It’s not that Bautista won poorly, it’s that he has no argument to win

[RonDante]

I’m seeing a LOT of people going out and saying something like “I can’t believe Bautista did that to a legend like Aldo, he was scared to strike, but he did what he had to” or “the rules need to change, you shouldn’t be able to win like that”

Both of these are wrong because Mario Bautista has zero (0) argument to win that fight. In the 3rd round, he was outstruck 20 to 19 on total strikes, 17 to 10 on significant strikes, and had zero effective grappling. No takedowns, dominant positions, submission attempts, reversals etc

Effective Striking/Grappling is number 1, if 100% equal then effective aggression, if 100% equal then fighting area control. Fighting area control is what bautista had, and even then Aldo arguably got that too if we had to look at that becuase of his takedown defense

BUT we don’t have to look at that because we can score the fight using the main criteria, Aldo won the effective striking so he wins the round

If Aldo had genuinely landed ONE (1) punch, and Bautista had landed 0, but pushed Aldo against the fence for 4 minutes and 55 seconds of the round, Aldo still would have won the round according to the criteria

 

[PrideNverDies]

Judges need to start penalizing fighters for too many failed takedowns. The judging was bad all night but this shows an exploit in the scoring that needs to be fixed. Fighters like Merab are going undefeated just stalling against the fence

 

[StrikerKing]

I’m seeing a LOT of people going out and saying something like “I can’t believe Bautista did that to a legend like Aldo, he was scared to strike, but he did what he had to” or “the rules need to change, you shouldn’t be able to win like that”

Both of these are wrong because Mario Bautista has zero (0) argument to win that fight. In the 3rd round, he was outstruck 20 to 19 on total strikes, 17 to 10 on significant strikes, and had zero effective grappling. No takedowns, dominant positions, submission attempts, reversals etc

Effective Striking/Grappling is number 1, if 100% equal then effective aggression, if 100% equal then fighting area control. Fighting area control is what bautista had, and even then Aldo arguably got that too if we had to look at that becuase of his takedown defense

BUT we don’t have to look at that because we can score the fight using the main criteria, Aldo won the effective striking so he wins the round

If Aldo had genuinely landed ONE (1) punch, and Bautista had landed 0, but pushed Aldo against the fence for 4 minutes and 55 seconds of the round, Aldo still would have won the round according to the criteria

Agree, area and positional control (like being in a clinch up against the cage) should only be a factor if strikes, damages, aggression, and submission attempts are completely even.

 

[Dr Fong]

Correct.

95% of MMA discourse is retards who have never read the judging criteria arguing with other retards who have never read the judging criteria.

It's entirely based on their feelings. Hence they 'feel' Aldo 'should' have won rather than realizing he objectively did win.

 

[Arm Barbarian]

I get how he "won" based on the scoring of controlling where the fight took place, but holy fuck is that such an underwhelming way to eek out a decision.

He may have gamed the scoring criteria, but he certainly did not win any fans for that performance.

The crowd was drowning he and Hogan out in that post fight interview with boos.

 

[Gilday]

Exactly. I had no fault in what Merab did, although I didn't enjoy it, because he clearly won rounds 1, 2 and 4 and probably 3.

Under the current scoring system, there's literally no way Bautista wins rounds 2 or 3. Aldo had the effective striking, grappling was N/A, aggression was Aldo.

 

[usernamee]

I get how he won based on the scoring of controlling where the fight took place, but holy fuck is that such an underwhelming way to eek out a decision.

He may have gamed the scoring criteria, but he certainly did not win any fans for that performance.

The crowd was drowning he and Hogan out in that post fight interview with boos.

Dana ain't gunna luv him either.

They give him a main card spot on a PPV against freaking Jose Aldo and he pulls that shit

 

[Big Tuppy Hole]

The reff needs to call him for stalling and break the position earlier. Then, if he keeps repeating it, call him out for lack of engagement and timidness.

I'd even take a point if it persists

 

[RonDante]

I get how he "won" based on the scoring of controlling where the fight took place, but holy fuck is that such an underwhelming way to eek out a decision.

He may have gamed the scoring criteria, but he certainly did not win any fans for that performance.

The crowd was drowning he and Hogan out in that post fight interview with boos.

