- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,174
- Reaction score
- 0
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.