The MMAnalyst Scoring Breakdown - Yan vs. O'Malley Rounds 1 & 3

[jitzmonkey]

Click on the username to bring up their profile, then find, "ignore," and click it. Then you can't see anything they post. Could they have ignored me back? Sure. Could they be trying to reply to my posts? Maybe. I don't give a shit either way.

Thanks bro.
The only tech stuff I'm good at is work related.
I'm F'ing moron when it comes to anything else!

You're the best!

Edit: That was easy AsF! Now I feel even dumber.
Thanks again!

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

There would be no way of changing your mind because you rate strikes completely differently than me. To you, Yan throwing a few hard kicks is justification enough to say he won the striking exchanges, but I totally disagree. O’Malley’s kicks were just as effective as Yan’s because they kept Yan away from him. Neither of them did any damage with their kicks.

Yan threw hard shots, but most missed, and the ones that did hit were blocked. O’Malley was the only one that had strikes that landed clean in the first round.

And of course the media gave the fight to Yan. Everyone is used to a fighter getting points for taking someone down even if they do no damage. This is why I give Yan the first round also, but if we ignore the takedowns, then O’Malley wins that round for me.

"there would be no way of changing your mind because you rate strikes completely differently than me."

That's not true at all - you're just too lazy to do the work lol.

Again, the way to try and change my mind/opinion would be to re-watch the round, list out the strikes landed by each fighter and rate them. I could then re-watch the round and see if I missed strikes (I might've thought it blocked or glancing while you thought it landed clean) and then I could compare strikes I rated as light/medium versus ones you rated as light/medium to see if I misjudged them.

You might have a higher strike count for Suga/lower strike count for Yan and think Yan's strikes were light in spots where I thought they were medium. This is called creating the foundation for an argument within the confines of the intellectual exercise taking place.

I watched the round in great detail and gave a play-by-play of strikes landed while rating the quality of strikes. O'Malley's kicks were in absolutely no way anywhere near as effective as Yan's, they were range-finders/distance keepers, not very damaging or accurate (mostly blocked or thrown with not a lot of intent). If you don't think Yan did more damage with kicks then O'Malley then you are really blind to a lot of things going on in fights because there is a huge difference between their kicking technique in terms of power/accuracy/placement.

Also the stats don't lie - in Round 1 Yan threw less and landed more (i.e. far more accurate), yet you think somehow he missed 80% of his strikes in the first round (20% land) when he landed at over 60%. O'Malley landed the best two punches in the first round but it wasn't anything close to the punch he landed at the start of the second; they didn't badly hurt/cut/rock Yan, they were just nice clean punches that really shouldn't be scored any higher or lower than a nice hard kick to any part of the body in my opinion. Unless you think the only strikes that count are head strikes, in which case why even attack any other part of the body if it isn't scored?

The media gave the fight to Yan at 95%. Pro fighters gave the fight to Yan at 90%. Fans gave the fight to Yan at 85%. If you know anything about statistics this is beyond the pale for calling something "close."

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

Click on the username to bring up their profile, then find, "ignore," and click it. Then you can't see anything they post. Could they have ignored me back? Sure. Could they be trying to reply to my posts? Maybe. I don't give a shit either way.

If you are ignoring my posts, what are you even doing in this thread?



Interesting.

 

[josh345]

Great job. Yan for sure won either 29-28 or 29-27. (I scored the last round 10-10 but o Malloy did rock him). Round 1 yan landed the hardest shots with the kicks and slammed him. The takedown and gnp for sure should have edged him that round.

 

[Nightgunner05]

"there would be no way of changing your mind because you rate strikes completely differently than me."

That's not true at all - you're just too lazy to do the work lol.

Again, the way to try and change my mind/opinion would be to re-watch the round, list out the strikes landed by each fighter and rate them. I could then re-watch the round and see if I missed strikes (I might've thought it blocked or glancing while you thought it landed clean) and then I could compare strikes I rated as light/medium versus ones you rated as light/medium to see if I misjudged them.

You might have a higher strike count for Suga/lower strike count for Yan and think Yan's strikes were light in spots where I thought they were medium. This is called creating the foundation for an argument within the confines of the intellectual exercise taking place.

I watched the round in great detail and gave a play-by-play of strikes landed while rating the quality of strikes. O'Malley's kicks were in absolutely no way anywhere near as effective as Yan's, they were range-finders/distance keepers, not very damaging or accurate (mostly blocked or thrown with not a lot of intent). If you don't think Yan didn't do more damage with kicks then O'Malley then you are really blind to a lot of things going on in fights because there is a huge difference between their kicking technique in terms of power/accuracy/placement.

