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

[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.

 

[Langinbang187]

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.

Of course you did, initially you talked about the blood coming from the nose and mouth, when I pointed out that was transpiring since early in the fight you shifted to "well the cut on the bridge of the nose is new..it happened from the overhand"...all the way down to "well he re-opened the cut"

No, he didn't do that either, they don't actually seal cuts in the corner, they do their best to stop, slow the bleeding...the wound remains open and if it's touched again is extremely likely to begin bleeding more, this isn't rocket science man, hell even certain movements from the fighter himself can cause the cut to begin bleeding again.

"You aren't even arguing about the fight anymore"

First thing you've said I agree with in a while -- When I have the fight on FightPass in front of my eyes and somebody is fabricating stories about the amount of damage, phantom combinations that simply missed, didn't land all while blatantly dismissing screenshots that debunk the overwhelming vast majority of your little drunk dream, there isn't much to discuss.

There was no new cut, there was no "re-opened" cut, there was no four strike combo thrown in succession...none of these things transpired. I never argued that it was "re-opened", if a trickle of blood going down the nose if a previously already opened, bleeding wound is your best evidence for significant physical damage....you don't have much haha.

You evidently aren't bright enough to realize I'm actually utilizing your very own argument against you -- Member when you brought up the ol' fairytale about RDR cutting open Whittakers nose in the fifth as evidence that RDR did more damage, won the round? Well, unlike your fabrication the knot on the temple did actually occur in the round. It's simple.

As far as adding clean striking to their scoring system...well, it's already there, no need to add it....they simply aren't particularly good at their jobs.

 

[maximus__]

Of course you did, initially you talked about the blood coming from the nose and mouth, when I pointed out that was transpiring since early in the fight you shifted to "well the cut on the bridge of the nose is new..it happened from the overhand"...all the way down to "well he re-opened the cut"

No, he didn't do that either, they don't actually seal cuts in the corner, they do their best to stop, slow the bleeding...the wound remains open and if it's touched again is extremely likely to begin bleeding more, this isn't rocket science man, hell even certain movements from the fighter himself can cause the cut to begin bleeding again.

"You aren't even arguing about the fight anymore"

First thing you've said I agree with in a while -- When I have the fight on FightPass in front of my eyes and somebody is fabricating stories about the amount of damage, phantom combinations that simply missed, didn't land all while blatantly dismissing screenshots that debunk the overwhelming vast majority of your little drunk dream, there isn't much to discuss.

There was no new cut, there was no "re-opened" cut, there was no four strike combo thrown in succession...none of these things transpired. I never argued that it was "re-opened", if a trickle of blood going down the nose if a previously already opened, bleeding wound is your best evidence for significant physical damage....you don't have much haha.

You evidently aren't bright enough to realize I'm actually utilizing your very own argument against you -- Member when you brought up the ol' fairytale about RDR cutting open Whittakers nose in the fifth as evidence that RDR did more damage, won the round? Well, unlike your fabrication the knot on the temple did actually occur in the round. It's simple.

As far as adding clean striking to their scoring system...well, it's already there, no need to add it....they simply aren't particularly good at their jobs.

They do seal it... with vaseline. God I actually had to say it, that's even sadder. I have worked in corners before.

You have posted multiple posts about some cut that I didn't even argue with you about for some reason. I don't get why you are so fixated on it.

I never argued against what you said about it happening in the 4th instead. The reality is that it shows RDR causing damage within that round and landing a shot you don't think landed with any impact. It landed enough to cause visible damage to the fighter.

My argument? It was your argument earlier. You said that Rob was causing damage, I just pointed out that actually RDR causes damage. Then you made up the new rule that the "newest damage" is more important and continuing to cause damage or creating further damage doesn't count.

Actually no "clean" strikes aren't scored in MMA. It's what differentiates it from boxing.

Boxing criteria:
There are also a number of things that the judges are told to look out for in order to effectively decide the winner of each round. These are:

Effective Aggression - If a fighter is being very aggressive then it can give the illusion that they are controlling the fight. However, if their punches are not landing and they are consistently getting blocked and countered then the aggression cannot be considered effective.

