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

[gaffbyknees2]

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."

I gave Usman the 10-8 not Colby and I apologize from the bottom of my heart for the 9-9 comment to every 1 million Sherbro that corrected me about the 10-10. It's a fucking dumb scoring system anyway lol

 

[theleerygoose]

I gave Usman the 10-8 not Colby and I apologize from the bottom of my heart for the 9-9 comment to every 1 million Sherbro that corrected me about the 10-10. It's a fucking dumb scoring system anyway lol

Well you did ask them to tell you why you were wrong lol.

 

[gaffbyknees2]

Well you did ask them to tell you why you were wrong lol.

Fair point lol

 

[Myrddin Wild]

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.

I'm curious to know how you would change the rools for the better.

this is an interesting convo but I have to admit, I don't see your pov at all. I think MMA is too subjective for the kind of scoring you're eluding to. This isn't something like basketball where there's no doubt about whether or not the ball went through the net... or from how far back the guy shot it. That's all "objective." There's no "subjectivity" to it.

In MMA, a judge has to determine whether or not he feels someone even got hit in the first place... & then how hard, and he has to keep that calculating in his head the whole round for both guys. It's highly subjective no matter how you do it. Do you see a better way?

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

I'm curious to know how you would change the rools for the better.

this is an interesting convo but I have to admit, I don't see your pov at all. I think MMA is too subjective for the kind of scoring you're eluding to. This isn't something like basketball where there's no doubt about whether or not the ball went through the net... or from how far back the guy shot it. That's all "objective." There's no "subjectivity" to it.

In MMA, a judge has to determine whether or not he feels someone even got hit in the first place... & then how hard, (imagine giving an extra point if the basketball doesn't hit the rim) and he has to keep that calculating in his head the whole round for both guys. It's highly subjective no matter how you do it. Do you see a better way?

Subjective in basketball can come from the placement of the defender. Whether or not the shooter is moving or stationary. Off the dribble or catch and shoot. Finger roll? Floater? There’s so many different kinds of shots. Should this be the worth the same as an open uncontested layup? Weak hand or strong hand. Euro step?

This is my point. When there’s moving pieces it’s incredibly hard in real time to decide. If two guys punch each other in the face an equal # of times how do we decide in real time which one is worth more? Is a kick worth 2 punches? It takes more energy and hurts more so should it be more significant? what about elbows? Knees? all strikes, just likes all basketball shots are not created equal. Even when they DO land, some are glancing, some are solid.

Imo we should eliminate round scoring-and just score the fight as a whole. The boxing model doesn’t work for 3 round fights.

 

[GeneTunney7]

Colby 3,4,5. The majority of fans scored it this way on MMA decisions too. The question is do you give Usman a 10-8 in the second? I think it was a tie or Colby win - dont let UFC's biased commentary sway you.

 

[MCS]

Well I think if you scored the fight as a whole there's no doubt Usman did more damage, more meaningful things. But as you go round by round Colby has a case for a draw, as I also scored round 2 a 10-8 for Usman. I gave the last two rounds to Colby, while round 3 either 10-10 or 10-9 Colby.

So I think Usman clearly won "the fight", but with the 10-point must it can be a draw. It's annoying.

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

???
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.

Let me simplify then.

There is nothing about how many rounds you award to Colby that indicates bias, by itself. This would be especially and obviously true if, for example, the most credible interpretation accepted by many was that he won all three. But it's also true if it's all subjective as you're saying.

Maybe you could claim bias if inconsistent judging criteria were used to award Colby rounds. Or willful blindness of certain key facts. But merely the number of rounds? That makes no sense.

You're assuming that awarding Colby a round is a rare event, and independent from the judging of the other rounds. And you're making further assumptions that rarity indicates bias. None of these nonsensical assumptions you're making are valid at all.

 

[Gamer2k4]

People seem to have this thing where they treat a close fight as a victory for the loser. Heck, they were saying how bad Jones looked when he was winning 50-45 decisions instead of finishing people.

Yes, Colby didn't get stomped. But he DID lose, and it wasn't controversial at all.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

Subjective in basketball can come from the placement of the defender. Whether or not the shooter is moving or stationary. Off the dribble or catch and shoot. Finger roll? Floater? There’s so many different kinds of shots. Should this be the worth the same as an open uncontested layup? Weak hand or strong hand. Euro step?

Full disclosure, I don't watch basketball, so I'm only academically able to keep up with your examples... but I see where your going with your analogy. I just don't think the subjective things in basketball that you mentioned sound comparable because, for example, if a basketball player hits the guy shooting... it doesn't matter how hard he hit him. the impact alone is the foul... so that's a lot different than MMA because you can't score a pity pat the same way as a knockdown.

