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

[Langinbang187]

Rob landed 11 strikes for a total of 11.
RDR landed 9 sig strikes for a total of 73 strikes.
The majority of Robs strikes were jabs in that 5th round. Those jabs weren't enough to stop RDR working into the clinch.
Your argument relies on Robs 2 extra sig strikes outweighing all else.

As per the scoring criteria RDR wins on via the striking alone. He landed near equal sig strikes, 7x the total strikes and those strikes alloowed him to keep rob against the cage. He wins all criteria under scoring for striking in MMA.

IF we were to say somehow that that criteria is even then we move to scoring the grappling. RDR clearly won that aspect.
RDR took 3 rounds to Rob's 2. There is no real argument in the 5th for Rob. He got outworked.

My argument relies on the scoring criteria, that objectively scores damage at the highest criteria.

Your argument relies upon 2 inch slaps in the clinch that accumulate zero damage combined with hanging on to survive.

Is your argument actually genuinely that RDR was the more effective striker in round 5? If so I really don't know what to tell you, there's a reason the man was desperately shooting and looking to lock up against the fence, it's because Rob was landing a crisp jab at will, no, RDR was not the more effective striker in that round and his 2 inch clinch slaps do not erase anything.

We aren't stating the striking is equal, it wasn't, Rob is the only guy landing anything of remote significance in striking range in the 5th, RDR looked as if he was about to fall over any time he tried to throw a looping mess.

Answer my question -- If you hit me with 50 2 inch slaps and foot stomps in the clinch and I proceed to make you do the chicken dance with a single overhand right, who gets the best of the exchange? It's a silly argument, not even the judges who scored the fight for RDR scored it on the basis of his striking, you're just being absolutely silly with this.

 

[Tweak896]

I would go as far as to say just two of those jabs would be enough to be more effective in that round than RDR failing miserably at takedowns, getting zapped at range and proceeding to avoid fighting by 'controlling" as you like to call it, I call it surviving until the belt as he was completely and totally exhausted and clearly being out struck on the feet by the superior striker.

No, I don't score 2 inch slaps the same as significant strikes, they don't accumulate any damage and the last time I checked in a round that had zero wrestling damage is the criteria for scoring what is supposed to be a fist fight.

If I slap your leg 50 times and you crush my skull in with an elbow and drop me and make me do the stanky leg, do I still win the round? Quite frankly I can't even pinpoint to you a single crisp significant strike RDR landed in round 5, I can point to Rob landing several right on the nose of RDR that backed him up immediately and sent him doing ballerina spins.

In a round where your opponent cannot execute significant damage, you don't need to contribute a significant amount of damage of your own in order to outweigh what was essentially non-existent.

My opinion was that they both were gassed and Whittaker had nothing on his punches when we're talking about damage. Going by volume you give to RDR. But at this point we'll have to agree to disagree with the scoring. We'll just chuck this in the pile of Whittaker decisions nobody can agree with.

 

[Versez]

you forgot to add #nohomo

I would make you my toy....i would smash you right and left brother.

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

You mean the 2 significant strikes he landed more was worth more than the 60 little pot shots while controlling him for almost half the round on the fence? Cmon that is crazy. I don't like it when guys just hold and stall, but if they scored like you, holding and taking those pot shots are completely equal. So you're essentially encouraging guys to just hold and not strike a little bit.

I mean if you said 15 little pot shots = 1 significant strike, RDR still wins. Whittaker could've landed little strikes while being tied up to equalize it, but he froze and looked exhausted. Essentially you're saying RDR could've held for 4 min 30 seconds and did his pot shots and Whittaker should win for the moment of separation only.

It's also 9-3 in significant head shots definitely a closer round to maybe throw Rob.

I'm still shocked that people including Bell (although not really since he gave grasso a 10-8) round four because RDR legitimately won every criteria there. Rob didn't even attempt a 2 punch combo in 5 minutes.

 

[wrb]

It's also 9-3 in significant head shots definitely a closer round to maybe throw Rob.

I'm still shocked that people including Bell (although not really since he gave grasso a 10-8) round four because RDR legitimately won every criteria there. Rob didn't even attempt a 2 punch combo in 5 minutes.

