Jed Meshew (MMA Fighting) has no idea how to score fights

[MRT]

BJM wrote the rules. If no one gets hurt in a round they go to effective aggression, where the sub attempts come into play as well.

The problem with it is focusing on words like cumulative and impactful. And applying them to criterias 1 and 2, effective striking/grappling and effective aggression. It leads to wrong calls.

That is incorrect...you really need to re-read the rules.

The first criterion is "effective striking/grappling", which includes sub attempts. This is *explicitly* stated under the description of that criterion.

Going to the 2nd criterion of "effective aggressiveness" does not occur if 'no one gets hurts in a round'...it comes into play only if effective striking/grappling, as defined, is judged to be 100% equal for the round.

The problem is not focusing on the wording...the problem is that some people ignore the wording.

 

[Natural Order]

https://www.mmafighting.com/2021/10...rlings-withdrawal-and-the-latest-on-jon-jones



He scored Round 3 10-8 Ortega, and Round 4 10-7 Volkanovski. What a ridiculous person.

10-8 Ortega?

You're right, an apparent pro MMA pundit scoring any round of that fight 10-8 Ortega is pretty much either a) a cry for help and somebody should be checking in on him or b) a resignation letter of epic proportions.

 

[MCS]

That is incorrect...you really need to re-read the rules.

The first criterion is "effective striking/grappling", which includes sub attempts. This is *explicitly* stated under the description of that criterion.

Going to the 2nd criterion of "effective aggressiveness" does not occur if 'no one gets hurts in a round'...it comes into play only if effective striking/grappling, as defined, is judged to be 100% equal for the round.

The problem is not focusing on the wording...the problem is that some people ignore the wording.

Immediate means damage in it. That is the problem you highlight here as an example.

 

[RiseAboveHat]

10-8 Ortega?

You're right, an apparent pro MMA pundit scoring any round of that fight 10-8 Ortega is pretty much either a) a cry for help and somebody should be checking in on him or b) a resignation letter of epic proportions.

He said he would've scored it a 10-7 if not for Volk's comeback in the last minute LOL

 

[MRT]

Immediate means damage in it. That is the problem you highlight here as an example.

"Immediate" does not just refer to damage...sub attempts do not necessarily involve damage. Please read the actual rules...I'll even highlight the relevant grappling part:

"Effective striking/grappling:

Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact. Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact. It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position. This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round."

 

[Natural Order]

He said he would've scored it a 10-7 if not for Volk's comeback in the last minute LOL

 

[MCS]

"Immediate" does not just refer to damage...sub attempts do not necessarily involve damage. Please read the actual rules...I'll even highlight the relevant grappling part:

"Effective striking/grappling:

Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact. Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact. It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position. This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round."

"To the end of the match". Unless you hurt the other guy with a sub attempt damage via strikes contributes more to it. It all goes back to damage.

BJM once said he can't use the word "damage". He wanted to get rid of "impact" in the new rules.

 

[MRT]

"To the end of the match". Unless you hurt the other guy with a sub attempt damage via strikes contributes more to it. It all goes back to damage.

BJM once said he can't use the word "damage". He wanted to get rid of "impact" in the new rules.

That is your opinion...that is not what is stated in the rules.

I really don't care what BJM once said or what he wanted to do...the written rules are what they are. Unless they are changed, then they should be applied as written...otherwise why have the rules written the way they are? Just change them to explicitly say "damage".

The wording is "with the potential to contribute to the end of the match". If a sub is super deep, even if it is not causing "damage" (e.g. an arm triangle) and the fighter caught in it is close to tapping, but then manages to escape or the guy lets it go, that would be judged to have had a high potential to contribute to the end of the match.

 

[MCS]

That is your opinion...that is not what is stated in the rules.

I really don't care what BJM once said or what he wanted to do...the written rules are what they are. Unless they are changed, then they should be applied as written...otherwise why have the rules written the way they are? Just change them to explicitly say "damage".

The wording is "with the potential to contribute to the end of the match". If a sub is super deep, even if it is not causing "damage" (e.g. an arm triangle) and the fighter caught in it is close to tapping, but then manages to escape or the guy lets it go, that would be judged to have had a high potential to contribute to the end of the match.

Well that is his intention and the new rules are his initiative. He tries to explain them in a simple way. It does matter that it's him as he's the creator.

The "damage" wording was political. It wasn't his choice. Had to roll with it.

For the Ortega/Volk fight specifically I'll give you an example: Volk mauls him in the beginning of the round. Ortega survives and the round ends with Volk being in the mounted guillotine getting saved by the bell. That round goes to Ortega, then, even though Volk did more damage.

So I keep going back to the original point that looking at the rules too much won't give anyone a clear answer or guideline. A lot of it is common sense.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

What a terrible score card. The 10-7 round 4 seems like him just trying to fix his mistake of scoring round 3 10-8 for Ortega which makes it even more stupid.

 

[RiseAboveHat]

What a terrible score card. The 10-7 round 4 seems like him just trying to fix his mistake of scoring round 3 10-8 for Ortega which makes it even more stupid.

Not even, he says in another tweet he would've scorded R3 10-7 Ortega if it wasn't for Volk's comeback in the last minute LOL

 

[dethmanrulz]

Well Jed isn't necessarily the sharpest knife... we saw that when he first joined mmafighting.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Not even, he says in another tweet he would've scorded R3 10-7 Ortega if it wasn't for Volk's comeback in the last minute LOL

LMAO, by his own play by play Volk hurt Ortega with strikes badly before and after the 2 submission attempts. Even if he weighs the sub attempts equally to rocking someone Volkanovski won every other exchange. At worst it was a 10-9 round for Volkanovski.