Ring Generalship - Ring generalship is all about rewarding the fighter who is controlling the ring most effectively. Judges should always take into consideration who is pushing the pace in the fight.

Defence - A good defence is also important to the judge scoring. A judge will look at how well a fighter is slipping, blocking and parrying punches to determine the effectiveness of their defence.

Clean Punches Landed - To everyone watching a fight at home it may seem like a boxer who is throwing a lot of punches is landing them. However, the trained judges are in a perfect position to see what shots are landing and what shots are not.

MMA scoring doesn't include the clean punches landed criteria.

This is actually what it says about impact or what most people refer to as "damage" and effective striking:

Effective striking is judged by determining the impact/effect of legal strikes landed by a contestant solely based on the results of such legal strikes. Effective grappling is assessed by the successful executions and impactful/effective result(s)coming from: takedown(s),submission attempt(s), achieving an advantageous position(s) and reversal(s).

2. Impact: A judge shall assess if a fighter impacts their opponent significantly in the round, even though they may not have dominated the action. Impact includes visible evidence such as swelling and lacerations. Impact shall also be assessed when a fighter’s actions, using striking and/orgrappling, lead to a diminishing of their opponent’s energy, confidence, abilities and spirit. All of these come as a direct result of impact. When a fighter is impacted by strikes, by lack of control and/or ability, this can create defining moments in the round and shall be assessed with great value.

https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/unified-mma-rules-rev-july-2024.pdf

A point of note is that "cleanest strikes" is not mentioned within the MMA scoring at any point. It's all about using effective striking AND grappling to try and cause offence. Impact includes swelling and damage, but is more than shots landed, it says "lead to a diminishing of their opponent’s energy, confidence, abilities and spirit."

At best you have an argument for a draw for the Impact criteria in this fight(i disagree, but it's defendable) which means we move to the dominance and duration criteria, which RDR wins.

In the end RDR wins by the actual MMA scoring criteria. If it makes you feel better he wins in boxing.

They are in the process of updating to clarify the damage/impact criteria, but that hasn't come through yet.

 

[Langinbang187]

They do seal it... with vaseline. God I actually had to say it, that's even sadder. I have worked in corners before.

You have posted multiple posts about some cut that I didn't even argue with you about for some reason. I don't get why you are so fixated on it.

I never argued against what you said about it happening in the 4th instead. The reality is that it shows RDR causing damage within that round and landing a shot you don't think landed with any impact. It landed enough to cause visible damage to the fighter.

My argument? It was your argument earlier. You said that Rob was causing damage, I just pointed out that actually RDR causes damage. Then you made up the new rule that the "newest damage" is more important and continuing to cause damage or creating further damage doesn't count.

Actually no "clean" strikes aren't scored in MMA. It's what differentiates it from boxing.

Boxing criteria:
There are also a number of things that the judges are told to look out for in order to effectively decide the winner of each round. These are:

Effective Aggression - If a fighter is being very aggressive then it can give the illusion that they are controlling the fight. However, if their punches are not landing and they are consistently getting blocked and countered then the aggression cannot be considered effective.

Ring Generalship - Ring generalship is all about rewarding the fighter who is controlling the ring most effectively. Judges should always take into consideration who is pushing the pace in the fight.

Defence - A good defence is also important to the judge scoring. A judge will look at how well a fighter is slipping, blocking and parrying punches to determine the effectiveness of their defence.

Clean Punches Landed - To everyone watching a fight at home it may seem like a boxer who is throwing a lot of punches is landing them. However, the trained judges are in a perfect position to see what shots are landing and what shots are not.

MMA scoring doesn't include the clean punches landed criteria.

This is actually what it says about impact or what most people refer to as "damage" and effective striking:

Effective striking is judged by determining the impact/effect of legal strikes landed by a contestant solely based on the results of such legal strikes. Effective grappling is assessed by the successful executions and impactful/effective result(s)coming from: takedown(s),submission attempt(s), achieving an advantageous position(s) and reversal(s).

