Do you think "octagon control" is a worthwhile criteria for judges?

This isn't in response to any specific fight, but I have always felt that OC is not a good criteria to score fights.

Im speaking more of the stand-up game as opposed to grappling. If some LnP type guy pins his opponent down for the whole fight he is rewarded for octagon control. In this instance he did control the ring, but what is really important is that he controlled the other guy with his grappling. So lets give him the credit for that even if it is boring and useless.

As far as the stand-up goes, i dont think it should matter if you are moving forward or backwards. Leben vs Silva comes to mind. Chris was very aggressive and moving forward, but we all saw what Silva did backing up. My point is that agression and octagon control were on Lebens side, but were totally worthless as far as scoring. I dont care if a guy is moving forward or backward, in the center of the ring or back against the cage. What really matters is who is striking and grappling the most effectively.

Do you think this is a worthwhile criteria? Yes or no? Why or why not?

 

Bitching about LnP is so 2011. The it thing now is to bitch about guys who "run" and throw strikes that "don't hurt."

 

We need more concrete descriptions on what counts on octagon control.
Nick Diaz to me won the fight against Condit based on that criteria.

 

Criterion.

 

...I rest my case.

 

It is not a worthwhile criteria.

Lyoto Machida.

 

Boring and useless summed it up for me.

 

If no one is landing, then yeah it should be awarded.

 

nah,. octagon control is how you justify terrible decisions like Rampage over Machida.

A fight is about damage, not who determined what position the fight took place in. Thats all kinds of ridiculous.

 

I can't tell if this is sarcastic, or just the worst idea ever.

 

The difference there is that while back pedaling, Lyoto was landing. At least that's why I thought it was a bad decision.

If you have 2 dudes who are landing evenly, while one dude is constantly going backwards while the other is pressing forward, then I would give it to the girl or guy who is moving forward because it shows that they want to fight more.

 

If 2 dudes are landing evenly, the fight is a motherfucking draw.

How hard is that to determine? Jesus

A grandmother who has never seen a fight in her life could come up with that solution.

 

As stated, rules need to be more clearly defined. Knowledge of the fighters style may help in some instances, like if he is a counter strkier. But then if the guy he fighting is known for aggressive striking, who's controlling who? Fuck, just leave it as is. You could even say a guy pulls guard and keep the fight there attempting subs while the fighter on top defends. Bet the fighter on top would be rewarded Octagon control by a lot of judges.

 

completely relative. Full spectrum of Machida to Guida

 

Well if it's a fight where neither guy is doing much then of course I'll give the guy who is the aggressor the advantage.

 

You don't watch the olympics much do ya?

 

It is a consideration.

 

To a point but it shouldn't carry equal consideration the the other criteria mentioned.

 

In a way yes. If a grappler continues to try to take you down and you keep the fight standing, its an advantage. If you are able to keep someone clinched up on the cage and are landing shots, that's an advantage.

However, simply scoring control on who is walking forward is a fallacy.