Esparza over Rose was the correct application of the official scoring criteria

[blaseblah]

For anyone not familiar with the scoring criteria, here it is:

"Effective Striking/Grappling shall be considered the first priority of round assessments. Effective Aggressiveness is a ‘Plan B’ and should not be considered unless the judge does not see ANY advantage in the Effective Striking/Grappling realm. Cage/Ring Control (‘Plan C’) should only be needed when ALL other criteria are 100% even for both competitors. This will be an extremely rare occurrence."

For the first 4 rounds basically nothing happened other than the takedown attempts from Esparza that Rose quickly got up from. No effective striking and no effective aggression from either fighter. However, Esparza was the one controlling the octagon and had Rose backing up for the majority of the fight. This is one of those rare occurrences where "octagon control" is actually a legitimate scoring criteria. Rounds 1 through 4 for Esparza.

Round 5 Rose clearly did more in the striking, even with the limited amount she did. Plus she got a takedown at the end. Round 5 for Rose.

49-46 Esparza. MMA judge Rick Winter got this one correct.

 

[Dreyga_King of Sherbums]

Who cares both should have lost

 

[Ares Black]

The real losers were the fans.

 

[Tweak896]

It's kind of amazing how ineffective everything was in that fight, that people had to dig up the rule books on scoring for so little action. I was under the impression the new rules say takedowns don't mean anything unless you get something with them, like subs or strikes. In this fight the takedown lasted for 20 seconds and Rose popped back up. I never factored octagon control because literally they both were punching air, but makes sense to judge based off that because there was literally nothing else to go off of. Rose had visible damage from a punch too so maybe that factored into the judging as well. Interesting how a shitty fight could cause so much controversy.

 

[20falarVerdades]

Round 5 Rose clearly did more in the striking, even with the limited amount she did. Plus she got a takedown at the end.

Actually, Rose should've had a point deducted for such blatant attempt to exploit and manipulate the 10-point system by shooting that takedown in the last 10 seconds of the 5th round

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

The commentators confuse the fans because they act like they don't know the rules which means the fans don't either. You hear MMA journalists saying it should have been 10-10 rounds or people like Luke Thomas and Joe Rogan say that damage wins rounds. There is nothing in the scoring criteria that calls for damage.

You also have people like Rogan and fans combining the scoring criteria to make a case for someone winning a round. "They did more damage AND they were the aggressor". It doesn't work that way. Aggression and cage control is not scored and doesn't count unless the striking and grappling is completely equal.

It's really not that hard... The new rules make it incredibly easy to score fights. It admittedly isn't perfect and judges still aren't making use of 10-8s the way they should be there isn't as much grey area as there was under the old rules.

 

[Whippy McGee]

No one cares.

 

[linvillegorge]

Why would I care who won? It didn't seem like either fighter in the cage was trying to do much to secure a victory, so if they seemingly don't care why should I or anyone else?

 

[SherdogFan23]

If all of Carla's fights are like this I hope the split decisions Carla keeps getting start to split the other way.... worse belt fight for 115 lb division that I can remember.

 

[Rhood]

It's kind of amazing how ineffective everything was in that fight, that people had to dig up the rule books on scoring for so little action. I was under the impression the new rules say takedowns don't mean anything unless you get something with them, like subs or strikes. In this fight the takedown lasted for 20 seconds and Rose popped back up. I never factored octagon control because literally they both were punching air, but makes sense to judge based off that because there was literally nothing else to go off of. Rose had visible damage from a punch too so maybe that factored into the judging as well. Interesting how a shitty fight could cause so much controversy.

It's funny as fuck because MMA fans are judging that fight based on who wore better looking sneakers that day, who had the better haircut, how much makeup they wore, what they ate for breakfast, if they slept on the right side or the left side of the bed, what type of shampoo they use in the shower.

Literally NOTHING happened in that fight! They are judging that fight solely based on other criteria.

 

[RockyLockridge]

Interesting how a shitty fight could cause so much controversy.

What controversy? it was an awful fight and they let the judges decide who wins. and the judges cannot be blamed either way because they are just scoring based on what they see which is very little, from all i can tell from that fight, Rose walked backward more, so deserved to lose.

