Bellator Womens Flyweight Champion Retains Title After Landing 1.8 Significant Strikes Per Minute

[GueseGuy]

What a loser

 

[UFCIsNOTRigged]

I don't believe those numbers are at all close to being accurate. Other than the 1st round they both seemed to be landing very little & the last 4 rounds were close. Velasquez punches seemed to be doing more noticeable damage though.

I have no problem with Denise winning but this was no robbery.

I don't believe they are accurate either, I don't believe Velasquez threw over 25 significant strikes.

But this is all we have unfortunately since Bellator in the interest of being as untransparent as possible does not put revised numbers out to my knowledge.

 

[SokoudjouFanboy]

OP more upset about the result then Kielholtz herself

 

[GueseGuy]

OP more upset about the result then Kielholtz herself

That’s what happens when you’re a broke loser who lost his last $20 on a bet lol

 

[TorontoTO]

I don't believe they are accurate either, I don't believe Velasquez threw over 25 significant strikes.

But this is all we have unfortunately since Bellator in the interest of being as untransparent as possible does not put revised numbers out to my knowledge.

Yes, Bellator is bribing commissions to get the more unexciting, less attractive fighter the win…. for reasons

 

[Doughie99]

I just watched the fight.

It wasn't very exciting, and I didn't think Velasquez did anywhere near enough to deserve the win.
Her punch volume that she connected with was simply too low. Her jab was ok, yup.
But to me, she simply didn't do enough, just stood there and waited and that's not a champion's performance and the striking stats back that up.
Kielholtz *landed* far more and was much more aggressive. She should have won. But yes....she struggled with the reach difference for sure. Velasquez was far taller.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

It was a bad decision but the judging has nothing to do with Bellator, they don't pick the judges.

 

[Streeter]

I don't know how a fighter gets out struck more than 2 to 1 in a basically all standing fight and wins. A boring fight but a bad decision.

 

[FIghtxIQ]

“She was hitting the air most of the time and getting countered and jabbed most of the time”


First, “hitting the air” (aka whiffing) is not a factor taken into consideration when scoring a fight, because if it were fighters would only throw high percentage strikes and would encourage timidity.


But since you brought it up, Velasquez only connected on 17.4% of the significant strikes she attempted, while Kielholtz connected on 23.6% of the significant strikes she threw.

Velasquez was proportionally actually the one “hitting the air” far more frequently, despite being the bigger and rangier fighter. So what you are saying is factually incorrect.


Second, Velasquez was “countering because Kielholtz was the one pushing the action (controlling the cage), while Velasquez was backing up the entire time. Cage control is a relevant scoring criterion and Kielholtz complete control of the cage is a core reason why Velasquez did not do enough to win a single round.


If you want to describe Velasquez as “counter-punching” after only landing 46 significant strikes over twenty five minutes, despite Kielholtz attempting 427 significant strikes then fine; that means she was connecting on her counters roughly 10% of the time which is abysmally low and completely undermines the notion Kielholtz was “hitting the air” more frequently than Velasquez.


Finally, she was getting “jabbed” because the jab was the only strike Velasquez was throwing and she only connected on 38 of them over 25 minutes (1.52 a minute) which is again abysmally low. Though when you say “most of the time” that is again demonstrably inaccurate given Velasquez’s complete timidity through the entire fight; as the only thing Velasquez was doing “most of the time” was backing up and not engaging.


“Volume is only effective if its effective strikes”


This is entirely subjective, as I believe Kielholtz snapping back the head of Velasquez several times, compared to the 0 times Velasquez was able to snap Kielholtzs’ head back as clear evidence Denise was the one landing the harder shots. Again, there is no way to measure this, which is why when a fighter is out-struck over 2-1 like Velasquez it is safe to say they did not do enough to win and deserve to lose.


I will add Kielholtz is a veteran kickboxer with nearly seventy fights, naturally she has more built-up scar tissue than Velasquez who does not have very many fights. Also, Kielholtz had a black eye and a bloody nose in the fourth and fifth round, she was not bleeding profusely in any round nor was her face noticeably swollen in the first three rounds. Trying to frame it as though Velasquez inflicted some big noticeable injury is just intellectually dishonest and demonstrably inaccurate.


