How did you score Gamrot vs Tsarukyan?

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Yeah thats a knockdown.

It is but it's also while Gamrot is on one leg and throwing a kick. I think the judges kept that in mind and how Gamrot didn't even look hurt after he hit the ground and started getting right back up. It's hard to say that strike would have resulted in a knockdown or not if Gamrot wasn't on one leg so him being off balance looks like a big factor to me.

 

[HHJ]

Last 3 for Gamrot. 3rd was obviously the close and deciding round. Gave it to Gamrot though.

Yeah i still find round 3 hard to score,but when I watched it I thought theyd prob give it to Arman

 

[HHJ]

Gamrot's takedowns in the later rounds were gorgeous.

 

[justalurker]

Absolutely was a robbery. We deserved a 6th or 7th round until one of them broke the others soul. That one was fun.

This. I wonder how many more rounds till one of them gave up.

 

[Kwic]

I think some of you guys should give Gamrot a bit more props for the standup too, because that mouse under Arman's eye didn't just appear from nothing. Yes Arman had great kicks, but Gamrot landed some good shots too.

I had it 3:2 Gamrot, but definitely a close fight.
I think it was the right decision, but I'm biased.

 

[maximus__]

Missed out most of round 5 smh, can't even give my own scorecard

The way I saw the rounds:
- Round 1: Clearest round, Tsarukyan
- Round 2: Close, leaning Tsarukyan but gotta reevaluate that overhand Gamrot appeared to land near the end
- Round 3: Close, leaning Gamrot
- Round 4: Close, no idea who won that; leaning Tsarukyan, really gotta reevaluate how much Arman's trapped foot counts towards effective grappling
- Round 5: Missed out on 3.5 minutes

Arman 48-47

Great fight from both both Armen edged it with bigger strikes with the grappling cancelling out.
Gamrot did not really threaten enough with his grappling to win the rounds that Arman "dropped" him in.

 

[AtaTheCrow]

It was close, but i had without question Tsarukyan.

 

[Stoic]

Under the current scoring criteria, I don't see how you can give someone a round for clearly having the less impactful strikes while having control time with literally nothing else. Under the previous criteria, the decision makes perfect sense, however. Unfortunately, we have supposedly abandoned that criteria, though. How someone's face looks isn't criteria, either, or else GSP and Fedor lost all of their fights.

 

[JustBleed69]

I feel like round 4 was the deciding round and it kind of feels like everyone forgot that Arman dropped Gamrot earlier in the round and all they remembered was how Gamrot finished the round.

If you are scoring the fight with damage as the main criteria over control then it is incontestable that Arman won round 4, and the fight.

Not mad about the decision though as it was very close.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

I feel like round 4 was the deciding round and it kind of feels like everyone forgot that Arman dropped Gamrot earlier in the round and all they remembered was how Gamrot finished the round.

If you are scoring the fight with damage as the main criteria over control then it is incontestable that Arman won round 4, and the fight.

Not mad about the decision though as it was very close.

I don't think people forgot about it I think it's the circumstances of the knockdown that caused the judges and many people in general to not to score it very highly. Gamrot was on one leg and was in the middle of throwing a kick so he was off balance when he got hit with a spinning backfist, then after he got dropped, he immediately goes for a takedown and didn't really look rocked. To me and a lot of people it looked a lot like the reason him being dropped was at least in decent part cause he was on one leg and was in the middle of throwing a kick.

Just to be clear I think rounds 4 and 5 were the closest of the fight and could have been scored 10-9 for either party, just giving what I think is the reason for why many people gave Gamrot round 4 over Arman.

 

[maximus__]

I don't think people forgot about it I think it's the circumstances of the knockdown that caused the judges and many people in general to not to score it very highly. Gamrot was on one leg and was in the middle of throwing a kick so he was off balance when he got hit with a spinning backfist, then after he got dropped, he immediately goes for a takedown and didn't really look rocked. To me and a lot of people it looked a lot like the reason him being dropped was at least in decent part cause he was on one leg and was in the middle of throwing a kick.

Just to be clear I think rounds 4 and 5 were the closest of the fight and could have been scored 10-9 for either party, just giving what I think is the reason for why many people gave Gamrot round 4 over Arman.

So Gamrot got dropped because Arman landed a perfect counter? Should score pretty high to be honest.
If Gamrot had dropped him out in the middle of the cage later in the round it might have been cancelled out, but it was still the biggest moment in a close round.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

So Gamrot got dropped because Arman landed a perfect counter? Should score pretty high to be honest.
If Gamrot had dropped him out in the middle of the cage later in the round,it shouldn't have scored highly, but it was still the biggest moment in a close round.

