c. Judges shall evaluate Mixed Martial Arts techniques, such as effective striking/grappling(Plan A), effective aggressiveness(Plan B),and control of the fighting area(Plan C). Plans B and C are not taken into consideration unless Plan A is weighed as being even
d. Evaluations shall be made in the specific order in which the techniques appear in (c)above ,giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking/grappling, and effective aggressiveness, and control of the fighting area
Rules seem pretty clear that striking and grappling are weighted equally. Aggression and
octagon control (not grappling control) are considered after.
e. 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).
Seems to me Khamzat technically qualifies for that in all 3 rounds, but the impact/effectiveness is what's debatable.
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/or grappling, 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.
In the absence of real damage (cuts/knockdowns/bruising/etc), it comes down to sapping the opponents energy, confidence, abilities and spirit for both striking/grappling. I would argue Khamzat qualified for this metric with all 3 of his takedowns,
since there was no real damage by either fighter.
Again - if we agree real striking damage (cuts/wobbles/etc) is weighted more, then this is akin to pillow-fisted GNP right? Or a shitty leg kick? It may not be overwhelming or even super relevant, but it counts - especially when the other dude doesn't do shit.
3. Dominance: As MMA is an offensive based sport, dominance of a round can be seen in striking when the losing fighter is forced to continually defend, with no counters or reaction taken when openings present themselves. Dominance in the grappling phase can be seen by fighter staking dominant positions in the fight and utilizing those positions to attempt fight ending submissions or attacks. 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. In the absence of dominance in the grappling phase, as set forth in paragraph 3 of the promulgated rules, to be considered dominate, there must be a singularly or in combination, some types of submission attempts, strikes, or an overwhelming pace which is measured by improved or aggressive positional changes that cause the losing fighter to consistently be in a defensive or reactive mode
The orange is what is commonly cited as the "You have to do something with position" rule. But again, it quite literally says afterwards that
if that doesn't happen, if can still be considered dominant by aggressively trying to improve and keeping your opponent in a defensive and reactive mode.
I'm not sure if the 'dominance' section only applies to 10-8s, but for arguments sake lets assume it applies to everything. I wrote my take on this above, but this reads to me as "you can't lay in one position without making attempt to do absolutely anything". I don't recall Khamzat chilling and stalling out like Bruno Silva did, but rather Kamaru actively (and effectively) defending what Khamzat was trying to do. Chimaev was trying to do shit, but Usman was much more defensively responsible on the ground then Li Jingliang and Kevin Holland.
Unless there is real damage (cuts/bruising/wobbles/etc), it seems to me that the grappling absolutely should qualify. The idea that a 2 significant strike advantage in the second round equates to 41 seconds (15% of the round) of control is crazy to me. The idea that Usman's 9 pitter-patter strike advantage in the third equates to
over 2 minutes of control is crazy to me.
Let me just reiterate for the 100th time though because I know people are going to blast this post - I would have a 100% different perspective if Usman had knocked Chimaev down, cut him open, wobbled him badly, or threatened a finish at any moment of the fight. But without any real damage from Usman, I can't weight his actions more than the control from Chimaev from the rules I'm reading.
