UFC / MMA
-
No argument from me, but that's not how fights are judged
-
Yup, I had Hendo winning 48-46, taking the first round with a 10-8 and then the second and fifth rounds with 10-9's. While Bisping may have been winning rounds two and five, it's not like he was dominant, so the knockdown and takedown were enough to turn things around as far as I'm concerned.
They're introducing some rules changes next year that will hopefully curb some of this crap but it doesn't go far enough IMO. The 10 point must system is a crappy relic from boxing, they'd solve a lot of problems judging fights as a whole, like they did in Pride, instead of round-by-round.
-
Disagree with you on the 5th. A take down doesn't necessarily score by itself, its more about control on the ground which Henderson didn't have. More inclined to see your point about a 10-8 in the first but that's hugely subjective. By the standards that fights are currently judged a 10-9 was the correct score. That would likely change under the new rules in January.
-
@Unco You say will hopefully curb some of the crap, but the overall fight scores are roughly inline with the number of strikes and significant strikes.
Bisping won overall strikes 130-87 and significant strikes by 119-81. Even if you give 10 points for a knockdown & 10 points for a takedown, Bisping still wins.
-
@Voltron That's usually how takedowns are counted though. If a round is fairly close then a takedown, even if the opponent pops straight back up, is usually enough to tip it in that direction.
And while 10-8's should be more common with the new rules, the UFC and fighting commissions have been encouraging judges to give out a lot more of them for months now. It's ridiculous that Hendo can get so close to knocking Bisping out in the first round but get scored the exact same as the fourth round, which Bisping won but was hardly dominant or aggressive.
@MajorRage I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Are you thinking of the old Olympic scoring method? Scores aren't decided on the number of strikes (how on earth would you take grappling into account?), they're decided based on the 10 point must system where each round is scored separately, starting at 10 for each fighter and subtracting points based on who lost the round, then added up at the end. So if a fighter gets a 10-9 then that means he gets 10 points and the "loser" of the round gets 9 points. I scored the fight like this:
- Hendo 10-8
- Hendo 10-9
- Bisping 10-9
- Bisping 10-9
- Hendo 10-9
Total: Hendo 48-46 Bisping
The rule changes they're introducing in January put a lot more emphasis on damage and encourage a lot more 10-8's (though like I said above, they've been unofficially encouraging them for months), so fighters like Bisping (or worse, Guida) who grind out points victories with "pillow punches" should have a harder time of it.
-
@Unco Yeah, I know how the scoring works. Basically we are talking about how fights are decided when it goes the distance right?
At the moment fighter A can win the first 4-rounds 10-9 but not really dominating it. And then get his arse kicked in teh final round, be saved by the bell, and win the fight 48-46. And what your saying is that that isn't right.
But what i'm saying is that you have to judge on something - and number of hits/strikes is a good place to start.
You say DH won round 2, but look at the ufc page - bisping hit him 38 times to 13 in that round! Yes, DH had a knockdown, but that isn't the be all and end all.
Anyway, I don't know what the solution is - just commenting that I don't think DH won..
-
@MajorRage How much damage did those 38 punches do though? Next to nothing. Hendo did more damage to Bisping with that one punch than Bisping did in the entire fight, let alone that round. Judging fights by the number of hits/strikes isn't a good enough metric to decide who won, especially in a sport where grappling is just as important as striking, and that's exactly why they don't use it. And if they did, all it would do is help the guys who fight boring styles, resulting in a lot more "pillow punches" with no power behind them and less knockouts.
And while knockdowns may not be the be-all-end-all, in rounds where nothing much else happens, they basically are. Almost every other time you see a round like that, it'll go to the guy who got the knockdown. In the Conor vs Diaz 2 fight, Diaz had the advantage for most of the second round but all three judges still gave that round to Conor because of the two knockdowns at the start of it (which were a hell of a lot softer than the knockdowns Hendo did to Bisping). It's also why two of the judges did actually give Hendo that round and I'll argue the third judge is an idiot/hometown judge for not doing it.
-
@Unco I'm not actually disagreeing with you for the most part. Here's another school of thought though ...
Given that round 1 was undoubtedly 10-9 to DH from all 3, if 2 judges gave round 2 10-9 to DH, then that means 3 judges scored the last 3 rounds 10-9 to MB. And the other one the last 4 rounds 10-9 to MB. Thus, MB was the much stronger finisher so thus clearly the winner ... ?
I don't think you can judge by the way a fighter looks at the end either. One decent cut beneath the eye (which BP had) immediately has them covered in blood and hugely swollen. Whereas another guy who takes 100 body shots may be barely able to stand and thoroughly beaten up, but would look a lot prettier than the guy who had the shot in the face.
EDIT - check this video out ... I had forgotten that if DH had been even close to on target with either of his punches on the 2 times he put MB on the deck this conversation wouldn't even be happening.
UFC 204 Fight Motion video: Watch 'Bisping vs Henderson 2' highlights in super slow motion
UFC 204 Fight Motion video: Watch "Bisping vs. Henderson 2" highlights in super slow motion after last Saturday night's (Oct. 8, 2016) mixed martial arts (MMA) pay-per-view (PPV) event inside Manchester Arena in Manchester, England.
