Robbie Lawler: If they scored damage, I'd be champion

[Drake]

Heh, unfortunately no. We just had a kid recently and the doc said we couldn't do it for at least two months.

I got some head dat night doe

Hahahaha, I was partially right then! :icon_chee


& congrats!

 

[CaptHANDSUP]

I've been saying this for a while. It is so stupid to score anything like "control". What is the point? The whole point of a fight is to do damage and absorb the least damage. Why add all these superficial barriers to make the sport feel more like a game. Scoring damage makes fights more exciting, makes judging much easier (less things like control and takedowns that have a vague value), and makes more sense in the context of the sport.

 

[Kanster]

Hahahaha, I was partially right then! :icon_chee


& congrats!

Lulz, thank you!

 

[Rematch]

The problem with scoring based on damage is that some guys don't show physical to too much damage despite being hit with howitzers, while others can be hit with a moderate gust of wind and look like they just stepped out of the make-up room for a Saw movie.

 

[new_mexico1]

Damage is scored. Whether you count landing quality strikes as "damage" or if you're talking about visible marks. A few years ago the ABC changed it to where visible damage is to be taken into account. Obviously it's not the only thing taken into account, which is good. Either way, there is very little to complain about in terms of judging criteria. The judges are the ones that screw things up.

 

[Guitarmbar]

He's right. If the fight was scored as a whole, and damage was rewarded, then he wins that fight. Unfortunately under current judging you can get the shit beat out of you for two rounds, then score a few takedowns in the other three rounds, and win the fight. Not saying that's necessarily what Hendricks did, but that's how things are judged. Considering this, it's not really a fight at all. It's a mixed martial arts match where wrestling is the most favored of all martial arts for god knows what reason.

 

[Guitarmbar]

95% of the fight was on its feet and Johny outstruck him 3 rounds to 2...

It's been a while but I thought Johnny won the 5th with takedowns. Agreed on the rest though.

 

[Bboy]

I haven't watched the fight since the night it happened but I remember scoring the fight for Lawler. Of course I wasn't surprised that Hendricks won though.

 

[iNoScopedJFK]

It's been a while but I thought Johnny won the 5th with takedowns. Agreed on the rest though.

Johny was beating Lawler in the stand up that round as well as you can see in the gif. The takedown just pretty much secured the victory.

 

[TeamTanner]

funny how lawler says what hendricks was saying about the GSP fight.

Yes because the damage Hendricks did in round 1 against GSP should have given him rounds 1, 2 and 4 and therefore the fight.


Lawler cannot use damage to argue that he won 3 rounds against Hendricks because no matter how much damage he did in rounds 3 and 4 he simply only won those rounds.


Not a similar situation.

 

[Emjay]

You cannot score anything in MMA objectively outside of a fighter being knocked out cold or tapping. That is why they have judges.

Damage isn't criteria because there's more subjectivity to it than other criteria

 

[Rematch]

I've been saying this for a while. It is so stupid to score anything like "control". What is the point? The whole point of a fight is to do damage and absorb the least damage. Why add all these superficial barriers to make the sport feel more like a game. Scoring damage makes fights more exciting, makes judging much easier (less things like control and takedowns that have a vague value), and makes more sense in the context of the sport.

Fighter A is hit 87 times with "significant strikes", but looks like he merely cut himself shaving the day before. Fighter B is hit 22 times with only jabs, but looks like he was in a car wreck where is airbag didn't work. Neither guy was rocked or visibly "hurt" during this match.

This kind of scenario happens way too often. And if damage was scored, there would be many robberies.

 

[new_mexico1]

He's right. If the fight was scored as a whole, and damage was rewarded, then he wins that fight. Unfortunately under current judging you can get the shit beat out of you for two rounds, then score a few takedowns in the other three rounds, and win the fight. Not saying that's necessarily what Hendricks did, but that's how things are judged. Considering this, it's not really a fight at all. It's a mixed martial arts match where wrestling is the most favored of all martial arts for god knows what reason.

That doesn't have too much do to with judging on the whole or round by round 10 point must. Judges overvaluing things like takedowns would have the same affect. The problem with many fights is judges simply seeing the fights wrong. They would be awarding the fight to the same fighter in both systems.

 

[ALAN PARTRIDGE]

robbie gave up in R5

 

[new_mexico1]

Damage isn't criteria because there's more subjectivity to it than other criteria

Damage is part of the criteria. It's just part of a bigger picture.

 

[TheRassler]

If posters were scored, you'd be off the forum.

Dumbest post I've read all week, congrats.


How about next time...you actually think first before you post something stupid?

 

[Emjay]

Damage is part of the criteria. It's just part of a bigger picture.

But by itself, it can't be criteria. It's just one of the subjective variables that make up the significant strikes criteria

 

[new_mexico1]

But by itself, it can't be criteria. It's just one of the subjective variables that make up the significant strikes criteria

Yeah. That's how it should be, too. It seems people here go crazy and want all or nothing.

 

[eddymotto]

if they were playing beach volleyball, I think lawler would have won. for sure

 

[Emjay]

Yeah. That's how it should be, too. It seems people here go crazy and want all or nothing.

They just want to be able to say "Look at his face!! That means the other guy won!"