WEC 48

[Luke]

As far as Cerrone/Henderson 1 goes: http://fightmetric.com/fights/Henderson-Cerrone.html - FM scores it for Cerrone.

Somehow fight metric scores round 1 40-38 for Henderson says in a 10 point must system its a draw ,then gives the round to Cerrone.

Something has to be a mistake because you cant score a round 40-38 Henderson ,say its a draw and Cerrone wins it .Im not sure how that site works I've only been on it one other time

[SPX]

Let me weigh in on the strikes from bottom argument.

I have often thought that having top position is very important for one reason: because in a real fight--and let's not get into the MMA is not a real fight discussion--the guy on top is in control and he can choose to keep it going or walk away. The guy in bottom is not in control. He doesn't have the choice as to whether or not the fight continues. But the guy on top can keep fighting or can end it at any moment.

For that reason, I've always felt like you should have to do some serious ass work on the bottom to steal a round.

And that's exactly what Mousasi did: some serious ass work. All Mo did in the second was lay there. He landed almost no strikes but got his head beat in by his opponent. Does Mo really deserve to win the round because he laid on top of Mousasi's stomach while getting punched in the face and head? That was one of the few instances of a fighter on bottom winning a round in my opinion, but that's exactly what it was.

[zY|]

Luke thinks striking is more important because it comes first in the sentence. LOL!

Cerrone lost 3 of 4 categories how did he win the round ZY? You yet to explain how he won the round even though I did you just dance around the question like a politician.You started this by saying:

Even if you scored round 1 for Henderson (which btw not only makes you wrong but a bad person),

But you have gave zero reasons why ,you just poke insults at people and tell them they are wrong because you dont know the rules and score fights just as SPX said on "what you think is important"

I was refuting your holier than thou "I know how to score and you don't" overall attitude, not that one fight. Who's the politician dancing around?

But if you insist.

As SPX alluded to, there is no scientific way to measure this even with strict criteria. Yeah Henderson landed more strikes in Round 1, but I thought the incredibly deep, near fight ending submission attempts FAR outweighed the effectiveness of the strikes landed. And being as the fight is on the ground, it's a judgment call as to which is more effective. I'm well within the right to give it to Cerrone based on effective grappling.

For the other criteria, it's not so cut and dry either. Octagon control could go either way. It was about even. Cerrone controlled the first half, Henderson the latter half. Effective agression? Cerrone stalks people and never stops.

As for you being a bad person, well that's just the honest truth.

Also, funny that you're bragging about giving Mousasi the 2nd round vs Mo. Anyone with fucking eyes could see he won that round. Mo was on top but not doing a fucking thing but getting punched in the face. There was no effective grappling to be seen.

[Luke]

Luke, what did you think about the Shogun/Machida judging?

If I remember correctly I think I had that fight going either way.It was much like the Penn-Edgar fight imo some rounds were so close they could have been scored either way.If Sho Gun got the decision that night I think it would have been ok,Machida getting it was ok too imo.Anyone that said it was robbery is just a spazzed out fan

[zY|]

And another thing...

M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and
control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike
-by submission attempt
-from a throw
-from clean strikes either standing or grounded.

^^That's pretty much the play by play to round 5. The only thing Bendo did was not get submitted. It should have been 10-8 all day.

[Ludo]

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking

It's great that the judges shall recognize it's not always the case that strikes from the top are more meaningful, but dominant striking would be dictated by the guy who's controlling where the other guy can and cannot go. IE if Mousasi can't get off the mat because Mo is holding him down while striking, albeit striking less, it's still dominant striking since the shots are heavier(leverage and gravity) and more dominant.

Did he cut him like Marquardt cut Sonnen? No. Did he do any damage but make his eye swell? No. Did he bust his nose, cause a lump on his head, bust his lip, or even rock him? No. So what did his strikes from the bottom count for?

[Luke]

Also, funny that you're bragging about giving Mousasi the 2nd round vs Mo. Anyone with fucking eyes could see he won that round. Mo was on top but not doing a fucking thing but getting punched in the face. There was no effective grappling to be seen.

Ludo said I was nuts for giving round 2 to Mousasi.Ludo's words:

your high, Luke. Mo has won all three rounds so far. Mousasi had only one dominant position the entire time here and that was the last 20 seconds of round 2.

Strikes from the bottom count for shit.

If GSP wins fights by multiple takedowns each round without doing any damage, then Mo is winning every round of this fight so far.

I rarely ever give a round to the bottom buy but the top guy has to do more than lay on the bottom guy like a couch

[Luke]

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking

It's great that the judges shall recognize it's not always the case that strikes from the top are more meaningful, but dominant striking would be dictated by the guy who's controlling where the other guy can and cannot go. IE if Mousasi can't get off the mat because Mo is holding him down while striking, albeit striking less, it's still dominant striking since the shots are heavier(leverage and gravity) and more dominant.

Did he cut him like Marquardt cut Sonnen? No. Did he do any damage but make his eye swell? No. Did he bust his nose, cause a lump on his head, bust his lip, or even rock him? No. So what did his strikes from the bottom count for?