2. Impact: A judge shall assess if a fighter impacts their opponent significantly in the round, even though they may not have dominated the action. Impact includes visible evidence such as swelling and lacerations. Impact shall also be assessed when a fighter’s actions, using striking and/orgrappling, lead to a diminishing of their opponent’s energy, confidence, abilities and spirit. All of these come as a direct result of impact. When a fighter is impacted by strikes, by lack of control and/or ability, this can create defining moments in the round and shall be assessed with great value.

https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/unified-mma-rules-rev-july-2024.pdf

A point of note is that "cleanest strikes" is not mentioned within the MMA scoring at any point. It's all about using effective striking AND grappling to try and cause offence. Impact includes swelling and damage, but is more than shots landed, it says "lead to a diminishing of their opponent’s energy, confidence, abilities and spirit."

At best you have an argument for a draw for the Impact criteria in this fight(i disagree, but it's defendable) which means we move to the dominance and duration criteria, which RDR wins.

In the end RDR wins by the actual MMA scoring criteria. If it makes you feel better he wins in boxing.

They are in the process of updating to clarify the damage/impact criteria, but that hasn't come through yet.

There's just no way you're actually serious right now...I refuse to believe you are...and that says A LOT being on this site. You worked corners and you think shoving Vaseline in an open wound actually fucking seals the wound? It fills the wound and prevents bleeding, it's a useful tool, it does not actually "seal" the wound, it temporarily fills it. Are you for real right now? The next time I get split open I'll just put some Vaseline on the wound, no need to get stitches, when you add vaseline the gaping wound simply ceases to be open any longer, it's all good and ready to go! Vaseline is not a coagulant man....it's a temporary fix to prevent bleeding, help hide the wound from the opponent, it isn't going to seal up an open wound.

It's like digging a 6 foot hole, filling it with water and then pretending the hole no longer exists, that isn't how wounds heal bro, let this shit go..

I can see why you no longer corner hahahaha...you cornered fights? I'm casting some doubt on that considering you don't even know what a basic combination is.

Objectively, clean strikes are generally more effective than glancing blows, the general exception being if the glancing blow opens up a significant wound, which didn't transpire in this fight. The only one who actually implemented fresh physical damage in round 5 was indeed Whittaker who again, put a nasty knot on the temple of RDR

"Clean" and impactful, damaging are not mutually exclusive, in fact that can all very much mean the exact same thing.

 

[maximus__]

There's just no way you're actually serious right now...I refuse to believe you are...and that says A LOT being on this site. You worked corners and you think shoving Vaseline in an open wound actually fucking seals the wound? It fills the wound and prevents bleeding, it's a useful tool, it does not actually "seal" the wound, it temporarily fills it. Are you for real right now? The next time I get split open I'll just put some Vaseline on the wound, no need to get stitches, when you add vaseline the gaping wound simply ceases to be open any longer, it's all good and ready to go! Vaseline is not a coagulant man....it's a temporary fix to prevent bleeding, help hide the wound from the opponent, it isn't going to seal up an open wound.

It's like digging a 6 foot hole, filling it with water and then pretending the hole no longer exists, that isn't how wounds heal bro, let this shit go..

I can see why you no longer corner hahahaha...you cornered fights? I'm casting some doubt on that considering you don't even know what a basic combination is.

Objectively, clean strikes are generally more effective than glancing blows, the general exception being if the glancing blow opens up a significant wound, which didn't transpire in this fight. The only one who actually implemented fresh physical damage in round 5 was indeed Whittaker who again, put a nasty knot on the temple of RDR

"Clean" and impactful, damaging are not mutually exclusive, in fact that can all very much mean the exact same thing.

Yes of course. Now you have made up some new thing to fixate on. Of course I clearly meant to use a temporary measure within a break in the fight is comparable to fully stitching up a cut. Come on at this point it's just embarrassing. Still making up stories and moving goal posts, whilst saying I am the one doing that.

MMA doesn't utilise the defensive criteria or clean striking criteria from boxing or other striking sports. It's what actually differentiates the sport for scoring striking.

