Anyone else agree with Tony Weeks? (Finney vs Valentin)

[bigfootsbreath]

The criteria says: "successful takedown is not merely a changing of
position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom
position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so
than their position."

None of Finney's tds in the first round or any other rounds led to the establishment of any sort of attack whatsoever.

Effective striking/grappling is supposed to be the most important thing in the criteria, and whether he was on the bottom or held against the cage, Valentin was landing more effective strikes than Finney was at any point, while Finney's grappling wasn't doing anything.

Valentin was also fishing for some subs in the earlier rounds as well. These don't count for much, but they count for more than what Finney was offering.

This combined with the strikes from Valentin should have been more than enough to score each round for him, unless I'm reading the wrong criteria here or something.

It felt like all Finney had to do was at least land a few rabbit punches from time to time and there'd be no discussion at all regarding this fight lol.

You arguing with the gay pornhub fanclub leader. You won't convince her that striking trumps crotch sniffing. They live for cotch sniffing and see no other way to life.

 

[bigfootsbreath]

I'm saying are the baby strikes enough to be considered effective striking? Or should they be ignored. If damage in the round is the primary factor but there didn't appear to be any damage, then it goes to effective striking and/or grappling. Then aggression and octogon control as the secondary factors. Finney definitely had control time and was aggressive in his take downs.

Because Finney's grappling WAS effective enough to stop Valentine from doing anything significant offensively.

I'm not saying it was a fun fight to watch or that the result was wrong. Frankly, I'm indifferent to this fight.

If finney is fixin' to pick all his opponents up and drop them on their head though, combined with actual GnP, that will be worthy to watch. I'm assuming he's still bagging groceries somewhere and not training full time though.

Baby strikes vs baby takedowns. What did Finney do with the takedowns? Not a damn thing and landed 0 sig strikes in round 1 and 3. Valentin landed sig strikes in all three rounds. You crotch sniffers can't answer, what did Finney do offensively to win the fight? Applying no damage?

 

[xhaydenx]

You arguing with the gay pornhub fanclub leader. You won't convince her that striking trumps crotch sniffing. They live for cotch sniffing and see no other way to life.

Hey, I don't mind Ares haha.

 

[BFoe]

You wrong yet again. Effective grappling, is where you sitting there hugging on another man's asshoe? And did you get your glasses checked out yet? Finney only landed 4 sig strikes all fight and they were all in round 2. Valentin landed way more sig strikes in every round. Strikes should always trump asshoe hugging or crotch sniffing. This is a fight after all and not some gay pornhub.

Well they don’t always trump that, because that’s not what the rules say. Learn the scoring criteria of the sport you’re watching.
Significant strikes is a stat, it’s not a scoring criteria. Effective striking is a scoring criteria, and what makes striking effective or not is their result on the opponent.
The strikes Valentin landed did nothing to damage his opponent or change the direction of the fight. The story of that fight was Finney’s wrestling.

Look man, I thought the fight sucked too. I don’t like it when fighters fight like Finney did either, it sucks to watch. But under the scoring criteria, he very clearly won.

 

[Ares Black]

In what way was Finneys grappling effective?

It achieved nothing besides avoiding the fight.

I would have no objection to it being a drawn round, Finneys efforts achieved nothing and therefore cannot be effective.

He literally picked up and slammed his opponent multiple times and completely controlled the grappling. At no point in the first two rounds was he in any danger at all.

I get that it wasn't a super entertaining fight, but it's pretty much impossible to score that fight for Valentin IMO.

I also think Valentin has way better TDD and get ups than people are giving him credit for. He made it very hard for Finney to get comfortable on top.

Finney is still very green and has a lot of potential. He has one-punch KO power standing and when he actually lets them.go he drops hammers on the ground.

Yeah, it was a frustrating performance. But he won, even if it was ugly. If his next performance is like that then I may reconsider my opinion of him

 

[Ares Black]

Well they don’t always trump that, because that’s not what the rules say. Learn the scoring criteria of the sport you’re watching.
Significant strikes is a stat, it’s not a scoring criteria. Effective striking is a scoring criteria, and what makes striking effective or not is their result on the opponent.
The strikes Valentin landed did nothing to damage his opponent or change the direction of the fight. The story of that fight was Finney’s wrestling.

Look man, I thought the fight sucked too. I don’t like it when fighters fight like Finney did either, it sucks to watch. But under the scoring criteria, he very clearly won.

All of this


As the conductor of the Torrez Finney hype train, I certainly wish it had been at least a little bit exciting.

Those slams were kinda cool, right? Right?

 

[Ares Black]

Hey, I don't mind Ares haha.

Thanks Sherbro! I don't mind you either!

 

[xhaydenx]

Thanks Sherbro! I don't mind you either!

Yeh, you're not bad for a "gay pornhub fanclub leader" lol.

 

[xhaydenx]

As the conductor of the Torrez Finney hype train, I certainly wish it had been at least a little bit exciting.

Those slams were kinda cool, right? Right?

"Torrez Finney hype train" lol fuck.

Please don't do this haha.

I lost 4 mults in a row and this one was to have both Finney/Valentin and Sabatini/Brito to not go to decisions.

