Islam's wins over Volk didn't age that well

Hmm, smells like bullshit and delusion, especially when the first page of the that thread is 20-9 posts in favor of Islam winning.

You've been listening to Dominick Cruz too much. Effective striking and grappling trump all. So says the scoring criteria
Not anymore. Those rules are 8 years old. Damage trumps all. It's the highest criteria. Look it up.
 
his most prestigious wins are 2018 Mendes, 2019 Aldo and his defences were Ortega (overrated), Yair (overrated too), 2022 Korean Zombie (a fight that it took guts in order to sanction) and Max x 2 (his best wins).
Aldo, Anderson*, GSP, Johnson and Jones* actually dominated their divisions.

He is a great fighter, i don't think he's done but if you think about it his resume is not that spectacular.

volk's resume really is overrated
guy defended his belt against ancient korean zombie for Christ's sake
anyone putting him over aldo as FW goat is insane
 
Not even Tibau clings to this level of delusion as you do. Let it go.

Your pulsating derp into the next 5 generations of your bloodline.

Look at the media scorecards. Most gave it to tibau. This one was in fact a robbery. Listen to the commentary. They even said this loss will help khabib in the future. Also watch the boring fight. Clear as day who won
 
Not anymore. Those rules are 8 years old. Damage trumps all. It's the highest criteria. Look it up.
Wrong in so many ways. The "new" rules didn't change much language at all about the old rules 8 years ago, other than ordering them into tiers.

Plus, there's not ONE scoring criteria, you have to go by the rules of whatever commission you're fighting in.

If you go to the western Australia commission website, they'll link you straight to the ABC rules which were updated in 2023, which state:

A. Judging Criteria
a. All bouts will be evaluated and scored by a minimum of three (3) judges.
b. The 10 Point Must System will be the standard of scoring about.
i. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of
the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even
round, which is scored (10-10).
c. Judges shall evaluate Mixed Martial Arts techniques, such as effective striking/grappling(Plan A), effective aggressiveness(Plan B), and control of the fighting area(Plan C).Plans B and C are not taken into consideration unless Plan A is weighed as being even.


The word "effective" comes up 11 times in the document. The word damage comes up 0. Please stop listening to Cruz and Rogan and take your own advice on looking shit up, while you sit there telling people how much  they don't understand the sport.
 
Nah bro he has 2 title defences against the same guy from the division below.
He'll forever be my GOAT and p4p no1.
 
It was considered by many outlets to be robbery of the year. Your derping is out of control.
Link them. You sure you didn't read " fight of the year?"

No, sherdog is starting to become a casual stomping ground which is unfortunate.
Anyone calling that robbery of the year is a fucking casual
Pudilova-Edwards was obviously robbery of the year, with a strong honorable mention for KKF-Albazi.

THOSE were actual robberies

_____
How did I score it?
I recall having no issue scoring the fight for Makhachev, which is why I was so adamant about not chiming in on the scoring discourse. On a second viewing, I’m even more comfortable with that decision.

Maybe the most common misconception I see about this fight is that Volkanovski was winning the standup exchanges and that Makhachev fell back on his grappling. That couldn’t be farther from reality. While Volkanovski’s output on the feet over 25 minutes was unquestionably impressive, he got cracked several times in the bout. There are many fighters with weaker chins that would have been put down by Makhachev’s power shots.

This isn’t even subjective, Volkanovski’s reactions to some of Makhachev’s punches from rounds 2 to 4 were so obvious that the judges were left with no choice but to favor those strikes.

If you want to give Volkanovski points for surviving long stretches of Makhachev having his back, have at it. I won’t. And I’m not giving him too much credit for those over-the-shoulder punches either. Sorry, they’re not effective, even if they probably suck to take. As long as Makhachev was on Volkanovski’s back, he was in a far better position to finish the fight than Volkanovski and if you don’t think that’s the case, I don’t know what to tell you.

49-46 Makhachev.

Was it a robbery?
I’m remembering the other reason now why I didn’t feel inclined to do a Robbery Review of this fight: Not only was it so close that it would be an insult to both fighters to prioritize outrage over appreciation for their performances, but it’s easy to make a case for a Makhachev victory.

Watch this one again (and again and again, it’s so good!). Turn the sound off so there’s no commentary and no crowd reaction. Ignore the “underdog is thriving” narrative that colors so many of our scorecards when we judge fights at home. Enjoy the luxury of having slow-motion replays at the end of each round (I think Cartlidge, Cleary, and Lethaby did an outstanding job with what they had available live).

Maybe, maybe, you can make a case for rounds 2, 3, and 5 for Volkanovski, but it’s not a convincing argument and I’d be more inclined to have done an immediate Robbery Review if that’s how the verdict had gone. Volkanovski was brilliant against Makhachev and the fact that Makhachev won convincingly in my eyes only makes the win that much more impressive.

Lastly, we can praise Volkanovski for capping off the fight with a memorable flurry, but that doesn’t mean we have to retroactively award him any of the previous rounds and grant him the victory. Diaz Rules aren’t a real thing!

The final verdict
Not a robbery.
 
Back
Top