PBP UFC Abu Dhabi Whittaker vs. De Ridder Official PBP Discussion: Sat 7/26 at 12pm ET

[Langinbang187]

Rob holds the double under position for 75 seconds within that round. RDR was credited with 2;15 of control time which means 1:15 of that was Rob holding on in the clinch...
RDR holds underhooks for a few seconds within the fight and uses it to advance to his preferred position as I said in every post.

The specific sequence i mentioned is a single continuous combination. Watch what RDR does and Whittaker does in reponse. RDR lands the knee, Rob retreats. RDR lands the jab and Rob circles again. RDR throws the overhand in direct response to Rob retreating before throwing the glancing shot, Rob landshis own and then RDR lands the knee. It's a single combination with RDR moving forward and Rob moving backwards.

Rob is the one holding on in the clinching. RDR is landing offence once he has Rob backed up. RDR is the one landing impactful shots.

How have I lied? I pointed to moments in a fight that happened. You completely ignored them to make up some non existent damage scored by Rob which we can't find.

Rob is moving backwards in response to being hit. He was reacting to RDRs shots and getting pressured. Yes he used footwork... he used footwork straight into another 3 shots and got trapped against the wall.
He was in survival mode, whilst RDR was trying to finish the fight and land offence.

I already said RDR used a knee to enter the clinch at 1:03. I had to point it out in 3 different posts before you acknowledged its existence.
Look at who is holding on surviving and staring at the clock.

You just conceded his nose was cut following that sequence. Reopening it is damage. It means his shots were landing. Rob's nose didn't spontaneously start bleeding again after getting worked on.

Red herrings? Deflecting? You have intentionally been ignoring 1 fighters offence. You ignored 90% of the fight to argue that Whittaker somehow won.
You want to score the fight in a vacuum of 11 single strikes vs 9 strikes across 5 mins using pictures.

RDR took the 5th. Rob lost and unfortunately I think that will be his last run. Doesn't mean we need to make up that he won the 5th somehow.



You are ignoring strikes landed by RDR, crediting the exact same shots by Rob as being significant and created a scoring criteria where we ignore 90% of the fight.

My dude...you're killing me right now. You understand Rob utilized double underhooks to try to prevent takedowns, correct? I never disputed Rob utilized double underhooks, you disputed RDR utilized double underhooks and were incorrect....stop attempting to argue things that aren't being disputed, you sound silly. Both fighters utilized underhooks in round 1, accept it and move on.


"The specific sequence i mentioned is a single continuous combination"

No, it was objectively was not...they were literally all single shots thrown at various different times, even occuring at completely different places in the octagon. You need to Google what a combination is in fighting sir.

"You're ignoring strikes thrown by RDR" -- Incorrect, I acknowledge the knee was solid, nothing outstanding but a solid strike. I acknowledge the jab was decent, not much weight behind it but it did land clean unlike the vast majority of De Ritters offense....what I will not acknowledge is your phantom overhand right that was a glancing blow with zero weight behind it. There is literally no fourth consecutive strike landed by De Ritter, Whittaker lands a straight to the body next and then De Ridder attempts to counter with an overhand and misses. Again, you completely and totally just made up a combination that doesn't exist(literally every single one of the three are single strikes thrown 4+ seconds apart minimum) and then proceeded to blatantly fabricate a fourth strike that doesn't even exist lol. Go ahead and provide a video of this so called "four punch combination" create a gif...I dare you. You can't, because it doesn't exist. You understand I have FightPass and am literally watching the sequence as I type this, correct? Lol.

"He used footwork into another 3 shots"

Show me these three shots already, I'm asking for a gif of the "four punch combination" send it.

"You just conceded Rob's nose was cut after that sequence" Hahahaha, what? You stated the cut occurred in round 5 with 1 minute remaining in the round hahahahahaha, when did I ever dispute that Robs cut began bleeding again in the fifth? That wasn't your argument, doofus....your argument was that the cut didn't exist prior to the sequence, it objectively did. Huge different between having blood trickle out of an already opened wound(they don't use stitches in the corner stupid) and opening an entirely new cut as you incorrectly claimed.


"How have I lied"

-- Blatantly fabricated a story about a cut on Rob's nose not existing prior to round 5.

-- Blatantly lied about Robert Whittaker initiating the clinch after your precious phantom four punch combination that "hurt Rob"

Completely and totally lied not only about the "combination", but even about the fact of RDR landing four consecutive strikes during a sequence...when did the fourth consecutive strike even partially land, go on...tell me.

Images once again shared exposing your "Rob was cut with 1 minute left in round 5" lie...the picture is from round 4.

Image shared exposing your clinch engagement from Whittaker lie, showcasing RDR grab an over hook and press Whittaker against the fence.


Provide a gif or video of this "four strike combination"

Final chance to answer these questions or I'm just taking this as you conceding --

Do you acknowledge Whittaker had the cut on his nose you insisted occurred with 80 or so seconds left in the fight prior to the fifth round even beginning? Yes or no question, answer it.


Do you acknowledge RDR initiated the clinch that you insisted Rob did with around a minute left in the fifth round? A simple yes or no, answer it.


Do you acknowledge that De Ritter didn't actually land four consecutive strikes in that specific sequence you keep mentioning? It didn't happen, and if it did, provide evidence of this so called "four strike combination" landing, thanks.

I'll happily engage with what actually transpired during the fight, but when you continue to simply outright fabricate events in a desperate, pitiful attempt to score points in an internet debate you're just being an extremely unserious person who is continuing to dig himself deeper and deeper.

Answer the questions, provide the evidence or take the L and move on.

 

[maximus__]

My dude...you're killing me right now. You understand Rob utilized double underhooks to try to prevent takedowns, correct? I never disputed Rob utilized double underhooks, you disputed RDR utilized double underhooks and were incorrect....stop attempting to argue things that aren't being disputed, you sound silly. Both fighters utilized underhooks in round 1, accept it and move on.


"The specific sequence i mentioned is a single continuous combination"

No, it was objectively was not...they were literally all single shots thrown at various different times, even occuring at completely different places in the octagon. You need to Google what a combination is in fighting sir.

