Joe Rogan: “fights are supposed to be about who does more damage”

[mooseman17]

This is a sport. Sports have rules. Rules that should always be followed and not arbitrary when you want to argue for your favourite fighter. The scoring system might be shit, but both fighters agreed to it before stepping into the cage.

 

[UltraMagnusReturns]

They are. Thats why when you completely fuck someone up you get a 10-8 round. you get rewarded extra.

But, you can't fuck someone up for one round, but then losa another 4 for example in a championship fight and seriously expect to win.

You can't be rewarded in other rounds based on loads of damage done in one completely seperate round.

Its almost like he does not understand how rounds work in combat sports.

 

[kflo]

The only experts that came out regarding this subject were USADA employed or were USADA employed, after the fact. Dana White said at the presser that he has hundreds of scientist saying Jon Jones did nothing wrong, but when asked to name one he referred them to Novitsky. Novitsky couldn't name a single person in the podcast. So far no one else has voiced their opinions on this subject. Granted the only study regarding this garbage is based on only one person's experience. So many this is all new, but most people are more angry over the fact that he pissed dirty and should have been pulled from the fight. Regardless of it maybe being beneficial to his performance or not.

So usada’s chief science officer (or director of science) isn’t credible why? The head of one of 2 US WADA labs isn’t credible? And a retired usada head science officer isn’t credible? Those are the experts who opined. And again, the idea that they’re not credible is somehow just widely embraced? It’s absurd.

Not a single expert has called into question anything they said. Yet youtubers call bullshit.

 

[sherdogwantedtonamemekiki]

So usada’s chief science officer (or director of science) isn’t credible why? The head of one of 2 US WADA labs isn’t credible? And a retired usada head science officer isn’t credible? Those are the experts who opined. And again, the idea that they’re not credible is somehow just widely embraced? It’s absurd.

Not a single expert has called into question anything they said. Yet youtubers call bullshit.

Compared to DC or numerous other fighters that have been tested numerous times and have come up negative. I'll take DC's word in regards to this, because he can pick clean. It's generally sf

So usada’s chief science officer (or director of science) isn’t credible why? The head of one of 2 US WADA labs isn’t credible? And a retired usada head science officer isn’t credible? Those are the experts who opined. And again, the idea that they’re not credible is somehow just widely embraced? It’s absurd.

Not a single expert has called into question anything they said. Yet youtubers call bullshit.

Why did the story change from hundreds of scientists to only three now?

 

[Johnny_Knuckles]

Get in there Joe, fucking meat headed dork.

 

[tramendous]

And what about grappling technique?

Look at Chael vs Nate Marquack as an example.

Who wins?

people practice grappling to throw, submit or obtain a position to ground and pound (damage again). Guys like Chael just lack the talent to make effective use of it to do damage. I mean the guy punched anderson how many times and anderson barely had a scratch on him? while weidman who had anderson on the ground for a lot less time landed bombs.

 

[dmwalking]

I agree. That's why I appreciate Pride judging over all. A fight should be about overall damage, not round by round. Just my opinion.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

Rogan is right. The primary goal of a fight is damage. Judging is ludicrous at the minute.

But even judging of damage done is usually ludicrous. Do you go by cuts and scrapes and other such superficial damage that kids get climbing trees? The person with the thickest skin wins? Do you go by what looks to the outside like it should have hurt? And how do you take into account how much damage the receiver can take? The relative damage that someone like Mark Hunt takes from a punch is going to be a lot less than the relative damage that say Arlovski takes.

I'm not against going by damage, but if we're going that route then it shouldn't include any judging at all. Either there's a finish or its a tie, because judging damage is if anything harder than judging ring control etc.

 

[Rittsy]

But couldn't you argue Whittiker out damaged Yoel?
Bobby broke Romero's orbital whereas Robert recovered enough during the fight to survive Yoel's best. By the 25 minute mark one guy had a broken eye socket that had swelled over and the other was on wobbly legs. Yoel still hasn't healed up properly, Rob has a fight in a few weeks.

Trying to judge by damage is sorta difficult unless scorecards get released after a doctor's assessment.

 

[Kleinschuster]

Ah, a draw for a round slipped my mind.
For sure, of course they have to do a better job knowing the difference between a 10-9 and a draw.

Cointoss 10-9 doesn't mean pick whoever, cointoss 10-9s are a weird idea and phrase that seems to make judges forget draws exist and that you're supposed to score them as such whenever they happen.

It seems so easy to bring on these changes.

Somehow, it hasn't happened and all we can do in the meantime is hope these small yet paramount refinements are made sooner rather then later.

Yeah, cointoss round insta 10-10. Clear round 10-9, dominate round 10-8 - almost finish/pure domination 10-7. If that would be used we would see more guys win. But 10-10s are used even on a rarer occasion than 10-8s eventhough they should be really common (see TWood Wonderboy etc.)

