Fabricated robberies

[KAZSoliloquy]

Yan vs O'malley is the first time I have considered the UFC have influenced the outcome of a fight. They have continued to try and do it with O'malley currently, with the rushed Aljo fight after threatening to strip him and vera getting the title fight.

The fight occurred in Abu Dhabi and was ran by the UFC as they handed over to the local commission.

O'malley got away with 3 separate fouls in each round, including multiple glove grabs, cage grabs and was not docked a single point after multiple warnings.

On top of that the UFC stats tried to say O'malley landed 86 sig strikes of his 91 landed, which anyone watching could see was completely false.

Yan addressed every criticism that had cost him the first round in the Aljo 2 fight. He went forward, landed with more volume and bigger shots, mixed in his takedowns, had control time and still somehow lost because O'malley punched his high guard less than Yan punched him cleanly... Yan actually won every scoring criteria in that round.

It's should have been 1,2 for Yan. O'malley can have the 3rd from the cut, which becomes 9-9 with a point deduction from the cage assisted granby immediately after having his hand removed from the cage.

Don't defend that type of decision or incompetence from a referee.

yeah i ain't reading all that. cope harder.

 

[RedDevilFan]

Jones/Reyes was definitely a robbery. They actually use that fight as an example to train refs.

Not it was not, it was a close fight and the metrics tell us why jones won the fight.

In order for it to be a robbery stats and metrics must also show it was a robbery and it did not. The stats for the fight showed why jones won the card and the fight. I have never heard refs training for fights using that fight, it sounds bogus. You cant tell refs to train for a fight that was razor thin and statistically on the metrics, was a win for jones.

Jones out landed Reyes 46-34 on significant strikes in the last two rounds, with a pair of take downs. In the fifth, Jones landed two hard right hands that snapped Reyes' head back. With the victory

Perception is subjecitve but added with metrics or statistics, then it can be plausible but without that it is not plausible. Statistics is hard facts and when the hard facts match up for jones and why he won the fitght, then it is atelling tale of why it was not a robbery.

 

[blaseblase]

Not it was not, it was a close fight.

In order for it to be a robbery stats and metrics must also show it was a robbery and it did not. The stats for the fight showed why jones won the card and the fight. I have never heard refs training for fights using that fight, it sounds bogus.

Also there were officials and sites who gave the fight to Jones. Jones outlanded Reyes 46-34 on significant strikes in the last two rounds, with a pair of takedowns. In the fifth, Jones landed two hard right hands that snapped Reyes' head back. With the victory

If you can exlpain how jones won the fight it was not a robbery. Many people have already made case for it and a robbery is when the metrics and the fight does not pan out.

They literally show this fight to refs as an example of how to score a fight.

MMA Judges redo scores for UFC 247 Jones vs Reyes bout in digital lesson | BJPenn.com

MMA judges sharpen their skills during digital lessons from MMA referee John McCarthy. They also rejudge the controversial ruling of UFC 247 Reyes vs Jones.

www.bjpenn.com

Also you aren't explaining how Jones won the fight, you are explaining how he won the last 2 rounds. He lost the first 3.

 

[RedDevilFan]

They literally show this fight to refs as an example of how to score a fight.

MMA Judges redo scores for UFC 247 Jones vs Reyes bout in digital lesson | BJPenn.com

MMA judges sharpen their skills during digital lessons from MMA referee John McCarthy. They also rejudge the controversial ruling of UFC 247 Reyes vs Jones.

www.bjpenn.com

Also you aren't explaining how Jones won the fight, you are explaining how he won the last 2 rounds. He lost the first 3.

As we've already covered, Given the two rounds Jones clearly won—Rounds 4 and 5—were both clear 10-9s in his favor. Reyes won round 1 and 3 subjectively. The second round was clearly the deciding round.

In the second round Jones connected on a 59% clip, compared to just 48% for Reyes. Overall jones landed at a 62% rate while his opponent only connected on 44% of his strikes.

Quality over quantity. Reyes missed a lot of his strikes in the second round. He looked good dancing around but Reyes missed a significant number of strikes and or was blocked by jones a number of times in that second, whereas jones was not. It was closer than most think

Jones was the forward moving opponent and aggressor and dictated the pace of the fight for the majority of round in the second, whereas Reyes did not. The scoring criteria for octagon control and aggression would go to Jones, edging out Reyes if we are going to score it like a judge.

Many thought Jones won that second round and took the win as did I and many sporting outlets who gave the fight to Jones. It was a close fight that many thought it could have gone both ways.

Some who watched it thought jones did enough for 3,4,5, so it is what it is. It was a close fight.

 

[RedDevilFan]

PS:

They show the fight to refs and ask them to rescore the fight, and give reasons for that score objectively which is subjective to their scoring criterion. Two judges who scored it for jones were not present and may have had another view on the scoring, as could have others. Then a Ref who likes to talk too much, and has said the most asinine comments on his podcast, chimes in.

He is dubbed big douche McCarthy for a reason and is not a credible source for training.

The Askren fight against Jake Paul were an actual veteran boxing Ref did a good job in stopping the fight was called a small time ref making small time decisions by that same expert. But the decision to stop Askren in the Jake Paul fight was a good decision made by a long time pro to stop Askren from taking further punishment.

Along with other asinine comments he has made about fights, how he scored certain dubious fights, and Helwani's contribution to the sport comments, his views are dubious at best. That is not training, that is comedy.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Not it was not, it was a close fight and the metrics tell us why jones won the fight.