Finally, I can’t respond to anymore of your post because you repeatedly contradict yourself and your conception of what happened is not in line with reality. Velasquez was not doing more of anything than Kielholtz, other than backing up, she only landed 46 (1.84 per minute) significant strikes over a twenty-five-minute strike. That is abysmally low and Kielholtz landed 101 (4.04 per minute) significant strikes. There were no knockdowns either and as I said the only one who as you acknowledged whose head was repeatedly snapped back was Velasquez.


You are literally saying Kielholtz did not deserve to win the fight because she missed on some combinations, when Velasquez did not throw a single combination. Doing nothing, striking wise, is worse in MMA than doing something and occasionally missing big; doing nothing is timidity and it is supposed to be penalized.


I tried to be respectful in this response, but your post is seriously disconnected from reality, and anyone who looks at the stat sheet in the OP can see that.

Re-watch the fight without bias. You are obviously personally invested in the fight through some personal relationship either with her or team. I wanted her to win and thought she would while watching the 1st round. But she let the fight slip in the rounds after the 1st round. She got tentative once she started getting hit with the jabs, and counters while she was coming in. That's why she started throwing early, she was too focused on the counters and getting hit trying to close the distance that she would throw her combinations too early and not hit anything.

She should've used more kicks, if she had a hard time closing the distance. She didn't take advantage of attacking the legs at all. She had a hard time connecting head shots and that's why she kept doing the right cross to the body. She needs to work more strikes that she can effectively use vs taller fighters. She needs more overhand combinations and set ups. She struggled trying to hit her with the right cross anywhere else but the body. She always rushed in throwing the same combinations trying to close the distance so she was figured out pretty quickly with that after the 1st round. She needs more jab, double jab entries. Some level changes entries, etc. It's harder to close distance on taller fighters with more reach, you need lots of different entries in order to close that distance and different types of strikes in order to be able to attack the head and body of taller fighters.

Like I said I wanted her to win, but me watching the fight with no bias can see how the champion won and kept her belt. You also don't count the take downs that were done at the end of the rounds. That factors in with the judging as well. You are focused on only the total strike number. That never paints the whole picture.

 

[SokoudjouFanboy]

Well said @FIghtxIQ. Also think it's worth noting that those numbers don't seem to be correct at all.

It was a coin flip fight. I had Kielholtz 1 2 & 5 but 2 was a swing round.

 

[maximus__]

No need to try and explain to me how a fight should be scored lol. I know exactly how it should be scored, but the only thing matters is how it IS scored. One of the biggest parts of my job is understanding why judges do what they do. I've made enough money from this that I don't need to work a normal job.

Read my other recent post on this page for more depth if you like, but Denise basically lost the fight due to visuals. Unfortunately, she caused most of the bad visuals of herself by completely whiffing so many shots.

If she had landed the majority of her strikes at least on the guard of Velasquez, she'd have likely won the fight very easily.

Whilst I get what you are saying, Visuals isn't a scoring criteria. Just because you can make an argument for why she won doesn't mean we shouldn't be calling this out for what it was. It was a robbery and Keilholtz won that by out striking, landing bigger shots and combos and actively fighting, whilst Velesquez walked backwards throwing jabs. Velesquez was actively running backwards taking shots throughout the fight, that never happened once the other way around. If those jabs had led to any sort of wobble or knockdown I would agree with the damage claim, but the didn't. It was just the wrong decision all round and the commentary influenced people thinking the opposite.

 

[xhaydenx]

Whilst I get what you are saying, Visuals isn't a scoring criteria. Just because you can make an argument for why she won doesn't mean we shouldn't be calling this out for what it was. It was a robbery and Keilholtz won that by out striking, landing bigger shots and combos and actively fighting, whilst Velesquez walked backwards throwing jabs. Velesquez was actively running backwards taking shots throughout the fight, that never happened once the other way around. If those jabs had led to any sort of wobble or knockdown I would agree with the damage claim, but the didn't. It was just the wrong decision all round and the commentary influenced people thinking the opposite.

Oh, call it out all you want. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't, and visuals aren't a scoring criteria, that's right, but they may as well be at this point. They're way, way more important than strike count.

I wouldn't call this a robbery, but then, you need to understand what we're dealing with here: these are judges who are judging MMA. MMA judges are, by and large, people who came up judging boxing and kickboxing. And you know what? In a boxing or kickboxing fight, that could have very well been a 4-1 win for Velasqez. Denise would have had little chance in winning that decision. Think of someone like Mayweather. Low output, always on the retreat, doing little damage, less strikes compared to his opponent. All that and still dominated. Petroysan in kickboxing was another brilliant fighter like this.

