Calm. The. Hell. Down.

[HereticBD]

Oh, by the way, you are wrong about damage not being part of the judging criteria. It doesn't use the word 'damage' but it does specify 'Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed. These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain.'

Evidence does not support this. Not saying it's right, but "Octagon control" > "Damage".

Over and over again...

 

[deltapapha]

Lmao

You act like shogun is just some new upcomer

You Anderson fans with the excuses, don't forget your man was scared of shogun and shut his mouth when he beat his homeboy

You can tell Mauricio was brought up in a house infested with cock-roaches because once they took his stomps and soccer kicks away he goes on a net losing run of 8L-7W over a 8 year period from age 25 to 33. He was a really elite stomper and soccer kicker I'll give him that. But prime years Shogun has been very unimpressive.

 

[BSquared]

Evidence does not support this. Not saying it's right, but "Octagon control" > "Damage".

Over and over again...

But it shouldn't, according to the rules as they are written, and I would argue that a majority of decisions recently haven't been showing this. Effective Striking and Grappling, according to the rules, are supposed to hold greater weight than octagon control or aggression, and have for the most part. Again, it's still round-by-round scoring, and Bisping won 1, 2, and 4, according to the rules as written. Silva won 3 and 5. But, damage is still a factor when determining 'effective striking'. Unless being stunned by a punch, in pain from a punch, getting bruised, or getting cut are not considered 'damage'. Recent evidence of this is Lawler vs Condit. Again, I'm not saying that Silva won. Just that damage is a factor in judging. If it's not being taken into account, it's because of poor judging, not because it's a 'non-factor'.

 

[Heikki Mustola]

Silva can blame himself, as sad as it is. He has weakened chin, slower reflexes, is older etc, but he is still definitely capable of beating Bisping.

He himself did this and shouldn't blame the judges imo

 

[Eyepokesftw]

No. Bisping got KO'd and Anderson toyed with him for 4 and 5 lol

 

[HereticBD]

But it shouldn't, according to the rules as they are written, and I would argue that a majority of decisions recently haven't been showing this. Effective Striking and Grappling, according to the rules, are supposed to hold greater weight than octagon control or aggression, and have for the most part. Again, it's still round-by-round scoring, and Bisping won 1, 2, and 4, according to the rules as written. Silva won 3 and 5. But, damage is still a factor when determining 'effective striking'. Unless being stunned by a punch, in pain from a punch, getting bruised, or getting cut are not considered 'damage'. Recent evidence of this is Lawler vs Condit. Again, I'm not saying that Silva won. Just that damage is a factor in judging. If it's not being taken into account, it's because of poor judging, not because it's a 'non-factor'.

Damage isn't a factor though. I don't know how much more evidence you need. Bisping got fucked up, but given the judging criteria, he won.

It would only be "poor judging" if they had to adhere to damage as a factor. The only thing related to damage that they have to consider, are knockdowns. Bloody noses and cuts are, unfortunately, irrelevant.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

Bisping won the decision. He pressured Silva throughout the fight, and as much as people will point to Silva's two "almost" KO's, don't forget that Bisping had a couple of his own earlier in the fight. "Damage" is not part of the judging process.

I was disgusted at first, but looking back, Bisping won it. Purely based on the scorecards, of course.

EDIT - Could a mod change the "F***" to "Hell". Didn't know that thread swearing gets the dubs. My bad.

Trust me, damage is factored in.

 

[HereticBD]

Trust me, damage is factored in.

Only if the recipient was dominated.

Let me know of all of the fights you've seen, that "damage" was a real factor in judging. A fight where the guy who was bloodied up, but still technically won the fight, was rewarded.

GSP has a line up of those guys.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

Only if the recipient was dominated.

Let me know of all of the fights you've seen, that "damage" was a real factor in judging. A fight where the guy who was bloodied up, but still technically won the fight, was rewarded.

GSP has a line up of those guys.

Well, every fight I have ever judged or been a part of.

You have to understand the detailed intricacies of what goes on when we judge. I would really love to tell you exactly how, but I actually fear ramifications if I do.

You will just have to trust me, it is factored in. Sometimes it's enough to change the outcome, sometimes it's not.

