You said “it was well known at the time that Texas valued it higher than probably anyone”, but there is no line in the rules that says it needs to weighed heavier, and it’s also implying that there is subjectivity to the rules, and a different judge using the same rules would score it for reyes if they didn’t personally believe fighting area control matters that much, which means you could easily justify a reyes win, making the Texas rules too subjective.
Texas valued "fighting area control" higher than anyone else at the time in 2020 - Meaning Texas allowed "fighting area control" to carry more weight in judging than most (if not all) other commissions did at the time. That statement wasn't said to imply that Texas rated it higher than striking. (if that's what you were thinking.)
They've always been at the higher end of enforcing that criteria through judging, even when it was more common prior to the unified rools. They considered it a motivation factor to get people to scrap instead of being rewarded for stall fighting. That said,
a "certain amount" of area control, can negate a certain amount of striking. That is what we see in the practice of it.
For sure Texas rools were written more subjectively than the unified rools which are also subjective in their own ways. The Unified rools attempted to try & reign in the subjectiveness a bit with their clearer descriptions, & nixing the whole area control aspect was long over-due. Texas however remained in that old more subjective criteria.
You’re not responding to what I said
Okay, I'm going to try & address exactly what you're talking about with my responses.
You’re not responding to what I said about the wording of the rules. It says the judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques. That’s what determines the round, and then it gives examples of techniques SUCH AS effective striking, effective grappling, effective aggression, fighting area control and defense. It doesn’t even say that these are the criteria, it provides examples of things you can score. You don’t even have to score aggression according to the wording of the rules, if the aggression didn’t lead to winning the round. And watching that 3rd round, jones moving forward just led to him getting hit. The wording is extremely subjective, and like I said, a judge would have to value it over everything else, but the scoring does not say that, it mentions it as a technique that can be considered.
Specifically, this is how it is written:
“
Judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, fighting area control, and effective aggressiveness/defense.”
imo, the words "
such as" does not indicate that there are more criteria, or that these are just suggestions that "can be considered." (as you eluded to)
These are the 4 things that matter. It could be suggested that there's thought put into order, since they started out with striking & grappling... which are obviously the 2 most heavily weighted criteria even in Texas. Then area control, then aggression... and I'm just guessing here, but in practice it seems they do in fact value "area control" as the 3rd most important judging criteria. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that a certain amount of area control can negate a certain amount of striking. (it literally works that way in practice, so I'm not sure there's any denying that)
You make a good point that the criteria is worded in a way that that leaves a lot of
speculation about the weight of each thing. That alone makes my point that the fight wasn't a robbery. Making that point, is my key reason for my participation in this thread.
I don't even believe that Jones won under Unified rools. I'm just saying that I can understand how he won under this rool set. I would go further to agree that there's an argument for Reyes, even under this roolset, but it was so close that there was no robbery. Also, that argument for Reyes under these roolz could only be accurately debated if "some" weight was given to area control, as it is certainly one of the main criteria this fight was judged under. (that's the part most people miss. Including yourself it seems)
For sure one judge will weigh center control more than another, but I think the fact that 2 judges voted for Jones in round 2... & 2 judges voted for Jones in round 3... attest to how much they do weigh area control.
I can also attest to the chatter going on at the time having followed the evolution of the Unified rools creation. Every commission was sent a copy of the Unified Rools in July 2016, so that they could make the proper move on Jan 1st 2017. Texas refused.
The old criteria all too often counted area control in judging, & area control would negate a certain amount of striking for a judge, just as I'm describing here. The "weight" given to area control differed from one commission to the other, with Texas being at the high end of the weight scale compared to others.
A point your retorting me about here is why I'm so sure of how weighted that area control figure is. For sure it's subjective, but it's far from new. I've been watching ufc since it began & the old criteria is what they used for all but the last 7 years. Some commissions weighted "area control" more than others, but imagine Texas as one of the more extreme states in that regard.
If you recall back in the day it was very common for the commentators to talk about holding the center as being something important. Oddly I still hear them make those points in modern times even though it's obviously been nixed for over 7 years now. It's because they remember the days when it was so commonly a judging criteria.
I lived through these rool changes from the only 3 they started with, to Big John taking the helm & helping develop some rools... to the evolution of it all the way through. They've slowly adjusted teh rools about center control through the years. Some commissions loosened their grip on its weight, while others (like Texas) kept it heavily weighted.
One of the issue Big John & teh Rool Changehz faced was how to word these new changes. They got massive pushback trying to use the word "damage" & so they had to dance around that very descriptive word. That probably set them back years as they negotiated with the various commissions on how this change could occur. "Impact" was their decent replacement, though it's not nearly as descriptive as damage. It shows where they were heading, but that also shows where they've been. Relatively, it wasn't that long ago most of these commissions outlawed MMA. NY famously being the last of them to yeild. They had to spell it out somehow to show that damage is what counts, without actually using the word. (lol) I noticed in the latest version that they actually use the word now, so that's good that we've all been desensitized a bit through the years.