Its a tactic that because of physics, weight, angles and the fact that the fight needs to take place within a cage that is flexible its an advantage for the taller person to do AND its allow the fighters to rest. If anything, not getting the pinned fighter down before he is able to escape should be counted as a point for said fight thus cancelling the control time "point". Its also hard to look past this in the rules: "
Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance.
What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed."

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

Its a tactic that because of physics, weight, angles and the fact that the fight needs to take place within a cage that is flexible its an advantage for the taller person to do AND its allow the fighters to rest. If anything, not getting the pinned fighter down before he is able to escape should be counted as a point for said fight thus cancelling the control time "point". Its also hard to look past this in the rules: "
Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance.
What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed."

I'd love a better system too but until there's a major change like how basketball added a shot clock so teams couldn't get ahead and play keep away, if you win by the last scoring criteria and keep yourself slightly ahead or even it's still winning.

 

[wrb]

I'd love a better system too but until there's a major change like how basketball added a shot clock so teams couldn't get ahead and play keep away, if you win by the last scoring criteria and keep yourself slightly ahead or even it's still winning.

It seems like people are overlooking this and I never really noticed how bad its being abused by the fighters or "overlooked" by the judges possible as an easy scoring justification and I realized this line is talking about the lean because of the fact it never defines cage dominance anywhere else, it only talks about cage fouls s..

"Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance.
What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed."

 

[maximus__]

My argument relies on the scoring criteria, that objectively scores damage at the highest criteria.

Your argument relies upon 2 inch slaps in the clinch that accumulate zero damage combined with hanging on to survive.

Is your argument actually genuinely that RDR was the more effective striker in round 5? If so I really don't know what to tell you, there's a reason the man was desperately shooting and looking to lock up against the fence, it's because Rob was landing a crisp jab at will, no, RDR was not the more effective striker in that round and his 2 inch clinch slaps do not erase anything.

We aren't stating the striking is equal, it wasn't, Rob is the only guy landing anything of remote significance in striking range in the 5th, RDR looked as if he was about to fall over any time he tried to throw a looping mess.

Answer my question -- If you hit me with 50 2 inch slaps and foot stomps in the clinch and I proceed to make you do the chicken dance with a single overhand right, who gets the best of the exchange? It's a silly argument, not even the judges who scored the fight for RDR scored it on the basis of his striking, you're just being absolutely silly with this.

What damage was scored by Whittaker in the 5th? He landed jabs at range. Those jabs had so little impact (scoring criteria) that RDR was able to get inside and land his own offence. RDR landed 9 sig strikes at range with 6 of those being bodyshots that allowed him into the clinch. He didn't enter blindly, he entered off his own significant strikes, they just weren't head strikes. Defence doesn't score in MMA, who cares if RDR missed and swings around. It doesn't matter because when he did land he was able to get Whittaker against the cage and land 60+ strikes from there.

The striking criteria is scored off effective offence. That offence is scored of damage and impact. Impact means:
Impact includes visible evidence such as swelling and lacerations. Impact shall also be assessed when a fighter’s actions, using striking and/or grappling, leadto a diminishing of their opponents’ energy, confidence, abilities and spirit.

Rob landed jabs at range, RDR landed body shots that allowed him into the clinch to land further offence. Rob's strikes had less impact on the fight in the 5th.
Rob got overwhelmed and didn't catch the big shot like in the third.

 

[maximus__]

Its a tactic that because of physics, weight, angles and the fact that the fight needs to take place within a cage that is flexible its an advantage for the taller person to do AND its allow the fighters to rest. If anything, not getting the pinned fighter down before he is able to escape should be counted as a point for said fight thus cancelling the control time "point". Its also hard to look past this in the rules: "
Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance.
What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed."

RDR proceeds to land only 2 less sig strikes at range and 73 strikes total against the cage.
But Rob wins via 2 more strikes that were single jabs moving backwards onto the cage to be controlled and hit... lets just ignore the rest of the round for 2 jabs...

 

[Langinbang187]

What damage was scored by Whittaker in the 5th? He landed jabs at range. Those jabs had so little impact (scoring criteria) that RDR was able to get inside and land his own offence. RDR landed 9 sig strikes at range with 6 of those being bodyshots that allowed him into the clinch. He didn't enter blindly, he entered off his own significant strikes, they just weren't head strikes. Defence doesn't score in MMA, who cares if RDR missed and swings around. It doesn't matter because when he did land he was able to get Whittaker against the cage and land 60+ strikes from there.