Also the stats don't lie - in Round 1 Yan threw less and landed more (i.e. far more accurate), yet you think somehow he missed 80% of his strikes in the first round (20% land) when he landed at over 60%. O'Malley landed the best two punches in the first round but it wasn't anything close to the punch he landed at the start of the second; they didn't badly hurt/cut/rock Yan, they were just nice clean punches that really shouldn't be scored any higher or lower than a nice hard kick to any part of the body in my opinion. Unless you think the only strikes that count are head strikes, in which case why even attack any other part of the body if it isn't scored?

The media gave the fight to Yan at 95%. Pro fighters gave the fight to Yan at 90%. Fans gave the fight to Yan at 85%. If you know anything about statistics this is beyond the pale for calling something "close."

Lol first of all, you’re right. I am far to lazy to watch that fight and count up all the strikes, and then guess on what was a hard landed punch, and a soft landed punch.

Having said that, I did rewatch the fight and I’m telling you want I saw. O’Malley’s kicks were just as effective because they kept Yan at the distance that he wanted the fight. Yan threw a few hard kicks, but absolutely nothing that bothered O’Malley, and nothing that I would consider significant enough to give him the edge in the kicking department. The kicks were a draw.

Idk what stats you are looking at, but O’Malley landed more strikes than Yan in the first round. Yan having more accuracy means absolutely nothing. As far as I know, there is nothing in the rules that says the guy that has the higher shot accuracy wins the round. They guy that lands more usually wins, and that guy was O’Malley.

You talk about O’Malley not hurting Yan even though he had the only clean shots of the first round, and then you say how Yan won because he landed harder kicks on O’Malley, even though those kicks did absolutely nothing during the fight.

And your last point is just ridiculous. The fact we’re even having this discussion shows that it was an insanely close round. I score it for Yan, and even still I’m saying it was incredibly close. Just because the majority agree that Yan won the fight doesn’t mean it wasn’t close. 10 pounds weighs more than 9.99 pounds, but it would be a dumb argument to say that they aren’t close.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

No one is truly unbiased, I even stated:

"We all have inherent bias, at least I can admit mine and try to be as objective as possible, which is why I literally re-watch the sequences as many times as possible to try and give a fair gauge on how to rate the strikes."

I would think by doing a strike-by-strike breakdown with detailed explanation of the stats and a perceptive round analysis would indicate I put some time, energy and thought into this exercise and effort and didn't just try to "reverse-engineer" a justified Yan victory.

When I do this exercise I literally have no idea who is going to be the winner or loser afterwards; I know what I thought before the re-watch/analysis and then a lot of times my perspective is completely changed by doing the exercise. That's kind of the point of it - challenge your own bias by taking a more scientific framework to analyze what happened.

When 95% of media, 90% of fighters, and 85% of fans score it for one guy and that guy isn't the "fan favorite" we have what's called an overwhelming statistical likelihood of outcomes. There are plenty clear ways to use a diagnostic to find a likely outcome. I didn't re-watch the fight 100 times, I re-watched it a few times and during the re-watch I would jump back a few seconds after each strike if it wasn't clear how hard it landed/where it landed/how much damage it did - it only took like 30 minutes lol.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters of the outcome is how the 3 judges (in this case paid directly by the UFC) score the fight. As you noted nothing is going to change what the record shows, the official result will be an O'Malley win.

Just like Sanchez beat Kampan/Pearson, Garcia beat Korean Zombie, and so on and so on.

It still doesn't mean it's not a bad decision though. You are entitled to your opinion, I just wish some of you guys would articulate your arguments better then single sentences and just resort to trolling. You at least gave me that courtesy, so much respect.

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and perspective.

Respect.

So. Here's some more homework for you. Now that you've ingested all this, what do you think of these guys' comments?

https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/lists/ufc-280-petr-yan-vs-sean-omalley-judging-scorecards

I'm not asking what do you think about them changing their score; I'm asking what do you think about their statements (or analysis) behind why they changed their score on re-watch.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

You think the kicks were a draw in the first round after multiple re-watches still? And Yan's kicks did absolutely nothing during the fight???



I'm not "looking at stats" I watched the fight in 5-10 second intervals and counted every striking exchange which I tabulated in my original post. Fight metric is off; O'Malley will throw 5 pawing jabs 3 of which miss and 2 of which glance off Yan's high guard without damaging him and that gets counted as 5 landed significant strikes by fight metric apparently lol.

Yan definitely out-lands O'Malley in round 1 according to my strike breakdown - 21 to 14, with 10 total medium strikes to O'Malley's 5. 50% more strikes landed by Yan, double the medium power strikes, all while landing with 50% more accuracy. He lands more, he lands harder, and he lands at a higher percentage.

