Octagon Control vs. Effort to finish

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Octagon Control vs. Effort to finish
Jackelope
7/6/08 12:07:41PM
The Rampage vs. Forrest fight got me going on this rant again last night. I knew the judges were going to score in favor of Forrest simply because of "Octagon Control" which, IMO is one of the worst ways to score a fight. It clearly favors aggressive conservatives who throw tiny jabs and worthless combos. The heavy counter striker is left praying come decision time simply because he was on the outside of the center of the Octagon. No matter if his punches did significantly more damage or not, it's all about who controlled the center of the Octagon and landed the most jabs.

As for Rampage vs. Griffin take a look at Forrest's face and take a look at Rampage's. Forrest said he wasn't hurt at all during the fight, but I saw him stagger a whole hell of a lot more than I saw Rampage. Rampage staggered when Forrest leg kicked him pretty good, but Forrest staggered from combinations in rounds 1, 3, 4, and 5.

Now, don't let this turn into a Forrest vs. Rampage debate here, but this isn't boxing. Just look at it objectively. This being only the most recent example in a long list of fights that the damage done was lopsided, but the center of the octagon was controlled by one vs. the other most of the time.

I think the UFC needs to stop scoring based on who holds the center of the Octagon and replace it straight up with "Effort to Finish" We're starting to see more and more fights going to decision in MMA because the UFC has got every single fighter worried about getting cut from the roster. So instead of trying to finish the fights they're falling into this pattern of "Land the combos, get a takedown, and win the round." Tyson Griffin even said it in his post fight interview last night. One can't blame the fighters, but it's certainly not good for business IMO.

My solution is for the UFC to remove or lower the importance of "Octagon Control" in the scoring, and significantly raise the importance of "Effort to Finish"

Twenty20Dollars
7/6/08 12:12:42PM
effort to finish, no.

aggresion forrest won that, had rampage backing up more often than none. and octagon control.

you're telling me forrest didnt try to finish when he had the mount or when he had that triangle.

i know forrest won the fight, even though i didnt pick him to win.
Thundercats
7/6/08 12:14:46PM
I enjoyed the fight very much and thought it could either way. However, Controlling the octagon means you're trying to fight and press the action...
Very risky and it should be rewarded. Hanging back and throwing counters is like fighting not to lose. Rampage's performance was very similar to when Sylvia was hw champ. A champion should fight hungry just like a contender.
Jackelope
7/6/08 12:18:06PM

Posted by Twenty20Dollars

effort to finish, no.

aggresion forrest won that, had rampage backing up more often than none. and octagon control.

you're telling me forrest didnt try to finish when he had the mount or when he had that triangle.

i know forrest won the fight, even though i didnt pick him to win.



this is exactly what I said I didn't want to conversate upon. Nevermind Forrest vs. Jackson, it's just an example. Like how even though Forrest put in the footwork of aggression, once the exchanges started coming he was the one backing out and away constantly.

As for effort to finish I can't possibly see how any fan wouldn't want to see an effort to finish. I do agree with the grappling efforts to finish, though.. which is why I personally scored round 2 10-8 for Forrest.
Twenty20Dollars
7/6/08 12:24:05PM
the rule just doesnt make sense. Fighters are going to have to actually throw power punches everytime for them to score points instead of leg kicks and jabs.
juanez13
7/6/08 12:25:24PM
Rampage only threw like one combo per round, the rest was all Forrest, so i dont see just one effort in a round wins him that round, while the other fighter did more most of the round.



Jackelope
7/6/08 12:30:03PM
Not true at all. The jab is fine, and so are leg kicks. As a matter of fact I'm a huge fan of jabs and leg kicks. But if you're using them to tag and move instead of setting up combinations or finishing combinations I don't agree with them being as significant as someone who is throwing worthwhile combos and hurting his opponent with them. I am just deathly afraid of this turning into the Lennox Lewis boxing years for the UFC.



cmill21
7/6/08 12:34:51PM
Machida is a perfect example! Was he trying to finish tito(other then when he dropped him), or was he simply trying to get the decsion? I think he was trying to get the decision, and i've liked him alot longer then most people here have known he exsisted. I personally think the scoring system and what they judge on is not a good way to go about it. I hate to go to the Pride way of judging, but other then a few obvious home town decisions they got most of the close fights right based on their system.
RandyCouture
7/6/08 12:50:51PM
I was piss drunk at the bar and all 4 of my friends could c that forrest clearly won that fight. IMO I scored it 49 46 forrest but giving him 10 8 the 1 round but i can c clearly how judges could score the fight 48 47 i thought this fight was clearly given to the victor.
Jackelope
7/6/08 12:53:15PM
Again, this topic is not about Griffin vs. Rampage. This topic is about the rule system that the UFC has in place for scoring fights. It applies in the situation of Griffin vs. Rampage, but it is NOT about Griffin vs. Rampage.
cmill21
7/6/08 12:53:39PM

Posted by RandyCouture

I was piss drunk at the bar and all 4 of my friends could c that forrest clearly won that fight. IMO I scored it 49 46 forrest but giving him 10 8 the 1 round but i can c clearly how judges could score the fight 48 47 i thought this fight was clearly given to the victor.



Not the right thread but ok.
Mastodon2
7/6/08 12:57:26PM
Bravo to Jackelope, he continues to exemplify the minority of MMA fans with common sense. I totally agree with him that "Octagon control" needs to go way down the agenda and "effort to finish" way up, though the UFC will likely not do this as it would ruin the wrestling bias the UFC rule set has traditionally had.

I have seen someone state that fighters would have to throw "power shots" in order to score points. A combo is a combo, a jab is a jab and should be scored as such, but its when fighters start comboing and then not following up, IE, jabbing away and never progressing, or landing a combo and not progressing towards a finish, instead simply going for a takedown and running the clock, or letting the other fighter recover and resume, that fights start getting lame. I know its been said before, but MMA was so much more exciting in Pride because clock watchers knew they would get smoked by the judges, and even when the bell rang, you were not often left disappointed because solid judging and criteria fit for scoring MMA were used. Imo. the UFC's "Octagon control" is good for a wrestling match or a TKD or Karate style point scoring match like we see from Machida from time to time.
Jackelope
7/6/08 1:08:17PM

Posted by Mastodon2

Bravo to Jackelope, he continues to exemplify the minority of MMA fans with common sense. I totally agree with him that "Octagon control" needs to go way down the agenda and "effort to finish" way up, though the UFC will likely not do this as it would ruin the wrestling bias the UFC rule set has traditionally had.

I have seen someone state that fighters would have to throw "power shots" in order to score points. A combo is a combo, a jab is a jab and should be scored as such, but its when fighters start comboing and then not following up, IE, jabbing away and never progressing, or landing a combo and not progressing towards a finish, instead simply going for a takedown and running the clock, or letting the other fighter recover and resume, that fights start getting lame. I know its been said before, but MMA was so much more exciting in Pride because clock watchers knew they would get smoked by the judges, and even when the bell rang, you were not often left disappointed because solid judging and criteria fit for scoring MMA were used. Imo. the UFC's "Octagon control" is good for a wrestling match or a TKD or Karate style point scoring match like we see from Machida from time to time.



Thank you. Yet another long time MMA fan with a solid knowledge base chiming in. I only hate that you and Cmill are from my camp because it makes it look like you're agreeing based on camp status and not common sense.

Yourself, myself, and Cmill can all agree because we're all practicioners that know what an effective combination is and feels like.

On a side note for ya Mastodon, since your love of striking far surpasses mine- that right uppercut counter that dropped Forrest in rd 1 brought a tear to my eye. That was an awesome display of a perfect counter
ICSlegend
7/6/08 1:14:53PM
Nice analysis guys. Very true.

It's disgusting that UFC is catering to the drunk bar fan mentality of favoring fighters who just attack more and move forward.

On Jackson Vs Griffin, which is a perfect example of this -

Jackson left no doubt in my mind that he was technically the better fighter last night. He didn't attack often, but when he did he connected, and even dropped Griffin. Whereas Griffin attacked plenty, but couldn't hit Page Don't know why people even say it's a close fight, guess because of Round 2, and even then Rampage was never in any danger of being finished, so I fail to see how that is a 10-8 round. Controlled yes, dominated? Nowhere close.

A couple of good leg kicks shouldn't win you a fight. How many hits did Griffin actually LAND flush? 10? And even then didn't do any damage aside from the 3 or 4 to the leg. Just look at the post-fight pics.
Aether
7/6/08 1:18:46PM
I've been saying the same thing for a long time. I always thought that the PRIDE criteria was better. The actual judging may have been questionable, but their list of judging criteria in order of importance was pretty much bang on.

I'm also a big fan of the red/yellow card system. I think having this in place combined with the judging criteria ensured that most fight maintained a relatively fast pace throughout.