With scoring that bad I would think of getting rid of him, he's going to make whoever he works for look like a joke.

 

[MRT]

Well that is his intention and the new rules are his initiative. He tries to explain them in a simple way. It does matter that it's him as he's the creator.

The "damage" wording was political. It wasn't his choice. Had to roll with it.

For the Ortega/Volk fight specifically I'll give you an example: Volk mauls him in the beginning of the round. Ortega survives and the round ends with Volk being in the mounted guillotine getting saved by the bell. That round goes to Ortega, then, even though Volk did more damage.

So I keep going back to the original point that looking at the rules too much won't give anyone a clear answer or guideline. A lot of it is common sense.

I prefer adhering to the rules as they are written as much as possible. Injecting "common sense" into the equation, or getting into 'intent' that is not explicitly captured in the wording...that allows for even more subjectivity than already exists by the nature of a 5-minute round of action. The judges often suck as it is...let's not give them any more latitude than they already have.

In your example, a judge would be required to weigh the 'mauling' vs. the sub attempt...and they would need to do so given the criteria specified in the rules, with the immediate weighing more heavily than the cumulative and considering their respective potential for contributing to the end of the match.

I can't give my opinion on that specific round based on memory...I would need to rewatch and score it according to the rules. I will say that a 'mauling' could contain very significant strikes that could be judged to be more than just cumulative. For example, if you rock a guy badly or knock him down, that is 'immediate' and could theoretically offset the immediacy of a deep sub...in which case, the striker who mauled him over time would also have the benefit of the 'cumulative', whereas the grappler's one sub attempt would not, so the striker gets the round. Yes, it can get complicated, and it can be difficult to score in the heat of the moment, but if we walk through the round using the criteria, I think we can usually arrive at a score that makes sense.

If we don't like the scores that result under these rules, the maybe the rules need to be changed (and I'm sure many people would like to see changes).

 

[Alexander_GOATanovski]

I never knew that there could be someone even worse at scoring than Paul Fontaine from WrestlingObserver lmao

 

[Safton]

If anything this is a 10-8 Volkanovski round that Ortega's sub attempts bring up to a 10-9 Volkanovski round

Precisely how I saw it.

49-45 Volk overall for me.

 

[CountOfSoCal]

Journalist with MMA Fighting. He writes about MMA professionally and has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Luke Thomas mentioned that Jed is the kind of guy who thinks his degree means he's a step above everyone else, and that his opinion should be held higher than everyone else's.

 

[Ares Black]

Luke Thomas mentioned that Jed is the kind of guy who thinks his degree means he's a step above everyone else, and that his opinion should be held higher than everyone else's.

Sounds like a tool. I certainly get that impression from his writing.

 

[MCS]

I prefer adhering to the rules as they are written as much as possible. Injecting "common sense" into the equation, or getting into 'intent' that is not explicitly captured in the wording...that allows for even more subjectivity than already exists by the nature of a 5-minute round of action. The judges often suck as it is...let's not give them any more latitude than they already have.

In your example, a judge would be required to weigh the 'mauling' vs. the sub attempt...and they would need to do so given the criteria specified in the rules, with the immediate weighing more heavily than the cumulative and considering their respective potential for contributing to the end of the match.

I can't give my opinion on that specific round based on memory...I would need to rewatch and score it according to the rules. I will say that a 'mauling' could contain very significant strikes that could be judged to be more than just cumulative. For example, if you rock a guy badly or knock him down, that is 'immediate' and could theoretically offset the immediacy of a deep sub...in which case, the striker who mauled him over time would also have the benefit of the 'cumulative', whereas the grappler's one sub attempt would not, so the striker gets the round. Yes, it can get complicated, and it can be difficult to score in the heat of the moment, but if we walk through the round using the criteria, I think we can usually arrive at a score that makes sense.

If we don't like the scores that result under these rules, the maybe the rules need to be changed (and I'm sure many people would like to see changes).

There is a difference in thinking here. To me, understanding the general idea of the rule to apply the idea of the creator is what matters. To you, it needs to be clearly written, word for word, to cite it.

I do agree about clarifications. I think BJM's efforts for the new rules were much needed, but the execution wasn't perfect. They're caps locking "immediate", though, as they at least in the past couldn't use the word "damage" (some approval thing there). Immediate would be the substitute word.

I think they succeeded with damage over volume, even with the wording of immediate and cumulative, as hard shots are scored better now. But damage vs sub attempts is trickier to convey. It would have to be written just like that, then. They're giving out more 10-8's, for better or worse. I think that needs improvement, as they're handing them out too loosely in some cases.

And they partially failed with the grounded opponent rule, as fighters can still game it by putting both hands on the ground, and if the opponent decides to punch in a clinch he loses the grip to control them partially. If he can knee he can keep a body lock. Besides, if you put both hands on the floor without any advancement you do it to game the rules. You can bait fouls with the up and down bullshit.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

"To the end of the match". Unless you hurt the other guy with a sub attempt damage via strikes contributes more to it. It all goes back to damage.

BJM once said he can't use the word "damage". He wanted to get rid of "impact" in the new rules.

A submission attempt is an immediate threat to end the fight, not sure why you think that immediate threat only applies to damage. The judging criteria clearly states that it applies to submission attempts as well as strikes.