Who do you think deserved to win McMann vs Murphy
- Thread starter surgeyou1
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 57,520
- Reaction score
- 25,155
1. I do not much appreciate your appreciation for grappling if you were impressed by McMann's performance. She hardly tried to pass guard at all and her GnP, when she attempted it, was pretty conservative. That fight was the kind that gives wrestling a bad name. It was textbook lay and pray.
I would think a grappling fan would be just as disinterested in that kind of thing as kickboxing fans.
2. Those you consider Just Bleed fans had the sense to root for the girl who came to fight, and while grappling had a very active guard. If someone is being stupid here, I am not sure it is those you are stereotyping.
With all do respect, there's a lot more to scoring a fight than strikes landed.
Yes, Murphy out struck McMann, but her strikes were VERY ineffective. Technically, she was more active, since she was flailing around more, but I don't think that equates to octagon activity. McMann completely dictated the fight and landed a lot more affective strikes. She took down Murphy at will and kept her on the ground.
I'm glad the judges looked past her spamming punches and scored it correctly. McMann was more effective almost everywhere, Murphy was not.
Saying that, I was disappointed in McMann. I expected a lot more from her.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 12,709
- Reaction score
- 121
This is the Unified System - on top is everything!
Which is obviously fucking garbage. Position alone SHOULD NOT MATTER - reward the takedown, sure, but WHAT HAPPENS (disregarding the position it happens in) is what really matters. And if you remove the 'bias for position' from that fight, clearly Murphy was doing the stuff that MATTERS.
This 'control' metric is the single greatest load of bullshit that has infected the minds of so many newer MMA fans that are now used to watching fights only inside the UFC. You are NOT controlling if you are receiving more damage than you are giving , or defending threats of being finished, simple as that.
This 'bias for position' allows fighters on top to simply 'win' by having benefit of the doubt placed on who's back is more positive placed on the Z axis. Or even if the back is against a cage wall! It boggles my mind. Fighters know this, coaches know this. That's why fighters simply run the clock down on top, staying 'busy' knowing every minute is money in the Unified bank. That's why fighters go for late takedowns to 'steal' a round. Wrap their arms round tight around the opponents hips and ensure the hip escape is clamped. These kinds of decisions are RUINING mixed martial arts fighting.
Why should a wrestler be rewarded when they go from the frying pan into the fire? They are getting beaten up on the feet, so they get an almighty 'take down' and continue to get beaten up on the ground? But apparently that's choosing where they want to get beaten up, so that's "winning"? The fuck!?
Worse is, many newer fans now simply accept this ass-backwards notion of fighting and not only that, DEFEND it as legit. Risk-free positional conservatism is whats valued and taking every opportunity to damage and/or threaten a finish takes a back seat. Its a fucking hopeless situation. No wonder the wrestler prototype is so advantaged, and the multi-coloured variety of fighting styles slowly eroded down to black and white wrestle-box cookie cutters of each other.
And I'm not down on wrestlers or grapplers. I'm a BJJ brown belt with over 10 years wrestling and sub-grappling experience. I just want to see fighters FIGHT the way fighters should fight. And system the way it set up is promoting a style which has becomnig the antithesis to that.
Honestly, I give up.
Which is obviously fucking garbage. Position alone SHOULD NOT MATTER - reward the takedown, sure, but WHAT HAPPENS (disregarding the position it happens in) is what really matters. And if you remove the 'bias for position' from that fight, clearly Murphy was doing the stuff that MATTERS.
This 'control' metric is the single greatest load of bullshit that has infected the minds of so many newer MMA fans that are now used to watching fights only inside the UFC. You are NOT controlling if you are receiving more damage than you are giving , or defending threats of being finished, simple as that.
This 'bias for position' allows fighters on top to simply 'win' by having benefit of the doubt placed on who's back is more positive placed on the Z axis. Or even if the back is against a cage wall! It boggles my mind. Fighters know this, coaches know this. That's why fighters simply run the clock down on top, staying 'busy' knowing every minute is money in the Unified bank. That's why fighters go for late takedowns to 'steal' a round. Wrap their arms round tight around the opponents hips and ensure the hip escape is clamped. These kinds of decisions are RUINING mixed martial arts fighting.
Why should a wrestler be rewarded when they go from the frying pan into the fire? They are getting beaten up on the feet, so they get an almighty 'take down' and continue to get beaten up on the ground? But apparently that's choosing where they want to get beaten up, so that's "winning"? The fuck!?
