Yeah, explain why you agree with notorious evildoers Glenn Trowbridge and Cecil Peoples.
Yeah, explain why you agree with notorious evildoers Glenn Trowbridge and Cecil Peoples.
Triple-six killers in this motherfucker runnin shit
Fightmetric report is out.
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/09/she ... eport.html
Triple-six killers in this motherfucker runnin shit
I also have to say the UFC announcers of Rogan and Goldberg are the biggest douches ever. The "it is all over" sealed that award for them last night .
These MMA judges are just horrible,way worse than boxing judges. These judges cant even score a 3 round fight right I'd hate to see what would happen if MMA fights were 12 rounds
2015 MMA BETTING CHAMP
And yet again the judges took money from me. lost $600 on the Dunham fight
I had money on Sherk, and I think Dunham clearly won 29-28... Judging is really hurting the sport, IMO. Dunham is a legit prospect and Cecil just took away his goose egg. You average spectator really likes to see that "0"... it adds to the mystique.
In any event, I long for the no time limit and no judges days. Some promoter should start a no decisions org. You finish or it is a draw, just one 30 minute round.
2012: +19.33
2012 Parlay project: +16.5u
Watch the second round again. Your counting those submission attempts as a lot but forgetting that Sherk was willingly putting his neck in there to get the takedown and Dunham was not getting anywhere with them. The first 3.5 minutes of the round was all Dunham with his back up against the cage trying to avoid being taken down and getting taken down. 3.5 minutes is 70 percent of the round.
If you want to look at "outlanded him 2 to 1" as per compustrike you have to also consider that half of those punches were little swipes he was taking at Sherk while Sherk was taking him down or pushing him up against the cage.
After that 3.5 min mark they broke up and for 30 second not much happened. The last minute they were striking back and forth. Dunham got better of him there but if you really look you can see that Sherk is landing in the minute also.
I'm not saying you couldn't give that round to Dunham, the third round was also the most decisive so all judging rules aside..Just as a fight I would say Dunham did better overall, without round by round scoring.
However Sherk did win the first round undeniably and he was controlling more of the second round.
Strikes landed is def not the only basis for scoring. Octagon control, EFFECTIVE grappling. Those guillotines looked scary but in retrospect Sherk didn't give a shit they were there. He wasn't really threatened. He cared so little, he kept putting his neck in there in order to get the takedown, which he got.
Honestly it was so close you could give it any way you wanted but a couple things are obvious.
R1 went to Sherk
R3 went to Dunham
R2 was really really close. This is what I was thinking when the fight was over and knew it would be a split Decision before they read the scores.
I think the fact that Dunham dominated R3 by a much much larger margin than Sherk did any other round which is why the decision was looked at as such a robbery.
Really it comes down to the scoring system being shitty. There needs to be way more of a variety. Just a 10,9 and 8 is very limited.
Overall Dunham was more effective, but the vast majority of what he did was in the third round.
1 unit = 300 $
Originally Posted by MMA_scientist
I'd be all for that .
2015 MMA BETTING CHAMP
I'd be all for that .
Yeah the current system sucks for evaluating fights. The only reason they have it is because people are used to seeing it in fights. That's it. They wanted to go mainstream so they adopted it. If that fight was one 15 minute fight I would def say Dunham won it hands down. The old Pride rules had valued who was winning at the end of the fight the most because that was thought of as the sum of the fight.
1 unit = 300 $
I think if you hold a guy against the cage for 4:30 and then the other guy gets free and land one good strike, that ought to totally wipe out the 'octagon control'... IMO control should only count when there is no other criteria... Sherk did nothing, he just leaned on him. He didn't slam him, he didn't take a superior position, he just sort of pinned him... I fail to see how that means he was winning a fight.
Of course I am hardcore on this criteria. I don't think takedowns should score very much either... I just fail to see the relevance of who is facing chest down versus chest up as a criteria for winning a fight. I feel the same way about pressing a guy on the cage.
You can't just add up the time in the round and see who was winning more of it. Sherk "won" the first 3 minutes 10-9.99... Everyone in the room thought Dunham won round 2, before we saw rd 3.
I understand why the judges gave it to sherk, but I don't excuse crappy wrong scoring because it is common.
2012: +19.33
2012 Parlay project: +16.5u
They actually have no points, no time limit bjj tourneys a lot now. The fights get finished usually pretty quickly. Occasionally you have a 2 hour match, but the just let them go, eventually someone makes a mistake. Never seen one yet that had to be called because it was taking too long. Boxing matches are 12 rounds... I don't see why we can't watch a 30 minute MMA fight.
I'd be all for that .
2012: +19.33
2012 Parlay project: +16.5u
I think that if we want to get to pure combat (without being too dangerous) then we'd have no time limit, with no rounds, and no standups. In some ways that's appealing. But it also has the potential to be boring as shit. We don't have to hypothesize about that. We just have to go back to the early UFCs.
When I talked to Keith Kizer, he made an interesting statement: "People say MMA matches are 3-round fights. They're not. They're 3 1-round fights."
Like it, love it, or hate it, that's the way it is. If fights need to be scored differently, then change the rules. But for now, it is what it is. We complain about it, but there are a lot of advantages to the current system. Quite frankly, I can sacrifice a little purity if it will make my viewing experience more enjoyable.
I heart cock
Keith Kizer is such a sleazeball.
Triple-six killers in this motherfucker runnin shit
Are you in troll mode tonight or something?
I heart cock
Oh cmon. You're telling me this guy doesn't lie and steal for a living?
Triple-six killers in this motherfucker runnin shit
What I'm saying is that he had a pretty legitimate point, but instead you resorted to ad hominem attacks.
I heart cock
I think Dunham won the fight, but under the current scoring system, I can definitely see why Sherk won. We see it all the time...that is why I was not surprised at all. I had money on Dunham and after the fight I thought Sherk would walk away with the win, just based on seeing how fights have been scored in the past.
Well his point doesn't make any sense at all. In a scoring sense, yes. But each round is not an independent event. Successive rounds are absolutely and superlatively dependent on the previous rounds.
Triple-six killers in this motherfucker runnin shit
^^^ Well the statement was made regarding the scoring system. Basically, the point he was making is that it's incorrect to allow yourself to be swayed by the events in other rounds when scoring the current wrong. And also that a 10-9 is a 10-9, regardless of whether it was edged out or gained dominantly.
I heart cock
Who does that?
This is why 10-8, 10-7, and 10-10 exist.
Triple-six killers in this motherfucker runnin shit
Fans. All the time. If only subconsciously. Maybe some judges, too.
In order to get a 10-8, but definition, there has to be "damage" and "domination." One without the other doesn't get a 10-8. Hence a dominant LnP round is not a 10-8 even though one guy was clearly in control.
I heart cock
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote