FIGHTS need to be scored as a whole not round by round

[Xyiencemma]

No I'm not saying that it DOESN'T MATTER. What I'm saying is IF a fighter wins the first (say 3) rounds in a five round fight, but the winning they did early on did not stop their opponent from taking over the fight and beating them in the last 2 rounds, then how much can the early 'winning' REALLY be worth? In a logical fight scenario, like in NHB contest, if a fighter is only 'hanging on' in the last 2 rounds, how much significance does his early 'winning' do? Its certainly not helping him win the fight when he's under mount getting pounded on (aside from it just being 'oh he won the early rounds').

And obviously I'm not saying that if a fighter is being beaten for 18 out of 20 minutes and makes is successful with a late flurry, there's got to be some common sense applied, its more in the case where a fighter goes all out, and dominates early proceedings (which might earn him three rounds), but clearly his opponent gets the better of things towards the end of the time.

Personally I think a fighter 'taking over the fight' is more important than early winning, but it would have to give me the impression that he was 'saved' by the bell. The judge would ask themselves "is there little doubt to me who would have won the fight, if it kept going?". I think that's an important question that is lost if you simply tally up rounds, as it is a question of judgement. And obviously with any system it must be backed up by competent judges. The UFC is the olympics of MMA, any system I would envisage would be backed up by EXPERT judges, such as is the case in the olympics.


@Emjay you and I have argued this many times before. I respect your opinion, but we are never going to agree, so I'll save my typing Not that I don't respect your opinion, just that we've done if before so it's no real benefit to either of us!

How about this, this is another idea which I think caters for a bit of common ground between overall and round by round:- what about if the fight was decided with a panel of experienced fight judges using a 'worm' style technology. Above and below the line, for a fighter's level of dominance at any period through the fight (forget the criteria, that's a separate matter) and at the end of the fight, the area under the graph is tallied to make the decision.

Any takers?

Your wrong. So if a guy wins the first 3 but not the last 2 he loses? So you can be hanging on in the beginning and win but not the end. There is not taking over in a fight. All damage throughout the fight counts

 

[MikeLovesTacosX]

No. What needs to happen is very simple. Keep the judging system how it is, but the each round needs to be scored individually with each judges score being 'handed in' after the round is over.

 

[Xyiencemma]

No. What needs to happen is very simple. Keep the judging system how it is, but the each round needs to be scored individually with each judges score being 'handed in' after the round is over.

I read that they turn it in at the end of the fight but there still not allowed to change there score during the fight

 

[Morning Star]

Agreed. MMA never should have been using boxing's flawed system in the 1st place.

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

Jones didn't kick Gus in the head 100 times throughout the fight... nah that didn't happen

Sure he did, but it did nothing. I wasn't even sure some of those were landing, I've never seen a professional fighter kick a guy a 100 times and their head not even move.

Sup Gus. Didn't know you posted on Sherdog

That's strange seeing as I thought Gus was going to get tooled.

Shook him up? WTF does that even mean. Jones was coming forward 90% of the fight.

It means he looked visibly stunned. You know the part where he looked like he was gassing and he was hesitant to attack because of the strikes that were connecting on him. I don't know if you know this, but there are levels of being hurt.

Walking forward, into Alex's strikes, whiffing at air, and failing to take Alex down. That's the kind of aggression that Diego beat Martin Kampmann with. The kind where your face beats up the other guy's hands.

The strike that cut Jones was a grazing one.

Yea, all those grazing shots that fattened his lip and created the swelling around his eyes.

Jones was never hurt in the first 5 rounds.

How can you say that, and then say "You can't quantify damage."

You don't know he wasn't hurt, the way he reacted in the fight said otherwise. He wasn't hurt like he was about to be ktfo but he definitely was wary of the strikes. Reality checked him right there, and he clearly wasn't aware Gus would be able to do that to him. If he was never hurt he'd have just did what he wanted when he wanted to, like Gus was doing for the 1st 3 rds.

You can't quantify damage. That's why it's not part of the criteria. It would put certain fighters at an inherent disadvantage to allow stuff like cuts or bruising to factor into the how the outcome of the fight is determined by the judges.

I never said it should be criteria, but it definitely says something about the fight. This isn't just a deal where 1 strike cut Jones open, he got hit with dozens of punches to the face. Even if he didn't get busted up, you can't take back the amount of strikes Gus landed. That's the kind of damage I'm talking about.

It's not the same as Jones kicks to the legs because Gus never started limping, never was even bothered by the kicks, Jones on the other hand was clearly bothered by Gus's punches.

 

[Magnum1978]

Your wrong. So if a guy wins the first 3 but not the last 2 he loses? So you can be hanging on in the beginning and win but not the end. There is not taking over in a fight. All damage throughout the fight counts

All damage counts, yes I would agree, but that's just part of the fight, if you simply had an easy way of tallying up damage - but this isn't street fighter with a damage bar or a point score. In fact each fighter reacts differently to damage, its not necessarily the best way of deciding a winner, plus it can be difficult to quantify as Emjay suggests (not impossible though, you can quantify the resultant effect of damage)

Anyway, given time is a linear thing, If the fight didn't have progression toward an eventual conclusion, then I would agree all minutes can be seen as equal. BUT its not necessarily that simple as a fight will always have a conclusion given enough time.

What I'm saying is that judgement should always be rendered in the context of: given unlimited time, we would eventually see a conclusion to this fight, its just that we were cut short of that. Thus, a judge must make a decision of who we think did better at that point in time the fight is cut short (the time limit), giving consideration to the aim of the fight (that is to FINISH their opponent).

And really we are only being forced to make a decision on the winner, because of time constraints. (and because we are scoring overall, not round by round. Round by round, this does not apply as you are only looking at a section of the fight)

So you see, when you look at things like that, (overall) early domination where a fighter was clearly losing has less relevance to the CONCLUSION (as the situation has been reversed) than recent events do to the conclusion. We never get to see the conclusion, but one would logically conclude that a fighter who is stronger the later the fight is, is more likely to be the one who finishes the fight (in the conclusion we never get to see).

So there you go, the way I see it, being beaten up early is not the same as being beaten up later in the fight, at the point at which the fight is summarily judged. So if there is a person who clearly "takes over" the fight this needs to weigh into the judges mind.

I would ask you this (very basic) hypothetical, if there were a 20 minute fight where the first 10 minutes is clearly dominated by Fighter A, however the 2nd 10 minutes, Fighter B has complete ascendancy and is dominating until the final bell, do you really think the fight deserves a draw? Assume approximately even damage over the whole fight.

Anyway, its an interesting discussion

 

[Emjay]

Sure he did, but it did nothing. I wasn't even sure some of those were landing, I've never seen a professional fighter kick a guy a 100 times and their head not even move.

Nothing, eh? As in on a scale of 0% - 100%, those kicks had 0% impact. Interesting.

That's strange seeing as I thought Gus was going to get tooled.

This has nothing to do with what I said, lol ... I want to know how you know what those kicks felt like. I assumed you're Gus because you're saying they did nothing and only Gus would know that.

It means he looked visibly stunned. You know the part where he looked like he was gassing and he was hesitant to attack because of the strikes that were connecting on him. I don't know if you know this, but there are levels of being hurt.

I don't think he was hesitant. Gus was backing up most of the fight, Jones had to walk him down. He threw as much as Gus did.

Walking forward, into Alex's strikes, whiffing at air, and failing to take Alex down. That's the kind of aggression that Diego beat Martin Kampmann with. The kind where your face beats up the other guy's hands.

Jones landed lots of kicks.

Yea, all those grazing shots that fattened his lip and created the swelling around his eyes.

Nope. Just talkin bout the one that cut him. Nice try though

How can you say that, and then say "You can't quantify damage."

You don't know he wasn't hurt, the way he reacted in the fight said otherwise. He wasn't hurt like he was about to be ktfo but he definitely was wary of the strikes. Reality checked him right there, and he clearly wasn't aware Gus would be able to do that to him. If he was never hurt he'd have just did what he wanted when he wanted to, like Gus was doing for the 1st 3 rds.

Of course I don't know he wasn't hurt. At the same time you have no idea what his mindset was. It goes both ways bub

I never said it should be criteria, but it definitely says something about the fight. This isn't just a deal where 1 strike cut Jones open, he got hit with dozens of punches to the face. Even if he didn't get busted up, you can't take back the amount of strikes Gus landed. That's the kind of damage I'm talking about.

A fight is more than punches to the face.

It's not the same as Jones kicks to the legs because Gus never started limping, never was even bothered by the kicks, Jones on the other hand was clearly bothered by Gus's punches.

Well Gus definitely wasn't bouncing around the entire fight like he was the first round. But yeah, Jones' kicks had nothing to do with that.

Jones was aesthetically impacted by the strikes to the face, but the fact that he was the aggressor the overwhelming majority of the fight would suggest that he wasn't deterred by them.

 

[ManofSteel]

I think the huge problem right now is half the judges DO use a whole fight mentality, while others score round by round. Also the whole vague terminology is bullshit... what is "effective striking"?

For example, if I jab your right eye out about 60 times, but you leg kick me 75 times, with comparable blows elsewhere, who is the more effective striker?

Likewise, in terms of "effective grappling," if you score 2 takedowns, but I have two sweeps and nearly submit you once, who wins there?

I think until we get a clear scoring hierarchy of takedowns, punches, kicks and chokes, I cannot understand how we actually score this in close situations...

This is not unlike what happened in Jones-Gustafsson, they were about equal grappling, but Gustafsson murdered Jones in jabs to the head, while Jones outkicked him, primarily to the legs, but also landed many kicks to the head. So I was more impressed by the consistency of the jabs and dirty boxing, rather than Jones' near finish and volume kicking. I can totally see why most people scored otherwise and admit I may need to re-watch.

Regardless, I think I have a point in saying the vagueness in "octagon control" and other terms NEEDS to be clarified into objective, measureable terms.

 

[Xyiencemma]

All damage counts, yes I would agree, but that's just part of the fight, if you simply had an easy way of tallying up damage - but this isn't street fighter with a damage bar or a point score. In fact each fighter reacts differently to damage, its not necessarily the best way of deciding a winner, plus it can be difficult to quantify as Emjay suggests (not impossible though, you can quantify the resultant effect of damage)

Anyway, given time is a linear thing, If the fight didn't have progression toward an eventual conclusion, then I would agree all minutes can be seen as equal. BUT its not necessarily that simple as a fight will always have a conclusion given enough time.

What I'm saying is that judgement should always be rendered in the context of: given unlimited time, we would eventually see a conclusion to this fight, its just that we were cut short of that. Thus, a judge must make a decision of who we think did better at that point in time the fight is cut short (the time limit), giving consideration to the aim of the fight (that is to FINISH their opponent).

And really we are only being forced to make a decision on the winner, because of time constraints. (and because we are scoring overall, not round by round. Round by round, this does not apply as you are only looking at a section of the fight)

So you see, when you look at things like that, (overall) early domination where a fighter was clearly losing has less relevance to the CONCLUSION (as the situation has been reversed) than recent events do to the conclusion. We never get to see the conclusion, but one would logically conclude that a fighter who is stronger the later the fight is, is more likely to be the one who finishes the fight (in the conclusion we never get to see).

So there you go, the way I see it, being beaten up early is not the same as being beaten up later in the fight, at the point at which the fight is summarily judged. So if there is a person who clearly "takes over" the fight this needs to weigh into the judges mind.

I would ask you this (very basic) hypothetical, if there were a 20 minute fight where the first 10 minutes is clearly dominated by Fighter A, however the 2nd 10 minutes, Fighter B has complete ascendancy and is dominating until the final bell, do you really think the fight deserves a draw? Assume approximately even damage over the whole fight.

Anyway, its an interesting discussion

If they both win 10 minutes in the same fashion its a draw. That's like saying if one teams scores 14 points in the last 2 quarters and the other team scored 14 in the first 2 the team that scored the last 14 wins. I have know clue what your trying to say but winning the second half of a fight is not more dominant than winning the first half

 

[Magnum1978]

If they both win 10 minutes in the same fashion its a draw. That's like saying if one teams scores 14 points in the last 2 quarters and the other team scored 14 in the first 2 the team that scored the last 14 wins. I have know clue what your trying to say but winning the second half of a fight is not more dominant than winning the first half

No, I said earlier that scoring a fight should NOT be like scoring a basketball or football match that has a inherent length of time as a finishing point and defined points.

And if you don't have a clue as to what I'm trying to say regarding that point, I won't bother any more. Obviously you must not put any stock or understand why I value a fighter completely turning around and taking over a fight, but fair enough if that's your opinion.

But at least cheers for agreeing with the rest of the points I said.

 

[Xyiencemma]

No, I said earlier that scoring a fight should NOT be like scoring a basketball or football match that has a inherent length of time as a finishing point and defined points.

And if you don't have a clue as to what I'm trying to say regarding that point, I won't bother any more. Obviously you must not put any stock or understand why I value a fighter completely turning around and taking over a fight, but fair enough if that's your opinion.

But at least cheers for agreeing with the rest of the points I said.

Your giving super long explanations and maybe I am reading it wrong. I'm not getting what your saying. Yes it's great to see fighters turn it around but that doesn't make up for them losing all before that and cancelling out the other guys work in the beginning. I'm confused possibly!

 

[Angle Shooter]

I feel if they starting scoring 10-10 rounds more frequently for very close rounds (the ones with potentially debatable winners) there would be far too many draws for fans to endure.

 

[Magnum1978]

Your giving super long explanations and maybe I am reading it wrong. I'm not getting what your saying. Yes it's great to see fighters turn it around but that doesn't make up for them losing all before that and cancelling out the other guys work in the beginning. I'm confused possibly!

It's all good, for me it comes down to seeing a 'fight' different to another 'sport' perhaps. A sport like basketball has a certain length of time by default, where as a fight, if left could go on and on.

So my basis for determining the winner of a fight comes from the perspective that the timelimit is only there because otherwise the fight might last 2 hours (like the old days with NO timelimit).

Thus I put some weight into a fighter taking control of the fight because its more likely that the fighter who had taken over the fight (at the time of the final bell) would be the fighter who would have finished the fight, if there was no time limit. And this even if the damage given through the whole fight was relatively even, in total.

I hope that makes some sense, but its ok if it doesn't

 

[ManofSteel]

As I said before, regardless of whether the rules are changed or not, what really needs to be changed is how they are interpreted... you cannot leave vague language and then be shocked when judges are more impressed with grappling than striking, when one is not favoured over the other and when a certain type of strike is favoured over volume or whatever.

I am sure if fights were judged as a whole, we'd have as many people thinking it's ridiculous that you can maul someone for 20 minutes, then get mashed up in 5 and then lose on points.

 

[Xyiencemma]

It's all good, for me it comes down to seeing a 'fight' different to another 'sport' perhaps. A sport like basketball has a certain length of time by default, where as a fight, if left could go on and on.

So my basis for determining the winner of a fight comes from the perspective that the timelimit is only there because otherwise the fight might last 2 hours (like the old days with NO timelimit).

Thus I put some weight into a fighter taking control of the fight because its more likely that the fighter who had taken over the fight (at the time of the final bell) would be the fighter who would have finished the fight, if there was no time limit. And this even if the damage given through the whole fight was relatively even, in total.

I hope that makes some sense, but its ok if it doesn't

ok that made perfect sense. Your scoring the fighter taking over more because it appears if the fight was to continue to a finish he would win kind of like sanchez takin over vs ellenburger than time ran out. I get what your saying. However under the current rules I believe a fight like that would still be a draw but I get what your saying about if there was no time limit :icon_lol:

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

Nothing, eh? As in on a scale of 0% - 100%, those kicks had 0% impact. Interesting.

As in Gus looked exactly the same as before the kick landed. You want to see what a REAL damaging kick does, look at the co-main event. Renan Barao lands a kick at the same time as Wineland kicks and it visibly bothers Wineland the rest of the fight.

THAT is what a kick with impact does to someone. You see what Jose Aldo did to Urijah Faber? He was landing kicks and it was spinning Faber's entire body around. Or when Cung Le kicks a guy to the midsection and he goes flying? THAT'S how you can tell the kick was powerful.

If you want scientific evidence you're going to have to pay money for that bro.

This has nothing to do with what I said, lol ... I want to know how you know what those kicks felt like. I assumed you're Gus because you're saying they did nothing and only Gus would know that.

That's one hell of an actor. If people get damaged, you can't hide it. You can't mask being rocked, you can't mask getting your knee hurt. If your knee is hurt, no matter how tough you are, it will show.

I don't think he was hesitant. Gus was backing up most of the fight, Jones had to walk him down. He threw as much as Gus did.

Gus wasn't backing up, Gus got into his face right from the start. If you mean when he was jumping in and out of range, I'm sorry that's not backing up, that's tactically getting out of the way of counters.

Jones landed lots of kicks.

To the legs that had minimal impact.

Nope. Just talkin bout the one that cut him. Nice try though

And I wasn't talking just about the cut. Nice try though.

