MMA judging; damaging shots vs. volume

anakq said:
volume wins always
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Shouldn't be that way but it is.

Hard to believe sherdoggers were in favor of the new scoring system. Bunch of dopes.

Like, hey u know how judges suck at scoring? Let's give them more open interpretation and power, that should solve it
 
It is known that the judges throw chicken bones on their table to decide the outcome. Not even one set of bones for all; Each of them has his own set made up (random number and sizes of bones). They throw it, look at it and then they go like "Fighter X won the fight. Also, there's a good chance of rain for tomorrow's evening".

dipstickjimmy said:
Depends on which one is your favourite fighter. Some people go with the narrative Nate Diaz landed a good shot after being utterly dominated for 24 minutes but he wins cause he momentarily wobbled Leon. Those same people argue that the volume Nick Diaz threw at Condit should give him the win because when you take away all the leg kicks Nick outlanded by a small margin.

For me a good hard shot will catch up for 5 clean shots (give or take). Rocking a guy in a round should win you the round if the rest was at all close. I don't feel it negates a fully dominant round. Had Josh Koscheck wobbled GSP in the last 15 seconds of a round in the second fight It would need to be a near finish to negate the domination of those rounds.
Click to expand...
Surely you have something to show for and this is not just something you made up to fire away at Sherdog's favorite targets.
I like the bonus part with GSP; A totally "random" example. And people call McGregor fans the worst...
 
When you bring personal perception of an occurrence in - well ya get what we've gotten.

It's nothing really new tho...
 
DelanoRunnymede said:
It's a tough one because someone landing 5 jabs would mean they're probably the more skilled fighter compared to a hail Mary overhand. Would have to extrapolate that over the course of a round to understand it better. For example if you win 4:00 minutes of a round clearly, but then get rocked towards the end, I think the person who who the majority of the round should take it, but that's not always the case when it comes to the judges. They tend to remember something big happening in the round especially if it's towards the end.
Click to expand...

Jones vs Gus 1 is a great example of this.

Gus outstruck Jones for 4 minutes and 30 seconds of a round, got hurt by that spinning elbow and never went down and most of the follow up shots missed although they looked bad.

Judges gave Jones Rnd4 based on those last 30 seconds.

GSP vs Hendricks also is. Hendricks landed the more powerful and more damaging shots even though striking stats were dead even. GSP went for a 2 to 3 second 1 armed guillotine attempt while getting thrown around.

Judges gave GSP the 1st round.
 
Got to go with the big bomb that creates a possible opportunity to finish. If he was getting picked apart for the whole round and scored the big shot at the end, I'd say go with volume.
 
mortal said:
It is known that the judges throw chicken bones on their table to decide the outcome. Not even one set of bones for all; Each of them has his own set made up (random number and sizes of bones). They throw it, look at it and then they go like "Fighter X won the fight. Also, there's a good chance of rain for tomorrow's evening".


Surely you have something to show for and this is not just something you made up to fire away at Sherdog's favorite targets.
I like the bonus part with GSP; A totally "random" example. And people call McGregor fans the worst...
Click to expand...
I was just using the Nate vs Leon, Nick vs Carlos & GSP vs Kos as clear examples that most remember. Wasn't attacking any fighter, rather deluded fans. Anyone who argues Nate won against Leon or would have won if the round ending didn't save him is deluded. Nate was saved by the bell 4 times before that. There are rounds with time limits, its part of the sport.

Also wondering what your GSP comment is supposed to mean? Its a clear example everyone is familiar with. How is that comparable to McGregor fans?
 
Last edited:
dipstickjimmy said:
I was just using the Nate vs Leon, Nick vs Carlos & GSP vs Kos as clear examples that most remember. Wasn't attacking any fighter, rather deluded fans. Anyone who argues Nate won against Leon or would have won if the round ending didn't save him is deluded. Nate was saved by the bell 4 times before that. There are rounds with time limits, its part of the sport.

Also wondering what your GSP comment is supposed to mean? Its a clear example everyone is familiar with. How is that comparable to McGregor fans?
Click to expand...
I guess I was wrong. You don't have something to show for after all. Wouldn't have guessed it.
 