The striking criteria is scored off effective offence. That offence is scored of damage and impact. Impact means:
Impact includes visible evidence such as swelling and lacerations. Impact shall also be assessed when a fighter’s actions, using striking and/or grappling, leadto a diminishing of their opponents’ energy, confidence, abilities and spirit.

Rob landed jabs at range, RDR landed body shots that allowed him into the clinch to land further offence. Rob's strikes had less impact on the fight in the 5th.
Rob got overwhelmed and didn't catch the big shot like in the third.

Lol what the fuck does that even mean? The exact same argument could be made for any strike that doesn't knock an individual unconscious. Bobby landed jabs that backed RDR up, who landed absolutely nothing of substance of his own.

To dumb this down for you -- It was a terrible main event between two individuals who were extremely gassed, with damage being the main scoring criteria, I scored the fifth for Bobby as he was the only one of the two fighters actually landing some flush strikes with any kind of meaningful impact.

Your entire argument for RDR winning is essentially non-existent damaging clinch "strikes" that did zero damage, were rightfully not considered significant strikes. The 11-9 count(which favored Bobby) I would argue is too favorable for both fighters, I didn't see a single strike of even remote significance landed by RDR, dude was struggling just to lift his knee high enough to touch Bobby's forearm with those so called "pummeling" strikes you keep inventing in your head. RDR threw great knees early in the fight, in the final round he merely used it as a distraction to get underhooks to survive the round.

Bottom line -- Bobby inflicted more damage than RDR in round 5, I don't see how you can even remotely dispute this in good faith.

 

[Danespina]

I know it was close, but that was a huge win for the double ONE FC champion.

 

[SuperAlly]

I bet you almost kissed a girl once and pat yourself on the back for it

Thing is, my point is actually related to how MMA fights are scores

Bisping tells everyone nearly every times there's an event and him and his colleagues have actually been through meetings on how MMA fights are scored in this current era.

If this was 10 or 20 years ago, RDR gets that round on control time. Under current scoring Rob gets it because he was one punch from a stoppage after putting him on his ass and blasting him on the floor. That's as close to a stoppage without actually getting one as you can be.

 

[maximus__]

Lol what the fuck does that even mean? The exact same argument could be made for any strike that doesn't knock an individual unconscious. Bobby landed jabs that backed RDR up, who landed absolutely nothing of substance of his own.

To dumb this down for you -- It was a terrible main event between two individuals who were extremely gassed, with damage being the main scoring criteria, I scored the fifth for Bobby as he was the only one of the two fighters actually landing some flush strikes with any kind of meaningful impact.

Your entire argument for RDR winning is essentially non-existent damaging clinch "strikes" that did zero damage, were rightfully not considered significant strikes. The 11-9 count(which favored Bobby) I would argue is too favorable for both fighters, I didn't see a single strike of even remote significance landed by RDR, dude was struggling just to lift his knee high enough to touch Bobby's forearm with those so called "pummeling" strikes you keep inventing in your head. RDR threw great knees early in the fight, in the final round he merely used it as a distraction to get underhooks to survive the round.

Bottom line -- Bobby inflicted more damage than RDR in round 5, I don't see how you can even remotely dispute this in good faith.

Bobby was the one with the underhook in the 5th... RDR did his work with the Whizzer/Over hook and head position.

He just did a podcast with Mighty mouse where he mentioned he uses the overhook position because of his height.

Bobby held on in the clinch. RDR was landing offence and trying to wrestle. You watched a different fight.

11 Jabs don't mean more than what RDR landed and that's before we go into the clinch portion. 11-9 sig strikes with RDRs leading to more offence against the cage.

This isn't boxing, a jab going backwards doesn't score more than someone using body shots to enter the clinch, hold that position and then land repeated shots and takedown attempts. It's MMA and is scored as such.

So much damage...

 

[Langinbang187]

Bobby was the one with the underhook in the 5th... RDR did his work with the Whizzer/Over hook and head position.

He just did a podcast with Mighty mouse where he mentioned he uses the overhook position because of his height.

Bobby held on in the clinch. RDR was landing offence and trying to wrestle. You watched a different fight.