"You're ignoring strikes thrown by RDR" -- Incorrect, I acknowledge the knee was solid, nothing outstanding but a solid strike. I acknowledge the jab was decent, not much weight behind it but it did land clean unlike the vast majority of De Ritters offense....what I will not acknowledge is your phantom overhand right that was a glancing blow with zero weight behind it. There is literally no fourth consecutive strike landed by De Ritter, Whittaker lands a straight to the body next and then De Ridder attempts to counter with an overhand and misses. Again, you completely and totally just made up a combination that doesn't exist(literally every single one of the three are single strikes thrown 4+ seconds apart minimum) and then proceeded to blatantly fabricate a fourth strike that doesn't even exist lol. Go ahead and provide a video of this so called "four punch combination" create a gif...I dare you. You can't, because it doesn't exist. You understand I have FightPass and am literally watching the sequence as I type this, correct? Lol.

"He used footwork into another 3 shots"

Show me these three shots already, I'm asking for a gif of the "four punch combination" send it.

"You just conceded Rob's nose was cut after that sequence" Hahahaha, what? You stated the cut occurred in round 5 with 1 minute remaining in the round hahahahahaha, when did I ever dispute that Robs cut began bleeding again in the fifth? That wasn't your argument, doofus....your argument was that the cut didn't exist prior to the sequence, it objectively did. Huge different between having blood trickle out of an already opened wound(they don't use stitches in the corner stupid) and opening an entirely new cut as you incorrectly claimed.


"How have I lied"

-- Blatantly fabricated a story about a cut on Rob's nose not existing prior to round 5.

-- Blatantly lied about Robert Whittaker initiating the clinch after your precious phantom four punch combination that "hurt Rob"

Completely and totally lied not only about the "combination", but even about the fact of RDR landing four consecutive strikes during a sequence...when did the fourth consecutive strike even partially land, go on...tell me.

Images once again shared exposing your "Rob was cut with 1 minute left in round 5" lie...the picture is from round 4.

Image shared exposing your clinch engagement from Whittaker lie, showcasing RDR grab an over hook and press Whittaker against the fence.


Provide a gif or video of this "four strike combination"

Final chance to answer these questions or I'm just taking this as you conceding --

Do you acknowledge Whittaker had the cut on his nose you insisted occurred with 80 or so seconds left in the fight prior to the fifth round even beginning? Yes or no question, answer it.


Do you acknowledge RDR initiated the clinch that you insisted Rob did with around a minute left in the fifth round? A simple yes or no, answer it.


Do you acknowledge that De Ritter didn't actually land four consecutive strikes in that specific sequence you keep mentioning? It didn't happen, and if it did, provide evidence of this so called "four strike combination" landing, thanks.

I'll happily engage with what actually transpired during the fight, but when you continue to simply outright fabricate events in a desperate, pitiful attempt to score points in an internet debate you're just being an extremely unserious person who is continuing to dig himself deeper and deeper.

Answer the questions, provide the evidence or take the L and move on.

Mate, you were saying that RDR was using underhooks to survive and stall against the cage. That never happened. Rob held that position to survive and stall.
He held it, recovered and then worked off the wall. RDR continued to attack form there.

I already provided specific times. RDR is moving forward throwing these shots and walking Rob down. They aren't standing static. It's a combination against a moving opponent. Rob moves from one side of the octagon to the other before getting pinned against the opposite cage wall.

I have answered your other questions multiple times now. Refer to my previous posts.

Go ahead and declare yourself the winner if it makes you feel better. I posted the entire 5th round, time stamped each strike and you still couldn't initially find it.
Youre arguing that losing a 7-1 strike ratio and landing 2 extra sig strikes wins someone a round. Rob got hurt, outstruck, bloodied and spent most of the round defending or holding on to recover. It's not even a controversial round.

 

[Langinbang187]

Mate, you were saying that RDR was using underhooks to survive and stall against the cage. That never happened. Rob held that position to survive and stall.
He held it, recovered and then worked off the wall. RDR continued to attack form there.

I already provided specific times. RDR is moving forward throwing these shots and walking Rob down. They aren't standing static. It's a combination against a moving opponent. Rob moves from one side of the octagon to the other before getting pinned against the opposite cage wall.

I have answered your other questions multiple times now. Refer to my previous posts.

Go ahead and declare yourself the winner if it makes you feel better. I posted the entire 5th round, time stamped each strike and you still couldn't initially find it.
Youre arguing that losing a 7-1 strike ratio and landing 2 extra sig strikes wins someone a round. Rob got hurt, outstruck, bloodied and spent most of the round defending or holding on to recover. It's not even a controversial round.

And you're backing to attempting to utilize 3 inch baby strikes as a primary reason for RDR after previously conceding they didn't have an impact on your scoring....just brutal stuff dude.

"How have I lied"

-- Blatantly fabricated a story about a cut on Rob's nose not existing prior to round 5.

-- Blatantly lied about Robert Whittaker initiating the clinch after your precious phantom four punch combination that "hurt Rob"

Completely and totally lied not only about the "combination", but even about the fact of RDR landing four consecutive strikes during a sequence...when did the fourth consecutive strike even partially land, go on...tell me.

Images once again shared exposing your "Rob was cut with 1 minute left in round 5" lie...the picture is from round 4.

Image shared exposing your clinch engagement from Whittaker lie, showcasing RDR grab an over hook and press Whittaker against the fence.


Provide a gif or video of this "four strike combination"

Final chance to answer these questions or I'm just taking this as you conceding --

Do you acknowledge Whittaker had the cut on his nose you insisted occurred with 80 or so seconds left in the fight prior to the fifth round even beginning? Yes or no question, answer it.


Do you acknowledge RDR initiated the clinch that you insisted Rob did with around a minute left in the fifth round? A simple yes or no, answer it.


Do you acknowledge that De Ritter didn't actually land four consecutive strikes in that specific sequence you keep mentioning? It didn't happen, and if it did, provide evidence of this so called "four strike combination" landing, thanks.

I'll happily engage with what actually transpired during the fight, but when you continue to simply outright fabricate events in a desperate, pitiful attempt to score points in an internet debate you're just being an extremely unserious person who is continuing to dig himself deeper and deeper.

Answer the questions, provide the evidence or take the L and move on.

Stop embarrassing yourself by blatantly lying about, greatly exaggerating what actually transpired.

Rob landed the cleaner strikes in the round, Rob created a knot on the temple of RDR, RDR didn't open up any new cuts, all of that damage you're referencing occurred long before the beginning of round 5, let alone the end of it :

Again here you go:

Now answer my questions or stop wasting my time

 

[maximus__]

And you're backing to attempting to utilize 3 inch baby strikes as a primary reason for RDR after previously conceding they didn't have an impact on your scoring....just brutal stuff dude.