I think that fightmetrics is a good concept for scoring MMA fights. Obviously it's pretty rudimentary as is, but a scoring system of a similar nature that takes all of the different facets of MMA into account and scores them comprehensively is an amazing idea and something that needs to happen in the sport. Judges have a strange position. From what I know many of them came directly over from boxing and kickboxing with absolutely no knowledge of things like jiu jitsu (cecil peoples is a good example) while I know that there have also been very knowledgeable judges like stephen quadros the fact that any number of people without comprehensive knowledge of the sport are making decisions without having to account for their decisions or offer any sort of explanation for their judgment seems very wrong to me.

It was good enough when MMA was trying to prove to the world that it's not human cockfighting but now that it's pretty popular and widely accepted I think it's time to separate the sport from boxing completely. They're two different things, and they need different scoring systems as well as different judges.
Playground_Samurai
7/6/08 1:39:45PM

Posted by Jackelope
Yourself, myself, and Cmill can all agree because we're all practicioners that know what an effective combination is and feels like.




Yea, no one else on here knows anything about anything. Sure wish I knew as much as you guys do.


Posted by Thundercats

I enjoyed the fight very much and thought it could either way. However, Controlling the octagon means you're trying to fight and press the action...
Very risky and it should be rewarded.



Good post.
DiabloFreak56
7/6/08 1:39:58PM
dude your kidding yourself if you believe that rampage won that last round... he got forrest good in the 1st and 4th... imo the best. forrest's leg kicks ruined Rampage... but the one thing i can say out of this fight was i am happy the champion is someone i like in forrest. and happy i got to see a rampage slam
Jackelope
7/6/08 2:04:13PM

Posted by gspfan


Posted by Jackelope
Yourself, myself, and Cmill can all agree because we're all practicioners that know what an effective combination is and feels like.




Yea, no one else on here knows anything about anything. Sure wish I knew as much as you guys do.




Listen, man I wasn't trying to come off sounding cocky by saying that. It's just that I know both Mastodon and Cmill because we've all been posting here a long ass time, and I know their knowlege comes from a real life base. There's plenty of knowledgeable posters around here. If you look through all of the posts I've made on the playground I'm not the type to dis other people on the site at all. Besides maybe the occasional troll bashing.

I mainly posted that to address the TUF Fanboys who sit around getting drunk at a bar and fancy themselves knowledgeable on the sport. I'm willing to listen to all sides of the argument as long as they're brought up in an intelligent fashion. The other post you quoted, for example, brought up a good point. My counter to that would be that there's a difference in being aggressive and attempting to control the fight without being effective vs. being aggressive and attempting to control the fight while actually being effective. As someone else mentioned- Jackson proved (besides in the second round) to be the more technical striker of the two. His shots landed % was much higher. As for the damage of the actual shots- outside of the leg kicks I saw virtually no damage on Jackson. Griffin on the other hand had been rocked several times and was bleeding from several open wounds.

Ask yourself this- was there any point in the fight that you really thought Jackson was about to be finished? For me the only time I felt that was during the triangle choke Forrest put on. I gave rd. 2 a 10-8 score for Griffin simply because he absolutely controlled every aspect of the ground in that round. He made solid guard passes, and maintained control throughout the round while attempting submissions.

Compare that to Forrest who I felt at several times during the fight was a punch away from being KO'd and I saw wobble on the feet multiple times. Without listing all of the examples a certain right hook comes to mind late in rd. 1.

In conclusion to that argument I would also like to say that I feel both fighters could have been more aggressive. The whole reason for the idea behind this post is so that we have action packed fights where dudes truly put it all on the line so we can see who is the better of the two.

So, again... to clear the air here I'm not a "holier than thou" dude at all. If you want to feel that way about me I guess there's not much I can do about it, but I would hope for you to reconsider and see my reasoning.

Aether
7/6/08 2:12:47PM
I tried to make a similar post when PRIDE was still around about judging criteria, but people turned it into a PRIDE vs UFC thread instead of a discussion about the best set of rules and judging criteria the same way people will likely try to turn this into rampage vs griffin.

Here it is:

http://www.mmaplayground.com/forums/topic.aspx?&P=1&ID=6387&Highlight=action%20packed#P56486

Really didn't matter how many times I tried to emphasize a discussion of rules and judging criteria, everyone just wanted to turn it into PRIDE vs UFC.
Related Topics