(Please let me know if I got that BBall stuff right above) It sounds to me like you have as much a problem with basket ball reffing as you do with MMA judges yeah?

If two guys punch each other in the face an equal # of times how do we decide in real time which one is worth more?

Obviously, the first of the official MMA judging criteria, "Impact" (ie... damage) is asking a judge to determine how hard a fighter got hit.

Is a kick worth 2 punches?

Your point here is puzzling me. I'm not sure how or why you're questioning "level of impact" as a valid judging criteria.

It depends on how hard the kick was. There's no cookie cutter system that says any kick is a harder strike than any punch. A punch that makes the person's knees give out to where his nervous system shuts down & he can't stand on his legs any more is going to be worth more than a light kick that has little force behind it, or just grazes the person.

These things are inherent to any kind of striking contest. Are there any acceptations to this? Maybe that's what we need to explore if we're going to inovate the MMA judging. Boxing always gives the round to a guy who scored a knock down. (for example) MMA judges have to recognize different levels of impact.

It takes more energy and hurts more so should it be more significant?

"IF" the kick's impact is harder than a punch then yes. "IF" the punch is harder than the kick then no. Again, you saying this is puzzling me because obviously that should be considered yeah? You can't score a pity pat kick more than a knockdown punch

what about elbows? Knees? all strikes, just likes all basketball shots are not created equal. Even when they DO land, some are glancing, some are solid.

You're making my point for me. MMA does consider the difference in impact though, where basketball doesn't have to. The impact alone is enough to create the foul in basketball yeah?

It soundz like you have more difficulty with the basketball system than the MMA system, so this analagy is breaking up for me and I'm having a hard time following your logic. I'm sure you agree that Conor punching Nate off his feet doesn't score the same as one of Nate's pity pat punches from in the clinch... for example. That's a simple and obvious example, and striking can be estimated for "impact" on a scale anywhere between the 2. (as it should imo)

I just don't see a way around this. You can't score Nate's pity pats 1 to 1 when Conor's strike shut down Nate's nervous system which put him on his ass. Logic says that Conor's shot is worth more.

Maybe you're getting hung up on the closer more subjective middle ground strikes? For sure though, you can agree a knockdown punch should be judged more than a pity pat yeah?

Imo we should eliminate round scoring-and just score the fight as a whole. The boxing model doesn’t work for 3 round fights.

We have the Japanese Pride scoring system... which is closer than the UFC's scoring system to what you're looking for. However, per the above... they also have to make determinations on impact & damage.

Here though you do get your scoring done across a whole fight the way you like, but they gave the final round more "weight" so maybe that isn't your perfect scoring system either?

Perhaps that last round being weighted heavier allows people to coast through the early part of the fight? So you could have a guy getting beat up the whole first 15 min. & he takes over for the last frame & wins. So there were problems with both systems.

To your final point... I can see getting off the "10/9 must system," but I just don't know how to pull it off or what would be better.

How would you judge PVZ's performance here?


10/7 imo.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

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.

Oh wow, I just saw that Texas changed one of their regulationz catagories on 2/25/22 regarding the rools... so please look into that. I'm out of time atm & gotta split. Let me know though

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.

It's true that the Unified Roolz... are not fully saturated yet. The judges are supposed to review with the commission though. Were their any local judges? The local judges would be wrapped up in Texas laws if they want to keep working. (sorry, I have to split in a bit and don't have time to look into this huge subject you brought up, but I want to study your thread when I get a chance... this is interesting.)

Location... & the local commission instructing Sal to judge through their criteria could be where the difference lies? Did some judges not attend the meeting? Were the judges local or travelling judges? There's several things that could've gone wrong for continuity... but complacency & ignorance of the law is no excuse imo. (please let me know what you find)

 

[El Panteron]

Let me simplify then.

There is nothing about how many rounds you award to Colby that indicates bias, by itself. This would be especially and obviously true if, for example, the most credible interpretation accepted by many was that he won all three. But it's also true if it's all subjective as you're saying.

Maybe you could claim bias if inconsistent judging criteria were used to award Colby rounds. Or willful blindness of certain key facts. But merely the number of rounds? That makes no sense.

You're assuming that awarding Colby a round is a rare event, and independent from the judging of the other rounds. And you're making further assumptions that rarity indicates bias. None of these nonsensical assumptions you're making are valid at all.

I'm assuming it's a rare event because Usman won the fight on judges' scorecards and all media and majority of people scored it for Usman, making it objectively a rare event lol.

