"Maldonado knocked Emelianenko unconscious on the ground, only to wake him up with even more punches

[cheesus]

You just don't get the idea that the rules were different at the time. It really isn't worth it with you. You have made up your mind.

Here is the final verdict.

2 judges ruled it how I would have ruled it,.. At that time.

I would rule differently now, based on the different instructions we are given now.

That's reality, now twist it however you want.

I'm not twisting anything. I just stated why it would be a 10-8.

Here is the document no need for a VPN although I do have one
http://vk.com/doc-55587293_437251884

nothing in it about 10-8 rounds but there is judging criteria that is NOT based on the 10 point must system

here it is

takedown: 1 point
throw: 1 point
knockdown:1 point
clear hit through the opponents defences: 1 point
any strike that leads to wobbling of the opponent: 2 points
any flashy move that changes the fight: 2 points

Were these or were these not the rules of the fight at the time ? If they weren't, what were they ?

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

One of the problems with the "Most media outlets and fans scored it as a 10-8" argument is that "Most media outlets and fans" are not professional MMA judges and are by default not actually familiar with the relevant judging criteria used in practice at the time of the fight

This is something that you pointed out but unfortunately not everyone here understood the significance of this point

Well thank God that you did at least.
It's proof that sanity does exist, even if it is extremely limited.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

I'm not twisting anything. I just stated why it would be a 10-8.

Here is the document no need for a VPN although I do have one
http://vk.com/doc-55587293_437251884

nothing in it about 10-8 rounds but there is judging criteria that is NOT based on the 10 point must system

here it is

takedown: 1 point
throw: 1 point
knockdown:1 point
clear hit through the opponents defences: 1 point
any strike that leads to wobbling of the opponent: 2 points
any flashy move that changes the fight: 2 points

Were these or were these not the rules of the fight at the time ? If they weren't, what were they ?

You didn't come up with this. You didn't even know anything about it until he posted it. You lied and claimed you needed a "VPN" to find the Russian rules, you pretending to know more than you really know.

You're such a dishonest pretender.

Not only that, but I've already discussed these rules. Stop grasping at straws and lying to impress people who don't care about you.

You were wrong, deal with it and move on.

I'm done with you. You're lying trash.

 

[cheesus]

You didn't come up with this. You didn't even know anything about it until he posted it. You lied and claimed you needed a "VPN" to find the Russian rules, you pretending to know more than you really know.

You're such a dishonest pretender.

Not only that, but I've already discussed these rules. Stop grasping at straws and lying to impress people who don't care about you.

You were wrong, deal with it and move on.

I'm done with you. You're lying trash.

Again, you can't even answer a simple question.

I assumed it was similar to 10 point must, bogus on my part however my point is still valid since one judge still gave it a 10-8. You keep going on about ' the old rules ' but you've never actually listed them.

You have never outlined the rules or scoring system in this thread, just gave some stupid reason that Fabio was wobbled from a non existent punch and raved on about how great and experienced you are with some qualifications you probably did online.

It clearly says 2 points awarded to the fighter who changes the course of a fight to " any strike that leads to wobbling of the opponent: 2 points " This system favors Fabio even more so for a 10-8 round then 10 point must. Stop being a pretentious knob..are these or are these not the rules of the fight at the time ?

I'm trying to get a definitive answer here and since you seem to think you know best actually provide an answer or some evidence instead of deflecting at any chance you get.

 

[ikidyounot]

I have not really followed this discussion but this topic made me rewatch Fedor vs Maldonado so just want to add my 2 cents.

I watched Fedor and Maldonado live and at the time tought it was either a draw or a win for maldonado. But having rewatched the fight now i think Fedor won the fight 30-29. The first round in my opinion is not a 10-8. Its because Fedor was winning the fight untill half of the round where he got dropped with a punch. He was not out just badly rocked. Second and thirth he won a 10-9.

I like both fighters but at best it would be a draw. Not a win for Maldonado.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

Again, you can't even answer a simple question.

I assumed it was similar to 10 point must, bogus on my part however my point is still valid since one judge still gave it a 10-8. You keep going on about ' the old rules ' but you've never actually listed them.

You have never outlined the rules or scoring system in this thread, just gave some stupid reason that Fabio was wobbled from a non existent punch and raved on about how great and experienced you are with some qualifications you probably did online.

It clearly says 2 points awarded to the fighter who changes the course of a fight to " any strike that leads to wobbling of the opponent: 2 points " This system favors Fabio even more so for a 10-8 round then 10 point must. Stop being a pretentious knob..are these or are these not the rules of the fight at the time ?

I'm trying to get a definitive answer here and since you seem to think you know best actually provide an answer or some evidence instead of deflecting at any chance you get.

All questions were answered.

What do you not get about, "I'm done with you, you're lying trash"?

 

[Bill Laimbeer]

Fedor destroyed Fabs on every level

You must not have been able to see past Fraudors sac when his dick was in your mouth.

 

[tombombadil]

He wasn't unconscious.
It wasn't fishy for that to be a 10-9 round.
I scored it 10-8.

 

[YukisHeart]

Fedor got blasted in the first for sure, but only a trigger-happy ref would have waved it off.

Even with a 10-8 first the fight was a draw at best for Fabio, as he clearly lost rounds two and three 10-9.

Not sure how losing a majority decision in a fight which was a draw at best constitutes a “robbery”. What does being “robbed” of a draw really matter, in the grand scheme of things?

 

[cheesus]

All questions were answered.

What do you not get about, "I'm done with you, you're lying trash"?

No they weren't. You cant even answer a simple question to confirm the rules of scoring which clearly outlines 2 points in favour of Fabio as he had changed the pace of the fight through the wobbling of an opponent, yet you still justify a 10-9 round, again trying to deflect giving an answer accusing me of lying despite the fact you have no proof. Well done man child...if you can't answer the question, that's fine just proves my point .

 

[cheesus]

Fedor got blasted in the first for sure, but only a trigger-happy ref would have waved it off.

Even with a 10-8 first the fight was a draw at best for Fabio, as he clearly lost rounds two and three 10-9.

Not sure how losing a majority decision in a fight which was a draw at best constitutes a “robbery”. What does being “robbed” of a draw really matter, in the grand scheme of things?

Agreed, there's absolutely no possibility Fabio won that fight..but I guess Fedor winning constitutes as a robbery to some people. This fight was nowhere near robbery of the year though.

 

[Ultimate Cuck]

if title is true then that was actually an amazing performance by Fedor

 

[dns2344]

The majority with an opinion didn't even watch the fight. Especially obvious with those who don't realize how the rest of round 1 and rounds 2-3 went

 

[Farbeyondthesun]

Lol at that being robbery of the year. There were far worse robberies in the UFC. Maldonado was robbed of a Draw on someone else's home turf, yeah it totally doesn't get any worse than that!

 

[Farbeyondthesun]

Fedor got blasted in the first for sure, but only a trigger-happy ref would have waved it off.

Even with a 10-8 first the fight was a draw at best for Fabio, as he clearly lost rounds two and three 10-9.

Not sure how losing a majority decision in a fight which was a draw at best constitutes a “robbery”. What does being “robbed” of a draw really matter, in the grand scheme of things?

A-class (((Journalism)))

 

[Rudeboyben84]

Clear 10-8, seeing a fighter nearly finished and be in survival mode nearly hanging in there for so long is a clear cut 10-8. The vast majority of people saw a 10-8 round but rather than corrupt judges I see the usual flaws in MMA scoring.

Judges are told not to give 10-10 rounds which is a massive problem and half of them are too uneducated or lack the balls to use a 10-8 or 10-7 round.

Seeing more judges paying attention and not just thinking 10 points for the winner and 9 for the loser would completely fix the scoring in MMA.

