King Mo just got ROBBED!

[Rav7n]

For what, stalling with wrestling, landing almost 0 strikes and 0 sub attempts? Rampage had him out for 2 rounds on his feet

This..Mo is a shit fighter, scared to engage and just looked to win by takedown..
he did nothing but lay and prey.
he had one eye shut was bleeding and thats because he didn't want to have a fight, as he would have been knocked out..

King mo is just horrible, and even on points he did get robbed..im glad..his fights are crap, and so is he...
his record and legacy to rampage is nothing..rampage has fought the best and won and lost against them..
and was much classier in his victory..

 

[Starman]

Well, we should probably stop generalizing the whole fight as it is scored round by round. Mo easily took the first and no one will argue with that. The second was a close round, but people tend to give it to Rampage and that's fair. The decisive round was the third. Rampage simply generated almost nothing. There is no way that there way enough offense generated by Rampage to justify giving him the round. Now, Mo didn't exactly set the world on fire, either, and, I wouldn't be completely opposed to a 10-10, but how do you give Rampage the round when he landed next to nothing and got outgrappled? People will cite the eye, but the damage that did that happened in the 2nd round (which most everyone gave to Rampage anyway), and superficial damage like that is misleading to begin with. There wasn't anywhere near enough done by Rampage to justify giving him the 3rd regardless of what you thought of Mo's gameplan or how shitty the fight was.

Obviously there was, because the judges gave it to him. Like I said, in a round where either fighter did fuck-all, I give it to the guy who is looking to finish the fight.

There was no clear "Ah ha!" moment in the third round, unless you're one of those guys who scored ineffectual takedowns. Unfortunately for you, Mo, his team, and his fans, the judges who scored the fight weren't one of those guys. And neither am I.

Like I said, and I'll say it one more time. In a round where neither man does shit, almost everyone (except for boxing judges that judge MMA) will score the round for the guy looking to finish the fight.

Too many shitty decisions has got guys like you scoring a close round in favor of the guy who landed a takedown, no matter how ineffectual it was. And that just isn't right.

 

[Rav7n]

Obviously there was, because the judges gave it to him. Like I said, in a round where either fighter did fuck-all, I give it to the guy who is looking to finish the fight.

There was no clear "Ah ha!" moment in the third round, unless you're one of those guys who scored ineffectual takedowns. Unfortunately for you, Mo, his team, and his fans, the judges who scored the fight weren't one of those guys. And neither am I.

Like I said, and I'll say it one more time. In a round where neither man does shit, almost everyone (except for boxing judges that judge MMA) will score the round for the guy looking to finish the fight.

Too many shitty decisions has got guys like you scoring a close round in favor of the guy who landed a takedown, no matter how ineffectual it was. And that just isn't right.

utter agreement..
mo's gameplan was borderline chicken.
just win by takedowns...
he was getting booed from the start not wanting to engage.
and then after the fight, to act all bad ass and shout like he is tough..
if he was so bad stand and have a fight, mix it up, get a td work it, look for a sub, or to do damage..
not dry hump rampages leg...
go back to rassling..

 

[JayElectra]

Obviously there was, because the judges gave it to him. Like I said, in a round where either fighter did fuck-all, I give it to the guy who is looking to finish the fight.

There was no clear "Ah ha!" moment in the third round, unless you're one of those guys who scored ineffectual takedowns. Unfortunately for you, Mo, his team, and his fans, the judges who scored the fight weren't one of those guys. And neither am I.

Like I said, and I'll say it one more time. In a round where neither man does shit, almost everyone (except for boxing judges that judge MMA) will score the round for the guy looking to finish the fight.

Too many shitty decisions has got guys like you scoring a close round in favor of the guy who landed a takedown, no matter how ineffectual it was. And that just isn't right.

Grappling is a scoring criteria. It's weighted equally with striking. Mo clearly outgrappled Rampage in the third round. Effective aggression is a scoring criteria, as well. Walking forward and throwing more strikes isn't effective aggression if you're not landing your shots, and Rampage landed very little in the third round. You can point me to where they talk about intent to finish the fight (when no actual offense is being generated) being weighted very highly in the official scoring criteria. There is no justification for giving Rampage the third round. A 10-10 is the best he could have done. "Ah ha!" moments aren't mentioned in the scoring criteria, either.

 

[mn6ws6]

100% of white belts in thread agree: guy who landed 1 punch in rd 3 was robbed.

Internet checkmate guys.

I love how Sherdoggers think a belt color is indicative of how long you've been watching MMA and how long you've been PAYING ATTENTION.

 

[Rav7n]

I love how Sherdoggers think a belt color is indicative of how long you've been watching MMA and how long you've been PAYING ATTENTION.

quiet whitey.....

 

[FightsFTW]

I think after so many fights where the wrestler is given the fight based on BS no activity takedowns, some people have adopted that way of thinking and scoring the fight. There are other factors than just takedowns people. That is aggression and cage control, which Rampage had. Mo landed 1 TD with no damage or activity. Rampage chased him the rest of the round and landed a few good punches. Rampage wins round 2 and 3.

 

[JayElectra]

I think after so many fights where the wrestler is given the fight based on BS no activity takedowns, some people have adopted that way of thinking and scoring the fight. There are other factors than just takedowns people. That is aggression and cage control, which Rampage had. Mo landed 1 TD with no damage or activity. Rampage chased him the rest of the round and landed a few good punches. Rampage wins round 2 and 3.

