TUF 19 - Penn, Edgar + Pendred & Fields! **Spoilers**

amkin25

Gumbi wrote: »

He never did damage and spent all his time holding his opponent down and never came close to a submission.

It comes down to how people like to score things. For example, mount is considered a dominant position because the likelihood of doing damage there is higher than a less dominant position. That doesn't necessarily mean damage will be done from there, though.

I'm all for not giving points to the guys just laying on top,but there is no way you can give that last round 10-8,which it has to be for him to win.
I think what you saw happen was the influence dana has on judges,when he spent the whole fighting whinging and complaing about stephens laying on top they felt the pressure to award zapatta points.Finally when he stormed out they must have panicked and took that as reason enough to give the fight in the other direction.

darced

This post has been deleted.

welchy

Utterly baffling

Regardless of how you'd like a fight to be scored, the judging criteria for picking the winner of a fight are striking, grappling, aggression and control.

Defense, (under the unified rules), scores you a big fat 0, nothing, zilch. If you escape a bad position your reward is no longer being in that bad position. You effectively return to even, assuming nothing whatsoever has happened between the time you hit the ground and stand back up. Having your back taken for 13/14 minutes over 2 rounds means you were utterly controlled and your offense almost totally negated, regardless of whether the guy on the back does squat. You are being controlled in a position of his choosing and it is up to you to escape to a neutral or achieve a dominant position just to even be considered not to be in a losing position

Its not pretty, and it can be argued that its not how a fight should be judged, but these are the rules and criteria for judging as they currently exist. The fight was not exciting and Stephens submission skills were pretty poor, but he held zapatta where he wanted him for 95% of the fight in a manner that is considered to be of significance to the scoring of a round.

amkin25

Think it simply boils down to dana influencing them there is no other explanation,it's impossible for anybody sane,no matter the arguments about no action in other rounds etc,in the deciding round no possible way whatsover can that be a 10-8.

Davei141

amkin25 wrote: »

Think it simply boils down to dana influencing them there is no other explanation,it's impossible for anybody sane,no matter the arguments about no action in other rounds etc,in the deciding round no possible way whatsover can that be a 10-8.

Did you even watch the episode? Nobody scored it 10-8. The fact Stephens was busted up from having Zapatta's back for most of the fight said it all. Reminded me of King Mo vs Mousasi and i am delighted Stephens lost. The fact Mazagatti never once threatened to stand up Stephens stalling or told him to work yet was all over Zapatta for bullshit reasons was equally a farce.

amkin25

Davei141 wrote: »

Did you even watch the episode? Nobody scored it 10-8. The fact Stephens was busted up from having Zapatta's back for most of the fight said it all. Reminded me of King Mo vs Mousasi and i am delighted Stephens lost. The fact Mazagatti never once threatened to stand up Stephens stalling or told him to work yet was all over Zapatta for bullshit reasons was equally a farce.

As i said over the fight i would have swayed for zapatta myself and glad to see stephens lose.
But with the 10 point must system,which is the points system in place,the only way zapatta can win after being deducted a point is with a 10-8 round it's that simple.The judges can't decide that if its a draw to then choose a winner,they are there simply to score the fight on the 10 point must system,they can call it a majority draw or a majority decision or whatever based on the points they picked.
The fight came down to one round and he needs a decision from 2 judges to win the fight,thats the rules its fairly basic stuff,these are meant to be professionals.
To get the decision from 2 judges after deductions he will need 10-8 rounds from 2 judges,dana on about circling the winner since when did judges choose who won a fight when its a draw? they just score the fight on the 10 point system.
As i pointed out before they simply panicked and done this because they felt pressure from the boss.

Davei141

I know what you are saying but the 10-8 thing isn't true, whether they can or cannot circle the winner the fact is they did after scoring it 9-9. The judges obviously hated Stephens style that's why there was a 3rd round i doubt it had anything to do with pressure from Dana White. It was a farce all round no doubt, is there anything that says what must happen in TUF if its a draw after 3 rounds? Extra round would have been the best least controversial thing to do, as awful as another round of Stephens would be.

That_Guy

Davei141 wrote: »

The judges obviously hated Stephens style that's why there was a 3rd round

Even if a judge doesn't like a certain style, they have to judge it under the unified rules.

Points are given based on effective striking, grappling, aggression and control.

Stephens was in complete control for those two rounds. He didn't do anything but was in a dominant position nonetheless. Zapata did damage sure but couldn't get himself out of those compromising positions.

I don't like Stephens but he was in complete control in a dominant position.

A complete clusterfúck of a fight both inside and outside of the cage. Dana is just a... Well, he's a tit. Really threw his toys out of the pram by not even watching the final round.

MrStuffins

That_Guy wrote: »

Even if a judge doesn't like a certain style, they have to judge it under the unified rules.

Points are given based on effective striking, grappling, aggression and control.

Stephens was in complete control for those two rounds. He didn't do anything but was in a dominant position nonetheless. Zapata did damage sure but couldn't get himself out of those compromising positions.

I don't like Stephens but he was in complete control in a dominant position.

A complete clusterfúck of a fight both inside and outside of the cage. Dana is just a... Well, he's a tit. Really threw his toys out of the pram by not even watching the final round.

I agree that the fight was scored wrong.... but.........

Couldn't you put forward the argument that, since Zapata did damage, that was effective striking AND aggression? Stephens then wins on Grappling and Control. It's not how a fight is usually scored, but why shouldn't it be?

Davei141

So Zapatta won the aggression and striking and Stephens got the grappling and control. I have no sympathy for Stephens, completely stalling and should have been stood up numerous times. Don't get me wrong i love watching wrestlers in action but only when they are trying to win the fight through strikes/submissions.

Edit: Stuffins got there just before me!

shrapnel222

Davei141 wrote: »

So Zapatta won the aggression and striking and Stephens got the grappling and control. I have no sympathy for Stephens, completely stalling and should have been stood up numerous times. Don't get me wrong i love watching wrestlers in action but only when they are trying to win the fight through strikes/submissions.

Edit: Stuffins got there just before me!

did anyone else notice that zapatta said his kid was born weighting 6.5 ounces???:eek: he said it in a way where it really seemed like he had no clue and just remembered 6. hopefully he is slightly confused and meant 6.5 pounds?

MrStuffins

shrapnel222 wrote: »

did anyone else notice that zapatta said his kid was born weighting 6.5 ounces???:eek: he said it in a way where it really seemed like he had no clue and just remembered 6. hopefully he is slightly confused and meant 6.5 pounds?

I'd say he meant to say "6 pound 5 ounces" but it came out wrong

welchy

MrStuffins wrote: »

I agree that the fight was scored wrong.... but.........

Couldn't you put forward the argument that, since Zapata did damage, that was effective striking AND aggression? Stephens then wins on Grappling and Control. It's not how a fight is usually scored, but why shouldn't it be?

Then you could end up with scenarios where one guy lands 1 more punch than the other guy but gets taken down 10 times and repeatedly mounted or threatened with submissions, but since he won the striking and aggression (by a slight margin) and the other guy won the grappling and control (by a wide margin) then its a draw. The way I see it in this particular fight, Stephens won the grappling and control far more decisively than zapatta won the striking and aggression.

MrStuffins

welchy wrote: »

Then you could end up with scenarios where one guy lands 1 more punch than the other guy but gets taken down 10 times and repeatedly mounted or threatened with submissions, but since he won the striking and aggression (by a slight margin) and the other guy won the grappling and control (by a wide margin) then its a draw. The way I see it in this particular fight, Stephens won the grappling and control far more decisively than zapatta won the striking and aggression.

Hmmm..... really? Why? Stephens threw almost zero punches (until the end of the third). He got to dominant positions and stayed there. He didn't really offer much by way of submission attempts.

Also, let's not forget that, even though he was back mounted, Zapata was going for submissions of his own in the form of a schoolboy ankle lock when Stephens kept, stupidly, crossing his ankles.

amkin25

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hmmm..... really? Why? Stephens threw almost zero punches (until the end of the third). He got to dominant positions and stayed there. He didn't really offer much by way of submission attempts.

Also, let's not forget that, even though he was back mounted, Zapata was going for submissions of his own in the form of a schoolboy ankle lock when Stephens kept, stupidly, crossing his ankles.

To be honest i'm not one for the wrestlers either,but cathals effort in his fight wasn't a whole pile better than stephens if you ask me,and i didn't like either of their efforts,but as much as i don't love the laying and praying,and even forgetting the point off just on the round on it's own,i find it hard to give zapatta the round,although he cut him and all,he wasnt able to get out of the position so there was a control issue in stephens favour.Also if you consider how the fight finished with stephens on his back raining punches on him,it's completely bizarre how the fight can go against him specially when u consider the point deduction.

Davei141

Cathals effort was weak as hell no complaints here, the only thing is Hector done absolutely nothing while Cathal held him down so nothing for the judges to score for Hector in rounds 2&3. This season has been awful and it started out with so much promise. If Fields ends up getting held down by a wrestler doing nothing i'll have to give this season a miss. Every fight has been complete rubbish.

John_D80

To be honest, in my opinion, it's only indicative of the direction the UFC as a whole is heading. Unless the scoring system is modified to encourage fluidity and variety of offence, or the rules are changed to stand up fighters more often for ineffectivity on the ground, then you're just going to have wrestlers content to grind out monotonous decision after monotonous decision.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching a skilled ground technician as much as anyone, particularly a good BJJ practitioner but some of these so called high level wrestlers are so one dimensional it is almost sleep inducing, yet they advance through the rankings because they play the flawed system.

welchy

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hmmm..... really? Why? Stephens threw almost zero punches (until the end of the third). He got to dominant positions and stayed there. He didn't really offer much by way of submission attempts.

Also, let's not forget that, even though he was back mounted, Zapata was going for submissions of his own in the form of a schoolboy ankle lock when Stephens kept, stupidly, crossing his ankles.

In a fight that takes place almost entirely on the ground, control and grappling has to be weighted more than striking from the bottom, unless that striking is seriously inpacting the outcome of the fight. In the same way that landing 200 unanswered punches on the feet that do very little damage would be weighted more that a single hard take-down where the guy pops right back up.

Utopia Parkway

I think it's fair to say that Stephens won't be getting a UFC contract any time soon.

darced

This post has been deleted.

raze_them_all_

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would consider it more agressive than sitting on someones back and not landing anythng

Easy Rod

John_D80 wrote: »

To be honest, in my opinion, it's only indicative of the direction the UFC as a whole is heading. Unless the scoring system is modified to encourage fluidity and variety of offence, or the rules are changed to stand up fighters more often for ineffectivity on the ground, then you're just going to have wrestlers content to grind out monotonous decision after monotonous decision.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching a skilled ground technician as much as anyone, particularly a good BJJ practitioner but some of these so called high level wrestlers are so one dimensional it is almost sleep inducing, yet they advance through the rankings because they play the flawed system.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's indicative of where the UFC is heading as you can only get to a certain point with such a one dimensional style. E.g. Colton smith won tuf but stopped by chiesa. It can be done at lower levels but eventually your opponents skillsets will be able to nullify the wrestling.

MagicIRL

Davei141 wrote: »

Cathals effort was weak as hell no complaints here, the only thing is Hector done absolutely nothing while Cathal held him down so nothing for the judges to score for Hector in rounds 2&3. This season has been awful and it started out with so much promise. If Fields ends up getting held down by a wrestler doing nothing i'll have to give this season a miss. Every fight has been complete rubbish.

I think Cathal himself said that you could need to fight three times in a row when you're in the house (PreLims, 1st Fight, Semi) and if you go and get yourself beat up in fight #1 you're pretty screwed for the next two thus reducing your chances of winning.

He fought clever, which is apparently a bad thing on the internet.

darced

This post has been deleted.

That_Guy

MrStuffins wrote: »

I agree that the fight was scored wrong.... but.........

Couldn't you put forward the argument that, since Zapata did damage, that was effective striking AND aggression? Stephens then wins on Grappling and Control. It's not how a fight is usually scored, but why shouldn't it be?

Very fair point.

It's a difficult one alright. The way I'd see it personally is that if you're on the bottom you're deemed to be defending.

Utopia Parkway

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Stephens was bleeding like a stuck pig by the end of the fight so Zapata was dealing out some damage. Probably more from the elbows though.

amkin25

MagicIRL wrote: »

I think Cathal himself said that you could need to fight three times in a row when you're in the house (PreLims, 1st Fight, Semi) and if you go and get yourself beat up in fight #1 you're pretty screwed for the next two thus reducing your chances of winning.

He fought clever, which is apparently a bad thing on the internet.

The problem with that strategy is that as u just seen in the stephens,zapataa fight,controling isn't whats important,impressing dana is ultimately what is going to be your ticket to the ufc fail to impress dana and you ufc career is going to be short-lived .

darced

This post has been deleted.

califano

Mad Ted.

Davei141

MagicIRL wrote: »

I think Cathal himself said that you could need to fight three times in a row when you're in the house (PreLims, 1st Fight, Semi) and if you go and get yourself beat up in fight #1 you're pretty screwed for the next two thus reducing your chances of winning.

He fought clever, which is apparently a bad thing on the internet.

Huh? He did get himself beat up! He almost got knocked the F out in the first round by getting involved in a sloppy brawl despite his striking being poor. He reverted to what he knew as his UFC career was slipping away.

"Fought clever" Well it would be pretty damn stupid to go into round 2 with the same game plan as round 1, don't try to rewrite what happened and imply that it was some calculated decision by Pendred to wrestle Urbina from the start. People have watched the fight you know. "Bad thing on the internet" Yeah sure.