Same system in place as boxing so this is largely pointless. It's a corrupt sport.

The tighter the decisions in general the easier it is for fuckery.

Don't leave it to the judges. Especially if you aren't the actual champ. Stop trying to fucking point fight in a corrupt sport.
 
dipstickjimmy said:
WTF does "something to show for" mean? Is this a lost in translation thing?
Click to expand...
Forgot how to read? Here:

mortal said:
Surely you have something to show for and this is not just something you made up to fire away at Sherdog's favorite targets.
I like the bonus part with GSP; A totally "random" example. And people call McGregor fans the worst...
Click to expand...
 
dipstickjimmy said:
I read that but again I ask WTF does "something to show for" mean? Pretty sure you are saying whatever you are Trying to say your English is off.
Click to expand...
I forgot that you'll play dumb in the slightest chance given. You said:
Some people go with the narrative Nate Diaz landed a good shot after being utterly dominated for 24 minutes but he wins cause he momentarily wobbled Leon. Those same people argue that the volume Nick Diaz threw at Condit should give him the win because when you take away all the leg kicks Nick outlanded by a small margin.
Click to expand...
And I said:
Surely you have something to show for and this is not just something you made up to fire away at Sherdog's favorite targets.
Click to expand...
Where are they? Did they get lost in the translation too? I'm asking to show me where those "same people" are.
 
mortal said:
I forgot that you'll play dumb in the slightest chance given. You said:

And I said:

Where are they? Did they get lost in the translation too? I'm asking to show me where those "same people" are.
Click to expand...
So are you trying to argue that there aren't people who claim Nate really would have won if there was not time limit as Nate Diaz himself claimed? Are you claiming there aren't people who derided Condit for "Running" and thought Nick should have won? And then further claiming there wouldn't be any overlap in those people?

Something to show for doesn't translate to "Give me a specific example" FYI.
 
Emjay said:
You can't quantify damage
Click to expand...
stadiumsf-832x447.jpg

why not?
 
dipstickjimmy said:
So are you trying to argue that there aren't people who claim Nate really would have won if there was not time limit as Nate Diaz himself claimed? Are you claiming there aren't people who derided Condit for "Running" and thought Nick should have won? And then further claiming there wouldn't be any overlap in those people?

Something to show for doesn't translate to "Give me a specific example" FYI.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing nor claiming. I'm just pointing out something obvious.
You were like "Those same people.." and now you're turning it into a theoretical debate. You made the claim, I'm just asking who "those same people" are.

It kinda does but I'll give you that.
 
Emjay said:
Let's see you quantify "damage" then.

In this thread.

Right now.
Click to expand...

Sure let's say I want to prove left hooks deal more damage than jabs

(to prove that, run it like a scientific study, have 1,000 fighters throw jabs and hooks and measure the force of each jab vs. hook by each fighter, run it enough times with enough variations that any differences in damage are insignificantly enough to be ignored.)

Then, the next step is just to come up with a rule that quantifies it. Such as, 3 jabs = 1 hook.

If we can quantify when you are guilty of murder, guilty of rape, when you have intent to defraud, we can easily quantify damage in MMA.

To quantify something, all you have to do is create a definition and then use that definition in all instances. It's essentially how everything is quantified in modern society.
 
JJCc said:
Sure let's say I want to prove left hooks deal more damage than jabs

(to prove that, run it like a scientific study, have 1,000 fighters throw jabs and hooks and measure the force of each jab vs. hook by each fighter, run it enough times with enough variations that any differences in damage are insignificantly enough to be ignored.)

Then, the next step is just to come up with a rule that quantifies it. Such as, 3 jabs = 1 hook.

If we can quantify when you are guilty of murder, guilty of rape, when you have intent to defraud, we can easily quantify damage in MMA.

To quantify something, all you have to do is create a definition and then use that definition in all instances. It's essentially how everything is quantified in modern society.
Click to expand...

This won't happen, so damage can't be quantified in MMA judging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Poll
A quiz to test how you would score MMA
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
Mulletenthusiast
Mulletenthusiast

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,885
Messages
55,451,233
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top