And if you look at those images you posted earlier, can't you actually see how even all that supports a Velasquez win? Or at the very least, a very very close fight rather than a robbery?

Aggression and Octagon Control are only supposed to be used when everything else is equal. I've always agreed with this. MMA judges typically don't understand this criteria at all. So, you're looking at Dominance, Impact, and Control.

Impact - Denise wasn't doing any visual damage, which is what this criteria asks for. She wasn't diminishing Velasquz in anyway way either. (Just so we're clear, I hate everything about this criteria. It's a joke lol)

Dominance - Velasquez never had to really worry about blocking shots. She simply moved back. That's not her being forced to continually defend. And she was throwing up enough counters and shots of her own to not be consider inactive. In the grappling, she dominated the only real exchange by landing the takedown.

Duration - it says on that sheet that the attacking needs to be effective in controlling and impacting. Again, stepping back to avoid a shot and keep your ideal range isn't being controlled. Denise still had plenty of control and effective attacking, but people are blowing it out of proportion, and the criteria here doesn't even really support it.

And if you look at those pyramids, Velasquez was the one taking the larger, more important levels in each one.

Looking at it like that, can you not see how Denise might have lost that? You said it was a robbery. Can you not see how looking at all that, then it was at least a very close fight?

I have my own things I like to see in a fight, and I had it Denise 3-2, but it is what it is.

Oh, and narrative of a fight is a massive thing as well. As humans, we like and are used to stories with beginnings, middles and ends. We naturally value things that happen latter over the course of a round because we're used to climaxes and big moments at this point. There were a lot of rounds were Denise looked great early, and then less so later. Velasquez seemed to be landing more of her shots late in rounds rather than early when Denise started to slow up a little each round.

Narrative isn't an actual criteria of course, but it definitely plays a part.

 

[Chosen]

If a champion has no control time, has no knockdowns, and lands 46 strikes over 25 minutes (1.8 per minute) its time to find a new champion.

The crowd rightfully booed her and the obese (i mean big) "legendary" UFC referee off the stage; because the entire thing was a sham and pathetic.

Its fine, I tried to give Bellator a chance since all the "informed" Sherdoggers say Bellator has all these superior divisions.

After watching I can be sure they dont. Minor league as I suspected.

I recommend watching KSW(today’s event was great co main and main pure bangers) and LFA more LFA has an event this Sunday at 9 est on Fightpass the event that ran the same time as Bellator was 3x better than they had it was embarrassing a regional scene org has had multiple events better than a “premier league” has had since covid started.

 

[maximus__]

Oh, call it out all you want. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't, and visuals aren't a scoring criteria, that's right, but they may as well be at this point. They're way, way more important than strike count.

I wouldn't call this a robbery, but then, you need to understand what we're dealing with here: these are judges who are judging MMA. MMA judges are, by and large, people who came up judging boxing and kickboxing. And you know what? In a boxing or kickboxing fight, that could have very well been a 4-1 win for Velasqez. Denise would have had little chance in winning that decision. Think of someone like Mayweather. Low output, always on the retreat, doing little damage, less strikes compared to his opponent. All that and still dominated. Petroysan in kickboxing was another brilliant fighter like this.

And if you look at those images you posted earlier, can't you actually see how even all that supports a Velasquez win? Or at the very least, a very very close fight rather than a robbery?

Aggression and Octagon Control are only supposed to be used when everything else is equal. I've always agreed with this. MMA judges typically don't understand this criteria at all. So, you're looking at Dominance, Impact, and Control.

Impact - Denise wasn't doing any visual damage, which is what this criteria asks for. She wasn't diminishing Velasquz in anyway way either. (Just so we're clear, I hate everything about this criteria. It's a joke lol)

Dominance - Velasquez never had to really worry about blocking shots. She simply moved back. That's not her being forced to continually defend. And she was throwing up enough counters and shots of her own to not be consider inactive. In the grappling, she dominated the only real exchange by landing the takedown.

Duration - it says on that sheet that the attacking needs to be effective in controlling and impacting. Again, stepping back to avoid a shot and keep your ideal range isn't being controlled. Denise still had plenty of control and effective attacking, but people are blowing it out of proportion, and the criteria here doesn't even really support it.

And if you look at those pyramids, Velasquez was the one taking the larger, more important levels in each one.