Worse is, many newer fans now simply accept this ass-backwards notion of fighting and not only that, DEFEND it as legit. Risk-free positional conservatism is whats valued and taking every opportunity to damage and/or threaten a finish takes a back seat. Its a fucking hopeless situation. No wonder the wrestler prototype is so advantaged, and the multi-coloured variety of fighting styles slowly eroded down to black and white wrestle-box cookie cutters of each other.
And I'm not down on wrestlers or grapplers. I'm a BJJ brown belt with over 10 years wrestling and sub-grappling experience. I just want to see fighters FIGHT the way fighters should fight. And system the way it set up is promoting a style which has becomnig the antithesis to that.
Honestly, I give up.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 36,550
- Reaction score
- 1,551
Idk, but I made a pretty good sandwich during that fight.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 25,144
- Reaction score
- 38,802
Honestly neither of them deserved to win, that fight was pretty awful, but if I had to pick a winner I think it was Murphy.
Why? Because she was actually fighting. Actually hitting her opponent, actually making an effort to do damage (even though she didn't really do a whole lot of damage).
McMann did nothing but stall in that fight. It would be hard to find a male fight with more blatant LnP and the fighter on the bottom landing more and working more from the bottom throughout. Mousasi vs Mo, Schaub vs "Big" Johnson, and even those at least the top guy had some power to offer.
Unlike MMA judges I do believe it is possible that being on top does not automatically mean that fighter is winning.
***If the title was "Who deserved to win based on precedent of prior mma judging outcomes?" then I might have had to pick Sarah.
I'll admit the fight was so boring that I wasn't glued to the screen taking in each and every moment in great detail, but what i do remember was McMann doing NOTHING on top while taking strikes from Murphy the whole time. Even though they weren't big strikes, they were landing and they were landing often.
If it was a standup fight and a fighter landed 3x the amount of strikes as their opponent, (assuming no KO or near finish, which there was not in this fight) they would win without question, even if the strikes were not all that hard. So why would these strikes taking place on the ground change that?
Why? Because she was actually fighting. Actually hitting her opponent, actually making an effort to do damage (even though she didn't really do a whole lot of damage).
McMann did nothing but stall in that fight. It would be hard to find a male fight with more blatant LnP and the fighter on the bottom landing more and working more from the bottom throughout. Mousasi vs Mo, Schaub vs "Big" Johnson, and even those at least the top guy had some power to offer.
Unlike MMA judges I do believe it is possible that being on top does not automatically mean that fighter is winning.
***If the title was "Who deserved to win based on precedent of prior mma judging outcomes?" then I might have had to pick Sarah.
I'll admit the fight was so boring that I wasn't glued to the screen taking in each and every moment in great detail, but what i do remember was McMann doing NOTHING on top while taking strikes from Murphy the whole time. Even though they weren't big strikes, they were landing and they were landing often.
If it was a standup fight and a fighter landed 3x the amount of strikes as their opponent, (assuming no KO or near finish, which there was not in this fight) they would win without question, even if the strikes were not all that hard. So why would these strikes taking place on the ground change that?
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2011
- Messages
- 17,065
- Reaction score
- 28,337
Why did Sara not posture up and start to pass when she was in Murphys guard most of the time. She just was laying in her guard doing next to nothing.
Does she not know better or just didnt follow coaches advice or did she just go into wrestling mode.
Very disappointing fight.
Does she not know better or just didnt follow coaches advice or did she just go into wrestling mode.
Very disappointing fight.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,557
- Reaction score
- 3
Mcmann was trying to pass the entire fight. Every time she raised up Murphy popped a knee in there or elbowed the holy hell out of her.
I think Mcmann was shocked by how strong Murphy was.
She has some serious muscle tone for a woman.
FFS How the F' is a takedown scored when the person on top takes a beating.
Murphy won easily.
5 takedowns is not equal to 130 strikes. Especially when by the end of the 3rd Mcmann was done for.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 12,709
- Reaction score
- 121
Exactly, good post
As I said, its due to this notional 'bias for position' that has infected the modern MMA game due to the Unified System and the continued precedents set by the judges using it.
Position should have limited, if any bearing on overall decision making, but unfortunately due to the criteria of 'control', it puts undue emphasis on it.
