something totally different. Offense that leads people to move into more dominant positions carries more weight than any defensive maneuver used to counter.

It's what happens after the takedown that matters - With the exception of slams, takedowns are only valuable insofar as they set up more valuable opportunities on the ground. Taking someone down into guard confers only a modest advantage to the fighter in top position. If two fighters are on the ground for a duration of a round and neither holds a significant edge in the amount of damage given, the fighter with a dominant position is awarded the round according to judging criteria because strikes thrown from the top are weighed more than those from the bottom. That's more than just a "modest advantage." Dominant positions matter much, much more, even if I would prefer the way FightMetric sees it to be the way judges do. Henderson/Cerrone and Lawal/Mousasi are two recent examples where FightMetric awarded rounds to fighters that may not have deserved a round merely because they place an emphasis on damage instead of an emphasis on control.

For striking:

FightMetric inputs data in raw numbers, which can oftentimes fail to tell the reality of a fight considering the infinite complexity of a single strike to be accounted for properly via any algorithm. FightMetric scores every single strike thrown by a fighter in some way, including soft blows in a very close guard, when judges should and mostly do find those sort of strikes nearly negligible.

If you have not seen the Compustrike numbers for Jung vs. Garcia, you see raw numbers collected in a different and inferior way that tells a different type of story about a fight that should, in my opinion, not be as close as the fight was seen.

In their own FAQ:

The problem with current judging systems is that no one knows what techniques to value more than others. Perhaps the FightMetric system and its underlying data can inform that discussion.

Judging is subjective and often disappointing. FightMetric is the one website I trust more than others, but they are not free from error either.

The one time I disagreed with FightMetric that I can ever recall was Evans vs. Silva, where Evans demonstrated an amount of control that is difficult to process as information and should have, doubtlessly, been awarded the first and second rounds.
BeeR
4/26/10 6:07:36AM
they were both basically just throwing, but when Jung didnt get caught up in the moment, he was picking and landing more punches.

jung got robbed
AchillesHeel
4/26/10 11:10:14AM
I agree that FightMetric's methodology represents only one way to evaluate a fight, and it's one that deserves some scrutiny, particularly in how they evaluate grappling. If I understand them correctly, they don't think that physically controlling your opponent is a feat worthy of recognition in itself.

So in their view, a fight in which one opponent takes down the other and then absolutely nothing else happens should be ruled a draw. What about a fight in which one fighter throws 10 punches and misses every single time, and the other fighter does nothing but duck and weave? Would that have to be ruled a draw? To my view, the fighter throwing the punches is forcing his opponent to react to his action, forcing him to bob and weave.

Take soccer as an example, and let's say that no game can end in a draw, and there's no "over-time." At the end of 90 minutes, if it's a draw on the scoreboard, three judges will determine the winner. What criteria should they use? I would say that Shots on Goal and Time of Possession should be key criteria for determining the winner. Saves by the Goalkeepers should not count very much, if at all. Neither should tackles.

Or you could use American football as an example. If at the end of regulation time the score is tied, there is no overtime and no draws, how do we determine who won? Should sacks count? Interceptions? Or should we judge the teams by total yards and pass completions?

grappler0000
4/26/10 12:26:51PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by lohmann

There's a lot of problems with FightMetric...



Could you elaborate on the problems?



Just to clarify, the reason why I asked was to say "there's a lot of problems" is not a fair assessment IMO.

I feel you summed it up a little better here.



FightMetric is the one website I trust more than others, but they are not free from error either.



And the next statement you made...



Judging is subjective and often disappointing.



is a reason why I like FightMetric to begin with. They use a consistent method which puts everyone on the same scale. What's also important though is how they are scoring the fights. There will always be some sort of subjectivity in human judges, because the judging criteria defines what is effective, what's not effective, and what the priority is for each of those categories...but it also leaves some holes for judges to fill in their own ideals. For example, the judging criteria tells us that power strikes are more important than soft strikes in abundance, but it leaves it to the judge to determine where the two become equal. I'm willing to bet that every judge will not only have a slightly different opinion on the matter, they will more than likely treat each fight a bit differently. This is where FM is excels. Not only do they use a consistent method to score striking based on power, position, and area of the strike, but they have solid logic behind each of those determinations...which is something that a judge is highly unlikely doing on the fly. The determination between a power and non-power strike is probably one of the very few areas that remains subjective for FM scoring. They have a very reasonable approach for making the determination, but it still boils down to human intervention. That's just one example.

Again, nothing is perfect, but my point was that IMO it's unfair to say that there are a lot of problems. Nothing is perfect, but FM far exceeds any other system out there and blows most judges out of the water. Of coarse, it's difficult for judges considering they have only a single perspective and don't have the advantage of slow motion and playback, but that's why systems like this are important to see what the judges didn't. In fact, as complex as MMA is, FM is the only system/judge/fan that I've seen take a consistent,complete, and systematic approach to judging fights in an informed and logical fashion.
emfleek
4/26/10 1:07:53PM

Posted by AchillesHeel

Or you could use American football as an example. If at the end of regulation time the score is tied, there is no overtime and no draws, how do we determine who won? Should sacks count? Interceptions? Or should we judge the teams by total yards and pass completions?




There's only one answer.

The Bears suck.

grappler0000
4/26/10 1:08:45PM

Posted by AchillesHeel

What about a fight in which one fighter throws 10 punches and misses every single time, and the other fighter does nothing but duck and weave? Would that have to be ruled a draw? To my view, the fighter throwing the punches is forcing his opponent to react to his action, forcing him to bob and weave.



FightMetric would consider that a draw, but judges should as well. Although I say "should", some judges would award the round to the person throwing the punches...and there is better logic than the other way around, but it is possibly justified.

With no "effective striking" or "effective grappling", the only remaining criteria would be "octagon control" and "effective aggressiveness"...in that order. You can completely eliminate effective aggressiveness, since by definition, it is also absent. With no grappling, TDs, or TDD to take into account, octagon control would boil down to the fighter controlling the pace of the fight...which is a subjective term. The question is...when a fight has nothing but a small fraction of a secondary judging criteria to be based on, is there a large enough gap in performance to warrant anything other than a draw? I would say no, but we know judges rarely give out 10-10 rounds, even though they have the ability to. Many people have even said that some commissions instruct judges to declare a winner every round. I'm certainly in favor of giving 10-10 rounds over possibly giving a round away to the wrong person (by not accounting for a small error in judgment) or to someone who wasn't the clear winner. IMO, a fight that is as close as the one you described, would be a clear example of a draw...but then again, the secondary criteria is there to allow the splitting of hairs, so it's just a matter of when 10-10 rounds are appropriate, which again boils down to subjectivity.

With all of that said, if that isn't close enough for a draw, then 10-10 rounds are not realistic and should be removed all together.
sbulldavid
4/26/10 1:27:07PM
FM is just a tool, it says little about what actually happened, I think there has been too much emphasis on stats and takedowns. I don't know the system they use to record their stats, but it's just a tool for an argument. I have always been a stat guy but MMA has changed my opinion and opened my mind. The judges each have their own way of judging and you only need to be one round better on two of three scorecards, I'm a fight fan, my fighter doesn't always get the decision, but I'm happy if I see a good fight as well.
chickmagnet
4/28/10 6:43:53PM
Worst decision ive EVER seen. Jung no doubt put a beating on Garcia...
Related Topics