For those that have RECENTLY watched and scored Covington VS Usman 2... tell me why I'm wrong ....

[Herwald]

It was a close, competitive fight, but just, overall, Usman seemed like the clear winner and champ in there. Colby just needed at least one good moment to really muddy the decision waters.

He ever builds back to the top, I don't think he should be striking with Usman. Just keep trying to take him down. Tire him out as much as you can.

 

[gluehuffer1776]

Should have been a draw or a colby win but then again i am a colby simp

 

[Myrddin Wild]

I don't know about you guys but I love re-watching fights because it's almost NEVER like I remembered it. I think we all go into watching fights with some bias and having a desire to see a certain fighter win.

For sure, the fight looks way different the next day. I'd never get too confident about my personal scoring of any fight unless I've seen it twice and often more.

I've watched entire fights in slow motion, pausing & taking notes as needed just to see what's what... in closely scored fights. (yes Mac beat Nate the second time, but I've seen way more controversial decisions that I've determined one way or the other in my mind, with this method.)

pushed the pace more.

"Pushing the pace" is not a judging criteria. (unless used as the "extremely rare" very last resort to break a tie.)

The Unified Roolz of MMA - should be studied, & understood by every fight fan, because we always end up talking about how we would've judged it. Best to have those conversationz, though, after having read the actual judging criteria yeah? (It's just a couple of fooking pagez folks.)

Even mentioning or giving any weight at all to Octagon control is a common mistake to bring into a discussion about judging the score of a fight.

Back in the beginning of the UFC... & for a while there-after... "Cage Control" was an official criteria... & also talked a lot about by the commentators, but now it's out.

Fun fact though: Texas still has this acknowledgement... thus how Bones beat Reyes.

(My MS Paint ^^^ "shoop contest entree" ^^^ for that event. )

The "cage control" criteria was universal until 2000, but their "rool wording" & lack of organization... left place for debate & so many just kept the criteria. (or any they chose to believe for that matter) In 2017 though... they officially nixxed it for good with a new rool set. It's very clear now where octagon control fits in.

Well kinda. (a tie can be broken with "aggression or cage control")

So for most fights... aggression counts for zero. "Control" is even further removed. That said... there is still a caveat where it can come in handy... but it's almost impossible to achieve.

Wildo'z walk through teh roolz regarding octagon control.​

1. First criteria is "DAMAGE" (though for legal reasons, they don't use that word any more... but it's still the main criteria) "IF" and only "IF" the "impact"... (Their politically correct word for "damage") to your opponent was equal... you go to the 2nd criteria.
2. Second criteria - "Effective" Striking & Grappling. This is number 1's twin brother... but if someone can get an advantage with "damage" ...the opponent will have to do a helluvalot of "insignificant strike landing" to beat someone who has showed the world physical damage during the round. "IF" and only "IF" Damage is "equal" or close... is number 2 even in play. Then we just look at who landed more or did "effective" grappling. & shit like that, but if damage is skewed, then that is way more important than someone just landing more pitty pat shots. (hope that makes sense.)
   • If it's still a tie after that... then... and only then... do we go to the almost absent and 3rd criteria that would keep us from a tie...
3. Third criteria - "Effective" Aggressiveness - Only if 1 & 2 are absolutely indistinguishable... and the judge feels like the round is a tie... can that tie be broken if one person was more aggressive & took more opportunities to try & finish the fight. (this is where we get the guy who's not making damage, but he'z tagging his opponent lightly, or the wrestling is actually paying off with body shots and he's forcing the action etc....) Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact, or laying on your opponent after a TD... should not render in the judges’ assessments at this tier.
   
4. Forth criteria Pressure and Control - Finally, we get this official recognition... at least in the final hour of decision making.

• Note that if a person gets a TD, he does in fact get a judging credit for advancing his position, but if he then does zero damage, advancing of position, or submission attempts, he gets zero for the act of laying on top of his opponent whether that be for an entire 5 minutes or just seconds... it's scored exactly the same. This is important to understand because pressuring your opponent while standing... or even holding them against the fence or even laying on top of them on the ground scorez zero. (unless 1 - 3 are equal.)

• If all 4 above are equal... then a 10/10 (not 9/9) will be awarded.

I hope that made sense & came off constructive. It's very common for people to not understand these distinctionz, but we simply just need to take a good look at the judging criteria & see exactly what they are supposed to be basing their decisions on, before we get too adamant about what "we think the score was" in any fight.