In order for it to be a robbery stats and metrics must also show it was a robbery and it did not. The stats for the fight showed why jones won the card and the fight. I have never heard refs training for fights using that fight, it sounds bogus. You cant tell refs to train for a fight that was razor thin and statistically on the metrics, was a win for jones.

Jones out landed Reyes 46-34 on significant strikes in the last two rounds, with a pair of take downs. In the fifth, Jones landed two hard right hands that snapped Reyes' head back. With the victory

Perception is subjecitve but added with metrics or statistics, then it can be plausible but without that it is not plausible. Statistics is hard facts and when the hard facts match up for jones and why he won the fitght, then it is atelling tale of why it was not a robbery.

What metrics? The full fight metrics? Do you know how fights are scored? You're saying that Jones took over in the last 2 rounds, but you know what 2 isn't? ... fuckin 3, bud

And yes it is being used as that training.
Edit*

You see in the first 3 rounds, the significant strikes are all so clo..
DOM +6
DOM +11
DOM +7
..wait no. Well, even if the significant strikes have a wide margin, I'm sure the total strikes and attempted volume must have made up the diff..
DOM +6 / +32
DOM +11 / +31
DOM +7 / +11
..oh no. I mean, where the strikes land is important too, so maybe Dom was just doing legwork while Jon surpassed him in combined head & body strikes to close the ga-
DOM +11
DOM +10
DOM +8
shit.. Well, Jon is one of the best wrestlers in MMA, I'm sure his successful takedowns and control time stole some ro-
JON 0/2 0 sec
JON 0/0 0 sec
JON 0/2 15 sec
... Oh... Well, there's always a difference of power and clean connections. Maybe the biggest moments of the rounds were Jones'? If you take a look at the UFC's post-round highlights in round 3, I'm sure we'll fin-

**
Funny how I made that post a while back when everyone was saying it was round 3 that Jon won, but you're saying 2, cuz the people who try to justify a Jon win can't even agree on what round makes that bullshit works

 

[suffersystem]

What metrics? The full fight metrics? Do you know how fights are scored? You're saying that Jones took over in the last 2 rounds, but you know what 2 isn't? ... fuckin 3, bud

And yes it is being used as that training.
Edit*

You see in the first 3 rounds, the significant strikes are all so clo..
DOM +6
DOM +11
DOM +7
..wait no. Well, even if the significant strikes have a wide margin, I'm sure the total strikes and attempted volume must have made up the diff..
DOM +6 / +32
DOM +11 / +31
DOM +7 / +11
..oh no. I mean, where the strikes land is important too, so maybe Dom was just doing legwork while Jon surpassed him in combined head & body strikes to close the ga-
DOM +11
DOM +10
DOM +8
shit.. Well, Jon is one of the best wrestlers in MMA, I'm sure his successful takedowns and control time stole some ro-
JON 0/2 0 sec
JON 0/0 0 sec
JON 0/2 15 sec
... Oh... Well, there's always a difference of power and clean connections. Maybe the biggest moments of the rounds were Jones'? If you take a look at the UFC's post-round highlights in round 3, I'm sure we'll fin-

**
Funny how I made that post a while back when everyone was saying it was round 3 that Jon won, but you're saying 2, cuz the people who try to justify a Jon win can't even agree on what round makes that bullshit works

To be fair, hitting a few more strikes doesn't sway the judges liekly when you are missing over half you strikes. Dude threw double the strikes but missed over half the time, might have swayed the judges as they don't have the live stats in front of themw hen judgeing fights.

 

[chinarice]

Non-fabricated robbery

Robbie Lawler vs Carlos Condit. I think it's actually really, really hard to give more than 1 round to Robbie.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

To be fair, hitting a few more strikes doesn't sway the judges liekly when you are missing over half you strikes. Dude threw double the strikes but missed over half the time, might have swayed the judges as they don't have the live stats in front of themw hen judgeing fights.

What is this accuracy narrative? Historically, missing more strikes DOES sway the judges. It's usually scored HIGHER, in fact. Aggression has always been scored, to the fact they had to change the judging wording to make it a tertiary concept and its STILL scored.

Judges do not score "accuracy" ever, and any who score a fighter who lands less strikes and less impactful strikes just because the opponent who landed more and harder (again, a make-believe judge, since that never happens) should be immediately fired.

 

[chinarice]

What is this accuracy narrative? Historically, missing more strikes DOES sway the judges. It's usually scored HIGHER, in fact. Aggression has always been scored, to the fact they had to change the judging wording to make it a tertiary concept and its STILL scored.

Judges do not score "accuracy" ever, and any who score a fighter who lands less strikes and less impactful strikes just because the opponent who landed more and harder (again, a make-believe judge, since that never happens) should be immediately fired.

Unless you're Carlos Condit fighting Robbie Lawler.....

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Unless you're Carlos Condit fighting Robbie Lawler.....

I try never to look at full fight stats because it means nothing to the overall scoring, but what kinda fucking jumps does someone need to make so that a guy loses a fight where he  landed as much as other guy threw.

That aside, he landed at almost twice the rate. I do give Robbie 2 and 5, but Condit took that fight.

But more to my point, it wasn't Condits "inaccuracy" that was "scored against him," it was Robbies power being scored up. That's definitely not the case with Jon over Dom in the first 3 rounds

 

[chinarice]

I try never to look at full fight stats because it means nothing to the overall scoring, but what kinda fucking jumps does someone need to make so that a guy loses a fight where he  landed as much as other guy threw.

Without even looking at the stats, I remember thinking Condit only possibly lost the 5th and that's it.

It's such a terrible judging decision IMO. Possibly the worst in any UFC title fight of the modern era