No, I'm saying Gamrot being on one leg in the middle of throwing a kick put him off balance and likely was a factor in him being knocked down. It was Arman's highest scoring action in round 4 regardless of if you think Gamrot being on one leg and throwing a kick was a factor or not and it was one of the highest scoring sequences in the round as well. I'm just saying the judges and a lot of people likely discounted a bit of that score of the KD due to the nature of how it happened compared to a KD where someone wasn't on one leg and off balance. Gamrot also didn't really look that hurt after being dropped as he was immediately going for a takedown and didn't seem to lose any coordination after starting to get back up.

I have no problem with anyone scoring the round for Arman for the knockdown, I also have no problem with people seeing that Gamrot was standing on one leg throwing a kick while the KD occurred so discount it a little so then they score Gamrot's grappling edge, and ending the round having Arman's back with hooks in slightly more, it was a very close round and very close fight.

I think the refs took into consideration the conditions of the KD and didn't count it as much as they would have if Gamrot was on two feet while it happened.

 

[arrmike]

I would have scored the 4th for Arman based on the knockdown and I would give him the right also.

I’m not upset by the decision. The only fights to get mad about are title fights. As long as Arman doesn’t get shuffled to the back because “he lost”, there is nothing wrong with a questionable decision. Both fighters should get their next match as if they won the fight.

 

[maximus__]

No, I'm saying Gamrot being on one leg in the middle of throwing a kick put him off balance and likely was a factor in him being knocked down. It was Arman's highest scoring action in round 4 regardless of if you think Gamrot being on one leg and throwing a kick was a factor or not and it was one of the highest scoring sequences in the round as well. I'm just saying the judges and a lot of people likely discounted a bit of that score of the KD due to the nature of how it happened compared to a KD where someone wasn't on one leg and off balance. Gamrot also didn't really look that hurt after being dropped as he was immediately going for a takedown and didn't seem to lose any coordination after starting to get back up.

I have no problem with anyone scoring the round for Arman for the knockdown, I also have no problem with people seeing that Gamrot was standing on one leg throwing a kick while the KD occurred so discount it a little so then they score Gamrot's grappling edge, and ending the round having Arman's back with hooks in slightly more, it was a very close round and very close fight.

I think the refs took into consideration the conditions of the KD and didn't count it as much as they would have if Gamrot was on two feet while it happened.

They aren't meant to though. That's the issue. In a close round that knockdown should have been the deciding factor. Still a close fight so the end result is fine as it just one of many close rounds.
If you score that knockdown lower because Gamrot is on one leg that's the wrong way to approach it. It should score higher because he caught him in a more vulnerable position. It just got lost in the rapid grappling exchanges of the fight.

For a recent example everyone scores the two knockdowns Max scored against Volk in fight 2 so highly and they are pretty much the same. Max dropped Volk to a knee and he is back up throwing immediately, but they still were enough for him to have clearly won the round.
Around 30 secs for Gamrot getting dropped
http://www.espn.com.au/video/clip?id=34150444
Volk dropped by Holloway


Gamrot was in much worse a position than people remember post the Arman knockdown and it was a bigger knockdown than people remember. It should have edged him the round.

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

They aren't meant to though. That's the issue. In a close round that knockdown should have been the deciding factor. Still a close fight so the end result is fine as it just one of many close rounds.
If you score that knockdown lower because Gamrot is on one leg that's the wrong way to approach it.

They should score it how they did mma isn't boxing there's no automatic KD rule Arman landed a glancing shot to an off balanced opponent, meanwhile gamrot landed more significant head strikes and won the effective grappling taking over 1:30 of control time there. Rounds are 5 minutes long to say a split second wins the whole round when the strike did such little damage is silly.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

They aren't meant to though. That's the issue. In a close round that knockdown should have been the deciding factor. Still a close fight so the end result is fine as it just one of many close rounds.
If you score that knockdown lower because Gamrot is on one leg that's the wrong way to approach it. It should score higher because he caught him in a more vulnerable position. It just got lost in the rapid grappling exchanges of the fight.

For a recent example everyone scores the two knockdowns Max scored against Volk in fight 2 so highly and they are pretty much the same. Max dropped Volk to a knee and he is back up throwing immediately, but they still were enough for him to have clearly won the round.
Around 30 secs for Gamrot getting dropped
http://www.espn.com.au/video/clip?id=34150444
Volk dropped by Holloway


Gamrot was in much worse a position than people remember post the Arman knockdown and it was a bigger knockdown than people remember. It should have edged him the round.