Now I am no judge and correct me please if I am wrong but I thought the winner of the round gets 10 points the loser 9 or less. I believe if you think the round was a draw you can do a 9-9 to me this round was a 9-9.

it's 10-10 actually. (See link above.)

Think you could give Colby the 5th or the 3rd but to give him both those rounds is a bit biased.

Each round is to be scored in an of itself after the round ends & without consideration to other rounds. iow... There is no "we can't give him 2 rounds" debate when each round is scored as an entity within itself.

Each round has to be hashed out individually as an entity within itself.

Each round is what it is. Compartmentalizing them together into a single statement to say "we can't just give him 2 rounds"... is beyond the reach of the official judging criteria. (As it should be.)

Spoiler: Call list

@One MMA Fan
@EvilDDS
@Arqueto
@Otto!
@Draxton
@315MMAFighter
@bigwaverider
@JayPettryMMA
@giovanni_ss
@Dude Incredible
@ventrue
@BFoe
@Ares Black
@the Kowboy
@PurpleStorm
@helax
@Zebra Cheeks
@Stat_Collector
@Rebelfett
@Krixes
@Minnja
@SakurabasEar
@SKYNET
@scorpipede
@spamking
@Paynebringer
@Jackonfire
@Kryptt
@Golden Arms

I thought you guyz might be interested in this and/or have something in mind to expand the subject.

It's obviously compromised with "local judges" and even "travelling judges" who are just hard headed AF & just want to see their personal priorities be the law... but outside of those anomalies... the unified roolz are gospel in any conversation regarding judge scoring... so lets get into it. Lets drop the veil & talk about the actual judging criteria instead of something that's been skewed by years of watching MMA prior to these roolz.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

For sure, the fight looks way different the next day. I'd never get too confident about my personal scoring of any fight unless I've seen it twice and often more.

I've watched entire fights in slow motion, pausing & taking notes as needed just to see what's what... in closely scored fights. (yes Mac beat Nate the second time, but I've seen way more controversial decisions that I've determined one way or the other in my mind, with this method.)


"Pushing the pace" is not a judging criteria. (unless used as the "extremely rare" very last resort to break a tie.)

The Unified Roolz of MMA - should be studied, & understood by every fight fan, because we always end up talking about how we would've judged it. Best to have those conversationz, though, after having read the actual judging criteria yeah? (It's just a couple of fooking pagez folks.)

Even mentioning or giving any weight at all to Octagon control is a common mistake to bring into a discussion about judging the score of a fight.

Back in the beginning of the UFC... & for a while there-after... "Cage Control" was an official criteria... & also talked a lot about by the commentators, but now it's out.

Fun fact though: Texas still has this acknowledgement... thus how Bones beat Reyes.

(My MS Paint ^^^ "shoop contest entree" ^^^ for that event. )

The "cage control" criteria was universal until 2000, but their "rool wording" & lack of organization... left place for debate & so many just kept the criteria. (or any they chose to believe for that matter) In 2017 though... they officially nixxed it for good with a new rool set. It's very clear now where octagon control fits in.

Well kinda. (a tie can be broken with "aggression or cage control")

So for most fights... aggression counts for zero. "Control" is even further removed. That said... there is still a caveat where it can come in handy... but it's almost impossible to achieve.

Wildo'z walk through teh roolz regarding octagon control.​

1. First criteria is "DAMAGE" (though for legal reasons, they don't use that word any more... but it's still the main criteria) "IF" and only "IF" the "impact"... (Their politically correct word for "damage") to your opponent was equal... you go to the 2nd criteria.
2. Second criteria - "Effective" Striking & Grappling. This is number 1's twin brother... but if someone can get an advantage with "damage" ...the opponent will have to do a helluvalot of "insignificant strike landing" to beat someone who has showed the world physical damage during the round. "IF" and only "IF" Damage is "equal" or close... is number 2 even in play. Then we just look at who landed more or did "effective" grappling. & shit like that, but if damage is skewed, then that is way more important than someone just landing more pitty pat shots. (hope that makes sense.)
   • If it's still a tie after that... then... and only then... do we go to the almost absent and 3rd criteria that would keep us from a tie...
3. Third criteria - "Effective" Aggressiveness - Only if 1 & 2 are absolutely indistinguishable... and the judge feels like the round is a tie... can that tie be broken if one person was more aggressive & took more opportunities to try & finish the fight. (this is where we get the guy who's not making damage, but he'z tagging his opponent lightly, or the wrestling is actually paying off with body shots and he's forcing the action etc....) Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact, or laying on your opponent after a TD... should not render in the judges’ assessments at this tier.
   