If the judges actually understood the scoring criteria, Bautista would have lost 29-28 is my point. He has no argument for winning

 

[Blanqa Blanqua]

I’m seeing a LOT of people going out and saying something like “I can’t believe Bautista did that to a legend like Aldo, he was scared to strike, but he did what he had to” or “the rules need to change, you shouldn’t be able to win like that”

Both of these are wrong because Mario Bautista has zero (0) argument to win that fight. In the 3rd round, he was outstruck 20 to 19 on total strikes, 17 to 10 on significant strikes, and had zero effective grappling. No takedowns, dominant positions, submission attempts, reversals etc

Effective Striking/Grappling is number 1, if 100% equal then effective aggression, if 100% equal then fighting area control. Fighting area control is what bautista had, and even then Aldo arguably got that too if we had to look at that becuase of his takedown defense

BUT we don’t have to look at that because we can score the fight using the main criteria, Aldo won the effective striking so he wins the round

If Aldo had genuinely landed ONE (1) punch, and Bautista had landed 0, but pushed Aldo against the fence for 4 minutes and 55 seconds of the round, Aldo still would have won the round according to the criteria

Yes.

 

[Poirierfan]

Judges and the rules absolutely fucking suck, they need to do something. It's just gonna keep being more of the same. Dana was pissed off too that the ref didn't break up the blatant stalling. These refs man, it's like they're a bunch of retards.

 

[Dr Fong]

Judges and the rules absolutely fucking suck, they need to do something. It's just gonna keep being more of the same. Dana was pissed off too that the ref didn't break up the blatant stalling. These refs man, it's like they're a bunch of retards.

The most annoying thing is that the judging criteria is very flawed. But this is the precise type of bullshit decision it was specifically brought in to avoid.

It's fucking embarrassing commentators and media members are still completely oblivious to it.

 

[Noraaq]

I was half asleep/buzzed during this fight but from what I saw, Bautista won the striking exchanges via volume and activity.

I think ppl get too enamored with the explosive combos of Aldo. Hes just not active enough to put a stamp on rounds.

 

[TheTickG]

I’m seeing a LOT of people going out and saying something like “I can’t believe Bautista did that to a legend like Aldo, he was scared to strike, but he did what he had to” or “the rules need to change, you shouldn’t be able to win like that”

Both of these are wrong because Mario Bautista has zero (0) argument to win that fight. In the 3rd round, he was outstruck 20 to 19 on total strikes, 17 to 10 on significant strikes, and had zero effective grappling. No takedowns, dominant positions, submission attempts, reversals etc

Effective Striking/Grappling is number 1, if 100% equal then effective aggression, if 100% equal then fighting area control. Fighting area control is what bautista had, and even then Aldo arguably got that too if we had to look at that becuase of his takedown defense

BUT we don’t have to look at that because we can score the fight using the main criteria, Aldo won the effective striking so he wins the round

If Aldo had genuinely landed ONE (1) punch, and Bautista had landed 0, but pushed Aldo against the fence for 4 minutes and 55 seconds of the round, Aldo still would have won the round according to the criteria

It's a shame not all judges read the rules as well as you and I.

 

[RonDante]

I was half asleep/buzzed during this fight but from what I saw, Bautista won the striking exchanges via volume and activity.

I think ppl get too enamored with the explosive combos of Aldo. Hes just not active enough to put a stamp on rounds.

Aldo landed more in the 3rd than bautista

 

[spooNN]

When stalling is the obvious gameplan refs need to detect it, be less lenient and break them up more often.

 

[sonhow]

Be prepeared for the Mario Boootista run

 

[tritestill]

There is the possible chance that wall and stall is being looked as effective, because you are rendering your opponents offense moot or non-existent, you are dictating where the fight takes place, you are controlling the fight.

Nice thread, it if the interpretation of the rules are as I outlined, that's what it is bro.

 

[RonDante]

There is the possible chance that wall and stall is being looked as effective, because you are rendering your opponents offense moot or non-existent, you are dictating where the fight takes place, you are controlling the fight.

Nice thread, it if the interpretation of the rules are as I outlined, that's what it is bro.

That controlling where the fight takes place would only be fighting area control which again should not have been used in this fight becuase Aldo won the main criteria of effective striking

 

[Doctor Grudge]

There is the possible chance that wall and stall is being looked as effective, because you are rendering your opponents offense moot or non-existent, you are dictating where the fight takes place, you are controlling the fight.

Nice thread, it if the interpretation of the rules are as I outlined, that's what it is bro.

but it's really just exploiting the fact that it's a time limit.

the point of a fight is to damage your opponent not control them.