11 Jabs don't mean more than what RDR landed and that's before we go into the clinch portion. 11-9 sig strikes with RDRs leading to more offence against the cage.

This isn't boxing, a jab going backwards doesn't score more than someone using body shots to enter the clinch, hold that position and then land repeated shots and takedown attempts. It's MMA and is scored as such.

So much damage...

View attachment 1105934

Okay, now I know you're being obtuse intentionally. Bobby most certainly had underhooks himself in the fifth, but to outright deny the objective reality that RDR has underhooks in the fifth round is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life.

What the fuck does a podcast have to do with what transpired in round 5? Yeah again, you're completely and utterly failing to recognize that damage in an extremely uneventful fifth round doesn't need to lead to an individual being busted up, leaking significantly. Whittaker simply landed the more potent strikes in the final round of a not so impressive main event between two gassed fighters.

"This isn't boxing a jab going backwards" ... What are you talking about? Whittaker landed his most effective jabs pressing forward, not backing up lol...you are correct evidently we did watch a different fight.

To deny that RDR ever had underhooks in round is again something that takes mere seconds to debunk. I get that we have opinions regarding who won the fifth round, but you continue to drown yourself by mixing up facts with reality.

Reality : RDR did indeed engage in the clinch and proceed with underhooks in round 5, this isn't an opinion dude. Attachment 2, we can't tell for sure, but there is no denying the first one.

 

[maximus__]

Okay, now I know you're being obtuse intentionally. Bobby most certainly had underhooks himself in the fifth, but to outright deny the objective reality that RDR has underhooks in the fifth round is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life.

What the fuck does a podcast have to do with what transpired in round 5? Yeah again, you're completely and utterly failing to recognize that damage in an extremely uneventful fifth round doesn't need to lead to an individual being busted up, leaking significantly. Whittaker simply landed the more potent strikes in the final round of a not so impressive main event between two gassed fighters.

"This isn't boxing a jab going backwards" ... What are you talking about? Whittaker landed his most effective jabs pressing forward, not backing up lol...you are correct evidently we did watch a different fight.

To deny that RDR ever had underhooks in round is again something that takes mere seconds to debunk. I get that we have opinions regarding who won the fifth round, but you continue to drown yourself by mixing up facts with reality.

Reality : RDR did indeed engage in the clinch and proceed with underhooks in round 5, this isn't an opinion dude. Attachment 2, we can't tell for sure, but there is no denying the first one.

That's an over under position in your pictures. He has an over hook AND an under hook. When he throws his knees he moves to the overhook position and uses his head to control him. He then grabbed a wrist grip with the underhooking side to land the knees. Rob was only able to get off the cage because HE used the underhooks. Rob was holding double underhooks and staring up at the clock waiting to survive.

If Whittaker was moving forward with his jabs, how could he be pressed against the cage all round? How can you move forward throwing jabs if you spent the round with your back against the cage?

The best part about all this is all 3 judges gave the 5th to RDR. Mike Bell gave Whittaker the 4th a round RDR outlanded Rob by double.
Only person with any visible damage and blood at the end of the fight is Rob...



5th round for you by the way. So much damage by Whittaker (still trying to find it). RDR working predominantly from the over hook and Rob with double unders except for 2 exchanges on the wall as Rob tries to retreat. RDR landing big knees, his own jabs and from min 2 onwards Rob on the back foot jabbing in retreat for most combos. Rob didn't land a right hand in the 5th outside of his own body shots, but bodyshots don't count apparently.

Never mind the fact at 1:33 left RDR lands another big knee, has Whittaker going backwards with his hands down, lands his own big rear hand at 1:13 left which has Rob run from one side of the cage to the other. Another knee at 1:13, with Rob holding double unders again.

Let's just ignore the fact that RDR comes forward whenever Rob lands a shot and Rob is on his bike whenever RDR lands.

 

[Tweak896]

It's also 9-3 in significant head shots definitely a closer round to maybe throw Rob.

I'm still shocked that people including Bell (although not really since he gave grasso a 10-8) round four because RDR legitimately won every criteria there. Rob didn't even attempt a 2 punch combo in 5 minutes.