4. Forth criteria Pressure and Control - Note that if a person gets a TD, he does in fact get a judging credit for advancing his position, but if he then does zero damage, advancing of position, or submission attempts, he gets zero for the act of laying on top of his opponent whether that be for an entire 5 minutes or just seconds... it's scored exactly the same. (this is important to understand because pressuring your opponent while standing... or even holding them against the fence or even laying on top of them on the ground scorez zero. (unless 1 - 3 are equal.)
   
5. If all 4 above are equal... then a 10/10 (not 9/9) will be awarded.

I hope that made sense & came off constructive. It's very common for people to not understand these distinctionz, but we simply just need to take a good look at the judging criteria & see exactly what they are supposed to be basing their decisions on, before we get too adamant about what "we think the score was" in any fight.

it's 10-10 actually. (See link above.)



Each round is to be scored in an of itself after the round ends & without consideration to other rounds. iow... There is no "we can't give him 2 rounds" debate when each round is scored as an entity within itself.

Each round has to be hashed out individually as an entity within itself.

Each round is what it is. Compartmentalizing them together into a single statement to say "we can't just give him 2 rounds"... is beyond the reach of the official judging criteria. (As it should be.)

Spoiler: Call list

@One MMA Fan
@EvilDDS
@Arqueto
@Otto!
@Draxton
@315MMAFighter
@bigwaverider
@JayPettryMMA
@giovanni_ss
@Dude Incredible
@ventrue
@BFoe
@Ares Black
@the Kowboy
@PurpleStorm
@helax
@Zebra Cheeks
@Stat_Collector
@Rebelfett
@Krixes
@Minnja
@SakurabasEar
@SKYNET
@scorpipede
@spamking
@Paynebringer
@Jackonfire
@Kryptt
@Golden Arms

I thought you guyz might be interested in this and/or have something in mind to expand the subject.

It's obviously compromised with "local judges" and even "travelling judges" who are just hard headed AF & just want to see their personal priorities be the law... but outside of those anomalies... the unified roolz are gospel in any conversation regarding judge scoring... so lets get into it. Lets drop the veil & talk about the actual judging criteria instead of something that's been skewed by years of watching MMA prior to these roolz.

They’ve made it very clear how it SHOULD be interpreted, however, as many know that doesn’t mean judges necessarily score that way. I got into an argument w sal damato over one of his score cards and he explained he scored it that way because of a fighter being more aggressive. I told him he needs to read the rules before taking another fight and he blocked me.

My point being, yes, you’re right, that’s how it’s supposed to be enforced. However the judging is not nearly consistent enough to confidently enforce such intricate details such as having certain categories primary, and others excess.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

They’ve made it very clear how it SHOULD be interpreted, however, as many know that doesn’t mean judges necessarily score that way. I got into an argument w sal damato over one of his score cards and he explained he scored it that way because of a fighter being more aggressive. I told him he needs to read the rules before taking another fight and he blocked me.

Thank you for attempting (at least) to try & educate people who should've already been educated.

Up until recently, we've had different "state commissions" and/or countries, writing their own roolz. Eventually we'll get to where it's just one set of rools and anything else will be an exception. We've gotten a lot closer atm... but we do still have some space to grow here.

My point being, yes, you’re right, that’s how it’s supposed to be enforced. However the judging is not nearly consistent enough to confidently enforce such intricate details such as having certain categories primary, and others excess.

Well said... and this has been the whole problem with this "new sport" moving on to the unified rools... which will historically show that eventually everyone had no choice but to follow teh official roolz... else they not have a fooking job.

It's just growing pains here. The unified rools are inevitable. We just have the unique opportunity to watch it all play out while the hard headz try to hang on to the past with a white knuckle grip.

 

[DoctorStoppage]

Colby fought well to come back and make it competitive but there’s no argument he won that fight imo.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

Thank you for attempting (at least) to try & educate people who should've already been educated.

Up until recently, we've had different "state commissions" and/or countries, writing their own roolz. Eventually we'll get to where it's just one set of rools and anything else will be an exception. We've gotten a lot closer atm... but we do still have some space to grow here.



Well said... and this has been the whole problem with this "new sport" moving on to the unified rools... which will historically show that eventually everyone had no choice but to follow teh official roolz... else they not have a fooking job.