They do use aggressiveness and their version of ring generalship (control of fighting area):
Judges shall evaluate Mixed Martial Arts techniques, such as effective striking/grappling(Plan A), effective aggressiveness(Plan B),and control of the fightingarea(Plan C).Plans B and C are not taken into consideration unless Plan A is weighed as being even.

"Clean" is not mentioned anywhere. You pretend it is part of the criteria but it was specifically not included so that MMA was an offence based sport.The scoring is about rewarding the fighter landing offence and trying to finish the fight. They wanted brawls as opposed to technical defensive fights like boxing.

 

[Langinbang187]

Yes of course. Now you have made up some new thing to fixate on. Of course I clearly meant to use a temporary measure within a break in the fight is comparable to fully stitching up a cut. Come on at this point it's just embarrassing. Still making up stories and moving goal posts, whilst saying I am the one doing that.

MMA doesn't utilise the defensive criteria or clean striking criteria from boxing or other striking sports. It's what actually differentiates the sport for scoring striking.

They do use aggressiveness and their version of ring generalship (control of fighting area):
Judges shall evaluate Mixed Martial Arts techniques, such as effective striking/grappling(Plan A), effective aggressiveness(Plan B),and control of the fightingarea(Plan C).Plans B and C are not taken into consideration unless Plan A is weighed as being even.

"Clean" is not mentioned anywhere. You pretend it is part of the criteria but it was specifically not included so that MMA was an offence based sport.The scoring is about rewarding the fighter landing offence and trying to finish the fight. They wanted brawls as opposed to technical defensive fights like boxing.

No dude, it's the fact that you simply refuse to own up to any false claim you make, even when it directly contradicts objective reality. Vaseline does not seal an open wound bro, it's that simple.

Stop moving goal posts, stop making excuses and just say "You're right, I was wrong about the cut not being there prior and also wrong about it being re-opened" and I would happily move on from it...it's the blatant refusal to concede a single point that is the most interesting remaining right now, like complete and utter delusional, narcissistic behavior on full display lol.

"Clean" doesn't need to be directly mentioned in word form, it's just another term for a flush, impacting landing strikes.

Again, clean strikes are typically significantly more effective, damaging than glancing blows, this really isn't rocket science man.

 

[maximus__]

No dude, it's the fact that you simply refuse to own up to any false claim you make, even when it directly contradicts objective reality. Vaseline does not seal an open wound bro, it's that simple.

Stop moving goal posts, stop making excuses and just say "You're right, I was wrong about the cut not being there prior and also wrong about it being re-opened" and I would happily move on from it...it's the blatant refusal to concede a single point that is the most interesting remaining right now, like complete and utter delusional, narcissistic behavior on full display lol.

"Clean" doesn't need to be directly mentioned in word form, it's just another term for a flush, impacting landing strikes.

Again, clean strikes are typically significantly more effective, damaging than glancing blows, this really isn't rocket science man.

I said that in the post immediately after you pointed it out. You made some major deal about something I never argued about and I kept referring you to that post.

So let's get this straight... MMA adopts the 10 point must system of boxing, but specifically removes two of the scoring criteria used within the sport being defence and clean striking. They completely remove defence from the scoring and make effective striking all about offence and trying to finish the fight. Now you want to say clean striking scores more, even when they remove it and make it all about simply landing offence and trying to finish the fight?

You are making up scoring criteria again. MMA differentiates itself from other striking sports by removing both these criteria for scoring striking exchanges. They don't give a shit how "clean" the strikes are. They just want people to fight and try to finish each other.

 

[Langinbang187]

I said that in the post immediately after you pointed it out. You made some major deal about something I never argued about and I kept referring you to that post.

So let's get this straight... MMA adopts the 10 point must system of boxing, but specifically removes two of the scoring criteria used within the sport being defence and clean striking. They completely remove defence from the scoring and make effective striking all about offence and trying to finish the fight. Now you want to say clean striking scores more, even when they remove it and make it all about simply landing offence and trying to finish the fight?

