Facial damage and visual damage should 100% be a judging criteria

[Ragnus]

Was just having a discussion about this topic on another thread and I thought I would create my own to discuss this topic in more detail. I am getting so annoyed with the "it's not fair because some people cut easy" excuse, some people gas easy, some people have shit chins, some people's legs can't handle leg kicks, if you cut easy tough luck you need to gameplan around that, judging is based on effective striking and effective grappling, if a strike causes facial damage it is essentially more effective than a strike that doesn't, because open wounds are likely to get infected they affect vision, they essentially help you win a fight. It's so strange to me that they pause a fight to check a cut and wipe it down and shit, it would be like picking overeem up after the ngannou knockout because his chin is shit and giving him time to get checked out because its "unfair that his chin is shit ". If you get cut easy you need to gameplan around that just like overeem has his new 'econoreem' gameplan.

 

[JerichoMelenko]

Henderson beat Bisping in the rematch is all you had to say.

 

[Ragnus]

Henderson beat Bisping in the rematch is all you had to say.

no because at that time it wasn't a judging criteria and they knew that going into the fight but in the future if we had a mirror image of that fight then yes henderson would take that win.

 

[Flokk]

 

[KB Warrior]

You don’t think judges score blood? Even though its not in the rules blood effects a judge’s opinion of a fight.

 

[OneManGang]

Racist! It would favor dark skinned fighters.

 

[The Schmoop]

Nate Diaz says fuck that.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

You don’t think judges score blood? Even though its not in the rules blood effects a judge’s opinion of a fight.

It actually is in the rules now. Damage is one of the most important scoring criteria, but people want to pretend it's not.

 

[Ragnus]

You don’t think judges score blood? Even though its not in the rules blood effects a judge’s opinion of a fight.

100% i think some do but other's dont because its too subjective what "effective striking" means, they should elaborate on what effective striking is in the rules because currently, it is too ambiguous.

 

[DetachedOrchid]

Always figured it kinda was. Effective striking is doing damage.

 

[Kowboy On Sherdog]

I could see it in the future... Not the #1 criteria... but it does show a story of how the fight went. Just like the first Shogun - Machida fight... they didn't even count leg-kicks.

 

[Adjutant]

Dude, you’re fired up, huh?

 

[maxi diablo]

Nope, some fighter bleed and cut easier than others.

 

[Ragnus]

It actually is in the rules now. Damage is one of the most important scoring criteria, but people want to pretend it's not.

i think they should elaborate on it a bit more though its a bit ambiguous, they should say like if a strike opens them up with blood you should consider the effectiveness of this strike compared to one that didn't.

 

[king of theRing]

And here i thought spencer fisher kicked sam stouts ass. But since he bled like a pig, guess he didnt....

 

[Spacelord13]

So one glancing elbow that slices a fighter open. Or one punch that breaks a nose scores higher than the cut fighter pounding the piss out of the other fighter but no real physical damage ensues ?

No I really don’t think so.

 

[Final Say]

It actually is in the rules now. Damage is one of the most important scoring criteria, but people want to pretend it's not.

damage doesnt mean visible damage though. at least not to me.

you can get dropped and completely rocked and not even bruise or cut.

you can be kicked twice and not put any weight on that leg and limp for the rest of the fight and show little visible bruising.

i dont think thats what they mean by damage

to TS, too many variables. too many people mark up differently. you can usually tell by a fighters' reaction and the impact of strikes who is doing more damage.

 

[Ragnus]

And here i thought spencer fisher kicked sam stouts ass. But since he bled like a pig, guess he didnt....

i haven't watched this fight but I would assume the guy that got cut and was bleeding everywhere was getting controlled and was getting concussed and was getting mounted and all that jazz, then yeah then that guy's striking and grappling was more effective than the cut, im not saying facial damage be the only criteria i'm saying that it should be a criteria.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

damage doesnt mean visible damage though. at least not to me.

you can get dropped and completely rocked and not even bruise or cut.

you can be kicked twice and not put any weight on that leg and limp for the rest of the fight and show little visible bruising.

i dont think thats what they mean by damage

to TS, too many variables. too many people mark up differently. you can usually tell by a fighters' reaction and the impact of strikes who is doing more damage.

ok, I agree with that. It doesn't only mean getting cut or bruised. I was actually going to make a longer post where I was going to say getting staggered etc was important, but didn't really feel like it lol.

 

[Area809]

One bad cut in the first round could make a fighter look fucked up the rest of the fight. And that could be the only clean shot landed. Facial damage cannot be a criteria. I do like the idea of when someone is staggered, stunned, knocked down, hurt, etc being part of the criteria.