It's just growing pains here. The unified rools are inevitable. We just have the unique opportunity to watch it all play out while the hard headz try to hang on to the past with a white knuckle grip.

My biggest gripe is the consistency. I’ll be honest I have my opinions on “how” a fight should be scored. However, I dont particularly care until consistency is addressed.

The infractions for fouls, the scoring of close rounds, and how those things are decided needs to be FAR more consistent.

Personally I think the current rules are impractical and don’t address the “eye test”. Yes damage is important. But the rule set itself is specifically designed to leave fights “open to interpretation”. It’s meant to allow flexibility of the judging staff. Which as we’ve all seen can be both a blessing and a curse. The fact that it’s so murky means that judges don’t have to be restricted by a specific guideline. However, that also means judges with good intentions can miscalculate a fight horribly.

imagine if we scored basketball by having a judge decide how many pts the shot is worth after the shot is presented and we scored each shot individually based on difficulty…ok, now think about game winning shots. What if one team clearly played better but then they hit a shot that is “game clinching”? Do you tweak it to let the fighter who deserves it win? These are the kinds of complications judges face often. They shouldn’t, but they do.

go into a pbp on any card and you’ll see on any close rounds that many intelligent, well educated, knowledgeable fans with 5+ years of watching the sport still rate rounds differently.

that’s the fault of the rule set. And the judging is a by product of the rule set.

The rules need to be revisited because honestly they suck. It can’t make it THIS complicated and expect consistency in the sport. It’s not possible.

 

[El Panteron]

Each round is to be scored in an of itself after the round ends & without consideration to other rounds. iow... There is no "we can't give him 2 rounds" debate when each round is scored as an entity within itself.

Each round has to be hashed out individually as an entity within itself.

Each round is what it is. Compartmentalizing them together into a single statement to say "we can't just give him 2 rounds"... is beyond the reach of the official judging criteria. (As it should be.)

Not what I meant at all.
I'm sure you know that the probability of 2 or 3 unlikely events occurring consecutively is A LOT lower than just one unlikely event occurring.
So giving Colby one round is different from 2 that is different from 3.
Point being that scoring all close rounds for Colby is probably biased or at least quite unlikely.

 

[Kryptt]

As mentioned there is too much personal perception, miscomprehension (and enforcemet) of rules, eyes catch what they catch during action, etc...

I've explained the stupid back of the head rule over a dozen times. It's still argued under false pretenses and never seems to change. Refs botch it endlessly...

This is right under those exact caveats.

I've been on the same page as Sal and um Chris on scoring... Not oft but again... Perception and Snapshots of action in your mind.... Shit is going to fall through...

 

[Ken Fresno]

so.. everyone, including ts, admitting it should have been a draw.

lol

"Look guys, I have definitively proven that Usman won the fight. You simply have to give him a 10-8 that no official judge gave him and score a round 9-9, which isn't a thing."

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

Not what I meant at all.
I'm sure you know that the probability of 2 or 3 unlikely events occurring consecutively is A LOT lower than just one unlikely event occurring.
So giving Colby one round is different from 2 that is different from 3.
Point being that scoring all close rounds for Colby is probably biased or at least quite unlikely.

Assuming there is some universe where the "truth" is that Colby won all contested rounds, a Sherdog forum poster giving all three rounds to Colby wouldn't be evidence of bias, it would be in line with the truth. So by saying there's bias in that situation, you're basically assuming Colby didn't win all three rounds, or it's impossible to tell whether he did. Which of course is not the correct way to think about things.

Second of all, your statement about 2 or 3 consecutive events is not necessarily true. If those events are dependent, then the combined probability of them occurring isn't necessarily much lower than a single rare event.

 

[Alexander_GOATanovski]

Fun fact though: Texas still has this acknowledgement... thus how Bones beat Reyes.

(My MS Paint ^^^ "shoop contest entree" ^^^ for that event. )

The "cage control" criteria was universal until 2000, but their "rool wording" & lack of organization... left place for debate & so many just kept the criteria. (or any they chose to believe for that matter) In 2017 though... they officially nixxed it for good with a new rool set. It's very clear now where octagon control fits in.

Is the scoring criteria directly tied to the unified rules of MMA? I created a thread a while ago scoring Whittaker vs Adesanya 2 which took place in Texas and made an argument for why I think the scoring criteria from the 2017 unified rules were used instead of that vague one described by TSAC.