"How have I lied"

-- Blatantly fabricated a story about a cut on Rob's nose not existing prior to round 5.

-- Blatantly lied about Robert Whittaker initiating the clinch after your precious phantom four punch combination that "hurt Rob"

Completely and totally lied not only about the "combination", but even about the fact of RDR landing four consecutive strikes during a sequence...when did the fourth consecutive strike even partially land, go on...tell me.

Images once again shared exposing your "Rob was cut with 1 minute left in round 5" lie...the picture is from round 4.

Image shared exposing your clinch engagement from Whittaker lie, showcasing RDR grab an over hook and press Whittaker against the fence.


Provide a gif or video of this "four strike combination"

Final chance to answer these questions or I'm just taking this as you conceding --

Do you acknowledge Whittaker had the cut on his nose you insisted occurred with 80 or so seconds left in the fight prior to the fifth round even beginning? Yes or no question, answer it.


Do you acknowledge RDR initiated the clinch that you insisted Rob did with around a minute left in the fifth round? A simple yes or no, answer it.


Do you acknowledge that De Ritter didn't actually land four consecutive strikes in that specific sequence you keep mentioning? It didn't happen, and if it did, provide evidence of this so called "four strike combination" landing, thanks.

I'll happily engage with what actually transpired during the fight, but when you continue to simply outright fabricate events in a desperate, pitiful attempt to score points in an internet debate you're just being an extremely unserious person who is continuing to dig himself deeper and deeper.

Answer the questions, provide the evidence or take the L and move on.

Stop embarrassing yourself by blatantly lying about, greatly exaggerating what actually transpired.

Rob landed the cleaner strikes in the round, Rob created a knot on the temple of RDR, RDR didn't open up any new cuts, all of that damage you're referencing occurred long before the beginning of round 5, let alone the end of it :

Again here you go:

Now answer my questions or stop wasting my time

I have provided a full video of the round, timestamped it and pointed out the specific sequence I mentioned and also where Rob is the one holding on with double unders to survive.
You can keep pretending I said something different if it makes you feel better. You can keep saying I need to gif it, but I provided the actual fight video.

I have answered all your questions multiple times. I have provided the fight with timestamps and pointed out that Rob was the recipient of actual damage in that round. He had some good moments before he started to get ran over for the final 3 mins. Rob landed 2 great body shots, that were immediately responded to by De Ridder, with the combination I mentioned.

Youre crediting single shots at range with no major damage. You choose to ignore a combination that caused visible damage and impact that led to Rob getting hurt, hit multiple times and him having to retreat from one side of the cage to the other before he took time to recover in a position he was trying to avoid. That sequence you somehow missed is more significant than anything Rob did in that round with his single potshots at range.

You can't actually defend the position that Rob won based off his offence, so you are setting little rules I have to meet to declare yourself the winner.
You choose to ignore RDR's strikes, what they did to Rob and how they made him be in a position he didn't want to be AND you want to ignore the fact Rob survived against the cage, whilst RDR was the predominant aggressor for the majority of the round. Rob won off his single shots at range though... they only led to him being pushed back, outstruck and in a position he didn't want to be, requiring him to take time to recover to escape each time.

Let's be honest man, I addressed all your questions, I put up a video of the round and I showed RDR landing more effective offence than Rob within the round.
You can say they weren't good shots if it makes you feel better, but RDR won that round.

 

[Langinbang187]

I have provided a full video of the round, timestamped it and pointed out the specific sequence I mentioned and also where Rob is the one holding on with double unders to survive.
You can keep pretending I said something different if it makes you feel better. You can keep saying I need to gif it, but I provided the actual fight video.

I have answered all your questions multiple times. I have provided the fight with timestamps and pointed out that Rob was the recipient of actual damage in that round. He had some good moments before he started to get ran over for the final 3 mins. Rob landed 2 great body shots, that were immediately responded to by De Ridder, with the combination I mentioned.

Youre crediting single shots at range with no major damage. You choose to ignore a combination that caused visible damage and impact that led to Rob getting hurt, hit multiple times and him having to retreat from one side of the cage to the other before he took time to recover in a position he was trying to avoid. That sequence you somehow missed is more significant than anything Rob did in that round with his single potshots at range.

You can't actually defend the position that Rob won based off his offence, so you are setting little rules I have to meet to declare yourself the winner.
You choose to ignore RDR's strikes, what they did to Rob and how they made him be in a position he didn't want to be AND you want to ignore the fact Rob survived against the cage, whilst RDR was the predominant aggressor for the majority of the round. Rob won off his single shots at range though... they only led to him being pushed back, outstruck and in a position he didn't want to be, requiring him to take time to recover to escape each time.

Let's be honest man, I addressed all your questions, I put up a video of the round and I showed RDR landing more effective offence than Rob within the round.
You can say they weren't good shots if it makes you feel better, but RDR won that round.

Show me where in the video RDR lands four strikes, timestamp it. You didn't, you can't, because it didn't happen.

Show me where you answered these questions, stop deflecting, stop running and answer them :

Provide a gif or video of this "four strike combination"

Final chance to answer these questions or I'm just taking this as you conceding --

Do you acknowledge Whittaker had the cut on his nose you insisted occurred with 80 or so seconds left in the fight prior to the fifth round even beginning? Yes or no question, answer it.


Do you acknowledge RDR initiated the clinch that you insisted Rob did with around a minute left in the fifth round? A simple yes or no, answer it.

Go ahead and showcase where you "showed" this "four strike combination", shouldn't be hard to find in your post history...but oddly enough, I can't find it. Show me the four piece combination, right now...gif it, timestamp a video of it, just do it.

You can't...you've been exposed as a complete and utter liar, you've genuinely humiliated yourself here by letting your ego get in the way of simply conceding that you some boo-boo's and instead of conceding...continue to spew the same debunked nonsense while refusing to acknowledge that there was no four strike combination, there was no fresh new cut opened up in round 5 on Rob's nose, RDR initiated the clinch that you insisted Rob initiated. You criticize Rob for throwing single strikes and then proceed to label 4 strikes thrown over the course of roughly 15 seconds a single combination....do you understand how silly you sound? It's even worse when consider Rob landed a straight to the body prior to RDR missing a sloppy overhand right as part of this "four strike combination" ....you genuinely can't be serious right now, are you trolling?

I also can't find a single post of you answering either of the simple yes or no questions above...instead you're deflecting, obfuscating and refusing to answer basic questions.