And yes of course interpretations carry biases, it's what they are, there isn't an unbiased opinion and there will never be.

The "independent from the other rounds" argument is entirely yours, judges make up a narration of the fight they use to score them, as I had the impression Usman was in control someone else had another one and that impression is of course biased.

My opinion is that if someone thinks Colby won 3 rounds they are wrong as the result of a skewed interpetations of different events.

Rarity doesn't indicate bias necessarily, but at the same time we're people that are older than 4 and can read social implications in situations. Judging is defined by bias.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

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.

Which fight? Lets take a look at the regulating commission behind the roolz Sal was under at the time.

 

[Jfreemandrums]

Usman clearly won the first round and dramatically/emphatically took round 2. I scored it a 10-8 as well.

3rd round, Colby started to find his rhythm, but even still I gave Usman the nod. At best, it's a 10-10 round. Colby took the 4th, at the end of the round he tagged and stunned Usman, and I believe he had an edge in overall strikes anyway, and kept the pressure up, likely securing the 5th round as well

I had Usman, 48-46. Colby broke Usmans jaw 0 times, and knocked him down never. Kamaru is the clearly superior fighter

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

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.

Yes he was. Colby was holding on for dear life at the end of the round

 

[ragreynolds]

I've watched it 3 times and scored it the same way every time... a draw. I have Usman rounds 1 and 2, with 2 being 10-8. I gave Colby 3, 4, and 5 - though I definitely concede that 3 and 5 were close rounds. Anyone saying that round 2 shouldn't be a 10-8 is being ridiculous. You don't need to nearly get a finish for a round to be 10-8, that's what 10-7 is supposed to be, despite it basically never being scored that way. It feels immensely wrong to score Usman's round 2 the same way as Colby's round 4. Usman won round 2 in a far more decisive way than Colby won round 4 (which was his best round), and that should be reflected in the scoring. Calling that second round a 10-9 is a joke when you consider that rounds 3 and 5 (which most people consider to be coin flips) are also scored 10-9. It makes zero sense.

But yeah, I scored it a draw every time I watched. Colby being announced the winner of that fight would have felt wrong. I think this is one of those fights that highlights the flaws in the MMA judging system. Usman had 2 clear rounds in that fight, Colby had 1 clear round, and the other 2 were tossups. Clear rounds should count for more than rounds that are tossups. I genuinely believe that judging should be redone in a way so that very close rounds such as 3 and 5 are the only ones that are scored 10-9. I'd like for there to come a time where every single clear round is scored 10-8. 10-7 would become the new 10-8, and 10-6 would become the new 10-7. There really needs to be more variation in how these scores are handed out, because the way it works now is simply horrendous. Though, if we're being honest about it, changing up the scoring probably wouldn't mean much unless you fired basically all current judges since almost all of them are awful.

 

[electricfuneral]

I had Usman winning 1,2,3 with 2 being a 10-8. Usman does this thing where he stops moving after he gets hit sometimes and it looks like he's stunned but he is just pausing hoping the guy opens up for a counter. Colby is also a high volume striker who doesn't sit down on most of his shots. Usman's power is such a problem that people retreat, even after landing on him flush. Colby had 2 attempts at figuring out Usman and wasn't able to get it done yet.

 

[Morning Star]

I only watched it the once and thought it was clear as day Usman won. I actually thought Colby fought better the 1st fight despite being finished in the 5th. He needed to be more aggressive and land more since Usman is going to be landing the bigger more effective shots, even if he gets finished. Because in a game of picking your shots Usman is gonna win that every time.

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

I'm assuming it's a rare event because Usman won the fight on judges' scorecards and all media and majority of people scored it for Usman, making it objectively a rare event lol.

And yes of course interpretations carry biases, it's what they are, there isn't an unbiased opinion and there will never be.

The "independent from the other rounds" argument is entirely yours, judges make up a narration of the fight they use to score them, as I had the impression Usman was in control someone else had another one and that impression is of course biased.

My opinion is that if someone thinks Colby won 3 rounds they are wrong as the result of a skewed interpetations of different events.

Rarity doesn't indicate bias necessarily, but at the same time we're people that are older than 4 and can read social implications in situations. Judging is defined by bias.

The TLDR version: unless you can show us the percentage of people, media, and experts who awarded which rounds to Colby, you can't even demonstrate rarity. The judges themselves disagreed on rounds 3 and 5, and then you want to claim anyone who gives 3 and 5 to Colby is biased?

Even if you did demonstrate rarity, it doesn't necessarily prove your point of bias. "Social implications" is a lazy ass way of assuming what needs to be proven.