-
@MajorRage Yeah, Hendo was one clean follow up punch from knocking Bisping out both times but sadly whiffed twice.
Those are the judges scores, yes, but calling him a strong finisher is a bit much. Take out Hendo's two knockdowns and ground and pound and Bisping's strongest three rounds were rounds 1-3 where he was constantly advancing while saying out of Hendo's range and throwing a ton of jabs. But then in the fourth and fifth round he slowed down, was less aggressive and was backing up a lot. That's why I thought the takedown stole the fifth round for Hendo because Bisping really didn't do a whole lot in it.
And yeah, I wouldn't decide the fights entirely on how the fighters look at the end because some guys bleed absurdly easy (like GSP and the Diaz bros) and others don't but I do think you can usually tell when a fighter is just looking to grind out a points victory and also when a fighter has been hurt. If they can barely stand due to 100 body shots then they're probably wincing every time they take another one. If they've taken 100 leg kicks then they're probably limping. And so on. When I say damage I'm not just talking about their face.
Oh well, let's just think of happier times:
-
Was gonna write this up earlier but the fuckin earthquake hit.
Holy shit. I thought everyone was underestimating Conor's strike power at higher weight classes because Nate Diaz has a concrete chin but I still didn't expect that. Crazy.
Fantastic card. Stoked to see Khabib get his second win after that 2 year injury layoff, I hope he gets the next shot against Conor but I doubt he will, even though he's the one who deserves it. Dude's grappling is insane, he makes really good fighters look like ragdolls on the ground.
I think Miesha timed her retirement fairly well. It kinda sucks but at the same time, is a relief as well because while she had a good record, she took a hell of a lot of beatings to get there. She was one of those fighters who wasn't super skilled but had a shitload of heart that'd get her through a fight and let her seize an opportunity if one popped up (like the one in the Holly Holm fight). I'm happy she managed to walk away with a UFC title to her name though.
Insane Weidman KO, disappointing to see him lose but Romero looked great. Whoever ends up getting the title shot between him and Rockhold, I think will crush Bisping. The welterweight fight was even crazier, with an incredible fourth round. Can't believe they fucked up the call, I was like "wait, if two judges say it's a draw, isn't it a majority draw?!" That said, I wouldn't have been upset if Woodley had won anyway. Looking forward to the inevitable rematch. Last, Joanna's a beast.
-
I don't like CMG, as I really can't stand all the cocky shit.
But he's the real deal. Pound for pound he has to be the best in the business. Alvarez didn't even belong in the same ring as him - he offered nothing.
I look forward to CMG getting told to fuck off on his equity claims and try to walk away from the UFC. He's forgotten that the UFC made him, not the opposite.
-
I would like to see CMG get beaten but by the same token its great to see someone back up their words. He should leave the fighting words with his opponents though. Going verbally at their families is a no no in any part of life let alone sport.
That said, he made mince meat out of a guy many thought would destroy him. Count me among those many.
-
Strong card with some great finishes.
I'm a CMG fan and had him finishing Alvarez in the first. Different league let alone weight class.
He's good for the UFC and the UFC is good to him.
Great prelim card.
Luque looks the real deal.
-
-
Great card. Some classic bouts and finishes.
-
Another great evening of fighting on UFC Fight Night.
Jouban and Faber deserved decision winners.
Then Gall and Waterson with the upsets against Northcutt and VanZant respectively.
Interesting that the personalites are drawing in the crowds, but often not delivering the results.
-
@MiketheSnow said in UFC:
Another great evening of fighting on UFC Fight Night.
Jouban and Faber deserved decision winners.
Then Gall and Waterson with the upsets against Northcutt and VanZant respectively.
Interesting that the personalites are drawing in the crowds, but often not delivering the results.
I didn't watch the card, so I'm speaking blind, but I think you mean "upsets".
Take Northcutt's looks away from him and he wouldn't even be in the UFC, let alone one of the best paid guys on the roster FFS. Dude has no ground game whatsoever, he's a bigger embarrassment than CM Punk because at least everyone knew Punk was a carny booking. I knew he was going to get destroyed.
Van Zant is nowhere near as bad, she's a decent fighter, but Waterson is quality (when she isn't injured anyway). I watched her win the Invicta Atomweight belt a few years ago and thought she was awesome.
Good to hear Faber retired with a win, he's meant to be a super nice guy. Sucks he never managed to win the big one.
-
@MiketheSnow said in UFC:
Then Gall and Waterson with the upsets against Northcutt and VanZant respectively.
I think Gall was a slight favourite?
Gall is doing a great job of managing his profile.. he's a good prospect but he shouldn't really be a co-main at the moment.
Calling out Punk, Northcutt and now maybe talking his way into the Hardy comeback fight is leveraging other peoples fame so wellChoking this guy out would have got him some new fans
-
I only saw the 2 main events but both were good fights - it feels like it's been ages since I saw a submission.
I thought Waterson was really impressive. Mainly though, because VanZant was coming across super confident / borderline cocky, and I always enjoy seeing somebody cocky given their come uppance.