You keep ignoring the meat and potatos of my argument being that the judges do look at factors like if a fighter was off balance or if they were only on one leg when a knockdown occurs and they factor that into how they score the knockdown same for if a fighter looks hurt after the knockdown or if they look immediately fine, they aren't going to score all those different things the same.

Your Max Holloway example isn't the same, Volkanovski was solidly on two feet when he got knocked down, Gamrot was on one leg in the middle of throwing a kick. Max also knocked Volk down at the very end of the round that had no grappling whereas there was 1.5 minutes of grappling in round 4 of Arman vs Gamrot and the end of round 4 of Arman vs Gamrot was Gamrot putting his hooks in and taking backmount, the circumstances of those knockdowns and rounds are not similar.

 

[maximus__]

They should score it how they did mma isn't boxing there's no automatic KD rule Arman landed a glancing shot to an off balanced opponent, meanwhile gamrot landed more significant head strikes and won the effective grappling taking over 1:30 of control time there. Rounds are 5 minutes long to say a split second wins the whole round when the strike did such little damage is silly.

That's not how the scoring works though. 1:30 of control time means nothing unless all other aspects are even. Damage>Volume>Control. The round is close definitely, but that knockdown should have been the deciding factor. I didn't say decide it on 1 strike. It's actually a sequence of about 30 seconds including Gamrot having to wrestle up. The wrestling control time wasn't enough to win that round under the current scoring criteria. Significant strikes differential is irrelevant when it's 3 strikes... Head strikes is only over the entire fight. The body kicks Arman was landing were more significant than any strike thrown by Gamrot at any point.

You also can't punish someone for landing a great strike on an out of balance opponent. I put the vid up above and compared it to the Holloway/Volk knockdowns. It was a much more significant knockdown than people are crediting it. Gamrot gets dropped onto his arse for comparison Volk comes to a knee and comes up swinging. Just because he recovered doesn't mean it wasn't the most significant fight ending sequence in a close round. 1;30 of control time doesn't out do that moment with Arman winning the start of the round on the feet.

It's a good loss for Arman to be honest and i won money on Gamrot so overall I am happy.The judges scored another fight against the judging criteria in place and as usual screwed up the grappling aspect.

 

[maximus__]

You keep ignoring the meat and potatos of my argument being that the judges do look at factors like if a fighter was off balance or if they were only on one leg when a knockdown occurs and they factor that into how they score the knockdown same for if a fighter looks hurt after the knockdown or if they look immediately fine, they aren't going to score all those different things the same.

Your Max Holloway example isn't the same, Volkanovski was solidly on two feet when he got knocked down, Gamrot was on one leg in the middle of throwing a kick. Max also knocked Volk down at the very end of the round that had no grappling whereas there was 1.5 minutes of grappling in round 4 of Arman vs Gamrot and the end of round 4 of Arman vs Gamrot was Gamrot putting his hooks in and taking backmount, the circumstances of those knockdowns and rounds are not similar.

I didn't say they don't do that. I said it's wrong. This wasn't a slip, it was a fighter throwing a perfect counter and dropping someone on their arse. He caught him mid kick. Gamrot landed all his takedowns off counters, do they not count because Arman was off balance throwing a kick?

Gamrot was hurt, he spent the next portion of the fight surviving by wrestling up. Defence doesn't score so that wrestle up time should be control time for Arman. That sequence following the knockdown is more dangerous than anything that comes after for Gamrot. He gets hooks in once or twice and throws a hail mary one armed rear naked across the chin. His takedowns resulted in control time only. There was no sequence of ground and pound anywhere near as close to being fight finishing as that knockdown. You are ignoring 3;30 of a fight, with Arman scoring a knockdown for 1.5 mins of control time with little offence besides takedowns resulting in less than 10 strikes. At no point was the fight close to finishing.

Again you are punishing Arman for landing a perfect counter to his opponents strike. You want to land when your opponent is off balance. I use Volk and Max as an example to show how significant a knockdown it actually was for Arman. Gamrot lands on his arse and hands on the ground. Volk barely touches a knee and comes back and lands counters.

