*Pic* Joanna Jedrzejczyk vs Gadelha media scorecard. 12 out of 14 thought Gadelha won

[Wayweary]

Next fight will likely be five rounds, so Gadelha, the little overgrown bodybuilder that she is, will gas hard in the third, if not sooner. Joanna will turn it on and likely finish her late, if she doesn't do it early. Joanna has gotten better since they fought last and will be prepared for her wrestlefuck attempts.

 

[Wayweary]

effective striking, not damage

What do you think makes striking effective? It inflicts damage. You do realize that a strike that scores a knock down is regarded as much more scoring than one that lands in the same spot but doesn't have a noticeable effect?

 

[Boxer]

Joanna got the nod get over it.

Claudia looked dangerous in her last fight so the rematch will be hype, i don't like constant rematches but when they have both improved into almost new fighters its time to do it again.

 

[NinjaNiK]

Yea I'm obviously not a judge, but I didn't feel that Gadelha won. She just sort of kept trying to push JJ against the cage and get takedown but didn't get any. In the process she ate a lot of clinch shots, jabs, some power punches, and even got knocked down.

This ^ I've watched that fight 3x and have come to the same conclusion. The only way I would have given Gadelha's TD's more value is if she had tried to advance her position and attempted submissions with each TD, even if she didn't get them. She only attempted 1 sub for the whole fight, the rest was stalling to prevent the striking attack.

Gadelha said in her own words that she was intimidated by JJ's striking in their first fight (interview on Fightland.com). Being intimidated and winning don't go together.

 

[TASTEofmySCYTHE]

I remember thinking Claudia squeaked it out in the end. Was happy JJ got the win though.

 

[Wayweary]

The people that are passionate that Claudia deserved the win in their match up are against the spirit of MMA. MMA is about working towards finishing your opponent, not hoping for enough "control" to have the judges giving you a "W" on your record. It's about winning a fight, not scoring points my leaning on them and waiting for the clock to run out because you are too tired to defend yourself any other way. That goes for the last Hendricks/Lawler fight as well. The judges were on the right side of the issue in both cases even if fights have been scored differently in the past.

 

[Abezal]

Gadelha won the cowardly wrastlin stalling, not the fight.

 

[OriginMMA]

I also thought Gadelha won.

 

[ryun253]

Didn't mind the decision with how she's been dominating everyone lately .

 

[CoffeeAndBeer]

In b4 butthurt whiteknight

They're both chicks, bro.

 

[MilesAbove]

Gedhela did little while failing for takedowns, and when she earned them there was almost no control following. She was also outstruck and knocked down. She didn't deserve the win, but it was a close fight.

 

[mikenason]

WTF did Joanna do in Round 1 in order to win that round besides the last 5 seconds??? So 30-27 is some straight CORRUPTION. So no matter that Gadelha controled the whole round and outstruck her on the feet... Just because Joanna knocked her down in the last 5 seconds wins her the WHOLE round?

 

[MilesAbove]

WTF did Joanna do in Round 1 in order to win that round besides the last 5 seconds??? So 30-27 is some straight CORRUPTION. So no matter that Gadelha controled the whole round and outstruck her on the feet... Just because Joanna knocked her down in the last 5 seconds wins her the WHOLE round?

Significant strikes were 13/10 for Joanna and she knocked down Gadhela. Round 3 was the round Gadhela won via significant strikes.

But Gadhela essentially wall-n-stalled most of the fights and failed at a majority of takedowns that lead to almost nothing.

 

[The XL]

Joanna rightfully won, but it was a close fight and I'm looking forward to the rematch.

 

[LilMountain]

What do you think makes striking effective? It inflicts damage. You do realize that a strike that scores a knock down is regarded as much more scoring than one that lands in the same spot but doesn't have a noticeable effect?

Damage is not the criteria. A knockdown won't win a round where the opponent stuck and moved the rest of the round with minimal damage

 

[Drake]

That fight really could have went either way. I leaned towards Gadelha both times I watched it though.

 

[Hardkore]

Like JJ, but I thought Claudia won. Super close fight, but I thought the TD's were enough to tip the decision in her favor.

 

[Project 86]

i also thought Claudia Gadelha won that fight

 

[johncola]

I normally always score in favor of the striker over the wrestler in close fights, but I can see how one could give this to Gadelha. Gadelha would have won a unanimous decision had she not been dropped in the 1st.

Most of the 1st and the 3rd were Gadelha controlling JJ. She couldn't hold her down at all but she did get her down repeatedly and landed some GNP during the grappling exchanges. In these rounds, when they were separated, JJ didn't have any period of prolonged success on the feet, making it easy to give round 3 to Gadelha. Round 1 would be the same if it wasn't for the uppercut that dropped Gadelha.

More time was spent on the feet in round 2 than in the other rounds. JJ had an edge on the feet but it wasn't huge. She didn't show even nearly the dominance that she did against Esparza and Penne. While she only had a small edge, Gadelha was again able to get takedowns. Overall, you could give the round to either fighter.

Round 3 was the only round that was easy to give to Gadelha. There's reasons to give both fighters either round 1 or round 2. It's why scores range from 29-28 JJ to 30-27 Gadelha. I personally prefer to give both rounds to JJ, but I admit I'm biased.

You'd expect a 5-round fight to favor JJ for sure, as Gadelha gasses herself out spending all the time trying to take JJ down. But if either fighter makes a significant improvement and is able to impose their game better than they did in the first fight, it's likely that they'll win.

 

[Wayweary]

Damage is not the criteria. A knockdown won't win a round where the opponent stuck and moved the rest of the round with minimal damage

Striking that inflicts damage is called effective striking. They just don't want to sound bloodthirsty in the phrasing. It's pretty straight forward.

A knockdown can indeed win a round even if the rest of the round favored the opponent, but not enough to overcome the deficit caused by the effective striking that caused that knockdown, and it would take a significant amount of "sticking and moving" to do so.