Looking at it like that, can you not see how Denise might have lost that? You said it was a robbery. Can you not see how looking at all that, then it was at least a very close fight?

I have my own things I like to see in a fight, and I had it Denise 3-2, but it is what it is.

Oh, and narrative of a fight is a massive thing as well. As humans, we like and are used to stories with beginnings, middles and ends. We naturally value things that happen latter over the course of a round because we're used to climaxes and big moments at this point. There were a lot of rounds were Denise looked great early, and then less so later. Velasquez seemed to be landing more of her shots late in rounds rather than early when Denise started to slow up a little each round.

Narrative isn't an actual criteria of course, but it definitely plays a part.

That's where we differ. The argument has to be that Velasquez landed the bigger more damage shots which isn't true. She caused accumulative damage, but that damage wasn't from one big shot which would lead to her winning that criteria. I can see how it went the other way , but my argument is that it shouldn't. By giving her that fight you are basically saying to fighters to land a cut in the opening round and then just continue making it bleed each round and you win. You win damage each round by reopening the same spot.

Now if she had bruised her left eye in the 2nd round, cut her right in the 3rd, Split her lip in the 4th etc I would agree with the damage criteria. She basically had one good round and then got on her bike and jabbed.

Whilst there wasn't visible damage, Denise was landing the bigger shots and had Velasquez visibly reacting and retreating backwards. She landed big low kicks that knocked her off balance, body shots and combos up top that had Velasquez visibly reacting to. If you take away some bruising to Keilholtz face we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I think it's 4-1 Keilholtz and knew it would be a split and was hoping the judges would be 3-2 like you were. We agree who won the fight and see how it could go the other way, but it's the low expectations in mma judging. Under both boxing and kickboxing rules Keilholtz dominated that fight. Especially kickboxing where all those kicks would be scored much higher. Only in MMA do we rate head shots causing some superficial damage so highly. I see how the fight went the other way. I just want it to stop happening because the wrong person won last night.

 

[leto1776]

That's where we differ. The argument has to be that Velasquez landed the bigger more damage shots which isn't true. She caused accumulative damage, but that damage wasn't from one big shot which would lead to her winning that criteria. I can see how it went the other way , but my argument is that it shouldn't. By giving her that fight you are basically saying to fighters to land a cut in the opening round and then just continue making it bleed each round and you win. You win damage each round by reopening the same spot.

Now if she had bruised her left eye in the 2nd round, cut her right in the 3rd, Split her lip in the 4th etc I would agree with the damage criteria. She basically had one good round and then got on her bike and jabbed.

Whilst there wasn't visible damage, Denise was landing the bigger shots and had Velasquez visibly reacting and retreating backwards. She landed big low kicks that knocked her off balance, body shots and combos up top that had Velasquez visibly reacting to. If you take away some bruising to Keilholtz face we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I think it's 4-1 Keilholtz and knew it would be a split and was hoping the judges would be 3-2 like you were. We agree who won the fight and see how it could go the other way, but it's the low expectations in mma judging. Under both boxing and kickboxing rules Keilholtz dominated that fight. Especially kickboxing where all those kicks would be scored much higher. Only in MMA do we rate head shots causing some superficial damage so highly. I see how the fight went the other way. I just want it to stop happening because the wrong person won last night.

What shots were Denise landing that were bigger? Which shots changed the flow or momentum of Velasquez? From where I sat, the jab of Velasquez were more than adequate in stopping the momentum of Denise, often forcing her to stop and reset. Velasquez’s jab did a far better job in controlling the momentum, tempo, pace of the fight

 

[maximus__]

What shots were Denise landing that were bigger? Which shots changed the flow or momentum of Velasquez? From where I sat, the jab of Velasquez were more than adequate in stopping the momentum of Denise, often forcing her to stop and reset. Velasquez’s jab did a far better job in controlling the momentum, tempo, pace of the fight

The combos where she was visibly forcing velasquez backwards towards the cage multiple times. The fact she did not push forward besides a single round and was unable to get anything going besides a long outside jab. Keilholtz didn't even take a step back when jabbed. I agree she had damage to her face, but for every jab landed she landed with 2-3 strikes and forced backwards the whole fight. Even the highlights post fight were showing Velasquez landing a jab and then Keilholtz landing 2-3 shots immediately in response. It's worth a rewatch to be honest and I can see the argument the other way, I just don't agree MMA should be scored that way. If the jab had wobbled Keilholtz it would be different, but it never did.