You don't understand the scoring criteria.. Control time isn't meant to score without offence unless all other aspects are equal. Taking the back is not offence, ground and pound or sub attempts are. We have this knockdown in a round that involved 3:30 of striking with Gamrot getting a few late takedowns with no offence. You said before Gamrot landed more sig strikes. He didn't they were knees from the back control position. Most of his offence came from low power ground and pound in this round. The round should be scored on the striking, but the judges stuffed up. They did what they used to do and scored the late takedowns because they happened at the end of the round.

3.5 mins of striking with a knockdown should beat 1.5 mins of grappling with some back control and a well defended sub. This isn't 2009 were takedowns trump all anymore. It's about fight ending and damage.

It's not a robbery, they just scored a close fight wrong.

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

That's not how the scoring works though. 1:30 of control time means nothing unless all other aspects are even. Damage>Volume>Control. The round is close definitely, but that knockdown should have been the deciding factor. I didn't say decide it on 1 strike. It's actually a sequence of about 30 seconds including Gamrot having to wrestle up. The wrestling control time wasn't enough to win that round under the current scoring criteria. Significant strikes differential is irrelevant when it's 3 strikes... Head strikes is only over the entire fight. The body kicks Arman was landing were more significant than any strike thrown by Gamrot at any point.

You also can't punish someone for landing a great strike on an out of balance opponent. I put the vid up above and compared it to the Holloway/Volk knockdowns. It was a much more significant knockdown than people are crediting it. Gamrot gets dropped onto his arse for comparison Volk comes to a knee and comes up swinging. Just because he recovered doesn't mean it wasn't the most significant fight ending sequence in a close round. 1;30 of control time doesn't out do that moment with Arman winning the start of the round on the feet.

It's a good loss for Arman to be honest and i won money on Gamrot so overall I am happy.The judges scored another fight against the judging criteria in place and as usual screwed up the grappling aspect.

Max volk is a very different situation, because max wasn't dominated in the wrestling for a minute and a half that round so that's a strawman example.
You're pretending this strike was soo damaging when Gamrot immediately stood up showing to be no worse for ware, the fact that he goes down is irrelevant, Gamrot grappling was effective more then control time too he threatened a choke a couple times and Arman was only freed by the Bell that round from his disavantaged position.

So damage is equal as neither man was shown to be serious hurt there, volume almost equal, and Gamrot way ahead on effective grappling here. If you pretend the grappling never happened yes Arman would edge the round but IT did happen.

 

[maximus__]

Max volk is a very different situation, because max wasn't dominated in the wrestling for a minute and a half that round so that's a strawman example.
You're pretending this strike was soo damaging when Gamrot immediately stood up showing to be no worse for ware, the fact that he goes down is irrelevant, Gamrot grappling was effective more then control time too he threatened a choke a couple times and Arman was only freed by the Bell that round from his disavantaged position.

So damage is equal as neither man was shown to be serious hurt there, volume almost equal, and Gamrot way ahead on effective grappling here.

None of that happened how you are saying. Arman actually was on top of Gamrot with him doing his best sterling impression post knockdown. He did successfully wrestle up where they returned to the feet where he appeared to have recovered.

They they continued striking for a period before Gamrot secured a rear body lock and a nice takedown. Arman worked to the cage and took some light shots to the legs as he stood up. Arman was then returned to the mat and worked his way back up again. Gamrot got a single hook both times. Gamrot dragged him to the mat where we got some actual back control. Arman leg was under him and Gamrot threatened a one arm rear naked over Armans chin that was defended.

None of that equals the offence landed (including a knockdown) by Arman. Scoring criteria says Gamrot loses that round. 16-13 sig strikes with most of Arman's being big shots on the feet and a knockdown. Every argument for Gamrot is actually an argument for Arman to win the round.
1.5 mins control time does not beat 3.5 mins striking with a knockdown and massive strike differential until Gamrot landed knees against the cage.
A knockdown beats a one arm rear naked that was defended. Gamrot was face down under Arman. Arman was defending fine and the fight was no where near being stopped.
Gamrot most dangerous moment was when he had Armans leg trapped under him, you believe the knockdown counts less because Gamrot was on one foot.

It doesn't matter if Arman had his back taken at the bell. That is irrelevant or does a single second of the fight now count more because of when it happened?
Your argument contradicts itself and goes against how MMA is scored. Grappling only scores when it leads to fight ending moments within a fight. Knockdowns count as acute impact and score highly.

Arman should have won this round and the fight because all judges scored it the wrong way. I guarantee if the sequence of the round had been switched with gamrot winning the first 1;30 and Arman doing exactly what he did in the last 3;30, it would have been scored the other way. Judges just got it wrong as per the current scoring criteria.