MMA/UFC/PRIDE/K-1 discussion thread

Killme00

I watched this again last night and i must have been very tired on saturday night because Griffin clearly won. I think the hardest to score rounds were 4 and 5. In both rounds i think Griifin did the cleaner work and i gave him both rounds although i can see how if round 4 was scored 10-10 then this fight would be a draw.

1: R 10 - 9 G
2: R 8 - 10 G
3: R 10 - 9 G
4: R 9 - 10 G
5: R 9 - 10 G

R 47 - 48 G

I also watched the Tibau/ Stevenson fight again and the takedown by Tibau and the following gillotine by Steven were brilliant.

Dragan

Fall_Guy wrote: »

I think there's an argument for round one being a 10-8 for rampage based solely on the fact that he landed a strike that resulted in a clean knockdown, in a round that he would have won 10-9 without the knockdown due to cleaner, more powerful strikes being landed throughout the round.

Felt the decision was tough on Rampage, but in close fights it really is hard to call and I don't think anyone could claim that it was an absolute robbery. I guess a rematch would be only fair given just how close the fight was.

If an argument can be made for simply dropping someone being a 10-8 round after some dominance then a LOT of decisions have not been questioned before this.

Round 1 was not a 10 8 round. No way no how.

Dragan

Dragan wrote: »

If an argument can be made for simply dropping someone being a 10-8 round after some dominance then a LOT of decisions have not been questioned before this.

Round 1 was not a 10 8 round. No way no how.

Agreed, but Rampage won the round, I dont think you'll find too many people arguing. It was close for the 1st 3 mins but the knockdown, takedown and ground and pound edged it to Page. And yet 2 judges gave it to Forrest. Thats where peoples outrage lies in that the judging is clearly flawed.

Killme00

Killme00 wrote: »

I watched this again last night and i must have been very tired on saturday night because Griffin clearly won. I think the hardest to score rounds were 4 and 5. In both rounds i think Griifin did the cleaner work and i gave him both rounds although i can see how if round 4 was scored 10-10 then this fight would be a draw.

1: R 10 - 9 G
2: R 8 - 10 G
3: R 10 - 9 G
4: R 9 - 10 G
5: R 9 - 10 G

R 47 - 48 G

I also watched the Tibau/ Stevenson fight again and the takedown by Tibau and the following gillotine by Steven were brilliant.

I dont think he clearly won. i think the sheer amount of people callin "draw" means that he didnt clearly win, however it was no robbery (except two judges scoring round 1 to Forrest that is :rolleyes:) as there have been worse decisions than that. However, I think it outrageous that Dana wont give Rampage an immediate rematch. Its not like he needs to work his way back up cos he got destroyed.

mark.leonard

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont think he clearly won. i think the sheer amount of people callin "draw" means that he didnt clearly win, however it was no robbery (except two judges scoring round 1 to Forrest that is :rolleyes:) as there have been worse decisions than that. However, I think it outrageous that Dana wont give Rampage an immediate rematch. Its not like he needs to work his way back up cos he got destroyed.

I am pretty sure you can't score 10-10, there has to be a winner in each round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-point_must_system wrote:

The 10-point must system is a method of scoring a fighting match (e.g., boxing or mixed martial arts (MMA)) in which the judges must give the winner of a round 10 points, and the loser 9 points or fewer.

Draws come about when a fighter who has won a round is docked a point giving 9-9, I am pretty sure this is the case, but maybe a referee like Dave Jones might have a better idea.

mark.leonard

mark.leonard wrote: »

I am pretty sure you can't score 10-10, there has to be a winner in each round.

Draws come about when a fighter who has won a round is docked a point giving 9-9, I am pretty sure this is the case, but maybe a referee like Dave Jones might have a better idea.

Rd 1: Rampage 10-9
Rd 2: Griffin 10-8
Rd 3: Rampage 10-9
Rd 4: Rampage 10-9
Rd 5: Griffin 10-9

Overall 47-47...draw.

Draws can come when one round is 10-8 too.


This is how I scored it both the 1st and 2nd times I watched it and its how an awful lot of journos and fans on other boards have scored it.

Fozzy

mark.leonard wrote: »

I am pretty sure you can't score 10-10, there has to be a winner in each round.

There's nothing stopping 10-10 rounds but the commissions' dislike of them. The judges are told that they should just pick a winner rather than score a draw

There was a big argument goin on over on the UG earlier about round 2. A LOT of people dont think it should have been a 10-8.


By their logic:

- Koscheck 10-8'd Lytle all 3 rounds
- Almost all of Tito and Rashad Evans fights should be 10-8's etc
- It sets a dangerous precedent to all lay and prayers


Now I realise that Forrest passed and was either in side or mount as well as the leg kicks but there is a question there. Did Forrest really do enough for it to be a 10-8 round. Minimal damage...see Ramages face after and the sub attempts werent really that close.