Then I wake up to my stocks getting slaughtered by Trump a day later.

It's been a brutal 24 hours haha.

 

[Ares Black]

Yeh, you're not bad for a "gay pornhub fanclub leader" lol.

There's only one guy talking about gay porn in this thread and it's not me.



Dammit, now that's not true anymore!

 

[Ares Black]

"Torrez Finney hype train" lol fuck.

Please don't do this haha.

I lost 4 mults in a row and this one was to have both Finney/Valentin and Sabatini/Brito to not go to decisions.

Then I wake up to my stocks getting slaughtered by Trump a day later.

It's been a brutal 24 hours haha.

Sorry to hear that, but hype trains must roll on. Choo choo!!

 

[Violent Violin]

I don't think Weeks was incorrect.

What Finney did was display an awesome amount of octagon control...which is a tertiary criterion when it comes to deciding who won a round.

Otherwise it seems like folks are arguing that Finney should have gotten all 10-8 or even 10-7 rounds!

(iii)A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins the round by a large
margin by impact, dominance, and duration of striking or grappling in a round.
(iv)A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant is completely dominated by
impact, dominance, and duration of striking or grappling in a round.

 

[Ares Black]

I don't think Weeks was incorrect.

But he was though

What Finney did was display an awesome amount of octagon control...which is a tertiary criterion when it comes to deciding who won a round.

Otherwise it seems like folks are arguing that Finney should have gotten all 10-8 or even 10-7 rounds!

(iii)A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins the round by a large
margin by impact, dominance, and duration of striking or grappling in a round.
(iv)A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant is completely dominated by
impact, dominance, and duration of striking or grappling in a round.

No one is arguing that Finney got any 10-8 rounds.

He did get two 10-9 rounds though.

 

[Violent Violin]

Emphasis mine:
"Dominance in the grappling phase can be seen by fighter staking dominant positions in the fight and utilizing those positions to attempt fight ending submissions or attacks. Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance. What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed. In the absence of dominance in the grappling phase, as set forth in paragraph 3 of the promulgated rules, to be considered dominate, there must be a singularly or in combination, some types of submission attempts, strikes, or an overwhelming pace which is measured by improved or aggressive positional changes that cause the losing fighter to consistently be in a defensive or reactive mode"

Spoiler

Jesus the Unified Rules are poorly written. Did anyone proof it?

 

[this is my new account]

BAS RUTTEN BEAT (R.I.P) Kevin Randleman is what i agree with you on

 

[Sad Dad]

What? No.

Being dropped is more potentially fight ending damage than most things that they usually score 10-8 for

 

[The_Renaissance]

Finney clearly won the fight, in highly boring fashion and is a guy I've got no interest in seeing again.

 

[bigfootsbreath]

Well they don’t always trump that, because that’s not what the rules say. Learn the scoring criteria of the sport you’re watching.
Significant strikes is a stat, it’s not a scoring criteria. Effective striking is a scoring criteria, and what makes striking effective or not is their result on the opponent.
The strikes Valentin landed did nothing to damage his opponent or change the direction of the fight. The story of that fight was Finney’s wrestling.

Look man, I thought the fight sucked too. I don’t like it when fighters fight like Finney did either, it sucks to watch. But under the scoring criteria, he very clearly won.

No you don't win a fight with landing 0 significant strikes while your opponent infinitely lands more significant strikes. And if Finnely landed 0 significant strikes, and say Valentin landed 1,00,00,00 million times more strikes than Finney, that still comes out to 0 (0 x XXXX = 0). So yes Valentin landed infinitely more strikes than Finney in rounds 1 and 3.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

I had it 29-28 Finney. Valentin could have made it more of an argument by throwing more elbows off his back I think because Finney wasn't doing anything.

I don't think Finney is going to go very far in the division though.

 

[irimiasz]

I don't think Weeks was incorrect.

What Finney did was display an awesome amount of octagon control...which is a tertiary criterion when it comes to deciding who won a round.

Otherwise it seems like folks are arguing that Finney should have gotten all 10-8 or even 10-7 rounds!

(iii)A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins the round by a large
margin by impact, dominance, and duration of striking or grappling in a round.
(iv)A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant is completely dominated by
impact, dominance, and duration of striking or grappling in a round.

The main problem in this fight is whether the dominance in a tertiary criterion should weigh more than barely winning the primary.

I scored this 29-28 Finney, third round for Valentin. While I get the rationale behind the Tony Weeks scorecard, I just don't like the idea that you can get grapplef'd for 4.5 minute and throw a few weak strikes and win. It's completely nullifying the fact that a fighter is unable to defend against opponent's offence - if you can't sprawl against any takedown for almost the full five minutes, it clearly shows that you are a lesser fighter and therefore should lose that round.

Another argument I see for Finney in the first two is that the slams should also count as damage. Being thrown to the ground with a full force may do more harm to you than a ,,significant strike" in form of jab or low kick, so it's not like Valentin slipped on a banana peel.

Third for me is a clear round for Valentin, based on the ,,damage first" criterion and the fact that Valentin actually managed to defend the takedowns there.