John McCarthy explaining the rules to Frank Shamrock.

Herb Dean should watch the videos about the "back of the head". I swear I can't even stand hearing him say it anymore anytime a fighter hits on the ear or a little behind it.
 
Thanks for posting, TS.

The interesting part for me was the spiking rule, where BJM explained that "anything with an arc is OK". That's what legalises suplexes, then.

I had always been a bit confused as to what constituted a spike.

I'll watch the second video with interest.
 
m25105 said:
Yeah, he was also the one who suggested "Damage" as part of the judging criteria, but they didn't want to do it cause it sounded too violent at the time.
Click to expand...

It makes sense why damage wouldn't be IMO.

It's not really something you can quantify, especially because blood pretty much trumps all in terms of damage, while some guys like anderson and BJ penn just refuse to bleed.
 
Kazuya Mishima said:
Herb Dean should watch the videos about the "back of the head". I swear I can't even stand hearing him say it anymore anytime a fighter hits on the ear or a little behind it.
Click to expand...

Because it's real easy to determine exactly where a shot lands.

I have no problem with herb saying "watch the back of the head" when they're nearing that area.
 
m25105 said:
According to McCarthy's twitter him and Dana are cool now, it's Kizer that has a problem with him.
Click to expand...

Yup, Kizer got butt hurt when BJM called out the NSAC for being incompetent and refuses to renew his ref license in Nevada after that.

Oh well, there's always events held in other states.
 
DizzyYeahYeah said:
John should judge fights when he's not reffing
Click to expand...

John is definitely sets the bar for refs. And if all refs were held to that standard, they should all be judges while reffing. Refs are in the best position to judge and understand the fight in an objective way.
 
Stwonnie said:
It makes sense why damage wouldn't be IMO.

It's not really something you can quantify, especially because blood pretty much trumps all in terms of damage, while some guys like anderson and BJ penn just refuse to bleed.
Click to expand...

What about when you factor damage to the leg for example, example Machida received quite nasty leg kicks from Shogun. Or the Diego Sanchez vs. Kampmann fight, Diego looked like he had been in the meat grinder. Remember it's part of the criteria, not the be all and end all.

To give an example, Fedor looked more busted up after fighting Cro Cop than Cro Cop did, but everyone saw how it was Fedor who dominated the fight from the get go. Fedor also bruises easily and we've seen the same with GSP.
 
For those getting upset with John who gets involved when Bones doesn't close his fingers or point them up, this video gives good context. He does a heavy amount of interpretation of the rules, and sets a standard that I agree with. He helped form the rules in the first place, after all. If you liked this video, just remember podcast interviews are where Big John goes deep with his methodology and history of the sport. For instance, he knew them banning headbutts would screw over Coleman's GnP strategy.

One amendment I wish they'd make would be only allowing one fence grab, the next one loses a point, even if it's not on purpose. Right now it's an unknown amount of warnings before a point is taken.
 
m25105 said:
What about when you factor damage to the leg for example, example Machida received quite nasty leg kicks from Shogun. Or the Diego Sanchez vs. Kampmann fight, Diego looked like he had been in the meat grinder. Remember it's part of the criteria, not the be all and end all.

To give an example, Fedor looked more busted up after fighting Cro Cop than Cro Cop did, but everyone saw how it was Fedor who dominated the fight from the get go. Fedor also bruises easily and we've seen the same with GSP.
Click to expand...

I don't think the definition of "damage" was intended to be so superficial. You can rock a guy with a shot to the jaw, leave no visible marks, and still say that it was a very damaging strike. I always thought damage just meant how much you were hurting the other guy, which is the whole point of a fight. The goal of a fight is not to press him against a fence or hold him on the ground. That's not fighting, that's crowd control.

And really, if you're just holding him down and not banking any damage, then in a way, he's also got you equally occupied. You would each be equally fucked if some third party wandered up to join the fray. You really haven't gained any sort of upper hand.
 
Deleroux said:
Refs are in the best position to judge and understand the fight in an objective way.
Click to expand...

Unless...

cecil-peoples-300x200.jpg
 
m25105 said:
What about when you factor damage to the leg for example, example Machida received quite nasty leg kicks from Shogun. Or the Diego Sanchez vs. Kampmann fight, Diego looked like he had been in the meat grinder. Remember it's part of the criteria, not the be all and end all.

To give an example, Fedor looked more busted up after fighting Cro Cop than Cro Cop did, but everyone saw how it was Fedor who dominated the fight from the get go. Fedor also bruises easily and we've seen the same with GSP.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's exactly what i mean, and why I think it shouldn't count in the criteria.

Yeah you can bruise a guys leg up, but lets say you punish his body a lot during the fight, when does that show in terms of damage?

Or you land a lot of great shots towards the end of the fight, but the bruises and damage don't show up until after the score cards are read?
 
"as long as you are trying I won't stop the fight"

There are certain referees that don't care whether a fighter is trying to get out of a bad situation, trying to intelligently defend themselves or not.
 
Last edited:
Awesome, I've seen the Shamrock one but not that longer 17 min video. Everyone that signs up to Sherdog should have to watch these, it would hopefully cut back on all the idiotic threads after some fights.

Big John is the man, so much experience.
 
Stwonnie said:
Yeah that's exactly what i mean, and why I think it shouldn't count in the criteria.

Yeah you can bruise a guys leg up, but lets say you punish his body a lot during the fight, when does that show in terms of damage?

Or you land a lot of great shots towards the end of the fight, but the bruises and damage don't show up until after the score cards are read?
Click to expand...


Lack of movement, signs of favouring one side of the other. Damage should be part of the criteria, if one fighter has done nothing but do a jab fest, while the other has punished the fighters leg until it's so bad that when the fight is over he has to limp to his corner, that should be counted. I mentioned the Fedor to show that superficial damage is not the same as actual damage. Shogun did actual damage to Machida in their fight, Cro Cop didn't.
 
m25105 said:
Lack of movement, signs of favouring one side of the other. Damage should be part of the criteria, if one fighter has done nothing but do a jab fest, while the other has punished the fighters leg until it's so bad that when the fight is over he has to limp to his corner, that should be counted. I mentioned the Fedor to show that superficial damage is not the same as actual damage. Shogun did actual damage to Machida in their fight, Cro Cop didn't.
Click to expand...

So guys should just leg kick the entire fight because limping is the only legitimate way to show damage?
 
Stwonnie said:
So guys should just leg kick the entire fight because limping is the only legitimate way to show damage?
Click to expand...

Where did I say only? Are you trying to troll now? I'm using examples from fights for references.
 
m25105 said:
Where did I say only? Are you trying to troll now? I'm using examples from fights for references.
Click to expand...

Well what other ways are there to determine damage?

A guy could slip and develop a limp.

Some guys bruise faster than others, some cut much more easily.

I don't have much of a problem with the current system, I just feel "octagon control" should either be removed or defined in a better way.

It should only relate to an advantageous position, but even then what is an advantageous position when you do absolutely nothing with it.

I don't think it should relate to who stands in the middle of the cage, or who is going forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,677
Messages
58,311,120
Members
175,997
Latest member
joshvegas

Share this page

Back
Top