More than anything, that was the big 2017 change that was the milestone. it valued Damage as the main focus & nixed position as being of no importance at all. Texas simply stuck with those old rools & they were always on the more extreme end of counting area control, so it's not some big mystery how it's calculated because we've seen it endlessly before.
It also drives me fooking batty when modern judges in a unified rools event, still give fooking credit to the asshole on top doing nothing. (its the same "area control" convo) They're slowly getting better, but it's such a slow learning curve now 7.4 years deep... & it's still happening ffs. Anyways... that's exactly this same situation. So the guy on the bottom can tag the guy on top with a sharp elbow or whatever, & go for a submission & the asshole just holding him down will win the round. It's bullshit. It is however this same weighted dynamic of "area control" that's we're discussing here. Reyes landed more shots, & he also landed the stronger shots, & yet Jones won by area control.
It's not this thing about "bad judging"... it's literally the texas criteria. It's literally one of the only 4 factors layed out in the black & white. You refer to the idea that those 4 are presented as "suggestions" but I think it's understood that those are their key concerns.
I don’t give jones credit for moving forward becuase it just put him directly in the path of reyes strikes. Reyes was slowing down and jones getting closer just meant reyes didn’t have to chase after him to land strikes. Moving forward directly led to getting hit.
That underlined part is you going 100% in opposition of what is written in the criteria. You absolutely must give Jones some kind of credit for moving forward.
I hear your logic... but imo that's twisting teh rool. You're trying to overlap effective striking with effective area control.
All that's required for effective area control is keeping your opponent out of the center, pressed against the cage or laying on his back. You are effectively "controlling the area" if you put your opponent in any of those situations.
Effective striking is not a concern for this criteria. If the other person capitalizes on the position you force them into, that is scored for them under striking. You putting them into that position is scored as area control.
Trust me, I get the logic... & that logic is exactly what the unified rools work so hard to achieve, but the point with all this historic stuff I spent a lot of time describing in this post, is to show the difference in the judging set this fight was contested under. You have to give weight to area control. If you don't... you're not scoring it properly under the judging criteria this fight was commissioned under.
You keep talking about what the judge said, as if the judges claim that moving forward nullified the striking advantage is actually written anywhere in the rules. Well I can say that the Texas rules were a copy of the old rules in other states, except the Texas rules didn’t include the line, “in the order in which they appear” concerning the techniques to consider, and the explanations of the criteria. A mistake or deliberate? Who knows, cause the wording is the same in both minus those lines. Now I don’t know if that’s relevant, maybe they point to that for clarification, but it’s more relevant than what a judge said about the rules on social media when he’s getting flak for his decision, claiming the rules say something they don’t.
I don't think we even need what the judge said on social media for this convo, but I think it does bring some clarity. IMO... they said all we need to know on their scorecards. It's just nice for one of them to explain their reasoning... & sure enough, when presented with the idea that Reyes outstruck Jones... he didn't dispute it. His reasoning was area control.
I mean it has too be area control that's the determining factor. Me & you & most people are in agreement that Reyes won under the Unified rools in R2&3. (which wins him the fight) The only thing it could be is area control or some use of the word aggression. In each of those 2 controversial rounds 2 judges both discounted Reyes effective striking advantage, feeling that Jones area control was enough to negate it. I don't think that's controversial at all.
You seem to be making a point about how subjective Texas criteria is, but then you won't grant the judges their personal choices within that subjectivity. They have clearly spoken though on their score sheets. We just have to accept that those decisions were 100% in accordance with an outdated rool set that was still in place at the time. Bad on Reyes for agreeing & good on Jones for manipulating it.
Conversely who won R2 & 3... was shuffled among the judges on the scorecards... I think that also shows how close it was, even under this criteria. Being that close, it shouldn't be this big disagreement between bright sherbro minds like the 2 of us. We both agree on the broad "subjectivity" of the rools, & we both understand it was contested under an outdated & very subjective roolset... so neither of us should be surpised by any judges personal choices within that obscure rool set. It would be different had Reyes been a world killer, but he wasn't.
Since it was that close, then there's no robbery. Of all this talking about how this fight is scored... that's all I'm trying to say. The main thing is to first educate people that they were in fact under a unique rool set, but once that's been established & that rool set reviewed with extra sprinkle of weight given to "area control," it becomes very understandable how close those rounds were & how they gave the win to Jones. imo At the very least, it shows how it was close enough that there was no robbery.