 

[xhaydenx]

That's where we differ. The argument has to be that Velasquez landed the bigger more damage shots which isn't true. She caused accumulative damage, but that damage wasn't from one big shot which would lead to her winning that criteria. I can see how it went the other way , but my argument is that it shouldn't. By giving her that fight you are basically saying to fighters to land a cut in the opening round and then just continue making it bleed each round and you win. You win damage each round by reopening the same spot.

Now if she had bruised her left eye in the 2nd round, cut her right in the 3rd, Split her lip in the 4th etc I would agree with the damage criteria. She basically had one good round and then got on her bike and jabbed.

Whilst there wasn't visible damage, Denise was landing the bigger shots and had Velasquez visibly reacting and retreating backwards. She landed big low kicks that knocked her off balance, body shots and combos up top that had Velasquez visibly reacting to. If you take away some bruising to Keilholtz face we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I think it's 4-1 Keilholtz and knew it would be a split and was hoping the judges would be 3-2 like you were. We agree who won the fight and see how it could go the other way, but it's the low expectations in mma judging. Under both boxing and kickboxing rules Keilholtz dominated that fight. Especially kickboxing where all those kicks would be scored much higher. Only in MMA do we rate head shots causing some superficial damage so highly. I see how the fight went the other way. I just want it to stop happening because the wrong person won last night.

I agree with everything except that she'd have won under Kickboxing or boxing rules. I've watched too much of that to think she'd have won the decision if that sort of judging was involved.

Also, I don't think you're giving Velasquez enough credit. She was landing shots as well. It's not like she threw and landed nothing. There were some nice 1-2 on the counter from her. Personally, I don't think it was enough, but they were there.

It is shit, but I don't see the judging changing any time soon. Again though, gambling is my job. Predicting how judges are going to interpret the rules is part of that. It's sort of predictable the way things I are.

 

[maximus__]

I agree with everything except that she'd have won under Kickboxing or boxing rules. I've watched too much of that to think she'd have won the decision if that sort of judging was involved.

Also, I don't think you're giving Velasquez enough credit. She was landing shots as well. It's not like she threw and landed nothing. There were some nice 1-2 on the counter from her. Personally, I don't think it was enough, but they were there.

It is shit, but I don't see the judging changing any time soon. Again though, gambling is my job. Predicting how judges are going to interpret the rules is part of that. It's sort of predictable the way things I are.

Kickboxing over scores kicks compared to punches. Those jabs would have scored much lower in kickboxing, where as Denise also landed some good low kicks and body kicks which have forgotten about. She landed 67 odd kicks which is over half her opponents total strike volume. She also landed the bigger kicks, which is what I base part of my opinion on re: the kickboxing. Velasquez stole a round with a takedown. The rest of the round was even with a slight advanbtage to keiltholtz IMO.

No disagreement on thinking the judges would go the wrong way for betting, but I don't have to agree it was right.

 

[leto1776]

The combos where she was visibly forcing velasquez backwards towards the cage multiple times. The fact she did not push forward besides a single round and was unable to get anything going besides a long outside jab. Keilholtz didn't even take a step back when jabbed. I agree she had damage to her face, but for every jab landed she landed with 2-3 strikes and forced backwards the whole fight. Even the highlights post fight were showing Velasquez landing a jab and then Keilholtz landing 2-3 shots immediately in response. It's worth a rewatch to be honest and I can see the argument the other way, I just don't agree MMA should be scored that way. If the jab had wobbled Keilholtz it would be different, but it never did.

You mean where she’d throw three to four huge punches, and whiff on all but maybe one of them, and Velasquez was able to avoid them simply with footwork and head movement?

Kielholtz May not have taken a step back from the jabs (and there were indeed times when she did), but they were enough to completely stop her momentum and make her reset. That’s significant.

 

[maximus__]

You mean where she’d throw three to four huge punches, and whiff on all but maybe one of them, and Velasquez was able to avoid them simply with footwork and head movement?

Kielholtz May not have taken a step back from the jabs (and there were indeed times when she did), but they were enough to completely stop her momentum and make her reset. That’s significant.

Then we disagree and that's fine. I think more of those strikes landed and they were heavier and achieved more than repeated jabs did and you feel the other way. defence does not score only offence. I just don't think on a whole she won 3 rounds and should have retained the belt. There is a better argument for a draw than a win by velesquez in my opinion.