Why does it matter who moves forward?

[ifindgifsforjackslack]

Brunson was beating Whittaker By running at him like a cannibal caveman with scurvy. Until he got ko’d

 

[ifindgifsforjackslack]

Damian Maia beat anderson Silva. Every round was a 10-8 for Maia. Damian Maia also utterly dominated Tyron. Cm punk was smashing Mickey until Mickey gall panic wrestled. Diaz 100% destroyed McGregor in the rematch. All the rounds Conor won were 10-8s for Diaz because McGregor was running. Damn we should score more fights like this, would really make ufc interesting. Imagine if leben survived against Anderson Silva. Utter goat for aggression.

 

[Perrichet]

Why land strikes like this when you can just move forward

 

[Fredwreck619]

Because for a fight to take place offense must be initiated. Otherwise, it would be a 2-man game of tag where neither man is "It". Pointless.

I had Reyes, btw, but I've always understood why octagon control is awarded consideration, and often decides very close fights when there is little else. Running isn't fighting. You must attack.

I wish somebody told that to the judges for all of Floyd Mayweather fights.
dude literally runs and hugs the whole time, and wins a fight by UD because he landed 2/2 jabs every round. Fucking wack and rigged.

 

[mudrubble]

I would be in favor of testing out giving judges access to Compubox numbers every round and make that part of their decision making when scoring a round. Volume of strikes shouldn't matter as much as significant strikes. If Reyes landed 3 more sig strikes than Jones and it's a close round otherwise, you give it to Reyes simply based on the numbers.

It may or may not work but clearly the way we are doing things now are broken.

I disagree 100%. I would not give Reyes or any fighter a round simply because they landed 3 more significant strikes and nothing in the rules supports this. There is no "significant strikes" scoring criteria.

There is a "damage" criteria and I support sticking to it. 3 extra strikes does NOT necessarily constitute more "damage" so if we used your idea we'd be moving away from damage and moving towards showy stats.

I value damage way higher than strike count in judging who won a round. Especially given the shaky definition of "significant".

Again, if Reyes DAMAGED Jones in any of the contested rounds, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't think landing 3 more shots matters much in who won a round, personally. Damage would have mattered and it should matter most.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

I disagree 100%. I would not give Reyes or any fighter a round simply because they landed 3 more significant strikes and nothing in the rules supports this. There is no "significant strikes" scoring criteria.

There is a "damage" criteria and I support sticking to it. 3 extra strikes does NOT necessarily constitute more "damage" so if we used your idea we'd be moving away from damage and moving towards showy stats.

I value damage way higher than strike count in judging who won a round. Especially given the shaky definition of "significant".

Again, if Reyes DAMAGED Jones in any of the contested rounds, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't think landing 3 more shots matters much in who won a round, personally. Damage would have mattered and it should matter most.

Significant strikes are considered damaging strikes. It's the reason why volume isn't counted. You could get someone throwing 200 pillow punches and it wouldn't matter. Significant strikes indicate it landed cleanly and had impact.

I agree if it was simply that Reyes landed 3 more strikes. That shouldn't matter. 3 more SIGNIFICANT strikes however, I think that should matter in a close round.

 

[mudrubble]

Significant strikes are considered damaging strikes. It's the reason why volume isn't counted. You could get someone throwing 200 pillow punches and it wouldn't matter. Significant strikes indicate it landed cleanly and had impact.

I agree if it was simply that Reyes landed 3 more strikes. That shouldn't matter. 3 more SIGNIFICANT strikes however, I think that should matter in a close round.

I respect you but I go back to significant means very little. Having 3 extra sig strikes does NOT mean that he caused more damage to Jon than vice versa in that round.

Significant strikes do NOT equal damage.

Just look at the strikes counted as significant yourself. Most of those rounds had NO damaging strikes but many significant strikes. One truly damaging strike should trump all those sig strikes that individually did very little to no damage. We've seen many, many fights with no damaging strikes thrown or landed and both guys coming out clean and ready to party. In those fights strike counts do record significant strikes. They don't count DAMAGING strikes because there are none and also because damaging strikes are so obvious in a round of fighting you hardly need to keep track.

If one of them landed a staggering blow that had the opponent on chicken legs, or a knock down, a flash ko that is recovered from, a punch or elbow that splits the opponent open, or swells their eye shut, etc. - such a DAMAGING strike would trump 50 "significant strikes".

So we can't say they're the same thing. And having 3 more of them might mean a lot (if those significant strikes caused actual damage as described above) or nothing (if no damage can be attributed to them but they landed and were "significant shots" as opposed to grazing shots).

That's my story and we're all going to stick to it!

 

[Willy Knuckles]

I don't understand.

If a fighter is moving forward the whole time but also walking into his opponents shots without landing much of his own, why is it a positive that he moved forward?

Not landing much of his own? He landed 8 less strikes

 

[Oooxente]

Its always a casual claiming that moving backward is running.

It depends.
Standing in fighting position and moving accordingly(lateral movement,feinting,blocking,countering)thatsthe difference between “Starneling” and “
Machidaling”.

Reyes was clearly “Machidaling”
He was exploring Pokes plodding footwork to get in with combos,body shots and kicks.

Giving your BACK purposefully to explore the rules and run away from full contact is “Starneling”.
Pokes did that at least 3 times.

 

[Brandon Taylor]

It is a rule built around encouraging action in the Octagon. It is an incentive to pursue and be aggressive if you want to win.

 

[KinoDemo]

Because they’re there to fight. If you’re constantly backpedaling you’re not engaging, you’re not furthering the action.

It’s the same as standing guys up when not enough groundwork is occurring. If you can be penalized for stalling it’s logically consistent you should be rewarded for constantly engaging if the other participant won’t.

 

[fzoid4454]

Except Jones did NOT land more meaningful strikes in round 2. He did pressure Reyes most of that round, but Reyes had the best strikes in that round.

He absolutely did, especially late in the round, where Reyes tried to come forward and Jones stopped him in his tracks several times with really clean shots. Those were the best strikes of the round, and had the most effect, as well.