How the heck is Bautista awarded that fight over Aldo?

Where were the pivots & the footwork from Aldo to avoid getting clinched up against the cage?

Should have been an easy win for Aldo but he coasted and lost a close decision
 
RonDante said:
Effective Grappling in the criteria doesn’t make a single mention of pushing your opponent against the fence with all your strength and failing takedown after takedown, it is NOT a dominant position, it is not control time, it is a 50/50 position, literally, it’s just like standing in front of each other but chest to chest, that’s it
Click to expand...
Ur assumption is he's failing a takedown. In his mind he's successful in keeping aldo pinned against the cage
 
markys00 said:
Ur assumption is he's failing a takedown. In his mind he's successful in keeping aldo pinned against the cage
Click to expand...
He is failing takedowns. But even if he wasn’t, and was just trying to stop aldo from doing anything, he didn’t have any effective grappling so he wasn’t winning the entire time he was stalling the fight
 
I'm a HUGE advocate of scoring "control" as zero. Conversely, teh judging criteria also supports this... which is where my pov came from.

I bet me V-cash on Aldo & picked him in my tapology account, but felt like the decision waz justified.

That said... in light of this thread... I'm re-watching now, & making notes for each round.

R1 - 10/9 Bautista - Both had a few good head strikes while squaring off, & I'd edge that alone for Bautista, but in the clinch Bautista was very active with knees to Aldo's legs & whipping a couple of head strikes in teh mix.

R2 - 10/9 Aldo - Very clearly... any judge that gives this to Bautista is judging something that is not written in teh criteria. Not only did Aldo get the bigger strikes, he bloodied up his opponent, which is a huge judging criteria. (ie... we can speculate how hard puches are, but when you open someone oop, that is the highest of evidence that your punches were effective.)
  • Keep in mind, that bloodied spot only scores for R2... not 3.
R3 - 10/9 Bautista - But it was only by the very slightest of margins, & assuming some of the strikes from Aldo that seemed to miss, didn't land.

In review... R3 is my obvious pivotal round. Neither did enough in that round to make this a robbery for it going either way, & I can see an argument for both sidez of the striking. So I have no gripe with the judges decision.

There is one & only one time that "control" enters the equation in the official judging criteria... & that's if the striking/submissions is equal & indistinguishable. (there were so sub attempts... so striking is our only factor) At the point where a judge can not distinguish a round based on that criteria... only then will "control" be considered. Obviously Bautista edges the round with control... & that's ultimately why I gave it to him. His pitty pat knees & punches in teh clinch ain't nothing either, but I'm not even considering those in that round.

So this was not a robbery, the judges are not on the chopping block, & it's the fault of 2 game fighters who were trying their best to land something, but just fell short over & over. Good on both of them for going for it.
 
Last edited:
markantony20 said:
Legitimately asking why hate Aldo? He’s pretty inoffensive.
Click to expand...
Probably because he went from a killing machine to a point fighter when he went to the UFC. WEC and before Aldo was way more exciting.
 
Myrddin Wild said:
I'm a HUGE advocate of scoring "control" as zero. Conversely, teh judging criteria also supports this... which is where my pov came from.

I bet me V-cash on Aldo & picked him in my tapology account, but felt like the decision waz justified.

That said... in light of this thread... I'm re-watching now, & making notes for each round.

R1 - 10/9 Bautista - Both had a few good head strikes while squaring off, & I'd edge that alone for Bautista, but in the clinch Bautista was very active with knees to Aldo's legs & whipping a couple of head strikes in teh mix.

R2 - 10/9 Aldo - Very clearly... any judge that gives this to Bautista is judging something that is not written in teh criteria. Not only did Aldo get the bigger strikes, he bloodied up his opponent, which is a huge judging criteria. (ie... we can speculate how hard puches are, but when you open someone oop, that is the highest of evidence that your punches were effective.)
  • Keep in mind, that bloodied spot only scores for R2... not 3.
R3 - 10/9 Bautista - But it was only by the very slightest of margins, & assuming some of the strikes from Aldo that seemed to miss, didn't land.

In review... R3 is my obvious pivotal round. Neither did enough in that round to make this a robbery for it going either way, & I can see an argument for both sidez of the striking. So I have no gripe with the judges decision.

There is one & only one time that "control" enters the equation in the official judging criteria... & that's if the striking/submissions is equal & indistinguishable. (there were so sub attempts... so striking is our only factor) At the point where a judge can not distinguish a round based on that criteria... only then will "control" be considered. Obviously Bautista edges the round with control... & that's ultimately why I gave it to him. His pitty pat knees & punches in teh clinch ain't nothing either, but I'm not even considering those in that round.

So this was not a robbery, the judges are not on the chopping block, & it's the fault of 2 game fighters who were trying their best to land something, but just fell short over & over. Good on both of them for going for it.
Click to expand...
Aldo landed more strikes in the 3rd, more strikes at distance, and if effective striking/grappling is equal then you go to effective aggression, not fighting area control, aldo clearly had the effective aggression advantage, so aldo wins the round
 
robbery or personal delusion? I had aldo 3-0
 
Killhippies said:
In the new rules for scoring:

“Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace, place and position of the match.” Fighting Area Control” shall only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling and Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal for both competitors. This will be assessed very rarely."