Me thinks Ludo scores rounds the worst of anyone here,twice as bad if he bet that fighter

[Luke]

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's two different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

Why did you think that was from two different sports?

[zY|]

Also, funny that you're bragging about giving Mousasi the 2nd round vs Mo. Anyone with fucking eyes could see he won that round. Mo was on top but not doing a fucking thing but getting punched in the face. There was no effective grappling to be seen.

Ludo said I was nuts for giving round 2 to Mousasi.Ludo's words:

your high, Luke. Mo has won all three rounds so far. Mousasi had only one dominant position the entire time here and that was the last 20 seconds of round 2.

[quote:idnd5nfu]Strikes from the bottom count for shit.

If GSP wins fights by multiple takedowns each round without doing any damage, then Mo is winning every round of this fight so far.

I rarely ever give a round to the bottom buy but the top guy has to do more than lay on the bottom guy like a couch[/quote:idnd5nfu]

Well that's Ludo, who is wrong in that instance. Also note my post somewhere in there laughing at him comparing what GSP does to what Mo was doing.

You still haven't acknowledged your wrongness about striking being weighted more than grappling. I guess this is the part where one guy realizes he's wrong mid-argument but doesn't want to admit it so he keeps going, looking for a way out.

It's ok to admit that I know how to score and you don't. I won't berate you too much.

[poopoo333]

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's two different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

Why did you think that was from two different sports?

Lol, I was thinking the same thing. He must have missed "effective grappling".

[SPX]

Why did you think that was from two different sports?

You said, "I judge by the rule book just as I do in boxing." So it sounded like you were applying boxing striking rules to MMA.

I admitted that I didn't really read the shit . . . just scanned it.

[Ludo]

Yes, he did win those rounds because he was hitting takedowns, and controlling Mousasi. Mousasi landing more strikes from his back somehow negates octagon control, effective grappling, and aggressiveness(takedowns)? I'm sorry but to even have a chance at that he would have had to rock Mo and put Mo in some serious trouble with those strikes. He didn't though.

[zY|]

Yes, he did win those rounds because he was hitting takedowns, and controlling Mousasi. Mousasi landing more strikes from his back somehow negates octagon control, effective grappling, and aggressiveness(takedowns)? I'm sorry but to even have a chance at that he would have had to rock Mo and put Mo in some serious trouble with those strikes. He didn't though.

Leave it alone. Everyone and their mom scored that round for Mousasi. It was plain as day. Mo's goddamn eye closed from that assbeating he took in Round 2.

[Luke]

As SPX alluded to, there is no scientific way to measure this even with strict criteria. Yeah Henderson landed more strikes in Round 1, but I thought the incredibly deep, near fight ending submission attempts FAR outweighed the effectiveness of the strikes landed. And being as the fight is on the ground, it's a judgment call as to which is more effective. I'm well within the right to give it to Cerrone based on effective grappling.

For the other criteria, it's not so cut and dry either. Octagon control could go either way. It was about even. Cerrone controlled the first half, Henderson the latter half. Effective agression? Cerrone stalks people and never stops.

As for you being a bad person, well that's just the honest truth.

I can say grappling Cerrone ,Strikes Henderson ,tie ring control(even though I'd give it to Henderson)

.But in round 1 Cerrone wasnt walking down Henderon,Henderson was the aggressor.In the later rounds Cerrone was


I said this round was close but gave it to Henderson,you said "you're not only wrong but a bad person".Had you said it was a close round but you gave it to Cerrone none of this arguing would have ever happened

[zY|]

I was just being glib as usual, and for some reason you took personal offense this time and starting throwing insults around. That's the only reason I'm being a dick right now.

[Luke]

Why did you think that was from two different sports?

You said, "I judge by the rule book just as I do in boxing." So it sounded like you were applying boxing striking rules to MMA.

I admitted that I didn't really read the shit . . . just scanned it.

ok you just had me completely confused there

[Ludo]

Yes, he did win those rounds because he was hitting takedowns, and controlling Mousasi. Mousasi landing more strikes from his back somehow negates octagon control, effective grappling, and aggressiveness(takedowns)? I'm sorry but to even have a chance at that he would have had to rock Mo and put Mo in some serious trouble with those strikes. He didn't though.

Leave it alone. Everyone and their mom scored that round for Mousasi. It was plain as day. Mo's goddamn eye closed from that assbeating he took in Round 2.

Maybe everyone and your mom did.

[Luke]

I was just being glib as usual, and for some reason you took personal offense this time and starting throwing insults around. That's the only reason I'm being a dick right now.

I thought you were being serious is the only reason I took offense.I really try to score rounds correctly and not by a fans point of view.

Maybe I need some sleep

[Luke]

Yes, he did win those rounds because he was hitting takedowns, and controlling Mousasi. Mousasi landing more strikes from his back somehow negates octagon control, effective grappling, and aggressiveness(takedowns)? I'm sorry but to even have a chance at that he would have had to rock Mo and put Mo in some serious trouble with those strikes. He didn't though.

My head hurts