If you think gane did enough in the 5th against ngannou…

[HP_Nut]

Not everyone on sherdog has more 100k in subs and is considered one of the leading channels on MMA scoring.

Who cares? Vast overwhelming majority of Sherdog & MMA media didn't score it for Gane. We can all keep crying, it wasn't considered a robbery. Should we cry more for Reyes that he was robbed vs Jones? I thought Reyes won, majority of MMA media & Sherdog too, that's far more controversial. You can always find someone who disagrees

 

[RonDante]

You are ignoring 13-7 for Francis and claim 2-5 in favour of Gane. Who is ignoring what now?

TD that gets reversed = 0. Getting controlled for half the round = winning the grappling. Someone controlling you doesn't outweigh striking but if we only judge the grappling getting controlled 50 % of the round and the rest of the time is on the feet = LOSING the GRAPPLING.

Gane lost the striking. You not seeing it doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is a saying if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it did it make a sound. But no one tries to claim the tree never fell. Claiming Gane won the striking is you claiming the tree never fell.

Games strikes got reactions, ngannous didn’t. They were love taps on the ground.

Time spent on top is not weighed whatsoever in the scoring so it’s not winning the grappling. I’ve said that many times in this thread. A takedown that leads to an attack is scored. ganes takedown led to two submission attempts, so both the takedown and the submission attempts are scored

 

[RonDante]

You're 1 random guy on the internet who thinks Gane won. Why does your opinion trump that of almost everyone else? At the time of the fight, it wasn't a robbery. You trying to go back in time & make it something its not

My opinion is based on the scoring criteria that the fight was scored on. The judges clearly got it wrong if you ever read the judging criteria.

 

[HP_Nut]

My opinion is based on the scoring criteria that the fight was scored on. The judges clearly got it wrong if you ever read the judging criteria.

More strikes you say, but neither guy landed anything significant, but we know Francis hits harder than Gane. So 10 strikes from Gane isn't worth as much as 10 strikes from Francis. TD that got reversed. Sub attempt that did not seem close. Control is a form of effective grappling.

You know that the new rules were put in place in 2016, but no one judged fights that way until recently. So we would literally have to erase all fights since 2016. Not only that, even if using the new judging criteria from 2016, even then it is not a controversial decision

 

[dipstickjimmy]

Games strikes got reactions, ngannous didn’t.

Reaction is not in the SCORING CRITERIA you love to (incorrectly) quote. Gane's handful of strikes did shit and Francis had no reaction to them. Frank must have been better because Gane reacted by "PANIC WRESTLING" and shooting for a TD. Neither fighter did a whole lot in the round but Frank did more and the scoring criteria is STRIKING & GRAPPLING as the first criteria to weigh. Frank did more in BOTH areas.

 

[RonDante]

More strikes you say, but neither guy landed anything significant, but we know Francis hits harder than Gane. So 10 strikes from Gane isn't worth as much as 10 strikes from Francis. TD that got reversed. Sub attempt that did not seem close. Control is a form of effective grappling.

You know that the new rules were put in place in 2016, but no one judged fights that way until recently. So we would literally have to erase all fights since 2016. Not only that, even if using the new judging criteria from 2016, even then it is not a controversial decision

Except we saw the round, and gane got greater reactions from ngannou than ngannou did from gane. Ngannous strikes were mostly on the ground, love taps that did nothing

A dominant grappling position is part of effective grappling. Half guard is a 50/50 position. You don’t get any points for getting into half guard, you do get points for a reversal.

You say the sub attempts didn’t seem close, so a reversal into a 50/50 position is more effective? No, it’s not, and you know it isn’t .Trying to finish the fight with submission attempts is more effective than camping in half guard


No, you don’t have to cancel the results of all fights post rule change. But do you have to look at the fights that were judged incorrectly under those rules and acknowledge the judges were mistaken in their decision

And yes, it is a controversial decision because gane won every aspect of the fight except reversals

 

[Striker Fox]

I thought there was a better case to be made for Jan getting the win over Pereira than Ngannou over Gane.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

Who cares? Vast overwhelming majority of Sherdog & MMA media didn't score it for Gane. We can all keep crying, it wasn't considered a robbery. Should we cry more for Reyes that he was robbed vs Jones? I thought Reyes won, majority of MMA media & Sherdog too, that's far more controversial. You can always find someone who disagrees

People still crying for Reyes all the time, we need more people crying for Gane and less for Reyes.