Please name me one other "close fight" where it has 95% of the media/90% of other fighters/85% of fans scoring it one way.

I appreciate you responding and sharing your thoughts, but we clearly live in two different perceptive realities.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Please name me one other "close fight" where it has 95% of the media/90% of other fighters/85% of fans scoring it one way.

http://mmadecisions.com/decision/4707/Georges-St-Pierre-vs-Johny-Hendricks

(oh no he di'int!)

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

Respect.

So. Here's some more homework for you. Now that you've ingested all this, what do you think of these guys' comments?

https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/lists/ufc-280-petr-yan-vs-sean-omalley-judging-scorecards

I'm not asking what do you think about them changing their score; I'm asking what do you think about their statements (or analysis) behind why they changed their score on re-watch.

I read this when it came out and they all make statements that are just factually un-true having re-watched myself. For example their big reasons for changing their round 1 score are:

WELLS = "[O'Malley] landed more accurately than the former champ"

Round 1 striking accuracy:

O'Malley = 40%
Yan = 61%

Yan was more accurate significantly, and yet Wells said on rewatch O'Malley is more accurate....

SEGURA = "[O'Malley] landed more than Yan and his striking seemed to do more damage."

Round 1 striking stats from my re-watch:

SUGA

Light Kicks - 6
Light Punches - 3
Medium Punches - 5
Total Strikes = 14

YAN

Light Kicks - 5
Light Punches - 6
Medium Kicks - 8
Medium Punches - 2
Total Strikes = 21

O'Malley = 14 Total Strikes, 5 Medium
Yan = 21 Total Strikes, 10 Medium

Yan outlanded him significantly and did significantly more damage.....

KING = "This was a close round, but a careful eye spotted a big difference I hadn’t seen on the initial watch: and that’s punch accuracy."

For total punches O'Malley landed 8 punches, Yan landed 8 punches. O'Malley's punches were definitely better, but he got heavily out-kicked. Yan was definitely more accurate overall, he thew less and landed more. I don't know why all of sudden punches are the only thing that count....

Basically their arguments for changing their scores are factually untrue, and that's after a re-watch, which makes me doubt their interpretation even further.

The entire approach to this intellectual exercise is to be as objective as possible - we all have favorite fighters, we all have hated fighters, so we need to go off of as clear an objective stat breakdown as possible.

The only way to do this is to watch and rate every single strike and then go back and assess it afterwords. I've done this for dozens of fights and many times a fighter I thought won/wanted to win I will come to the conclusion they lost (i.e. Reyes vs. Jones, initially thought it was Jones but doing this exercise it was impossible for me to not side with Reyes).

Sometimes I'm not happy with the result because it makes me realize a fighter that I was rooting for and got a win didn't deserve it. But I can't lie to myself after doing the exercise, it's a framework from which to try and draw an unbiased and objective interpretation of a fight from to a certain degree.

Which is almost impossible, since perception of damage/rating strikes/interpretation of effective fighting is completely objective. But it's at least a structured process to hopefully analog some of this shit to get a more consistent interpretation of the events that transpired.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

http://mmadecisions.com/decision/4707/Georges-St-Pierre-vs-Johny-Hendricks

(oh no he di'int!)

Did you look at the fan scoring?

Hendricks defeats St-Pierre 48 - 47 43.1%
St-Pierre defeats Hendricks 48 - 47 40.7%

That seems to me that overall people were 50/50 on who won this fight - it all comes down to round 1 which fans scored:

10-9 Hendricks 52.6%
10-9 St-Pierre 42.5%

That's about as close as a fight can get really.

Also they are omitting some media scores there to make GSP look worse:

https://mmasucka.com/2013/11/17/media-pov-score-stpierre-hendricks-fight/

Media in favor of St-Pierre: 4
Media in favor of Hendricks: 14

It's pretty rare for 90% of media/fighters/fans to score it for one side and that guy loses.

In every other instance where this happens (KZ vs. Garcia/Sanchez vs. Pearson) it's universally agreed to be a robbery.

 

[Dionysian]

Good breakdown brother.

Clear instance of corruption by judges benefiting the marketing favorite, as always happens whenever a decision is "controversial" and one fighter is clearly a marketing favorite over the other.

 

[Diamond Dallas Poirier]

I scored round 1 for Sean live. Just rewatched and I still score it for him. I think he landed the better strikes.

 

[BJJ Lover]

To me Yan definitely got robbed, he had two clear rounds and then a coin-flip round that leaned ever so slightly towards Suga.

end of discussion

#stopRussophobia