Why is the end of round more important than the first 4 minutes?

[Emjay]

It's got nothing to do with being an adult or not. It's knowledge, experience, patterns, and precedents.

If I hadn't eaten for days and you knew this, and then you watched me go to a food source and ate, would you not assume that I did so because I was hungry?

Or would that not be befitting of an adult who can't read minds as well?

This isn't analogous to judging fights.

 

[Franklin U.]

I wouldnt go that far - but- if a fighter has locked in 4 minutes then loses a DAMAGING final minute then judges could find themselves with a dilemma on their hands.

It all really depends and as long as you have a judge who knows what the F- he s doing then I'm ok with -----

 

[BBobb]

If a fighter is winning the first 4 minutes but loses the last minute, and in most cases, even the last 30 seconds, the latter is awarded the round by judges.

I don’t get how a last minute takedown can erase an entire 4 minutes of winning.

I guess we’ll be seeing a ton of it once they add those time clocks in the corners for the fighters.

Sometimes its because the fighter who loses the first 4 mins before winning the last minute landed much better shots in the last minute than the other did and sometimes its because of biased judging. Take Chandler vs Alvarez 1 (round 1) as an example. Eddie landed more strikes but got dropped twice. It was competitive af but that was chandlers round imo. What is the case of this situation that ur thinking of?

 

[xhaydenx]

This isn't analogous to judging fights.

It's analogous to how accurate assumptions can be based on precedents and patterns though.

My Thiago example earlier was directly related to a fight and result that literally happened.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

It's not, but you can lose a round in the last minute if the round still looks like a 10-9 and the guy losing either rocks his opponent or gets a close submission attempt. This basically happened in Jones vs Gus 1 with the spinning back elbow in the last minute of a round Jones was losing.

 

[Emjay]

It's analogous to how accurate assumptions can be based on precedents and patterns though.

My Thiago example earlier was directly related to a fight and result that literally happened.

Doesn't matter. Again, you don't know what a person is thinking. There's no argument for that.

 

[xhaydenx]

Doesn't matter. Again, you don't know what a person is thinking. There's no argument for that.

You don't need to know what someone is thinking to understand why they did something.

There are plenty of individualized professions across psychology and user experience design that rely on exactly the sort of deduction I'm talking about. All of there processes are proven.

By your logic they have zero accuracy and merit, which would be a ridiculous thing to think.

 

[Emjay]

You don't need to know what someone is thinking to understand why they did something.

You do, otherwise you are simply speculating.

 

[xhaydenx]

You do, otherwise you are simply speculating.

Your logic is so ignorantly dismissive of the merits of so many disciplines of proven psychology and user experience design that it's just laughable.

 

[BobsyaUncle]

Recency bias is the answer. Humans are susceptible to it.

 

[Sticko]

How is the Yana fight not a good example? Yana was losing that entire round, then did something at the very end of it that was the only thing that could have won her that round, which it did on 2 judges scorecards.

What she did and what the individual scorecards were for that round show that she did exactly what we're talking about in this thread.

I do and don't agree that getting dropped on its own justifies giving an entire round. In Jimmie vs Yan, I thought it was fair enough. Jimmie was winning clearly, but he wasn't dominating Yan by any means, and not according to all areas of the scoring criteria. In that case, Yan dropping him was enough to win that round.

But if Jimmie had been destroying Yan it would have been different. If he had done everything but drop Yan, and then got dropped himself right at the end in a wild exchange or something, he wouldn't deserve the round.

The issue is 3 separate but interrelated things the judges look at when evaluating effective striking and grappling is impact, dominance and duration. Ketlen won on duration but Yana was more impactful, so arguably Yana should have won regardless of when in the round those things happened.

The interesting counterpoint would a round where one fighter gets a takedown and lands 10 really vicious punches to open the round, but then gets swept and held down for 4 minutes with almost no effective offensive coming from the person on top, and then for the last 30 seconds both fighters stand up.

I actually was in the minority because I scored R3 for Ketlen (who at least had a sub attempt in the round) but R1 for Yana (who landed like 60 ground strikes while Ketlen did nothing). So I scored it the same way Eric Colon did.

 

[xhaydenx]

The issue is 3 separate but interrelated things the judges look at when evaluating effective striking and grappling is impact, dominance and duration. Ketlen won on duration but Yana was more impactful, so arguably Yana should have won regardless of when in the round those things happened.

The interesting counterpoint would a round where one fighter gets a takedown and lands 10 really vicious punches to open the round, but then gets swept and held down for 4 minutes with almost no effective offensive coming from the person on top, and then for the last 30 seconds both fighters stand up.

