I'm getting tired of hearing that damage isn't a criterion in the unified rules. You even hear it from Dana and reporters. Seriously, wtf? It most certainly IS. It used to be called "effective damage", but they changed it to "effective striking" (to be more PC). This article lays it out: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/1...ns-abc-changes-unified-rules-scoring-mma-news "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." That is all.
I'll be that guy... It's kind of hard to judge damage because really the only person who knows how hurt they are is the fighter themselves(unless obvious). & cuts & bruising is also different for everyone. I myself do try to judge damage when I score a fight.
If they are rocked then definitely but cuts and bruises don't show damage. Some people cut or bruise more easily.
The words " cuts and bruises" are in the rules. They are supposed to be factored in when judging effective striking
The whole damage thing is debated around here because people usually equate damage to something aesthetic (cuts, bruises, hemotoma, bleeding, etc...) which can't be objectively judged despite it being in the rules
Kenny Florian said that 'damage is not a criterion'. He said this the night after GSP/Hendricks. The OP is mistaken. By 'visible impact', the reference is to being rocked, knocked down, or staggered in some way.
If true, especially the part about cumulative damage being weighed, then the 10 point must system needs to go.
Sure it can be. Perhaps not to the extent that it determines fully how much a fighter has been damaged, and there is obviously some genetic or other variance, but if your eye looks like Koschecks eye, it's a pretty safe bet that eye suffered some serious damage.
But what if it doesn't and his orbital (or whatever it was) is still broken? You short change his opponent Too many holes in that logic for it to be substantial criteria
The only thing you showed with this post, is unfortunately that you can't read. And that Kenny uses the word damage too narrowly, if that infact is what he meant. Superficial damage should be weighed less than being rocked, for instance, but it's still weighed. And it's in the rules.
I never said it was easily interpreted. The rules are pretty vague in general. But it's still in the rules. At any rate, the point is that either people are using "damage" and meaning "superficial damage" (which really should stop because it's confusing) and/or people haven't actually read the rules.
What? You are not making any sense. The fight is still judged on a round per round basis, i.e. how much damage was inflicted in the round you are scoring is what is considered.
It still becomes problematic when you weigh something that is cumulative like cosmetic damage over the course of several rounds. Your face doesn't heal after every round. Get it?
I myself am VERY happy on how the judges handled the results of the last TUF match. Red dude blanketed Blue dude and Blue dude was doing everything in his power to beat the shit out of Red dude. Also Mazagatti is a world class ref.