 

[wilKO]

But even judging of damage done is usually ludicrous. Do you go by cuts and scrapes and other such superficial damage that kids get climbing trees? The person with the thickest skin wins? Do you go by what looks to the outside like it should have hurt? And how do you take into account how much damage the receiver can take? The relative damage that someone like Mark Hunt takes from a punch is going to be a lot less than the relative damage that say Arlovski takes.

I'm not against going by damage, but if we're going that route then it shouldn't include any judging at all. Either there's a finish or its a tie, because judging damage is if anything harder than judging ring control etc.

It's really not that hard. People have been judging fights for 1000s of years based on damage. If damage is extremely close then it's probably a draw.

 

[kickpuncher]

If 1 guy wins on points with strikes that do nothing but looks like he got jumped afterwards and the loser doesn't even look like he's been in a fight....fuck that.

Homie that looks like Rocky Dennis lost.

Know u ain't referring to yoel/wit 2. Yoel looked like a Chinese ninja turtle.

 

[Plissken]

If 1 guy wins on points with strikes that do nothing but looks like he got jumped afterwards and the loser doesn't even look like he's been in a fight....fuck that.

Homie that looks like Rocky Dennis lost.

So Fedor lost to Cro Cop?

 

[demetrio]

It's a shame that true warrior performances (Romero vs Whittaker, Condit vs Lawler etc) are the ones that tend to get screwed by this scoring system.

You hold somebody down the entire round, you might get a 10-8.
The other guy was ineffectively 'active' for a while but then almost got slept? That might be a 10-9 either way. How stupid is that?

 

[heavy_hands]

I'm still pissed about the Bas/Randleman decision...

 

[NekMinnit]

One guy is fighting in 3 weeks. The other guys face was re-arranged and doesnt want to fight any more. Nuff said about the 'damage' arguement

 

[NinjaSpider]

I know its immature but i just cant take anything Joe says seriously after his Novitzky shilling episode

 

[TomTomNT]

Well we have a different definition of fighting then. If we meet on the street, you beat me up pretty hard in the first 5 mins, then u gas and for 15 mins we only more or less touch each other lightly, I would call you the winner of the fight. Also our faces and bodies would look accordingly.

What you are saying, basically, is that both fighters did almost no dmg in rounds 2-5 but fighter two is the victor due to barely winning those rounds, whereas my definition is that fighter 1 did 90% of the whole dmg in the fight and should win. Fighter 2 has 4 rounds to do as much dmg and if he can't he deserves to lose.

EDIT: That would actually happen given the current scoring system if judges learned to score 10-10 and 10-8 rounds better. When a round is a coinflip or really close, give out a 10-10 not a biased 10-9 and all is good.

Since when is "barely winning" not winning anymore? It does not matter if you win by an inch or a mile...by your definition which makes very little sense, 1 fighter can land 1 punch, break a guys noses or open up some scar tissue and then get taken down for the next 4 and a half rounds but still win cuz he "did more dmg".... yikes, gl with your problem solving skills in the future with that way of thinking.

There is a reason all combat sports are judged round by round and im guessing it was thought about more then you did when you wrote this rofl.

 

[Kleinschuster]

Since when is "barely winning" not winning anymore? It does not matter if you win by an inch or a mile...by your definition which makes very little sense, 1 fighter can land 1 punch, break a guys noses or open up some scar tissue and then get taken down for the next 4 and a half rounds but still win cuz he "did more dmg".... yikes, gl with your problem solving skills in the future with that way of thinking.

There is a reason all combat sports are judged round by round and im guessing it was thought about more then you did when you wrote this rofl.

Actually, you lack readying comprehension, but I will go into the two points you make (as I have written nothing at all about the 2nd part). I said if we "touch each other lightly" - both almost doing nothing for the fight.

Because barely winning in a race can be determined for 100% sure, barely winning in a fighting round - you just can't. That's why in close fights you often have the media, professional analysts, score it often 50-50. If a round is that close that most of the media can't agree who won it, then it's a clearcut 10-10 for me. For a 10-9 you have to WIN the round.

Which brings me to your second argument. If fighter A. really hurts fighter B in the first round, not just lands a glazing punch that cuts B. open, but like dropping and almost stopping the fight, then he is awarded a 10-8. If he only wins, than it's only a 10-9. If he gets taken down the next four rounds he obviously loses cause he gets dominated. Or are you talking about someone just laying on top of the other guy? Because some punches are always thrown from the top guy. And I have no scenario in my head where somebody is taking his opponnent down in the beginning of a fight and not landing anything at all. If you get taken down and hit by a few blows it's a clear 10-9. So surely fighter B. would win in your scenario.

What I am talking about is rounds like Conor-Khabib 3 if I remember correctly. Both almost connect with nothing, both hitting 2-3 strikes the whole round. A 10-10 for me.

 

[oldschoolmmafan]

Yet he thinks Jones beat Gus the first time, Jones took way more damage in that fight... hypocritical.