Rounds need to be
10-10 - even round or close to it (if judges can't see a winner don't guess better to have a draw round)
10-9 - one fighter edges the round but judge is confident to say he won.
10-8 - the losing fighter gets clearly out struck or out grappled. Also a fighter dropped, badly rocked or nearly finished.
10-7 - the losing fighter takes multiple knockdowns or spends extended periods dazed and offering little offence of his own
10-6 - totally dominant round as with the above 10-7 but not enough offence coming back to award the 7 points.

Sorted

 

[cheesus]

Clear 10-8, seeing a fighter nearly finished and be in survival mode nearly hanging in there for so long is a clear cut 10-8. The vast majority of people saw a 10-8 round but rather than corrupt judges I see the usual flaws in MMA scoring.

Judges are told not to give 10-10 rounds which is a massive problem and half of them are too uneducated or lack the balls to use a 10-8 or 10-7 round.

Seeing more judges paying attention and not just thinking 10 points for the winner and 9 for the loser would completely fix the scoring in MMA.

Rounds need to be
10-10 - even round or close to it (if judges can't see a winner don't guess better to have a draw round)
10-9 - one fighter edges the round but judge is confident to say he won.
10-8 - the losing fighter gets clearly out struck or out grappled. Also a fighter dropped, badly rocked or nearly finished.
10-7 - the losing fighter takes multiple knockdowns or spends extended periods dazed and offering little offence of his own
10-6 - totally dominant round as with the above 10-7 but not enough offence coming back to award the 7 points.

Sorted

I don't think 10-6 is even possible, hell I can't even recall many 10-7 rounds being scored...I think Sammy Morgan vs Forrrest Petz had a 10-7 round. Most judges don't even appear to follow their own rules, I don't even think they gave a 10-7 in Edgar vs Maynard and that's about as dominant as possible.

A 10-8 round should be scored anytime there is a clear moment in the fight that is dangerously closed for the fight being stopped.

 

[BloodyPoptart]

Sounds like you're confused if you think someone who speaks against liberals needs "safe space". The whole concept of safe space stems from you whiny little easily offended liberal types

Hah. Promoting civil responsibility and pushing for the constitution to protect all citizens equally; yeah, we sure are a bunch of whiny little cucks

 

[Rudeboyben84]

I don't think 10-6 is even possible, hell I can't even recall many 10-7 rounds being scored...I think Sammy Morgan vs Forrrest Petz had a 10-7 round. Most judges don't even appear to follow their own rules, I don't even think they gave a 10-7 in Edgar vs Maynard and that's about as dominant as possible.

A 10-8 round should be scored anytime there is a clear moment in the fight that is dangerously closed for the fight being stopped.

Yeah Edgar getting dropped 3 or 4 times and looking near finished for most of the round wasn't enough to make any of the 3 judges score a 10-7.

Basically there are two possible outcomes 10-9 and a very rare 10-8. Really even using 10-10 and 10-7 would double the possible outcomes on the judges scores and fix a lot of bad scoring.

 

[Talon81]

Hah. Promoting civil responsibility and pushing for the constitution to protect all citizens equally; yeah, we sure are a bunch of whiny little cucks

The constitution was never about protecting someone from "discrimination" on the part of another citizen (their right to choose), or being offended by anothers free speech. It was about protecting from discrimination on the part of the government or actual physical harm done by others. Your version of "protecting all citizens equally" and "civil responsibility" involves taking away freedoms guaranteed by the constitution by forced compliance.

For example, "equal opportunity" is not equal opportunity its simply forced diversity regardless of qualifications. Forcing people to cater to transgenders is at the expense of everyone else. The constitution was to guarantee people the right to do things like sex changes, not to guarantee that you get to choose your bathroom on private property, allow someone born a man to legally fight women (which I don't totally disagree with if all parties are in agreement, just making a point), or free you from hurtful comments.

Another example: you have a right to choose whom to do business with. You don't have a right to force someone to do business with you, nor a right to force on them how that business is done. If both parties are not in agreement, there should be a right to walk away. Not so in liberal politics.

Now if the constitution isn't the issue, for those that don't live in the states... I don't give a shit what you guys do, just don't bring that shit to what used to be the most liberated nation on the planet.