I thought RDR was going to roll Whittaker over and sub him, guess so did RDR. Whittaker looked unstoppable 1st round and every blitz was his old school style of aggression and power. It's clear how badly he was sapped in the last 2 rounds, not saying RDR wasn't gassed as well, but Whittaker was labored in everything he did. I had 2-1 Whittaker after round 3, but to me it was obvious that he was spent after that last shot to try and finish RDR.

Round 4 was semi close, but I score it for him, making it 2-2 into the 5th. Wasn't pretty but I thought RDR did enough to get the last round. Whittaker has had so many close fights people like to argue about, after a certain point he should've reflected on making changes so it stops happening.

It was a close fight, and Rob exposed RDR's weird stand up defense, but I think RDR also showed Rob isn't championship material anymore in later rounds. Whoever you scored it for, still even if they won it was an ugly fight. Atleast RDR winning brings new blood to the top of MW rankings.

 

[Langinbang187]

That's an over under position in your pictures. He has an over hook AND an under hook. When he throws his knees he moves to the overhook position and uses his head to control him. He then grabbed a wrist grip with the underhooking side to land the knees. Rob was only able to get off the cage because HE used the underhooks. Rob was holding double underhooks and staring up at the clock waiting to survive.

If Whittaker was moving forward with his jabs, how could he be pressed against the cage all round? How can you move forward throwing jabs if you spent the round with your back against the cage?

The best part about all this is all 3 judges gave the 5th to RDR. Mike Bell gave Whittaker the 4th a round RDR outlanded Rob by double.
Only person with any visible damage and blood at the end of the fight is Rob...



5th round for you by the way. So much damage by Whittaker (still trying to find it). RDR working predominantly from the over hook and Rob with double unders except for 2 exchanges on the wall as Rob tries to retreat. RDR landing big knees, his own jabs and from min 2 onwards Rob on the back foot jabbing in retreat for most combos. Rob didn't land a right hand in the 5th outside of his own body shots, but bodyshots don't count apparently.

Never mind the fact at 1:33 left RDR lands another big knee, has Whittaker going backwards with his hands down, lands his own big rear hand at 1:13 left which has Rob run from one side of the cage to the other. Another knee at 1:13, with Rob holding double unders again.

Let's just ignore the fact that RDR comes forward whenever Rob lands a shot and Rob is on his bike whenever RDR lands.


View attachment 1105943

Incorrect, you're correct that he DOES move to an over/under, only after initially securing double hunderhooks, which he does numerous times in the fifth round that you just posted yourself.

"If Whittaker was moving forward with his jab, how could he be pressed against the cage" -- Because fighters change positions, literally all the time. Since your bias is seemingly so strong you were unable to witness RDR get his face punched in, I've decided to be kind enough to screenshot the most damaging strikes of the fifth round.

It is very important that we respect reality and let our clear bias take a back seat when discussing what has actually transpired during a fight. If you wish to continue to showcase ignorance I'll be happy to showcase how an individual(Whittaker) can land strikes and still end pressed against the fence despite landing strikes moving forward...it may be tough to believe, but one does not need to be moving forward to engage in the clinch.

Most importantly of all -- You fail miserably here with an argument from authority fallacy, my entire argument is AGAINST the judges decision, and you make my point perfectly for me showcasing their incompetence by pointing out that one of the judges scored round 4 for RDR despite Rob being "outlanded by double" -- You really didn't think this argument through before pressing send, huh?

At the end of the day you're an extremely biased individual who places significantly more emphasis on glancing, touching strikes and hugging as opposed to crisp, flush strikes off an individuals skull. You also cannot even be consistent enough in your own points as to go a single post without directly poking holes in your very own arguments, quite frankly you've done a better job at debunking your own arguments than I could ever do myself, particularly with that wonderful hit on Mr. Bell in round 4...well done!

 

[wrb]

https://forums.sherdog.com/attachments/1753626867693-png.1105959/

Check out the welt Rob created in round 5: https://forums.sherdog.com/attachments/1753626377023-png.1105954/

 

[Langinbang187]

https://forums.sherdog.com/attachments/1753626867693-png.1105959/

Check out the welt Rob created in round 5: https://forums.sherdog.com/attachments/1753626377023-png.1105954/

Objectively more damage than RDR caused lol

 

[wrb]

Objectively more damage than RDR caused lol

Did you see the sig strike count at 25 seconds left in the 5 ?