I scored it as a 10-8 round myself based mainly on Rampages inability and/or lack of effort to do anything off the bottom more than any kind of damage Griffin did.


Any thoughts?

Barry.Commins

Fozzy wrote: »

There's nothing stopping 10-10 rounds but the commissions' dislike of them. The judges are told that they should just pick a winner rather than score a draw

Yeah, nothing wrong with 10-10 rounds in either MMA or boxing. Goldberg announces at the start of every show that 'The winner scores 10 and the loser gets 9 or less.', so it sounds like they don't allow drawn rounds. They are perfectly legal though.

On the same card one judge scored Koscheck vs Lytle as 30-28, which means one round must have been 10-10

Barry.Commins

Barry.Commins wrote: »

On the same card one judge scored Koscheck vs Lytle as 30-28, which means one round must have been 10-10

Id imagine that was round 1. Lytle dominated on the feet, Kos on the ground.

Fozzy

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a big argument goin on over on the UG earlier about round 2. A LOT of people dont think it should have been a 10-8.


By their logic:

- Koscheck 10-8'd Lytle all 3 rounds
- Almost all of Tito and Rashad Evans fights should be 10-8's etc
- It sets a dangerous precedent to all lay and prayers


Now I realise that Forrest passed and was either in side or mount as well as the leg kicks but there is a question there. Did Forrest really do enough for it to be a 10-8 round. Minimal damage...see Ramages face after and the sub attempts werent really that close.

I scored it as a 10-8 round myself based mainly on Rampages inability and/or lack of effort to do anything off the bottom more than any kind of damage Griffin did.


Any thoughts?

I was thinking about it myself, I wouldn't have a problem with it being scored either way. It was a 10-8 to me at the time, and even with a 10-9 Forrest would still have won it

The Sparrow

I didn't like this decision at all. I scored it

R1 Rampage 10 Forest 9
R2 Rampage 9 Forest 10
R3 Rampage 10 Froest 9
R4 Rampage 10 Forest 9
R5 Rampage 10 Forest 10
49 47

My logic is that:

Round 1:
Rampage had to win this because of the takedown. Not 10-8 though.

Round 2:
Forest definitely won but it was not 10-8 for me. He hurt Rampage's knee with the kicks and took him down but he just didn't do enough on top for a 10-8 round. He kept going for submissions that he didn't get. Although I take the point that Rampage didn't do anything at all but Forest did not land enough clear shots or get any real submission attempts for it to be a 10-8. I think it sets a bad precedent that wrestlers can just lie on top for a whole round and expect a 10-8 (obv that wasnt the case with Forest as he did some work but just not enough.

Round 3
Rampage started tentatively but he landed more clean shots than Forest so it is 10-9 Rampage

Round 4
Sure Forest went for a triangle. But he only went for it because Rampage was on top of him and even then the triangle didn't last long because Rampage slammed him. And when Forest stood up he was rocked with a big shot. Again 10-9 to Rampage as he landed the cleaner shots and got out of the triangle fairly easily

Round 5
The most difficult round to score imo. Forest started better but just like most of the rest of the fight Rampage came into it and landed much cleaner shots. My first thought was 10-9 Rampage but after considering it, the round is so close that I gave it as a draw.

I have no earthly idea how the judges scored it so conclusively for Forest. I can see the arguments for a draw but certainly not for a Forest win.

Fozzy

Fozzy wrote: »

I was thinking about it myself, I wouldn't have a problem with it being scored either way. It was a 10-8 to me at the time, and even with a 10-9 Forrest would still have won it

Forrest obviously won the round but the question is whether it was 10-8 or 10-9. The judging of round 1 was a disgrace.

Dragan

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=13580

Some interesting takes on the fight here.

Dragan

Dragan wrote: »

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=13580

Some interesting takes on the fight here.

[QOUTE=Mac Danzig]He was training in the gym everyday, not running around with a chain around his neck, telling people he's a thug.[/QUOTE]

That immediately discredits his opinion for me. Foolish thing to say but unsuprising.

I agree with baroni, Im baffled how they can justify round 1 to Forrest and worse how people just can accept that. like i already said, for me it was a draw or a Forrest win, I couldnt justify Rampage winning and Im happy for Forrest but that 1st round really irks me.

Dragan

Personally i don't see any huge issue with worrying about it.

Juanito has already shot himself in the foot for me. Calling for Rd 1 to be scored different is one thing, saying it was a 10-8 because of the knock down is another.

Juantio talked a monumental amount of rubbish leading up to this fight and now he is suffering because of it.

Judging has always been a contentious issue in MMA, this is not different to any of those other fights tbh.

No point in going on about it till we are all blue in the face....just going to have to wait and see what the commission says.

cowzerp

Killme00 wrote: »

He could write it down between rounds.

Doesnt the referee score some boxing matches?