Judges just don't give a fuck.
Click to expand...
Where is this out of? It's worth putting in our signatures. Some of these judges have gotta have sherdog accounts. Cecil people for sure does.
 
No meaningful striking advantage, no knock downs, no cuts, no broken bones, no takedowns, or sub attempts... they looked at Octagon control where the advantage was HUGE.

Contrary to popular belief "effective striking" is not purely numerical. Numbers generally tell a story, but sometimes the story is "this was too close to be meaningful".

Aldo let Bautista have his way and couldn't do anything important when the opportunity was there. This is a completely expected outcome, totally in line with the rules.
 
RonDante said:
Aldo landed more strikes in the 3rd, more strikes at distance, and if effective striking/grappling is equal then you go to effective aggression, not fighting area control, aldo clearly had the effective aggression advantage, so aldo wins the round
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're going by fight metric numbers with your idea that Aldo landed more strikes, but those "unofficial numbers" are laughably in-accurate, & done by a guy ring side with clickers who may not see what landz & doesn't accurately. There was a lot of air swinging in that round, & fight metric numbers are never accurate. I've watched many fights in slow motion to understand this. They're never accurate. Never.

Great calling me out on teh aggression being plan B. (not control as I stated) Control is actually "plan C" in teh criteria.

Thank you for the discussion. I'm literally within minutes of reviewing the fight on re-play after posting. Have you reviewed it?

I feel like I'd have to watch a slow motion replay of the 3rd to see what did or didn't land strikes, and so I submit that I have not done that... though I have taken teh time to do that in the past. I did however just watch it, & what I saw for the 2nd time was indistinguishable regarding striking.

However... you are right that if striking/grappling is indistinguishable... that "aggression" is the next deciding factor over "control" in teh judging criteria. I'm a bit embarrassed that I mixed that up... but in my defense... roundz are so rarely "indistinguishable"... that I seem to had lumped teh 2 together.

I think you also have to keep in mind that aggression's biggest factor is keeping your opponent outside the line &/or against the cage. (It's not just a striking criteria. That "dirty boxing" on teh cage while going for a TD is not only control... but it's more-so considered as aggression, especially when your opponent is literally on defense the whole time while you're continually going for stuff. As long as you're going for stuff... that's beyond the definition of control.)

With your pov in mind... I've already got teh fight queued oop... so I'll watch R3 again to see who was more "aggressive."

R3 "Aggression" judging - One of the biggest criteria for "aggression" is if you keep your opponent on defense... & being "outside teh line" is considered a defensive place to fight from. ie... who holdz teh center more.
  • In teh first 2 minutes we have Aldo outside teh line twice, while either were indistinguishable in their other exchanges. Holding someone against the cage while working... Is basically very similar to "holding the center" while striking, except that now you have more "control" as well.
  • After Aldo fighting from outside teh line twice at teh start... from 2 min - 3.5 min. we have Bautista with 100% aggression holding him on teh fence while actively trying to take him down... & Aldo on 100% defense for a minute & a half. That's 1.5 mins of aggression.
  • After teh ref re-set... Bautista shoots immediately & puts Aldo on defense for another 1:10. (now over 3.5 minutes of affective aggression that puts your opponent on defense in a 5 minute fight)
  • Aldo pushed Bautista to the outside while trying to land, for 30 seconds of aggression before Bautista shot & put him back on defense.
Regarding "Aggression" alone, in teh 3rd... Bautista is a very clear winner & it's not even close.
 
Last edited:
AldoStillGoat said:
He did absolutely nothing. He did the same move 50 times.

He would stand up throw punches and then push Aldo against the fence to rest.

Fucking pathetic. How the hell is he rewarded a win against a LEGEND like Aldo with that performance?
Click to expand...
Aldo couldn't do jack shit about it now could he?
 
PrideNverDies said:
It's worse than Merab's "win" over Aldo. These crotch sniffers are killing the sport. Alex saving the card soon
Click to expand...
Lol Merab outstruck Aldo in every round. Under what criteria could you possibly give the fight to Aldo?
 
Also always loses to these grindy fighters that hold him against the cage. It was obviously the gameplan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RonDante
It’s not that Bautista won poorly, it’s that he has no argument to win
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
CobraCobretti
CobraCobretti
TCE
Media Mario Bautista explains why Jose Aldo also to blame for lackluster UFC 307 fight
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
3K
Bobby Boulders
Bobby Boulders
RonDante
Bautista Aldo and Brown Battle are the exact same fight
2 3
Replies
48
Views
992
koa pomaikai
K
FraudGoat
Changing the criteria won't matter if the judges don't care about them.
Replies
7
Views
269
FraudGoat
FraudGoat

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,987
Messages
56,683,340
Members
175,350
Latest member
Taizong

Share this page

Back
Top