You are making up scoring criteria again. MMA differentiates itself from other striking sports by removing both these criteria for scoring striking exchanges. They don't give a shit how "clean" the strikes are. They just want people to fight and try to finish each other.

You mean I made a deal of you posting false information? Sure I did, because it's ridiculous. The vaseline comment was one of the dumbest fucking posts I've ever read on sherdog.

You might to re-check the scoring differentials between MMA and boxing. There's a lot more than two things that aren't adopted by MMA...another being a knockdown being an automatic 10-8 round, you aren't even guaranteed to win an MMA round with a knockdown 10-9 in MMA, but we see it happen all the time. Case in point -- Round 3 largely dominated by RDR, who has Whittaker hurt and then gets absolutely decked by a clean overhand right and dropped, nobody with a brain in their skull would argue that round for RDA after that shot, there is no rule that states a knockdown should result in the round being given to Whittaker, but it goes his way because that knockdown is three things

1) Lands clean, a clean strike

2) An Effective strike

3) A damaging strikes.

They all fall under the same umbrella.


"They don't give a shit how clean the strikes are"


Okay, not you're just going full retard. Clean is simply a word to describe flush, accurate landing shots. What the fuck do you mean the judges "don't care" if the strikes land clean? Relative to what? Missing strikes? Glancing strikes? What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Aurelian]

You mean I made a deal of you posting false information? Sure I did, because it's ridiculous. The vaseline comment was one of the dumbest fucking posts I've ever read on sherdog.

You might to re-check the scoring differentials between MMA and boxing. There's a lot more than two things that aren't adopted by MMA...another being a knockdown being an automatic 10-8 round, you aren't even guaranteed to win an MMA round with a knockdown 10-9 in MMA, but we see it happen all the time. Case in point -- Round 3 largely dominated by RDR, who has Whittaker hurt and then gets absolutely decked by a clean overhand right and dropped, nobody with a brain in their skull would argue that round for RDA after that shot, there is no rule that states a knockdown should result in the round being given to Whittaker, but it goes his way because that knockdown is three things

1) Lands clean, a clean strike

2) An Effective strike

3) A damaging strikes.

They all fall under the same umbrella.


"They don't give a shit how clean the strikes are"


Okay, not you're just going full retard. Clean is simply a word to describe flush, accurate landing shots. What the fuck do you mean the judges "don't care" if the strikes land clean? Relative to what? Missing strikes? Glancing strikes? What the fuck are you talking about?

On MMA decisions. 720 fan scorecards were submitted. 66% of people gave Reindeer the 5th round. 31% of people gave Rob the 5th. This isn't all that controversial.

Reinier de Ridder def. Robert Whittaker :: UFC on ABC 9 :: MMA Decisions

mmadecisions.com

 

[Langinbang187]

On MMA decisions. 720 fan scorecards were submitted. 66% of people gave Reindeer the 5th round. 31% of people gave Rob the 5th. This isn't all that controversial.

Reinier de Ridder def. Robert Whittaker :: UFC on ABC 9 :: MMA Decisions

mmadecisions.com

Nearly 40% of individuals who voted scored the for Rob, with only the 5th round being contested.

Those raw numbers are absolute mess, by the way.

The 5th round was objectively close, the media scores reflect as much as well.

I don't necessarily think it's controversial, I think it was a close round that Rob edged out by landing a few more impacting strikes to the head.

 

[Aurelian]

Nearly 40% of individuals who voted scored the for Rob, with only the 5th round being contested.

Those raw numbers are absolute mess, by the way.

Some fans scored the round a draw. Kind of stupid I know but I assume if these guys are hardcore enough to sign up to MMA decisions and submit fan scorecards they watch fights often enough.

I'm just saying, this wasn't any sort of robbery. It was just a really really close fight. It was a fun fight too.

 

[Langinbang187]

Some fans scored the round a draw. Kind of stupid I know but I assume if these guys are hardcore enough to sign up to MMA decisions and submit fan scorecards they watch fights often enough.

I'm just saying, this wasn't any sort of robbery. It was just a really really close fight. It was a fun fight too.