 

[AP_RESURRECTION]

What controversy? it was an awful fight and they let the judges decide who wins. and the judges cannot be blamed either way because they are just scoring based on what they see which is very little, from all i can tell from that fight, Rose walked backward more, so deserved to lose.

Yea Carla had clear offense even if it was ineffective. But in order to use proper defense, rose had no offense. Carla was pushing for the win at least while rose was defending mainly, so shtty fight given stalemate but can't see how rose would win.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

For anyone not familiar with the scoring criteria, here it is:

"Effective Striking/Grappling shall be considered the first priority of round assessments. Effective Aggressiveness is a ‘Plan B’ and should not be considered unless the judge does not see ANY advantage in the Effective Striking/Grappling realm. Cage/Ring Control (‘Plan C’) should only be needed when ALL other criteria are 100% even for both competitors. This will be an extremely rare occurrence."

For the first 4 rounds basically nothing happened other than the takedown attempts from Esparza that Rose quickly got up from. No effective striking and no effective aggression from either fighter. However, Esparza was the one controlling the octagon and had Rose backing up for the majority of the fight. This is one of those rare occurrences where "octagon control" is actually a legitimate scoring criteria. Rounds 1 through 4 for Esparza.

Round 5 Rose clearly did more in the striking, even with the limited amount she did. Plus she got a takedown at the end. Round 5 for Rose.

49-46 Esparza. MMA judge Rick Winter got this one correct.

Who is in control? Carla wasn't moving forward non stop. Rose moved forward as well. The first round 100% should have been 10-10. Frankly the rest of the rounds are all a blur. At least one other was a 10-10. If 10-10 is an actual option, which it is, then the first round has to be one. What else defines a 10-10? Neither fighter did anything and no one deserved a "Win" in that round.

 

[Masturbin]

I was mentaly checked out after round 2.

I would have judged the fight a 50-50 draw

 

[Man_in_Black]

The only thing more frustrating than the fight itself was the "I'm the best" thing that Rose was doing and her corner telling her that she was doing great and winning (Pat Barry is turning into an "Edmund"...maybe not a Fabia...not yet anyways)

 

[Candy Routure]

But Rose out-struck Carla in 3 of the 4 rounds and got a takedown..

Carla threw more in 1 round and got 2 takedowns…

They both threw 4 punches in round 1..

Equaling the fight was garbage.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

A split decision with two very different scorecards is the correct application of the scoring system… sounds about right <45>

 

[jamiehunter]

If barely nothing happened shouldn't this fight have been easier to determine who had more significant strikes/grappling? What? The judges can't count to 13?

Despite popular opinion, this fight and fights like it are the ones where octagon control should be least likely to be used. "Not much" isn't the same as nothing and the rules say an advantage not advantage by at least X amount.

Judges should have literally just counted the strikes and successful takedowns each round and awarded the round to whoever had the most. Very easy fight to score based on the rules.

 

[jamiehunter]

But Rose out-struck Carla in 3 of the 4 rounds and got a takedown..

Carla threw more in 1 round and got 2 takedowns…

They both threw 4 punches in round 1..

Equaling the fight was garbage.

Wasn't the only takedown counted the one Rose got or has that changed?

 

[Ozze]

The commentators confuse the fans because they act like they don't know the rules which means the fans don't either. You hear MMA journalists saying it should have been 10-10 rounds or people like Luke Thomas and Joe Rogan say that damage wins rounds. There is nothing in the scoring criteria that calls for damage.

You also have people like Rogan and fans combining the scoring criteria to make a case for someone winning a round. "They did more damage AND they were the aggressor". It doesn't work that way. Aggression and cage control is not scored and doesn't count unless the striking and grappling is completely equal.

It's really not that hard... The new rules make it incredibly easy to score fights. It admittedly isn't perfect and judges still aren't making use of 10-8s the way they should be there isn't as much grey area as there was under the old rules.

How so? The scoring criteria is "immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match."
10 punches each, but one side did more damage, they win the round.