I made an educated guess that the octagon rules of MMA are not truly unified while the judging criteria is. If you have prolific judges like Sal D'Amato who still don't understand that effective aggression is a secondary criteria, I can't imagine why other judges would automatically know about the differences in the scoring criteria between Texas and 2017 unified rules.

 

[Willek]

I see some valid points but I scored it 1, 2 and 5 for Nick Diaz.

 

[El Panteron]

Assuming there is some universe where the "truth" is that Colby won all contested rounds, a Sherdog forum poster giving all three rounds to Colby wouldn't be evidence of bias, it would be in line with the truth. So by saying there's bias in that situation, you're basically assuming Colby didn't win all three rounds, or it's impossible to tell whether he did. Which of course is not the correct way to think about things.

Second of all, your statement about 2 or 3 consecutive events is not necessarily true. If those events are dependent, then the combined probability of them occurring isn't necessarily much lower than a single rare event.

???
This is a weird post.
There isn't an inherent winner to a round, there are events and the interpretations people give to them.
The bias/high unlikeliness is in all interpretations going one direction - the rounds are there.

 

[TheBulge]

You didn't know even rounds are scored 10-10? I guess 9-9 makes you special and different sweety.

 

[Pascal Bergeron]

That was either a draw or a win for colby depending if the 2 round was 10-8 (it should be)

 

[Queenofchaos]

There is a reason Colby calls Usman his son.

He won the fight. He was winning the first one too but fucked up last round

 

[maximus__]

Ok so yes I know Colby is always in character and obviously he is holding onto this image that he won the 2nd Usman fight and pretending everyone thought he won. Yesterday I decided to watch it and see for myself. In my memory I thought it was close but Usman definitely should have been declared the winner. Also I don't know about you guys but I love re-watching fights because it's almost NEVER like I remembered it. I think we all go into watching fights with some bias and having a desire to see a certain fighter win. Anyway...

Round 1 - Pretty uneventful but Usman landed a little more and pushed the pace more. Colby seemed to have a slow start and seemed tentative. 10-9 Usman

Round 2 - Usman landed some huge shots and dropped him TWICE and ended the round with Colby face down just blasting him in the ribs with hard shots. That's a 10-8 in my eyes without a doubt.

Round 3 - Colby is having his best round so far. Getting more comfortable and starting to land some shots and utilize his wrestling a little. I'd honestly say that Usman won most of this round but Colby won the last 2 min pretty convincingly. Now I am no judge and correct me please if I am wrong but I thought the winner of the round gets 10 points the loser 9 or less. I believe if you think the round was a draw you can do a 9-9 to me this round was a 9-9.

Round 4 - Colby won this round clearly. Landed the better shots and even stunned Usman a few times, Higher volume and his best round yet. 10-9 Colby

Round 5 - Looked a lot like round 4 but maybe a little bit closer but to me Colby also clearly won a 10-9 with round 5. 10-9 Colby

Usman 47 - Colby 46 in my opinion is the proper score for this fight. Round 3 is the real question mark and it's when Colby starts to turn the corner and really put it all together in the 2nd fight. I really just think that round was a draw BUT even if you score round 3 for Colby I don't see how you can say round two was not a 10-8 for Usman therefore at best Colby would have a draw but still can't say he even beat Usman. For what it's worth i'd like to see colby get a 3rd fight and win the title.

It's just the power advantage of Usman. He just hits harder than Colby. The rounds are so close that you have to give it to the bigger puncher without a knockdown or big moment. Each time the round is even, Usman edges it by landing bigger shots and Colby visibly reacting.

A draw is 10-10.

 

[maximus__]

2nd round is not a 10-8, He was never close to being finished. Scoring criteria isn't based on what you think is right. The rules for judging are clear.

2 Knockdowns and finishing the round in the fetal position and being saved by the bell is a 10-8 or should be. Clear round for Usman. If more rounds like that were scored correctly we would see less controversial fights. 10-9 should be in close fights were both fighters are having success, but one fighter is dictating the pace and fight. As per the later rounds.

 

[gaffbyknees2]

2 Knockdowns and finishing the round in the fetal position and being saved by the bell is a 10-8 or should be. Clear round for Usman. If more rounds like that were scored correctly we would see less controversial fights. 10-9 should be in close fights were both fighters are having success, but one fighter is dictating the pace and fight. As per the later rounds.

Agreed it was def a 10-8 anyone that disagrees is wrong.