How one views an MMA fight is inherently subjective, so yes I fully acknowledge there can be divergent views on how a fight has played out and thus scored.
With that being said, there are instances in which two viewers can watch the same thing, and one viewer can determine that what they have seen is so obvious that any dissenting view is a sign of stupidity.
If we both look at the sky at noon, and you tell me its orange, I am going to come to the conclusion you are intoxicated or have a mental impairment.
If two fighters step into a cage for twenty five minutes, no knockdowns, 1 takedown, no control time, and one fighter out-strikes the other every single round then it is seems unlikely but of course I can understand how the fighter who was out-struck every single round may have earned a win.
HOWEVER
If the fighter who was out-struck every single round only landed 46 (1.8 per minute) significant strikes while their opponent who outstruck them landed 101 (4.04 per minute) then no there is no circumstance under which the lower volume fighter should win.
Also, lets cut the bullshit Kielholtz was landing combinations, Velasquez threw jabs and neither landed nor attempted combinations; Kielholtz won every single round.
Velasquez threw 38 jabs, no combinations, and fought how a civillan pulled off the street and thrown into the octagon would have fought. That was the worst decision I have ever seen watching MMA. The fact morons like you are are defending Bellator, an organization so many idiots on here shill for and say has "better fighters", after their champion stood around for 25 minutes and threw 2 jabs a minute is a joke.
You are a fucking moron, enjoy Bellator, I am done watching minor league MMA. Because I am not going to be gaslit while i watch an MMA fight. Explaining why Velasquez was "winning" that fight is like explaining why Connor was "winning" his fight with Dustin last week; only a moron would try to justify it and only a bigger moron (like you) would fall for it.
Mate, you should have wrote all that up in the first place and maybe people would take you seriously. Instead, you chose to be an arrogant flog and say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or has some weird sex fetish.
I'm not defending Bellator. I only watch Bellator when I've got a bet in play or if there's nothing else to do.
You obviously understand how judging is supposed to work, but you clearly have no fucking clue how it
actually works.
I had it for Denise. I never at any point said I thought Velasquez won, only that I know how she won. I'm not going to go back and watch it, but I feel I had it either 4-1 or 3-2 for Denise at worst.
Denise had more volume, slightly bigger moments, and much more forward aggression, and she had all of those things consistently over all rounds except for the 2nd I think it was. Even that round was close and she could have won it.
But none of that matters. The way I scored it doesn't matter, either does the way you did. The only thing that matters is how the judges scored it.
Visuals and body language aren't part of the scoring criteria, but they're a fucking massive aspect to the judges, whether anyone likes it or not.
If a fighter is whiffing on punches all round, it looks bad. It's a bad visual. All their volume and good work can be completely outdone by this and a few stiff jabs. Denise was constantly out of range. If she was at least hitting the guard, it would have looked way better, visually, but instead she was missing completely over and over again. This happened for almost the entire fight outside of a few key stretches for Denise.
Body language in WMMA is huge because half the time the girls can't hurt each other well enough to create very big moments. Looking good overall is enough in WMMA. I don't think it should be, but my bank account tells me that the judges think it does.
If a girl is wearing her hair in a loose fashion (Ketlen Veira, Kay Hansen, etc), I factor that into my gambling because I know that the hair is going to fly around dramatically, making them look worse to judges in exchanges they might otherwise be winning.
If you're going to make an analysis, actually look at what judges historically are doing, not what you think they're doing before you start insulting people.
But what do I know? I'm just a moron who gambles on MMA for living, with a huge focus on WMMA. Part of understanding what judges are actually thinking is a massive part of why I haven't needed to work a normal job in years.
Then again maybe I just have a Velasquez fetish?