Stop running, stop lying about answering questions you haven't answered, actually answer or simply go away, it's that simple.

 

[maximus__]

Show me where in the video RDR lands four strikes, timestamp it. You didn't, you can't, because it didn't happen.

Show me where you answered these questions, stop deflecting, stop running and answer them :

Provide a gif or video of this "four strike combination"

Final chance to answer these questions or I'm just taking this as you conceding --

Do you acknowledge Whittaker had the cut on his nose you insisted occurred with 80 or so seconds left in the fight prior to the fifth round even beginning? Yes or no question, answer it.


Do you acknowledge RDR initiated the clinch that you insisted Rob did with around a minute left in the fifth round? A simple yes or no, answer it.

Go ahead and showcase where you "showed" this "four strike combination", shouldn't be hard to find in your post history...but oddly enough, I can't find it.

I also can't find a single post of you answering either of the simple yes or no questions above...instead you're deflecting, obfuscating and refusing to answer basic questions.

Stop running, answer or simply go away, it's that simply.

I already have. I pointed them out and you already acknowledged they existed but disagreed with the impact of the shots.
I don't have to continue to post the same thing because you ask me to.

Again refer to my previous posts. I have responded to every question asked. I don't have to say yes or no. I responded with my position to those questions numerous times. You can make up your own isolated opinions of what I said and ignore the context if it makes you feel better.

You can set whatever special rules you want to declare yourself the winner, but we both know at this point you can't defend Whittaker winning the 5th.
He clearly lost the round by the scoring criteria within MMA.

 

[Langinbang187]

I already have. I pointed them out and you already acknowledged they existed but disagreed with the impact of the shots.
I don't have to continue to post the same thing because you ask me to.

Again refer to my previous posts. I have responded to every question asked. I don't have to say yes or no. I responded with my position to those questions numerous times. You can make up your own isolated opinions of what I said and ignore the context if it makes you feel better.

You can set whatever special rules you want to declare yourself the winner, but we both know at this point you can't defend Whittaker winning the 5th.
He clearly lost the round by the scoring criteria within MMA.

At no point have you timestamped any kind of four piece combination, you can't provide evidence of doing so because such evident doesn't exist. Solid knee, but a single shot 4 seconds later....solid jab, followed by pulling a straight as Rob moved out of range...again, single shot.... multiple seconds late....sloppy overhand that glanced(at best)...single shot....Rob then lands a glancing light body shot to RDR, who loops another overhand right that appears to completely miss, may have glanced slightly at best....again, both strikes from both fighters are single shots.

"I can respond to your questions however I want" Yeah, that's called running from the question when I ask a simple yes or no question.

If you claim the sky is orange, I then ask you if the sky is blue during the day and you proceed to incoherently rant about the shape of the moon, proceed to state that the night sky is actually black, but sometimes it turns orange that isn't answering the question...it's ignoring the question and then proceeding to make blatant fabrications.

If he "clearly win" you wouldn't need to go to such extreme lengths to fabricate events, get caught lying multiple times and then refuse to answer simple yes or no questions, refuse to acknowledge you got multiple layers of information objectively wrong, doubled and even tripled down on said lies to the point where you've been an outright liar.

So I'm just going to wrap this up -- Rob clearly won the round when he landed that flush spinning wheel kick at the buzzer that had RDR doing a chicken dance, and quite frankly I think the spinning back fast and liver shot that had De Ridder turtled up into a ball against the fence as Whittaker landed a 6 piece combo likely had him ahead even prior to that.

 

[maximus__]

At no point have you timestamped any kind of four piece combination, you can't provide evidence of doing so because such evident doesn't exist. Solid knee, but a single shot 4 seconds later....solid jab, followed by pulling a straight as Rob moved out of range...again, single shot.... multiple seconds late....sloppy overhand that glanced(at best)...single shot....Rob then lands a glancing light body shot to RDR, who loops another overhand right that appears to completely miss, may have glanced slightly at best....again, both strikes from both fighters are single shots.

"I can respond to your questions however I want" Yeah, that's called running from the question when I ask a simple yes or no question.

If you claim the sky is orange, I then ask you if the sky is blue during the day and you proceed to incoherently rant about the shape of the moon, proceed to state that the night sky is actually black, but sometimes it turns orange that isn't answering the question...it's ignoring the question and then proceeding to make blatant fabrications.

If he "clearly win" you wouldn't need to go to such extreme lengths to fabricate events, get caught lying multiple times and then refuse to answer simple yes or no questions, refuse to acknowledge you got multiple layers of information objectively wrong, doubled and even tripled down on said lies to the point where you've been an outright liar.

So I'm just going to wrap this up -- Rob clearly won the round when he landed that flush spinning wheel kick at the buzzer that had RDR doing a chicken dance, and quite frankly I think the spinning back fast and liver shot that had De Ridder turtled up into a ball against the fence as Whittaker landed a 6 piece combo likely had him ahead even prior to that.

I timestamped the video I posted initially. I pointed out the 30 second period I was referencing and then I wrote the time of each strike, just so you could somehow find it. The strikes from RDR aren't single shots. It's a combination as Rob retreats and RDR advances.

No. You want me to answer Yes or No, so you can continue to make up a narrative of what I said. I said Rob held on with double underhooks to survive in the clinch stalling it out. RDR on the other hand enters the clinch to try and finish the fight. Rob holding on led to the round stalling, RDR continued to land offence when Rob had the double unders. Rob uses the clinch to survive.

You created some narrative around a fighter having a big moment in a round that steals it when the other fighter has been winning a close round. I showed that RDR actually had the bigger moment in the close round with actual impactful offence. You keep ignoring it for a couple jabs at range because they looked "cleaner". No where in the scoring does it say the "cleaner" striker wins.

Atleast we finally managed to get RDRs last name right at the end there. If Rob had kicked in that last round he probably would have won it and caught De Ridder with his usual 1-2 headkick combo. Instead he tried to land single shots to survive the round and recover for too long against the cage, which led to him losing a close fight.

 

[Langinbang187]

I timestamped the video I posted initially. I pointed out the 30 second period I was referencing and then I wrote the time of each strike, just so you could somehow find it. The strikes from RDR aren't single shots. It's a combination as Rob retreats and RDR advances.

