UFC Fans Need To Stop With That "He/She Landed The Most" BS...

[Mikey Palangio]

The ULTIMATE objective of a UFC fight is to finish the opponent by strikes (KO/TKO) or grappling (submission). If the ultimate objective is not met, then we have to go to the judges.

The new judging criteria is based on effective striking and effective grappling. What does this mean?

It means whoever uses strikes or grappling to bring the fight close to the ultimate objective is the most effective fighter. The rule also specify that duration of the effectiveness is negligible.

For example, if you leg kick your opponent 50 times for 4 minutes but he still looks fresh, and he drops you with 2 good punches in the last 10 seconds, and you look like baby deer trying to walk for the first time, he is the most effective striker, and deserves the 10-8 because you were saved by the bell. The same submissions.

So fans need to stop with this "he/she landed the most" nonsense. It doesn't matter if the strikes are not changing the trajectory of the fight. If you are going to leg kick the entire round, then your opponent better be limping by the end of the round, or else it is NOT effective striking.

It is not as complicated as Luke Thomas tries to make it seem. Basically, the judges have to ask themselves, "if I was watching this fight on the streets, which fighter is looking like he is going finish the other?"

And it makes sense to value quality over quantity, because a fight can be ended with one clean shot.

 

[Luger]

Significant strikes is pretty misleading.
The one that KOs you, is the one that counts

 

[Char Jawz]

Fans?? Tell the judges. Part of the fun is the fans dissecting the decisions and having that back and forth. It's the judges who really need to get the clear definitions of who wins a fight.

 

[Char Jawz]

I saw someone complaining that Ferreira should have beaten Theodorou last night and almost spit out my drink. Elias outlanded him 50-2 in the last 2 rounds.
Are we allowed to say Theodorou won that one based on "He/She landed the most strikes", TS?

 

[UseARubberGuard]

I believe part of the issue comes from the fact that people seem to rate any strike that is more than glancing as significant. Those strikes should only matter if no damaging blows have been landed.

 

[The Bard]

It is correct that only "effective" strikes are scored. Ineffective strike are scored zero, even if they land and even if some third party company says they are "significant."

Fightmetric is in a business. They're marketing a product. They're not judges trying to score fights accurately. Same with the UFC when they're showing on-screen stats. That shit is all for entertainment, not for accuracy.

Luckily, since the Lawler - Condit fight forward, we've seen much more accurate scoring of fights. Condit landed maybe three effective strikes that whole fight, and nobody has been able to find any more than that. We've been on a good roll since then, like with Holly Holm finally failing to steal decisions with ineffective strikes.

 

[politozx7r]

The ULTIMATE objective of a UFC fight is to finish the opponent by strikes (KO/TKO) or grappling (submission). If the ultimate objective is not met, then we have to go to the judges.

The new judging criteria is based on effective striking and effective grappling. What does this mean?

It means whoever uses strikes or grappling to bring the fight close to the ultimate objective is the most effective fighter. The rule also specify that duration of the effectiveness is negligible.

For example, if you leg kick your opponent 50 times for 4 minutes but he still looks fresh, and he drops you with 2 good punches in the last 10 seconds, and you look like baby deer trying to walk for the first time, he is the most effective striker, and deserves the 10-8 because you were saved by the bell. The same submissions.

So fans need to stop with this "he/she landed the most" nonsense. It doesn't matter if the strikes are not changing the trajectory of the fight. If you are going to leg kick the entire round, then your opponent better be limping by the end of the round, or else it is NOT effective striking.

It is not as complicated as Luke Thomas tries to make it seem. Basically, the judges have to ask themselves, "if I was watching this fight on the streets, which fighter is looking like he is going finish the other?"

And it makes sense to value quality over quantity, because a fight can be ended with one clean shot.

We are all guessing




I want to know exactly what goes on

What's a punch worth Or kick or takedown or near fight ending sub attempt or a knockdown




Make it black and fucking white already and we won't have these damn problems