 

[cburm]

….Then that means jones is the lineal heavyweight champion


I know I’ll get some replies like “no way you think gane win the 5th, ngannou laid on top of him for half the round!”
but I think at this point there are a lot more people who realise actual impact wins fights, not smudging

Gane had more strikes, a takedown, and a submission attempt. Ngannou had a reversal and a few mosquito punches on the ground

So if you think gane win the 5th, then that means gane won the belt that night, defended it against tuivasa, and lost it to jones

I’m not a jones fan, maybe one of you has argued with me about him and can attest to that

But I don’t think a reversal and half guard is worth more than what gane did

Ngannou was injured and used his brain to win if gane wasn't running away the entire time on his feet ngannou wouldn't have wrestled him..

It's not Francis fault the ufc is judged like this top control = win

 

[RonDante]

Ngannou was injured and used his brain to win if gane wasn't running away the entire time on his feet ngannou wouldn't have wrestled him..

It's not Francis fault the ufc is judged like this top control = win

That’s not what the criteria says though which is my point

 

[KillerIsBack V2]

Jon is the Line heavyweight champion

Brings new meaning to “putting his title on the line”.

 

[spinup]

I thought there was a better case to be made for Jan getting the win over Pereira than Ngannou over Gane.

People obsess over that 5th round, despite it being unanimous on the scorecards, and virtually unanimous in media scores.

While completely ignoring the fact round 1 was not unanimous on the scorecards, much more disputed in media scoring, and could totally be scored for Ngannou.

There is a weird narrative that Gane totally dominated the first 2 rounds, and that is not true at all. There were 2 clear rounds for Ngannou, 1 clear round for Gane and 2 very close rounds.

 

[Striker Fox]

People obsess over that 5th round, despite it being unanimous on the scorecards, and virtually unanimous in media scores.

While completely ignoring the fact round 1 was not unanimous on the scorecards, much more disputed in media scoring, and could totally be scored for Ngannou.

There is a weird narrative that Gane totally dominated the first 2 rounds, and that is not true at all. There were 2 clear rounds for Ngannou, 1 clear round for Gane and 2 very close rounds.

Watch the 1st round again. Gane clearly won the first two rounds. Sal D'Amato is an absolute can.

Ngannou/Gane came down to rd 5, Pereira/Jan came down to rd 3. According to the rules, I think Gane and Pereira both should've got extremely close decision wins, but a better case can be made that Jan won the 3rd rd than Ngannou winning the 5th imo.

 

[maximus__]

The shitty criteria have been re-written to dissuade judges from scoring useless takedowns with no control time, but they have not eliminated the scoring potential of significant control time.

Judges can't just ignore 4 minutes of control time to go searching for an extra jab and then start bleating 'damage-based scoring, bro', like so many MMA fans do now.

In rounds where fuck all happens, lay n pray is still effective scoring.

This is incorrect. Control is meant to score lower than everything else. It's only used if all else is equal.

Effective grappling is the criteria they should be using and effective means fight ending moments or damage must occur, otherwise it's control.

If you take someone down, pin them and they throw up subs and strike from the bottom, they should win. The fighter who is hurting the other more and making them react should be the winner of the round. If you have 4 mins of control time, but the bottom person was attacking the entire time and you didn't land offence, you should lose. The scoring was changed for this reason and people still can't get it right(including refs). Reward the fighter going for a legit finish in the fight. That's what damage based scoring means.

I never bothered to watch this fight in full though. No clue if it applied here. The best example recently is Lopes vs Evoleov and Mokaev vs Perez, with judges getting it wrong both times.
I would include Volk and Islam in that also but that's a bit more controversial.

 

[spinup]

Watch the 1st round again. Gane clearly won the first two rounds. Sal D'Amato is an absolute can.

You should watch it again. That round was a toss up, with very few strikes landed either side.
It's not just Sal D'Amato, 6 of 25 medias scorers gave it 49-46 Ngannou (including all 3 from sherdog).

 

[Dr Fong]

This is incorrect. Control is meant to score lower than everything else. It's only used if all else is equal.

Effective grappling is the criteria they should be using and effective means fight ending moments or damage must occur, otherwise it's control.

If you take someone down, pin them and they throw up subs and strike from the bottom, they should win. The fighter who is hurting the other more and making them react should be the winner of the round. If you have 4 mins of control time, but the bottom person was attacking the entire time and you didn't land offence, you should lose. The scoring was changed for this reason and people still can't get it right(including refs). Reward the fighter going for a legit finish in the fight. That's what damage based scoring means.

I never bothered to watch this fight in full though. No clue if it applied here. The best example recently is Lopes vs Evoleov and Mokaev vs Perez, with judges getting it wrong both times.
I would include Volk and Islam in that also but that's a bit more controversial.

Firstly, the criteria is contradictory, stupid and inappropriate as a basis for judging MMA. They attempted to fix a problem with the old scoring but ended up creating new ones.

