how do you lose a fight if you win the first 3 rounds?

Boxingroutines said:
I like how I explained my self before and you resort to name calling and still can't comprehend what I'm saying,so you instead twist it and put it out there that I said something without me actually having said something in the first place.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning he won round one is “he landed more” is it not? That’s the only reasoning you’ve offered. Tell me how that isn’t just counting strikes? I said that’s a bad way to judge. You’ve yet to acknowledge he was on the back foot the entire round and he got wobbled. I haven’t twisted a thing, I’m pointing out how poor your logic is and how you’re doing the exact thing you’re trashing.

Please explain why you think Santos won round 1. But don’t use any numbers, that’s using stats.
 
Boxingroutines said:
he landed more and did more damage and controlled the pace.
Click to expand...

Landed more? How do you know? There was no obvious disparity in strikes landed. Did you count the strikes? If you did, you’re using stats to justify your opinion, can’t do that according to you.

Did more damage? How do you figure? He’s the one that got briefly wobbled.

Controlled the pace? He was on the back foot stuck against the cage the entire round.
 
sdpdude9 said:
Landed more? How do you know? There was no obvious disparity in strikes landed. Did you count the strikes? If you did, you’re using stats to justify your opinion, can’t do that according to you.

Did more damage? How do you figure? He’s the one that got briefly wobbled.

Controlled the pace? He was on the back foot stuck against the cage the entire round.
Click to expand...
can't do it off the ufc because they are innaccurate, so a perfect example (again) of you not listening.

the leg was red and slowed the movement

santos uses the cage on the move, if you knew this you would counter with facts but you havent to this day.
 
Boxingroutines said:
can't do it off the ufc because they are innaccurate, so a perfect example (again) of you not listening.

the leg was red and slowed the movement

santos uses the cage on the move, if you knew this you would counter with facts but you havent to this day.
Click to expand...

So you counted the strikes then? What was the count? And you never said ufc stats were inaccurate. Show me some examples please. Pretty meaningless though, as strike counts without context are a bad way to judge.

So red leg > getting wobbled? That’s wrong according to official scoring criteria, immediate impact > cumulative impact. And how much did it slow him down? He never favored the leg at any point let alone in the first round.

Uses the cage to move? What does that even mean and how does that mean dictating the pace (which isn’t a scoring criteria).
 
Last edited:
sdpdude9 said:
So you counted the strikes then? What was the count? And you never said ufc stats were inaccurate. Show me some examples please.

So red leg > getting wobbled? That’s wrong according to official scoring criteria, immediate impact > cumulative impact. And how much did it slow him down? He never favored the leg at any point let alone in the first round.

Uses the cage to move? What does that even mean and how does that mean dictating the pace (which isn’t a scoring criteria).
Click to expand...
jones/santos is an example

I wont answer the rest if you can't see it then its on you.
 
Boxingroutines said:
jones/santos is an example

I wont answer the rest if you can't see it then its on you.
Click to expand...

What were the real counts? Did you count them yourself? If not, how do you know that’s accurate?

And it’s not on me, you’re making the claim, back it up. Sounds an awful lot like you just want to avoid having the discussion because you’re wrong.
 
sdpdude9 said:
What were the real counts? Did you count them yourself? If not, how do you know that’s accurate?

And it’s not on me, you’re making the claim, back it up. Sounds an awful lot like you just want to avoid having the discussion because you’re wrong.
Click to expand...
I am right, I'm always right on here, if not most. Trolls like yourself waste time because you refuse to listen in the first place. I will be reporting you if you reply.
 
I saw it as 47-48 ankasev

santos took rounds 2 & 3
Was even going into the 5
Ankasev took 5 by wall and stall with Santos too gassed to do much about it
 
Boxingroutines said:
I am right, I'm always right on here, if not most. Trolls like yourself waste time because you refuse to listen in the first place. I will be reporting you if you reply.
Click to expand...

So no argument then? It’s fine if you want to give up. Please report me lmao. What are you, 12?
 
Santos got 2, 3 and 4 but yes, the UFC is pushing the upcoming guy who „has potential“ so its not a big deal, ive seen much worse robberies than that one yesterday.
 
balkanbomber85 said:
Santos got 2, 3 and 4 but yes, the UFC is pushing the upcoming guy who „has potential“ so its not a big deal, ive seen much worse robberies than that one yesterday.
Click to expand...
You seriously scored rounds 2, 3 and 4 to Santos? How on earth did you score in particular the 4th for Santos? Ankalaev had double the sig strikes. landed the better shots to the head in that round, scored a takedown that round and had plenty of control/top time and had Santos on the back foot for nigh on the entire round. Surely you're just fucking with OP who it has to be said has done a wonderful job trolling if that was his intent, or if he's being serious has genuinely just watched his first MMA card.
In no way shape or form was that fight even close to a robbery. Robbery?
inigo-montoia.gif
 
Boxingroutines said:
he landed more shots in the first, so he won that the 2nd and the 3rd, thats that.
Click to expand...
Landing more 'shots' don't mean shit. Santos may of landed more 'shots' with leg kicks, but got easily out struck to the head in the 1st by far. Even got surprised rocked a few times. No way you win the first by doing that.
 
LetThemBleed said:
Octagon control, being the aggressor for the vast majority of the fight well notionally the aggressor by going forward, there was very little aggression in that fight, the takedown in what the 4th, more significant strikes total, double in rounds 4 and 5, what round outside of the 2nd did you give Santos, the 1st despite him being on the backfoot the entire time? Again don't get me wrong that fight stunk to the high heavens but Ankalaeev did what he needed to do to win. 49-46, pretty comfortably imo, maybe an argument to make for 48-47, no way did Santos do enough to win 3 rounds.
Click to expand...

I have Ankalaev winning but just to be clear, "aggression" and "octagon control" are not primary scoring criteria.
 
The question rather is, how do you win a fight after losing three rounds?
 
How do you win the first 3 rounds when you lose 1-2 of them? If you want to give Santos 2 rounds that’s fine. But he lost 3 rounds. It isn’t rocket science.

I just want the rightful winner, as I believe them to be, win. The score after that doesn’t even matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,480
Messages
58,287,684
Members
175,994
Latest member
Doomer

Share this page

Back
Top