I actually was in the minority because I scored R3 for Ketlen (who at least had a sub attempt in the round) but R1 for Yana (who landed like 60 ground strikes while Ketlen did nothing). So I scored it the same way Eric Colon did.

Yeh, recency bias and narrative is huge in fights. I think as people who are exposed to narrative structure our entire lives, we expect climactic moments to happen towards the end of a narrative, and thus they become more meaningful to us.

I can absolutely see how you scored it. I don't even disagree with that judging either. I gave Yana round 1, but then round 3 I knew how she was going to win it, even if I didn't totally agree myself.

 

[Emjay]

Your logic is so ignorantly dismissive of the merits of so many disciplines of proven psychology and user experience design that it's just laughable.

What am I thinking right now?

 

[xhaydenx]

What am I thinking right now?

I can't know what you're thinking because I don't have any indication of your intention or result, nor do I know enough about how you usually go about achieving that result to see any sort of pattern.

In judging, we always see the end result. Using other factors such as scoring criteria, personal judging history, and patterns, we can then judge very accurately how that end result was achieved.

This sort of stuff is basic psychology and user experience design, and it's completely proven to have merit, despite what you seem to think.

 

[ocfightfan]

If a fighter is winning the first 4 minutes but loses the last minute, and in most cases, even the last 30 seconds, the latter is awarded the round by judges.

I don’t get how a last minute takedown can erase an entire 4 minutes of winning.

I guess we’ll be seeing a ton of it once they add those time clocks in the corners for the fighters.

In theory it's not. In reality humans have a recency bias. This is a natural unconscious bias that puts greater weight on the most recent information, and sometimes causes it to be given too much weight relative to the rest of the information. It's the reason why people often say you are only as good as your last fight, and fans often give fighters too much credit or scorn based on their most recent fight.

 

[Emjay]

I can't know what you're thinking because I don't have any indication of your intention or result, nor do I know enough about how you usually go about achieving that result to see any sort of pattern.

In judging, we always see the end result. Using other factors such as scoring criteria, personal judging history, and patterns, we can then judge very accurately how that end result was achieved.

This sort of stuff is basic psychology and user experience design, and it's completely proven to have merit, despite what you seem to think.

None of that matters if the judge spaces out for half of the round but then snaps back into it when the crowd makes a ton of noise or when the ref starts yelling at the fighters.

All you're doing is projecting how you generally think things should play out while ignoring the nuances of being a human.

No matter the lengths you go to deconstruct or reverse engineer things, you don't know why they make the decisions that they make. This discussion would be a lot more interesting if we knew what they were thinking, but we don't.

 

[Candy Routure]

Judges of MMA are baboons, I believe.

 

[xhaydenx]

None of that matters if the judge spaces out for half of the round but then snaps back into it when the crowd makes a ton of noise or when the ref starts yelling at the fighters.

All you're doing is projecting how you generally think things should play out while ignoring the nuances of being a human.

No matter the lengths you go to deconstruct or reverse engineer things, you don't know why they make the decisions that they make. This discussion would be a lot more interesting if we knew what they were thinking, but we don't.

You've literally just said two things that I can and do use when figuring out how a judge came to a decision.

That isn't me projecting how I think things should play out. It's me looking at a result, deconstructing as many factors that I can in order to discover how that conclusion came about.

I come from video game design, accounting for humans being humans is literally my job. It's what I'm trained to do. I've applied all this to players in hundreds of differing applications, the vast majority of which are more complicated and contain far more variables than what we're talking about here with MMA judging.

Deconstructing MMA judging is easy by comparison.

If you want to argue that there's no merit or accuracy to this sort of deduction approach to design, that's fine, man, but you're not arguing just with me, you're arguing with the backbone of what makes stupidly profitable industries like video games and all forms of gambling.

 

[FanofC]

In a bar fight, only the end matters

That's why

 

[Emjay]

You've literally just said two things that I can and do use when figuring out how a judge came to a decision.

That isn't me projecting how I think things should play out. It's me looking at a result, deconstructing as many factors that I can in order to discover how that conclusion came about.

I come from video game design, accounting for humans being humans is literally my job. It's what I'm trained to do. I've applied all this to players in hundreds of differing applications, the vast majority of which are more complicated and contain far more variables than what we're talking about here with MMA judging.

Deconstructing MMA judging is easy by comparison.

If you want to argue that there's no merit or accuracy to this sort of deduction approach to design, that's fine, man, but you're not arguing just with me, you're arguing with the backbone of what makes stupidly profitable industries like video games and all forms of gambling.

Ah you're a dev, but not an MMA judge.

Accounting for a certain percentage of your install base to do a given thing in a given situation and basing your core game loop around that isn't analogous to figuring out if a judge is correctly or incorrectly applying their understanding of the Unified Rules of MMA to judge a contest.