This is why judges often ignore it, because it twists itself into knots trying to oversimplify the dynamics of an MMA fight, where the mix of grappling and striking makes it very difficult to judge.

Secondly, it is not damaged-based scoring. We call it that to oversimplify it, but you, and a lot of other people, have taken that oversimplification as if that is literally what the criteria states.

I don't have time to hold your hand and walk you through the criteria, but if you take the time to read it more carefully, you will realise that ground control does still contribute to scoring even if a selective reading of other lines in the criteria could give the mistaken impression that it doesn't, which is the trap you and others have fallen into.

 

[maximus__]

Firstly, the criteria is contradictory, stupid and inappropriate as a basis for judging MMA. They attempted to fix a problem with the old scoring but ended up creating new ones.

This is why judges often ignore it, because it twists itself into knots trying to oversimplify the dynamics of an MMA fight, where the mix of grappling and striking makes it very difficult to judge.

Secondly, it is not damaged-based scoring. We call it that to oversimplify it, but you, and a lot of other people, have taken that oversimplification as if that is literally what the criteria states.

I don't have time to hold your hand and walk you through the criteria, but if you take the time to read it more carefully, you will realise that ground control does still contribute to scoring even if a selective reading of other lines in the criteria could give the mistaken impression that it doesn't, which is the trap you and others have fallen into.

It's not contradictory at all. The end result is the person who is doing something that contributes to the fight ending is the one winning that exchange regardless of position.
Outstrike them on the feet or out grappling them, but also threatening subs or using ground and pound, it doesn't matter. You reward the offensive fighter trying to finish the fight.

Saying the judges ignore it shows the issue, because the scoring is actually clear. We run into issues when judges score it like BJJ (back control with no offence), wrestling (pinning opponent) or boxing (defensive fighter using nothing but jabs moving backwards). It's MMA and should be scored within the criteria of the sport.

I addressed the fact it isn't damage based scoring in my post. Impact (damage included) is what is scored. Big shots on the ground or feet are scored equally. A sub is effectively a big punch or rocking your opponent, depending on their defensive reactions to it. If someone finishes the round in a darce face down for an extended period ( Charles vs Armen) that's as good as a knockdown. Especially when saved by the bell. 1 big moment doesn't win you the fight in MMA, but your opponent needs to have had some other big offensive moments to counter that, not just control time.

Grappling and striking are scored the same, provided they lead to offence. Pinning someone down is just control, landing any meaningful offence from that position isn't scored as control it's scored as effective grappling. It's all very clear in the scoring criteria.

It's actually not hard. 4 mins of control time means nothing if you spend the whole time hiding your head and getting punched in the face or fighting off subs. Your control isn't even scored in that situation. You lost the effective grappling exchanges.

 

[Striker Fox]

You should watch it again. That round was a toss up, with very few strikes landed either side.
It's not just Sal D'Amato, 6 of 25 medias scorers gave it 49-46 Ngannou (including all 3 from sherdog).

ffs you're right Lol. Why did I remember Gane clearly winning that round. Could've gone either way for sure.

 

[spinup]

ffs you're right Lol. Why did I remember Gane clearly winning that round. Could've gone either way for sure.

Yeah, you see, it's funny how everyone remembers it as Gane totally dominating.

 

[Dr Fong]

It's not contradictory at all. The end result is the person who is doing something that contributes to the fight ending is the one winning that exchange regardless of position.
Outstrike them on the feet or out grappling them, but also threatening subs or using ground and pound, it doesn't matter. You reward the offensive fighter trying to finish the fight.

Saying the judges ignore it shows the issue, because the scoring is actually clear. We run into issues when judges score it like BJJ (back control with no offence), wrestling (pinning opponent) or boxing (defensive fighter using nothing but jabs moving backwards). It's MMA and should be scored within the criteria of the sport.

I addressed the fact it isn't damage based scoring in my post. Impact (damage included) is what is scored. Big shots on the ground or feet are scored equally. A sub is effectively a big punch or rocking your opponent, depending on their defensive reactions to it. If someone finishes the round in a darce face down for an extended period ( Charles vs Armen) that's as good as a knockdown. Especially when saved by the bell. 1 big moment doesn't win you the fight in MMA, but your opponent needs to have had some other big offensive moments to counter that, not just control time.

Grappling and striking are scored the same, provided they lead to offence. Pinning someone down is just control, landing any meaningful offence from that position isn't scored as control it's scored as effective grappling. It's all very clear in the scoring criteria.

It's actually not hard. 4 mins of control time means nothing if you spend the whole time hiding your head and getting punched in the face or fighting off subs. Your control isn't even scored in that situation. You lost the effective grappling exchanges.

You seem to have confused what you want the criteria to say with what it actually says.