No. You want me to answer Yes or No, so you can continue to make up a narrative of what I said. I said Rob held on with double underhooks to survive in the clinch stalling it out. RDR on the other hand enters the clinch to try and finish the fight. Rob holding on led to the round stalling, RDR continued to land offence when Rob had the double unders. Rob uses the clinch to survive.

You created some narrative around a fighter having a big moment in a round that steals it when the other fighter has been winning a close round. I showed that RDR actually had the bigger moment in the close round with actual impactful offence. You keep ignoring it for a couple jabs at range because they looked "cleaner". No where in the scoring does it say the "cleaner" striker wins.

Atleast we finally managed to get RDRs last name right at the end there. If Rob had kicked in that last round he probably would have won it and caught De Ridder with his usual 1-2 headkick combo. Instead he tried to land single shots to survive the round and recover for too long against the cage, which led to him losing a close fight.

Haha yeah, and then you proceeded to incorrectly label it a "four strike combination" afterwards, despite all being single shots that took place 4+ seconds apart hahahahahaha. This is all while ignoring the two overhands were glancing blows, one looked to completely miss the target.

Nope, you literally stated Rob initiated the clinch when he was hurt, he didn't, I posted the screenshot of RDR engaging in the clinch.

You simply cannot say "yes I got the details wrong RDR did actually initiate the clinch upon further review"

Nope, your ego is too big to concede a single point...you won't answer the question because you can't accept that you got the details incorrect, it's embarrassing.

"I showed that RDR actually had the bigger moments"


Hahahaha, you literally made up four piece combinations that don't exist, blatantly lied about an overhand that glanced landing flush, lied about Rob initiating the clinch when he was actually the one to disengage from the clinch...and then to make it all worse than all completely lied about RDR opening up a new cut that wasn't already opened in the previous rounds.

"Atleast" I don't repeatedly try to put two separate words together repeatedly and get exposed as a lying doofus with the debate tactics of a teenage girl.

Whittaker landed the cleaner shots, and unlike you I don't actually need to fabricate non existent combinations, cuts, exaggerate the impact of strikes to actually attempt to add merit to my claims.

Come back when you're bright enough to acknowledge that you got caught making up rubbish like a doofus and can answer basic questions instead of running from them like a teenage girl refuses accountability.

I will say -- RDR did a lot better in the fifth round than you did in this debate, but that isn't saying much.

 

[maximus__]

Haha yeah, and then you proceeded to incorrectly label it a "four strike combination" afterwards, despite all being single shots that took place 4+ seconds apart hahahahahaha. This is all while ignoring the two overhands were glancing blows, one looked to completely miss the target.

Nope, you literally stated Rob initiated the clinch when he was hurt, he didn't, I posted the screenshot of RDR engaging in the clinch.

You simply cannot say "yes I got the details wrong RDR did actually initiate the clinch upon further review"

Nope, your ego is too big to concede a single point...you won't answer the question because you can't accept that you got the details incorrect, it's embarrassing.

"I showed that RDR actually had the bigger moments"


Hahahaha, you literally made up four piece combinations that don't exist, blatantly lied about an overhand that glanced landing flush, lied about Rob initiating the clinch when he was actually the one to disengage from the clinch...and then to make it all worse than all completely lied about RDR opening up a new cut that wasn't already opened in the previous rounds.

"Atleast" I don't repeatedly try to put two separate words together repeatedly and get exposed as a lying doofus with the debate tactics of a teenage girl.

Whittaker landed the cleaner shots, and unlike you I don't actually need to fabricate non existent combinations, cuts, exaggerate the impact of strikes to actually attempt to add merit to my claims.

Come back when you're bright enough to acknowledge that you got caught making up rubbish like a doofus and can answer basic questions instead of running from them like a teenage girl refuses accountability.

I will say -- RDR did a lot better in the fifth round than you did in this debate, but that isn't saying much.

If all that makes you feel better go for it.

RDR did have bigger moments in the round. He landed better shots, got the fight where he wanted and landed more of them resulting in him winning the round on all judges scorecards. Rob on the other hand had some good moments, but they weren't enough and he got outworked over the round and couldn't keep up with RDR and ultimately lost the fight in that final round. He needed another big moment like the 3rd to get the 5th and ultimately, he couldn't get it done.

RDR takes it 3-2 in a close fight and continues to rack up wins. He is most likely getting Ko'd in his next fight with his wild striking though. Rob couldn't make him pay enough in this fight after taking too many bodyshots across all 5 rounds.

 

[Langinbang187]

If all that makes you feel better go for it.

RDR did have bigger moments in the round. He landed better shots, got the fight where he wanted and landed more of them resulting in him winning the round on all judges scorecards. Rob on the other hand had some good moments, but they weren't enough and he got outworked over the round and couldn't keep up with RDR and ultimately lost the fight in that final round. He needed another big moment like the 3rd to get the 5th and ultimately, he couldn't get it done.

RDR takes it 3-2 in a close fight and continues to rack up wins. He is most likely getting Ko'd in his next fight with his wild striking though. Rob couldn't make him pay enough in this fight after taking too many bodyshots across all 5 rounds.

Nawh man, the spinning wheel kick landed by Rob at the buzzer secured it for him.

I'm also glad to see we're back to utilizing the judges scoring the round for RDR as evidence that he won the match....long after by your own admission judges get scores wrong routinely.

It's not about what makes me "feel better", it's about accepting reality and having accountability when you blatantly get caught lying...something you've proved to know nothing about, best of luck with that mindset going forward.

Your blatant debunked lies, refusal to acknowledge them are far more concerning than your poor scoring( in my opinion) of a competitive MMA round to me, quite frankly.

Did you answer my questions yet?

 

[maximus__]

Nawh man, the spinning wheel kick landed by Rob at the buzzer secured it for him.

I'm also glad to see we're back to utilizing the judges scoring the round for RDR as evidence that he won the match....long after by your own admission judges get scores wrong routinely.

It's not about what makes me "feel better", it's about accepting reality and having accountability when you blatantly get caught lying...something you've proved to know nothing about, best of luck with that mindset going forward.

Your blatant debunked lies, refusal to acknowledge them are far more concerning than your poor scoring( in my opinion) of a competitive MMA round to me, quite frankly.

Did you answer my questions yet?

RDR landed bigger shots, more of them, did more damage and landed more impactful strikes and the judges got the 5th round scoring correct.

Rob landed some good early shots, but ultimately got worn down and outworked. He didn't land bigger shots than RDR to account for a near equal sig strike tally. That's before we even take into account the rest of fight.