Of course I don't know he wasn't hurt. At the same time you have no idea what his mindset was. It goes both ways bub

It was pretty obvious Gus's style frustrated him early on. It's the same way he looked during the 1st rd of Machida.

A fight is more than punches to the face.

Yeah, and it's also more than kicks to the legs. What's your point? Jones landed less strikes that did damage than Alex. That's the point.

Well Gus definitely wasn't bouncing around the entire fight like he was the first round. But yeah, Jones' kicks had nothing to do with that.

It took 4 rds before Alex realized his leg was destroyed by Jones kicks? OR he was tired because he had been fighting for 20 minutes?

Jones was aesthetically impacted by the strikes to the face, but the fact that he was the aggressor the overwhelming majority of the fight would suggest that he wasn't deterred by them.

I don't see how being aggressive wins you points. The best strike he landed was a counter when Alex was coming in. Every time he moved forward Alex avoided everything he threw.

Effective aggression is different then just trying to land something because you're getting desperate.

We're going to have to agree to disagree because clearly you're not trying to see both sides of this and are just trying to convince people you are right and your boy is invincible.

 

[strawberry]

I think finding a way to get more qualified judges at ringside is more important than arguing over which system to use. Doesn't matter how good the system is if the people in charge of it don't know what they're looking at.

That's not an indictment over JJ/Gus fight, though. I didn't have a problem with the decision, (although I did smh at the 49-46 scorecard).

 

[Oleg Salenko]

What. A. Moron.

Jones outsruck Gustaffson by the largest margin of the fight in the second round and nearly finished him in the fourth...

Not true. I assume you have read fightmetric numbers and misconstrued them. F

 

[Emjay]

As in Gus looked exactly the same as before the kick landed. You want to see what a REAL damaging kick does, look at the co-main event. Renan Barao lands a kick at the same time as Wineland kicks and it visibly bothers Wineland the rest of the fight.

THAT is what a kick with impact does to someone. You see what Jose Aldo did to Urijah Faber? He was landing kicks and it was spinning Faber's entire body around. Or when Cung Le kicks a guy to the midsection and he goes flying? THAT'S how you can tell the kick was powerful.

If you want scientific evidence you're going to have to pay money for that bro.

Yet you still don't know how they impacted Gus. You're not being objective.

That's one hell of an actor. If people get damaged, you can't hide it. You can't mask being rocked, you can't mask getting your knee hurt. If your knee is hurt, no matter how tough you are, it will show.

Chuck Liddell didn't know he hurt Rampage with a body shot in their first Pride fight
Kevin Randleman didn't know he rocked Rampage in their fight...
Frank Mir didn't know he rocked Brock in their second fight...

Gus wasn't backing up, Gus got into his face right from the start. If you mean when he was jumping in and out of range, I'm sorry that's not backing up, that's tactically getting out of the way of counters.

Jones was the aggressor. Gus fights on his bicycle.

To the legs that had minimal impact.

Says the guy that didn't take the kicks. He landed plenty head kicks as well.

And I wasn't talking just about the cut. Nice try though.

I was though.

It was pretty obvious Gus's style frustrated him early on. It's the same way he looked during the 1st rd of Machida.

Nah, it wasn't obvious.

Yeah, and it's also more than kicks to the legs. What's your point? Jones landed less strikes that did damage than Alex. That's the point.

Define damage.

The only guy that was close to being finished was Gus.

It took 4 rds before Alex realized his leg was destroyed by Jones kicks? OR he was tired because he had been fighting for 20 minutes?

Maybe he wasn't as bouncy in the 2nd round as he was in the 1st?

I don't see how being aggressive wins you points. The best strike he landed was a counter when Alex was coming in. Every time he moved forward Alex avoided everything he threw.

See Machida vs Rampage for your first point.

Just because his best strike was a counter doesn't mean he didn't throw 1400 of the same strike previous to landing that one while being the aggressor.

Effective aggression is different then just trying to land something because you're getting desperate.

You can't prove he was desperate. Just because you think you saw desperation doesn't mean you saw it

We're going to have to agree to disagree because clearly you're not trying to see both sides of this and are just trying to convince people you are right and your boy is invincible.

He's not my boy. I don't care who wins. I'm one of the most objective people on this site.

 

[DhakaMMA]

no. Pride rules fucking sucked.

s.m.f.h.