In britain the ref's can judge the winner of the fight, its a good system and works well as there is only 1 guy to blame, unlike with 3 judges where it can be hidden easier! in MMA it might be harder as if the ref is a striking fan he might favour that etc..

i like the idea of having 3 judges 1 for each range-striking judge and a grappling judge, and if possible a neutral type judge who does not favour either. the striking judge could just score striking and grappling judge likewise while the neutral judge does it the normal way. might be an idea!

A little OT but Fedor has a new training techniqur book comin out. Same guys who did Randys, BJs and Eddie Bravos books.


Link

Fall_Guy

Dragan wrote: »

If an argument can be made for simply dropping someone being a 10-8 round after some dominance then a LOT of decisions have not been questioned before this.

Round 1 was not a 10 8 round. No way no how.

Put it this way, without the knockdown, I still would have given the round to rampage. Griffin threw more (mainly way out of range and not connecting) but rampage staggered forrest a couple times not including the clean knockdown. Should there not be a discrepency in the scoring between this round and rounds 3-5 that were scored 10-9 one way or the other when there was very little in them?

Fozzy

cowzerp wrote: »

i like the idea of having 3 judges 1 for each range-striking judge and a grappling judge, and if possible a neutral type judge who does not favour either. the striking judge could just score striking and grappling judge likewise while the neutral judge does it the normal way. might be an idea!

I don't see how that could work. What if there's one minute of grappling that fighter A dominates and four minutes of striking that fighter B dominates? The grappling judge would give full points to A and the striking judge full points to B, but in reality those two scores shouldn't be worth the same

Pride Fighter

Dragan wrote: »

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=13580

Some interesting takes on the fight here.

LOL at Frank Shamrock's.

Dragan

Fall_Guy wrote: »

Put it this way, without the knockdown, I still would have given the round to rampage. Griffin threw more (mainly way out of range and not connecting) but rampage staggered forrest a couple times not including the clean knockdown. Should there not be a discrepency in the scoring between this round and rounds 3-5 that were scored 10-9 one way or the other when there was very little in them?

Oh Round 1 was definitively Pages. I'm not arguing that one at all.

Apparently sherdog made some of those quotes up. Somethin abotu Phil Baroni never even being asked and not knowing how the quotes got attributed to him.

Judomad

Deleted User wrote: »

Apparently sherdog made some of those quotes up. Somethin abotu Phil Baroni never even being asked and not knowing how the quotes got attributed to him.

they also made this up too

COT - Cage of Truth
Options: Email Stats | Printer Friendly

Organization Cage of Truth
Date June 28, 2008
Location Ireland
Match Winner Loser Method Round Time
1 Artemij Sitenkov Connor McGregor Submission (Kneebar) 1 0:30
2 Patrick Moore Gary Morris Submission (Triangle Choke) 2
3 Mok Rahman Barry Oglesby TKO 1
4 Tom Sullivan Tadius Tadas Submission (Choke) 1
5 Ian Ward Phil McCrory Submission (Kimura) 1
6 Keith Norton Stephen Bailey Submission (Armbar) N/A

And,

Patrick Moore
Options: Email Stats | Printer Friendly
[Patrick Moore]
Name Patrick Moore
Record 1 - 0 - 0 (Win - Loss - Draw)
Wins 1 Submissions (100.00%)
Result Opponent Method Event Title Date Round Time

Win Gary Morris Submission (Triangle Choke) COT - Cage of Truth 6/28/2008

i won that fight but yet Sherdog see it differently :eek::eek:
b@st@rd$

LOL happened me on here when the results of the NSC last year!!

Charlie3dan

Turns out anderson silva is just doing one fight at 205 as a favour to Dana White and that's it.

http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/07/09/anderson-silva-one-and-done-at-205lbs/

He also says that the event on july 19th wasn't put in place to complete with affliction......pffft

Fozzy

"The UFC doesn't dispute with other events" - I don't think that Dana would be mad at him if he admitted the obvious!

I think that it's a bad idea to put programming opposite Affliction. I think that by doing that they'll be giving Affliction more publicity than if they hadn't done any show. When they went against EXC it worked to an extent as everyone was going to know about that show anyway and the UFC could entice a few people away from it. But not nearly as many people are going to know about Affliction. If you didn't know about Affliction before you read that Anderson interview, then after you would know about it. So the UFC are giving them attention when really they're not that big a competitior

dunkamania

I am sceptical, i would be inclined to read it as an attempt to increase leverage over the UFC. Then again Brazilians not fighting Brazilians is nothing new.

Of course its made to compete with Affliction, otherwise they wouldnt have thrown it together on short notice, they'd have held it in August.

I had a feeling that Lyoto would be a factor.

dunkamania

dunkamania wrote: »

I am sceptical, i would be inclined to read it as an attempt to increase leverage over the UFC. Then again Brazilians not fighting Brazilians is nothing new.

Teammates that is! Arona/Filho and Wanderlei Silva want to batter each other!