As I said refer to my previous posts for your questions. I addressed each one within the context of my position for why RDR was winning within the scoring criteria used to judge MMA.

 

[Langinbang187]

RDR landed bigger shots, more of them, did more damage and landed more impactful strikes and the judges got the 5th round scoring correct.

Rob landed some good early shots, but ultimately got worn down and outworked. He didn't land bigger shots than RDR to account for a near equal sig strike tally. That's before we even take into account the rest of fight.

As I said refer to my previous posts for your questions. I addressed each one within the context of my position for why RDR was winning within the scoring criteria used to judge MMA.

That simply isn't realistic sir, I just provided a video timestamped of Whittaker badly rocking RDR at the bell, as well as a 6 piece combination that had him doing the chicken dance clearly concussed.

The fact that you're still denying this after that is absolutely absurd quite frankly.

I didn't ask you if you scored the round for RDR, I asked you :

1) Can you acknowledge the cut was opened up prior to round 5, despite your claim of the contrary?

2) Can you acknowledge that Rob did not initiate the clinch against the fence that you claimed he did "while hurt"?

3) I merely asked for a video of this phantom four piece combination, I still haven't received it.

You didn't answer/respond directly to any of these lol

 

[maximus__]

That simply isn't realistic sir, I just provided a video timestamped of Whittaker badly rocking RDR at the bell, as well as a 6 piece combination that had him doing the chicken dance clearly concussed.

The fact that you're still denying this after that is absolutely absurd quite frankly.

I didn't ask you if you scored the round for RDR, I asked you :

1) Can you acknowledge the cut was opened up prior to round 5, despite your claim of the contrary?

2) Can you acknowledge that Rob did not initiate the clinch against the fence that you claimed he did "while hurt"?

3) I merely asked for a video of this phantom four piece combination, I still haven't received it.

You didn't answer/respond directly to any of these lol

All your questions were answered in previous posts.

1.I said it was reopened by a strike you said never landed with any impact. Yes Rob sustained damage earlier, he was the only one sustaining actual damage for 90% of the fight.

2.I said Rob was the one surviving by stalling in the clinch from the double unders position. I said RDR used a knee to enter the clinch in my initial posts to land offence. You claimed RDR was stalling when it was Rob.

3.I posted the entire 5th round for you, directed you to the exact time the sequence starts and finishes, then expanded by providing the exact times of the strikes.

All these were previously addressed in detail. You can make up whatever story you like, but now you are just ignoring my previous posts to pretend you won an internet argument.

My posts are all there. They address your questions in detail on why I think you are wrong.

 

[Langinbang187]

All your questions were answered in previous posts.

1.I said it was reopened by a strike you said never landed with any impact. Yes Rob sustained damage earlier, he was the only one sustaining actual damage for 90% of the fight.

2.I said Rob was the one surviving by stalling in the clinch from the double unders position. I said RDR used a knee to enter the clinch in my initial posts to land offence. You claimed RDR was stalling when it was Rob.

3.I posted the entire 5th round for you, directed you to the exact time the sequence starts and finishes, then expanded by providing the exact times of the strikes.

All these were previously addressed in detail. You can make up whatever story you like, but now you are just ignoring my previous posts to pretend you won an internet argument.

My posts are all there. They address your questions in detail on why I think you are wrong.

Actually this is what you said --

Speaking of damage, look at the bridge of Robs nose at the screenshot you showed. Play it live. Rob had no cut prior and it happens during the entry to that sequence.

You then proceeded to move the goal posts after I debunked this objectively false claim by posting a screenshot of the cut in prior rounds.

Unfortunately for you -- Your posts are there and full of false, debunked claims like the above. I can do this very thing with 90% of what you spew, but will you actually accept accountability? Of course not, you'll just blatantly lie and attempt to move goal posts from your actual initial comments.


You claimed Rob initiated the clinch, you were wrong, you claimed Rob never had a cut on the bridge of his nose prior to the overhand, you were wrong, you claimed RDR landed a "four strike combination" while posting earlier that all strikes occurred over the span of 20ish seconds, that isn't a combination, those are single strikes occurring widespread, you were wrong again there....and to top things off you actually missed an overhand attempt from RDR and very conveniently a body shot landed by Rob in your little "breakdown".

Let it go bro, it's over.

 

[maximus__]

Actually this is what you said --


You then proceeded to move the goal posts after I debunked this objectively false claim by posting a screenshot of the cut in prior rounds.

Unfortunately for you -- Your posts are there and full of false, debunked claims like the above. I can do this very thing with 90% of what you spew, but will you actually accept accountability? Of course not, you'll just blatantly lie and attempt to move goal posts from your actual initial comments.


You claimed Rob initiated the clinch, you were wrong, you claimed Rob never had a cut on the bridge of his nose prior to the overhand, you were wrong, you claimed RDR landed a "four strike combination" while posting earlier that all strikes occurred over the span of 20ish seconds, that isn't a combination, those are single strikes occurring widespread, you were wrong again there....and to top things off you actually missed an overhand attempt from RDR and very conveniently a body shot landed by Rob in your little "breakdown".

Let it go bro, it's over.

So your argument is RDR didn't cause damage to Rob because his nose was cut prior, they cleaned it up in between and then Robs face spontaneously started bleeding? Or did RDR cause Rob to bleed and ultimately score damage in the specific sequence I pointed to? Where in the criteria does it say a cut initially being opened then can never be scored as damage again? Reopening a cut repeatedly is causing damage. Great argument for RDR to win on your main criteria mentioned.

I didn't claim Rob initiated the clinch. I said he was the one surviving and stalling there. RDR was using it offensively. Rob grabs and holds. RDR uses the position to cause offence. Rob survives. RDR fights from there.

If one fighter is moving backwards and another fighter throws multiple strikes in succession as he follows him, what is it besides a combination? He even adjusts his targets and strikes throughout the round in response to the reactions of Rob to his strike. Body Knee brings the hands down, Jab with the hands down and to gauge the distance, overhand in response to his opponent circling away, follow up shot that grazes, before responding to Robs strike by throwing a knee and getting to the clinch. That's a combination every day of the week. It's how RDR was striking all fight and has in most of his fights.

I still can't find "cleaner" striking in the scoring criteria? Could you please show me where it says the "cleaner" striker wins a round ?

I expanded and explained my position multiple times. That's why you want single word out of context answers.