 

[kaya]

I will have to watch round 4 again, but I scored Bisping rounds 1,2 & 4. When you look at the fight as a whole Anderson was the better which kinda sucks and is why a lot of people seem cheezed off, but Bisping wins on rounds.

One thing I want to say is, the Bisping knockdown cannot hold the same weight as the flying knee knockdown. When Andy went down, he was waiting to (and eventually did) land the upkick and was control on his back. Bisping took 5-10 secs to get up after the bell from the flying knee.

Bisping was very coherently talking to Herb in < 5 seconds. The bell 100% saved him, but he was fine pretty fast.

 

[High Altitude]

Even though Silva was clearly the better fighter, had the much cleaner shots, did way more damage etc... I KNEW Bisping was going to get the decision 3-2. He was just the busier fighter.

If Silva would of stopped clowning and just went to town on Bisping, he would of easily finished him eventually.

 

[Jesus Freak]

I'm actually kind of glad I missed the fight. Judging by the boards it was a shit show. I'll watch it after the dust has settled.

Fun fight! Classic Silva! You missed out...badly.

 

[HereticBD]

Well, every fight I have ever judged or been a part of.

You have to understand the detailed intricacies of what goes on when we judge. I would really love to tell you exactly how, but I actually fear ramifications if I do.

You will just have to trust me, it is factored in. Sometimes it's enough to change the outcome, sometimes it's not.

Get outta here, Cecil!

You almost had me, you crafty bastard.

 

[CassiusJacare]

Bisping was very coherently talking to Herb in < 5 seconds. The bell 100% saved him, but he was fine pretty fast.

He may have been talking to Herb, but he was on his knees hurt. Yes, he recovered well (although someone mentioned it took 3+ minutes to start the next round due to Anderson's antics), however my point was that someone scoring the fight cannot hold those two knockdowns the same weight.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

Get outta here, Cecil!

You almost had me, you crafty bastard.

I was being serious, but whatever you want to say.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

I will say this, Herb let's this continue, but calls the Fedor fight with Henderson. That should tell you something.

 

[BSquared]

Damage isn't a factor though. I don't know how much more evidence you need. Bisping got fucked up, but given the judging criteria, he won.

It would only be "poor judging" if they had to adhere to damage as a factor. The only thing related to damage that they have to consider, are knockdowns. Bloody noses and cuts are, unfortunately, irrelevant.

http://abcboxing.com/Unified_Rules_of_MMA_Judging_Criteria.pdf

“Effective striking” is judged by determining the impact of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the number of such legal strikes. Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed. These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain. Cumulative impact on a fighter will also be weighed. If neither fighter shows an advantage in impact of strikes, the number of strikes will determine the most effective striker.

Taken right from ABC Boxing, definition of 'Effective Striking'. Also, in the Bisping fight, Anderson won rounds he did the damage in, did he not? He didn't win rounds 1, 2, or 4, where Bisping landed more blows and Anderson didn't cause any damage. So there is actually no evidence to support what you're saying. There isn't a round where Anderson did more damage, but Bisping landed more, that Bisping won. I'm not arguing for an anderson victory. How many times do I need to say that? I'm simply arguing that it is a factor, or that it should be a factor based on the way it's written.

Cuts and bloody noses, and bruises, are indeed a factor. Right from ABC Boxing. The Association of Boxing Commissions, by-the-way, are in charge of the Unified Rules of MMA, used by every commission. Bisping won 3 rounds. Anderson won 2. Anderson won the two rounds he won because of damage. If these rules were utilized but the fight were scored as a whole, and not round-by-round, Anderson wins. That's not how it is, though. It's round-by-round, so Bisping got the nod.

 

[finalboss]

I'm actually kind of glad I missed the fight. Judging by the boards it was a shit show. I'll watch it after the dust has settled.

To me it wasn't a fight, it was boring as hell as AS danced for 5 rounds handing over the fight to Bisping. Actually I would say there were 2 losers in that fight.

 

[skobydog]

Bisping won but IMO Silva could have if he didn't sit back for the first few rounds.

 

[punky brewster]