The term is effective aggression and it is defined by aggression that leads to genuine offense. Rampage generated almost no genuine offense, therefore it wasn't effective aggression. Mo coming forward and getting a takedown is a better example of effective aggression than Rampage coming forward and landing next to nothing. Cage control is defined by dictating the pace, place and position of the fight. Much like boxing's "ring generalship", it's very ambiguous and I could construe it either way for each fighter. Both effective aggression and cage control are secondary to effective grappling and effective striking. Effective striking and grappling are weighted equally. Neither fighter did much at all in terms of striking in the third round. Mo clearly outgrappled him. The best you can do for Rampage is a 10-10 in the third. Giving the round to Rampage is bullshit.

 

[SuperNerd]

This fight will be highlighted when MMA redoes their scoring system.

I loved that Rampage got it. Even when Mo had his best position, he couldn't do any decent damage. Rampage deflected everything, I'm really not sure if Mo hit him clean, but he likely did though. Rampage did more damage with a clip of his glove.

 

[HELVETE]

Grappling is a scoring criteria. It's weighted equally with striking. Mo clearly outgrappled Rampage in the third round. Effective aggression is a scoring criteria, as well. Walking forward and throwing more strikes isn't effective aggression if you're not landing your shots, and Rampage landed very little in the third round. You can point me to where they talk about intent to finish the fight (when no actual offense is being generated) being weighted very highly in the official scoring criteria. There is no justification for giving Rampage the third round. A 10-10 is the best he could have done. "Ah ha!" moments aren't mentioned in the scoring criteria, either.

Can't believe so many people are ignorant about this. Good post.

 

[Poseidon]

Robbery my ass, Rampage deserved the win.

 

[ReadWrite]

He should be fired for whining. He's no longer a king; he's a queen (diva).

 

[Kenro199x]

Honestly I really don't care. Dude acts like a child out there and even if the win should have been his he's so unlikable that I don't really don't care.

 

[Raziel82]

Karma is a double edged sword. Mousasi looking through the eyes of Rampage.

Glad he lost, doing nothing. Though, in all honesty I gave King Mo the fight. This sort of reminds of certain tournaments I saw in Japan though, it's awesome.

 

[Starman]

Grappling is a scoring criteria. It's weighted equally with striking. Mo clearly outgrappled Rampage in the third round. Effective aggression is a scoring criteria, as well. Walking forward and throwing more strikes isn't effective aggression if you're not landing your shots, and Rampage landed very little in the third round. You can point me to where they talk about intent to finish the fight (when no actual offense is being generated) being weighted very highly in the official scoring criteria. There is no justification for giving Rampage the third round. A 10-10 is the best he could have done. "Ah ha!" moments aren't mentioned in the scoring criteria, either.

Effective grappling is a scoring criteria. Not ineffective grappling, as I have stated ad nauseam. A successful takedown does not automatically give a fighter the edge in grappling, as you (should) well know. If your opponent is able to reverse the position, work for (or get) a submission, or do more damage from the bottom than his opponent does from the top, then does the guy who got the initial takedown get a higher score when it comes to grappling? NO.

What good is the takedown if you can't improve your position, mount an offense, or work for a submission? You keep harping about how Mo got a takedown in the 3rd round? SO WHAT! He did NOTHING WITH IT! He gained no dominant position, mounted no offense whatsoever, nor did he threaten with a submission.

Mo's sole purpose for taking Rampage down was to keep him down and ride him until the final bell. Period. The fact that Rampage was able to get back to his feet and continue to stalk Mo tells me that it was Rampage who should get scored higher in the grappling department, because he countered King Mo's takedown and took it back to the feet.

So yeah, we go back to what I said at the very beginning. You and everyone who agrees with you have spent so many years looking at shit judging that you now score fights the same way these inept judges have for so many years.

Taking a guy down and looking to ride him for the round while mounting no appreciable offense of any kind is not effective grappling. It is, to its very core, ineffective grappling. And no fighter that does this deserves to have a round scored in his favor.

As I said, Rampage didn't do much in the 3rd, he just did more than Mo. You keep harping that Rampage only landed one clean punch in the round, and a bunch of whiffs and arm punches to sandwich it. Maybe. But its still more than anything Mo did.

 

[witt1021]

TOTAL BS! Mo should have won.

you must not have been watching the same fight as me. he stalled, didn't push forward, and was just sloppy. he lost all rounds.

 

[Magnum1978]

All this discussion goes to show how disgustingly inadequate and unsuitable the Unified System is into rendering judgement for an MMA fight (as I've been harping on like a broken record here for years).

yes there's argument that according to the system, Mo could have been judged the victor of that fight. That being said, ANY system that could potentially award that "fight" to Mo is deeply flawed (at least on what I/we saw as long time experienced MMA fans). There's no room for common sense with the Unified System, and round by round scoring (for a THREE round fight) is just BOGUS. Overall should be the only system for MMA. Context is completely lost when you divide up the fight and separately look at it in segments, especially when the segments are so large in comparison to the total fight length.

Either way, the fact that many people are conditioned/brainwashed into thinking Mo deserved to win that fight disturbs me greatly, and sadly this is one of the reasons modern MMA can't hold a candle to the 'golden era' of the sport. The modern system just not align, or in anyway capture/reward the essence of vale tudo or the spirit of actual fighting.

Using the unified rules, its often a conservative positional biased points competition - not a fight.

This fight could have been another nail in the coffin for modern MMA (at least for me), had Mo won. The precedent that would have been set would resonate in a very negative way, and at least for that I'm glad Rampage got the nod.