 

[Langinbang187]

So your argument is RDR didn't cause damage to Rob because his nose was cut prior, they cleaned it up in between and then Robs face spontaneously started bleeding? Or did RDR cause Rob to bleed and ultimately score damage in the specific sequence I pointed to? Where in the criteria does it say a cut initially being opened then can never be scored as damage again? Reopening a cut repeatedly is causing damage. Great argument for RDR to win on your main criteria mentioned.

I didn't claim Rob initiated the clinch. I said he was the one surviving and stalling there. RDR was using it offensively. Rob grabs and holds. RDR uses the position to cause offence. Rob survives. RDR fights from there.

If one fighter is moving backwards and another fighter throws multiple strikes in succession as he follows him, what is it besides a combination? He even adjusts his targets and strikes throughout the round in response to the reactions of Rob to his strike. Body Knee brings the hands down, Jab with the hands down and to gauge the distance, overhand in response to his opponent circling away, follow up shot that grazes, before responding to Robs strike by throwing a knee and getting to the clinch. That's a combination every day of the week. It's how RDR was striking all fight and has in most of his fights.

I still can't find "cleaner" striking in the scoring criteria? Could you please show me where it says the "cleaner" striker wins a round ?

I expanded and explained my position multiple times. That's why you want single word out of context answers.

There is no argument.

You lied, and then proceeded to double down on it and then lie about your previous lie.

Lol what the fuck are you incoherently rambling about? You lied about it being a fresh cut, are you going to attempt to dispute that it's easier to make already open wound bleed? Hahaha...not that it even matters, it's the fact that you avoided my questions this entire time because you flat out knew what you said and continued to lie about it like a complete and utter doofus.

"Out of context

What the fuck other kind of context could there possibly be from "The cut wasn't there before the strike landed"? What an idiotic response.

This has went far beyond debating scoring a round, this has turned into exposing you as being a fundamentally dishonest human being who has spewed complete and utter nonsense, moved goal posts repeatedly and now when your lies get rubber in your face I'm quoting your exact words "out of context"

I call strikes thrown in succession "combinations", I call single strikes thrown 4+ seconds apart(by own own admission) over the course of roughly 20 seconds while the opponent throws back -- single strikes...as does anyone else with a brain in their skull.

I could imagine your focus mitt work with a boxing coach, pausing 4-5 seconds between each strike working on your little "combinations" hahahaha



You are absolutely ridiculous man lol

 

[maximus__]

There is no argument.

You lied, and then proceeded to double down on it and then lie about your previous lie.

Lol what the fuck are you incoherently rambling about? You lied about it being a fresh cut, are you going to attempt to dispute that it's easier to make already open wound bleed? Hahaha...not that it even matters, it's the fact that you avoided my questions this entire time because you flat out knew what you said and continued to lie about it like a complete and utter doofus.

"Out of context

What the fuck other kind of context could there possibly be from "The cut wasn't there before the strike landed"? What an idiotic response.

This has went far beyond debating scoring a round, this has turned into exposing you as being a fundamentally dishonest human being who has spewed complete and utter nonsense, moved goal posts repeatedly and now when your lies get rubber in your face I'm quoting your exact words "out of context"

I call strikes thrown in succession "combinations", I call single strikes thrown 4+ seconds apart(by own own admission) over the course of roughly 20 seconds while the opponent throws back -- single strikes...as does anyone else with a brain in their skull.

I could imagine your focus mitt work with a boxing coach, pausing 4-5 seconds between each strike working on your little "combinations" hahahaha



You are absolutely ridiculous man lol

Double down? I addressed it in my next post when you pointed it out the damage may have occurred the round prior.

"It's a 4+ strike combo that moves from one side of the cage to the other. It's more significant than anything Rob lands in that round. RDR has him retreating, hurt and gets to the position he wants and even causes visible damage as you said reopening the cut. It's fine but magically reopens whilst he isn't getting hit apparently. It's almost like RDR caused that during that seuwnce that you magically missed because it's the most significant of the round."

I kept telling you to actually go back and read the posts repeatedly. Stop making up stories. I told you I had addressed your questions.

Same with RDR initiating the clinch. I already said he did as part of that combination. What I said was that he was attacking from there and not using underhooks to hold Rob against the cage.
I pointed out that RDR doesn't use that position and that it was instead Rob holding on with the underhooks to survive and stall.



Rob timed RDR off an earlier long combo in the 3rd to get his knockdown. It's what he does when people retreat backwards. The 5th round sequence is the same thing with Rob moving backwards with RDR throwing multiple shots to try and catch a retreating Rob.
Same body knee starting things off, Rob is just more on his bicycle and they are both more fatigued so less shots from both, It's also why Rob accepts cage and grabs the underhooks to recover in the 5th. Previously he fought to stay off and had his big moment in the 3rd.

I kept telling you to look at their feet position. RDR is throwing his shots in response to Robs movement. It's all part of the same sequence with RDR setting Rob up for each subsequent shot. He throws based off where Rob is circling to. The knee is a counter to Rob's strike, the jab is because he goes straight back, the overhand because he circles to the inside of the cage, another looping shot to keep Rob going that way followed by the knee to finally trap him against the cage. Sounds like some damn fine effective striking in combination to me.

It's almost like he has a whole career outside the UFC I can watch to see that his striking whilst looking funky, gets him where he wants to be.

 

[Langinbang187]

Double down? I addressed it in my next post when you pointed it out the damage may have occurred the round prior.

"It's a 4+ strike combo that moves from one side of the cage to the other. It's more significant than anything Rob lands in that round. RDR has him retreating, hurt and gets to the position he wants and even causes visible damage as you said reopening the cut. It's fine but magically reopens whilst he isn't getting hit apparently. It's almost like RDR caused that during that seuwnce that you magically missed because it's the most significant of the round."

I kept telling you to actually go back and read the posts repeatedly. Stop making up stories. I told you I had addressed your questions.

Same with RDR initiating the clinch. I already said he did as part of that combination. What I said was that he was attacking from there and not using underhooks to hold Rob against the cage.
I pointed out that RDR doesn't use that position and that it was instead Rob holding on with the underhooks to survive and stall.



Rob timed RDR off an earlier long combo in the 3rd to get his knockdown. It's what he does when people retreat backwards. The 5th round sequence is the same thing with Rob moving backwards with RDR throwing multiple shots to try and catch a retreating Rob.
Same body knee starting things off, Rob is just more on his bicycle and they are both more fatigued so less shots from both, It's also why Rob accepts cage and grabs the underhooks to recover in the 5th. Previously he fought to stay off and had his big moment in the 3rd.

