Judging Criteria of Bellator...

After watching Bellators first PPV I noticed not a lot of "boo's" from the crowd given traditional scoring would see Chandler and King Mo win. Simply hometown? Did judges completely scar the event? Or like I thought, control simply isnt enough to win without moderate damage. I scored the main and co main events for the losers on control. Is this a good trend to lend nods to damage and aggression. Or like we're used to seeing where control and position can win a fight. Any thoughts?

 

Brooks and quinton were more damaging and more effective. I hate point scoring. I think overal fight judging is better and damage should be judged more .

 

I agree. But from what we've watched before. Did you feel the losers were gonna win?

 

I felt chandler and more were going to win based off usual point scoring, but thankfully they didn't

 

Kind of ironic then you've got GSP in your sig, no?

 

It was satisfying. Yes.

 

Most of gsps fights were dominating in all aspects though. Just cause he didn't finish doesn't mean he point scored . Hardy, shields and Diaz fights were tough to watch though lol

 

To be fair. GSP usually out strikes his opponents. Sometimes they look like good hard shots. Other times they look like nothing. Say if GSP punched a guy in the face 50 times and there is no discernible bruising. And in turn he eats one 95% Johnny Hendricks to the face and his eye closes, who wins?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to be the thought police or to tell someone who they should and shouldn't like. But, GSP under Firas Zahabi was the very definition of fighting safe and winning points and rounds en route to a decision victory. Take the first Koscheck fight as a prime example. I still don't understand how you cave in someone's eye socket in the first round and can't make an effort to do anything other than jab at the opponent for the remaining four.

I think objectively speaking GSP over the last seven years epitomized a point fighter moreso than anyone in MMA.

 

He did point fight, but the main reason I like gsp is due to his class and his earlier ufc career. I do wish he was more aggressive and wish he didn't have knee issues and his torn hamstring or groin after the valves domination

 

Eh, I think the Hendricks win was arguable. The 10-point must scoring system just doesn't apply itself well to MMA. Feel free to disagree, but that's my opinion.

Further, GSP's striking was always more of a threat due to the fact that everyone was scared of being taken down and controlled by his wrestling.

 

sometimes there is fighting safe with respect to opponent and there is fighting safe to get a win but being a bit boring and not taking enough chance. two recent examples , in my opinion, of this were miocic - gonzaga and werdum - browne. imo miocic fought too safe a fight the whole time and could have thrown with a bit more power to truly solidify his victory, whereas although browne was still standing, werdum put enough on him where it got to the point at the end where if he had kept going for the finish it would have almost been a bit brutally cruel. i think at the end of a tough fight sometimes its ok to lay off you know.

 

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out the irony in your first post of saying you hate point fighting while having GSP in your sig.

To be fair, though. I have a lot of respect for GSP and his accomplishments. His style over the last seven years though made me much less a fan and really dampened my enthusiasm for his fights.

Again, I understand a lot of people like GSP, and as a person I do too. I just came to the realization after a time that his fights weren't worth the price of admission for me.

 

The Judges at Bellator were AWESOME.

DEATH TO POINT-FIGHTING AND LAY AND PRAY

 

I thought he won under the scoring criteria, but not the fight. We agree.