I never claimed it to be a robbery, merely stated that I scored the round for Rob based on landing the better strikes that round while RDR was looking absolutely exhausted towards the end of the round in particular.

Media scores reflect just how competitive the round was as well.

 

[Aurelian]

I never claimed it to be a robbery, merely stated that I scored the round for Rob based on landing the better strikes that round while RDR was looking absolutely exhausted towards the end of the round in particular.

Media scores reflect just how competitive the round was as well.

By the end of round 3, both guys had already beat the living fuck out of each other. They were both gassed. Neither the 4th or 5th were really spectacular, but that's just the effects of how the first 3 rounds went.

Rob definitely would have won a 3 rounder. Those 2 extra rounds allowed Reindeer to use his size to steal rounds. Neither guy really had a whole lot left to give there.

 

[maximus__]

You mean I made a deal of you posting false information? Sure I did, because it's ridiculous. The vaseline comment was one of the dumbest fucking posts I've ever read on sherdog.

You might to re-check the scoring differentials between MMA and boxing. There's a lot more than two things that aren't adopted by MMA...another being a knockdown being an automatic 10-8 round, you aren't even guaranteed to win an MMA round with a knockdown 10-9 in MMA, but we see it happen all the time. Case in point -- Round 3 largely dominated by RDR, who has Whittaker hurt and then gets absolutely decked by a clean overhand right and dropped, nobody with a brain in their skull would argue that round for RDA after that shot, there is no rule that states a knockdown should result in the round being given to Whittaker, but it goes his way because that knockdown is three things

1) Lands clean, a clean strike

2) An Effective strike

3) A damaging strikes.

They all fall under the same umbrella.


"They don't give a shit how clean the strikes are"


Okay, not you're just going full retard. Clean is simply a word to describe flush, accurate landing shots. What the fuck do you mean the judges "don't care" if the strikes land clean? Relative to what? Missing strikes? Glancing strikes? What the fuck are you talking about?

No you posted multiple posts saying to answer a question I already answered multiple times. I kept pointing that out and you made a big deal out of something that is still RDR causing damage to Rob.

Go read up on what vaseline (or petroleum jelly) does... It acts as an occlusive moisturizer, meaning it forms a barrier that prevents moisture from escaping and protects the skin from external elements. Why is it used in fights? to temporarily "seal" a cut within the specified time frame allowed between rounds. If they could use wound dressing they would, but it's against the rules, so they use a temporary measure. Stop embarassing yourself because you defend your position on Rob winning the 5th round.

Yeah because in boxing you have to stop hitting your opponent and give them time to recover. It can't be 10-8 instantly because we have an entire other area to score in MMA. That's why they reward the fighter trying to finish the fight regardless of it being grappling or striking. They are scored equally and we move to the other criteria if that's equal.

Rob didn't win the 3rd on the knockdown. He won it on his follow up ground and pound shots that had RDR in trouble and close to finishing him. RDR clawed it back by taking top position and finishing the round being the one landing offence with Rob surviving to the bell. Seems Rob spent a lot of his time surviving and being saved in this fight, but RDR only had a single moment he was in the same position in the 3rd.

Lucky Rob had a shower first and was the "cleaner striker" .At this point thats a better argument than what you keep putting up.

 

[Langinbang187]

No you posted multiple posts saying to answer a question I already answered multiple times. I kept pointing that out and you made a big deal out of something that is still RDR causing damage to Rob.

Go read up on what vaseline (or petroleum jelly) does... It acts as an occlusive moisturizer, meaning it forms a barrier that prevents moisture from escaping and protects the skin from external elements. Why is it used in fights? to temporarily "seal" a cut within the specified time frame allowed between rounds. If they could use wound dressing they would, but it's against the rules, so they use a temporary measure. Stop embarassing yourself because you defend your position on Rob winning the 5th round.

Yeah because in boxing you have to stop hitting your opponent and give them time to recover. It can't be 10-8 instantly because we have an entire other area to score in MMA. That's why they reward the fighter trying to finish the fight regardless of it being grappling or striking. They are scored equally and we move to the other criteria if that's equal.