I kept telling you to look at their feet position. RDR is throwing his shots in response to Robs movement. It's all part of the same sequence with RDR setting Rob up for each subsequent shot. He throws based off where Rob is circling to. The knee is a counter to Rob's strike, the jab is because he goes straight back, the overhand because he circles to the inside of the cage, another looping shot to keep Rob going that way followed by the knee to finally trap him against the cage. Sounds like some damn fine effective striking in combination to me.

It's almost like he has a whole career outside the UFC I can watch to see that his striking whilst looking funky, gets him where he wants to be.

Complete and total goalpost shift, then a complete and utter refusal to answer basic questions. You even went as far as to imply that they stiched the cut back together in between rounds in that very post "reopening the cut" -- You understand that nobody actually put stitches in his nose in the corner, correct? The cut was still an open wound, they simply stopped/slowed the bleeding. Everything you spew is either a downright fabrication or the most painful of exaggerations. The cut was never closed once it was opened bro ...lol...Jesus Christ...and you thought that was the appropriate response to quote? You just brought up another self inflicted L.

Rob gains underhooks as many fighters do who are trying to avoid wrestling, being taken down. The idea that fighters only attain underhooks to when they're hurt is a painfully uneducated take, Rob utilized double underhooks to spin off and disengage multiple times through the fight...hell, he quite literally did this in the very clinch you're mentioning hahaha.

Everything sounds "damn effective" when you blatantly exaggerate and outright extend lies about what transpired during sequences.

-- Four strike combination

Never happened.

-- Big overhand right

Literally glanced at best, had zero power behind it.

Same goes for overhand number 2, only that one completely seems to have missed.

Quite the dominant "four piece combo"....over 20 seconds, while Rob also lands a strike during the entire sequence.

-- Opened up a cut that never existed prior

Completely and totally debunked.

He did land a nice knee and a decent jab...that's where it ends.

The idea that you're breaking ground by essentially admitting the only thing RDR's striking was doing was attempting to get Whittaker against the fence to land his little 2 inch baby punches and survive the round is not a great argument.

Rob landed a high kick, an overhand, a shot to the body, a stiff jab and was the only one of the two to actually inflict new physical damage in the round, putting a knot on the temple of RDR from a stiff jab....all of this occuring to close out the fight while RDR gasps for air, lays down some of the sloppest shots you'll ever see(literally dives into a high kick with his terrible shot) and then holds Rob against the fence desperately to get out of the round and pray the judges were as high as you were when you witnessed that phantom "four strike combination", "Fresh new cut on the bridge of the nose" that occurred in the fifth.

Luckily for him MMA judging has become as putrid as boxing at this point.

The fact that you went out and shared a clip of a totally different sequence in the fight where RDR does actually land some significant strikes but completely and utterly refuse to when I politely asked on numerous occasions to simply gif or post a clip of the so called "four strike combination that occured in succession" really showcases that you have zero confidence your actual stance.

There was no four strike combination, there was no new cut created in the fifth round, RDR was the one who initiated the clinch against the fence, Rob was the one who disengaged from it.

I've never actually seen somebody say so much while saying so little.

 

[maximus__]

Complete and total goalpost shift, then a complete and utter refusal to answer basic questions. You even went as far as to imply that they stiched the cut back together in between rounds in that very post "reopening the cut" -- You understand that nobody actually put stitches in his nose in the corner, correct? The cut was still an open wound, they simply stopped/slowed the bleeding. Everything you spew is either a downright now, or the most painful of exaggerations. The cut was never closed once it was opened bro ...lol...Jesus Christ...and you thought that was the appropriate response to quote? You just brought up another self inflicted L.

Rob gains underhooks as many fighters do who are trying to avoid grappling, the idea that fighters only attain underhooks to when they're hurt is a painfully uneducated take, Rob utilized double underhooks to spin off and disengage multiple times through the fight...hell, he quite literally did this in them very clinch you're mentioning hahaha.

Everything sounds "damn effective" when you blatantly exaggerate and outright extend lies about what transpired during sequences.

-- Four strike combination

Never happened.

-- Big overhand right

Literally glanced at best, had zero power behind it.

Same goes for overhand number 2, only that one completely seems to have missed.

Quite the dominant "four piece combo"....over 20 seconds, while Rob also lands a strike during the entire sequence.

-- Opened up a cut that never existed prior

Completely and totally debunked.

He did land a nice knee and a decent jab...that's where it ends.

The idea that you're breaking ground by essentially admitting the only thing RDR's striking was doing was attempting to get Whittaker against the fence to land his little 2 inch baby punches and survive the round is not a great argument.

Rob landed a high kick, an overhand, a shot to the body, a stiff jab and was the only one of the two to actually inflict new physical damage in the round, putting a knot on the temple of RDR from a stiff jab....all of this occuring to close out the fight while RDR gasps for air, lays down some of the sloppest shots you'll ever see(literally dives into a high kick with his terrible shot) and then holds Rob against the fence desperately to get out of the round and pray the judges were as high as you were when you witnessed that phantom "four strike combination", "Fresh new cut on the bridge of the nose" that occurred in the fifth.

Luckily for him MMA judging has become as putrid as boxing at this point.

No mate. I kept telling you repeatedly I had answered the questions you were asking. I haven't moved any goal posts. My position at the start is the same as it always has been as I just showed. You made up some fantasy story about what I said, I kept giving you the option to go back and read the posts as opposed to making an idiot of yourself with some imagined narrative.

Do I really need to address how the corner would clean up and prevent a cut from bleeding in the corner? Is that the ridiculous lengths I have to go to appease you because you argued that the cut was previous damage and now realised that you arguing that it was reopened actually supports my position of the impact of the strikes that you claim didn't land?

Come on man, it's just sad at this point. You aren't even arguing about the actual fight anymore. You made up a narrative because even you don't think Rob won after looking at that round and trying to cherry pick photos.

We have "cleaner strikes" and "new damage" the ultimate scoring criteria in MMA. Let's ignore all offence because the "cleanest strikes" and "newest damage" win. Hopefully they update the MMA judges so they are aware. They struggle as it is but maybe it's not their problem with these new scoring criteria being included and only you being aware.

Well if we were scoring in boxing you would be correct so maybe that's the sport for you. They would have rewarded Rob's strikes because that scoring applies in that sport. Maybe that's where the confusion is for you.