King Mo: "Sherdog y'all knew I won"

[JayElectra]

You getting dizzy yet from all the circles you've been running?

You can cite every website and fan that you want, but it doesn't change the fact that 3 professional judges deemed (correctly) that Rampage won that 3rd round. You think it should have been scored differently based on your SUBJECTIVE determination on the value of Mo's takedowns versus your SUBJECTIVE determination of the value of Rampage's striking.

Why do I say it is a subjective determination? Because there is nowhere in the rulebook that states just how "valuable" a takedown is. It's given the same value as a strike, yes. But again, where is it written how valuable a "strike" is? Is a power punch scored more or less than a jab or other set-up strikes?

What is the exact numerical value of a lazy, almost accidental takedown versus a hard takedown, or slam? Show it to me.

You're trying to argue that you've arrived at your OPINION based solely on an objective set of rules, but it isn't possible because even those rules and scoring criteria are based on subjective determination by the viewer on what kind of strike/takedown was landed, and how those said actions weigh up against those of their opponent.

No sir. You aren't going to do it. You saying Rampage doesn't deserve to win the 3rd round is nothing but your opinion, arrived at based on your own subjective reasoning on what you think was the more valuable action. Rampage landed more strikes than Mo. Mo landed one takedown. You choose to believe that the takedown was of more value than Rampage's strikes. Many people disagree with you. I disagree with you. Three professional judges who are paid to study the rules and judge fights disagree with you.

And you? You're just a fan with an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Deal with it.

Yeah, basically. We're arguing our interpretation of the the scoring criteria and applying said scoring criteria to this fight. You've done a good job stating something incredibly obvious. I am just a fan with an opinion, I've never stated anything different. Judges are definitely not infallible (as I'm fairly sure you've stated this several times in this thread by saying that they've been doing a shitty job for years and that was the only reason people thought there was a problem with this decision because the refs had finally done a good job), so an argument based on their authority should be considered as fallacious as my example of the MMA media essentially unanimously giving it to Lawal (I'd rather just discuss our opinions and their merits instead of having to lazily use the opinions of others).

Never have I said that there is some numerical tabulation that should be done to come to a conclusion. My argument was essentially that if grappling and striking is weighted evenly (and this is explicitly stated in the scoring criteria), we should take into account that Mo clearly bettered Rampage in the grappling in the third round (clearly, though, there wasn't a great amount of scoring done period), and that the striking in the round might have slightly favored Rampage, but there was such little work done that the gap was negligible. Essentially, there was a bigger gap in the grappling in Mo's favour than there was in the striking in Rampage's favour. Taking this into account, I argue that scoring the round outright for Rampage just doesn't add up as he didn't do nearly enough scoring in any area to justify giving him the round (got outgrappled, barely scored in the standup). That's why I think the only two defensible scores are 10-9 Mo or 10-10.

 

[Deceptijon]

Mo is getting worse as a fighter .

 

[Fiction1982]

Out of the first 14 fights in his career, 12 ended in a TKO/KO. Now he has 3 decisions in a row against the Bellator champ, Rampage, and a very decent Zayats, and the sky is falling. Meanwhile, someone like Maia in the UFC has 10 pretty mediocre decisions in his last 12 fights(and that is counting Dong losing from muscle spasms) and he doesn't get 1/10th the hate.

Actually, no, the sky was falling beforehand. People hate Mo for absurd reasons. First and foremost is probably that he had the audacity to defeat Gegard. Gegard is a fighter who did way less than Mo against Machida in a noncompetitive stinker, and his cult still whines that he deserves to be handed the win. Because he is an exotic foreign fighter with an impressive W/L record that people can't place in its proper context-that it was not against very good competition at all, for the most part.

They hate him because he's boring and fights not to get knocked out. Don't forget about his knock out loss to that Bellator champ you mentioned... He's completely lost all confidence since that loss. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time acknowledging when a fighter is at the end of their career...

 

[bjpenngoat]

"go put some steak on your face homie".

best rampage line ever.

 

[Starman]

Yeah, basically. We're arguing our interpretation of the the scoring criteria and applying said scoring criteria to this fight. You've done a good job stating something incredibly obvious. I am just a fan with an opinion, I've never stated anything different. Judges are definitely not infallible (as I'm fairly sure you've stated this several times in this thread by saying that they've been doing a shitty job for years and that was the only reason people thought there was a problem with this decision because the refs had finally done a good job), so an argument based on their authority should be considered as fallacious as my example of the MMA media essentially unanimously giving it to Lawal (I'd rather just discuss our opinions and their merits instead of having to lazily use the opinions of others).

Never have I said that there is some numerical tabulation that should be done to come to a conclusion. My argument was essentially that if grappling and striking is weighted evenly (and this is explicitly stated in the scoring criteria), we should take into account that Mo clearly bettered Rampage in the grappling in the third round (clearly, though, there wasn't a great amount of scoring done period), and that the striking in the round might have slightly favored Rampage, but there was such little work done that the gap was negligible. Essentially, there was a bigger gap in the grappling in Mo's favour than there was in the striking in Rampage's favour. Taking this into account, I argue that scoring the round outright for Rampage just doesn't add up as he didn't do nearly enough scoring in any area to justify giving him the round (got outgrappled, barely scored in the standup). That's why I think the only two defensible scores are 10-9 Mo or 10-10.

Well, as I said, Mo did nothing at all with the takedown. He didn't control Rampage, mount any offense, or attempt subs. He wasn't in a dominant position at any point, and failed to prevent Rampage from reversing things enough to get the fight standing again. I'm not sure exactly how you computate that that sole takedown was somehow more valuable than Rampage's striking. I just don't see it.

You said Rampage did precious little while standing in the 3rd. Mo did even less with his takedown. Call a spade a spade, brother.

The bottom line is we're just going to have to agree to disagree.