Rob didn't win the 3rd on the knockdown. He won it on his follow up ground and pound shots that had RDR in trouble and close to finishing him. RDR clawed it back by taking top position and finishing the round being the one landing offence with Rob surviving to the bell. Seems Rob spent a lot of his time surviving and being saved in this fight, but RDR only had a single moment he was in the same position in the 3rd.

Lucky Rob had a shower first and was the "cleaner striker" .At this point thats a better argument than what you keep putting up.

Yeah dude let me just jump through your 50+ previous posts in this very thread to dig through your novel length replies to get the "answer" to my questions because you're too stupid to answer a basic yes or no question. I mean, you do contradict yourself repeatedly, so I'm sure I could find whatever I want, but I've dug up more than enough exaggerations and lies to debunk by now, that'd just a waste of time at this point, you've taken enough Ls there.

I love the fact that you just used AI to attempt to answer a question. You'll notice that it used quoted around "sealed"...because it isn't actually sealed. Vaseline is not medical glue, it isn't a coagulant, it damn sure isn't a stitch..it does not seal a fucking open wound lol....it restricts blood, reduces friction, reduces visibility among other useful things...it does not actually seal a fucking open wound, you absolute doofus. This is essentially the equivalent of a bald man placing a baseball cap over his bald head and proclaiming he's no longer bald....only the fucking hat in this case is actually see through. This is without a doubt the absolute dumbest shit I've ever read in my life, and you say I'm embarrassing myself? Your lack of self awareness is on an entirely different level.

"Yeah because you have to ___" I don't give a shit WHY, I'm pointing out there are different rules in regards to how boxing and MMA is scored on the feet beyond the two that are mentioned. I understand the reasons why, but they're totally irrelevant regarding my point...which is literally simply their existence.

"Rob didn't win the round based on the knockdown"

Oh okay, the shot that dropped RDR, had him visibly completely and totally out of it was not the primary reason for Rob winning the round, it was the follow up shots that literally were only able to land BECAUSE of said shot? Boy I can't wait for this source, this is gonna be real good.

When you're done there I can't to hear all about how strikes that land clean, flush wouldn't be considered "effective" striking.

 

[maximus__]

Yeah dude let me just jump through your 50+ previous posts in this very thread to dig through your novel length replies to get the "answer" to my questions because you're too stupid to answer a basic yes or no question. I mean, you do contradict yourself repeatedly, so I'm sure I could find whatever I want, but I've dug up more than enough exaggerations and lies to debunk by now, that'd just a waste of time at this point, you've taken enough Ls there.

I love the fact that you just used AI to attempt to answer a question. You'll notice that it used quoted around "sealed"...because it isn't actually sealed. Vaseline is not medical glue, it isn't a coagulant, it damn sure isn't a stitch..it does not seal a fucking open wound lol....it restricts blood, reduces friction, reduces visibility among other useful things...it does not actually seal a fucking open wound, you absolute doofus. This is essentially the equivalent of a bald man placing a baseball cap over his bald head and proclaiming he's no longer bald....only the fucking hat in this case is actually see through. This is without a doubt the absolute dumbest shit I've ever read in my life, and you say I'm embarrassing myself? Your lack of self awareness is on an entirely different level.

"Yeah because you have to ___" I don't give a shit WHY, I'm pointing out there are different rules in regards to how boxing and MMA is scored on the feet beyond the two that are mentioned. I understand the reasons why, but they're totally irrelevant regarding my point...which is literally simply their existence.

"Rob didn't win the round based on the knockdown"

Oh okay, the shot that dropped him, had him visibly completely and totally out of it was not the primary reason for Rob winning the round, it was the follow up shots that literally were only able to land BECAUSE of said shot? Boy I can't wait for this source, this is gonna be real good.

When you're done there I can't to hear all about how strikes that land clean, flush wouldn't be considered "effective" striking.

You could just read them in the first instance. I didn't contradict anything As I showed you, my position didn't change.
I even then went and answered you questions again, referring to the previous posts and you still made up a story about what I said.

Again. Refer to my initial post about the use of vaseline between rounds, it's only a few back. They literally put it in the wound to prevent further bleeding and prevent other foreign bodies getting into it. Yes, it's not perfect but it's the closest that's allowed within the rules to seal the cut up. If they were allowed to do it with stitches and return to the fight a few weeks later they would do it. What a great argument , at this point even you have to realise you are being an idiot...

100% the follow up ground and pound is what put him over in the round. He dropped him and then had an extended period of offence where he landed clean shots and actually got within a few shots of the finish. If RDR had slipped and been hit with that ground and pound I would still give it to Rob. If RDR got dropped and then immediately got the takedown and the round played out the same(minus the ground and pound I wouldn't), I would lean towards a 10-10.

Rob's ground and pound 100% was effective. He landed some excellent shots during that sequence on the ground. He even washed his hands between rounds so his strikes were considered "cleaner"initially. Unfortunately the 3rd round is actually when his nose got split open, so his damage was "fresher" which means that RDR wins the round because Rob was no longer clean (too much blood) and RDR caused the "fresher" damage after being dropped and struck on the ground.

I still give the 3rd to Rob. That counter was perfect and his follow up shots were very close to finishing the fight. It's the only time he really did enough to steal a round by anything but volume of strikes like when he got the first round by landing more.

 

[Langinbang187]

You could just read them in the first instance. I didn't contradict anything As I showed you, my position didn't change.
I even then went and answered you questions again, referring to the previous posts and you still made up a story about what I said.

Again. Refer to my initial post about the use of vaseline between rounds, it's only a few back. They literally put it in the wound to prevent further bleeding and prevent other foreign bodies getting into it. Yes, it's not perfect but it's the closest that's allowed within the rules to seal the cut up. If they were allowed to do it with stitches and return to the fight a few weeks later they would do it. What a great argument , at this point even you have to realise you are being an idiot...

100% the follow up ground and pound is what put him over in the round. He dropped him and then had an extended period of offence where he landed clean shots and actually got within a few shots of the finish. If RDR had slipped and been hit with that ground and pound I would still give it to Rob. If RDR got dropped and then immediately got the takedown and the round played out the same(minus the ground and pound I wouldn't), I would lean towards a 10-10.

Rob's ground and pound 100% was effective. He landed some excellent shots during that sequence on the ground. He even washed his hands between rounds so his strikes were considered "cleaner"initially. Unfortunately the 3rd round is actually when his nose got split open, so his damage was "fresher" which means that RDR wins the round because Rob was no longer clean (too much blood) and RDR caused the "fresher" damage after being dropped and struck on the ground.

I still give the 3rd to Rob. That counter was perfect and his follow up shots were very close to finishing the fight. It's the only time he really did enough to steal a round by anything but volume of strikes like when he got the first round by landing more.

Hahahaha what do you mean? "The cut wasn't open in the first place" to "Re-opened the cut" isn't a changed position? Of course it is, and it's still wrong too, that's the best part.

You keep spewing the same nonsense, yes they do indeed place Vaseline over the open wound and it has a positive effect, if you would actually take the time to read, I've never disputed the Vaseline has a positive impact on restricting bleeding along other things....what it doesn't do is actually seal the wound as you keep claiming because your wittle ego refuses to concede a point.

What do you mean he landed "clean shots", I thought the judges didn't give a shit about clean shots, now they suddenly matter? Interesting.

I don't doubt that the ground and pound was a helpful contributing factor, but the most individual damaging blow that landed in that round(and for Rob in the entire fight) is undeniably the overhand right that dropped RDR and scrambled his brains, let him in a vulnerable position to make those strikes possibly in the first.

Do you not concur that the overhand was Rob's most important, effective strike of the 25 minute fight?

I also think Rob wins the round without the ground and pound, this wasn't just a flash knockdown situation where it's more of an off balance thing and the fighter hops right back up, RDR was completely out of it and sat there like a sitting duck, he couldn't have popped back up to his feet if he tried.

I see that you're making another "washing hands" clean joke...shame you have the charisma of a fucking lamp.