WEC 48

[poopoo333]

Re: WEC 48

I didn't even think the decision was controversial at all. 1-3 was Henderson, 4-5 was Cerrone.

[Ludo]

Re: WEC 48

I gave rounds 3-4 to Cerrone clear as day, and rounds 1-2 to Henderson, round five I gave to Cerrone because he was the one who was still working, he locked in TWO subs in that round if I remember rightly, and he was winning the standup as well.

Side note, I changed my mind after I saw the lines out and put out a couple bets more.

1.6u to win 1u on Mizugaki
1.3u to win 1u on Garcia(American MMA> Japanese(korean in this case) MMA)

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

I didn't even think the decision was controversial at all. 1-3 was Henderson, 4-5 was Cerrone.

Exactly

At least one person can score a round

[zY|]

Re: WEC 48

I didn't even think the decision was controversial at all. 1-3 was Henderson, 4-5 was Cerrone.

Exactly

At least one person can score a round

Back to boxing me thinks.

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

(which btw not only makes you wrong but a bad person)

Ha ha ha. . . That's funny.

Me, personally, I thought it was one of those fights that just could've gone either way. It was another Shogun/Machida or Penn/Edgar. A lot of people are going to say that one guy or the other "definitely" won, but really a lot of it comes down to how you score it and what you think is important. People score fights different ways because they give weight to different criteria.

Thats the thing you cant do that .You have to go by the rule book not by what you think is important

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

I didn't even think the decision was controversial at all. 1-3 was Henderson, 4-5 was Cerrone.

Exactly

At least one person can score a round

Back to boxing me thinks.

I bet you dont even know how to score a round .I'd bet money on it.

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

I gave rounds 3-4 to Cerrone clear as day, and rounds 1-2 to Henderson, round five I gave to Cerrone because he was the one who was still working, he locked in TWO subs in that round if I remember rightly, and he was winning the standup as well.

Side note, I changed my mind after I saw the lines out and put out a couple bets more.

1.6u to win 1u on Mizugaki
1.3u to win 1u on Garcia(American MMA> Japanese(korean in this case) MMA)

Round 3 to Cerrone clear as day ?


Wow just wow

[poopoo333]

Re: WEC 48

I bet you dont even know how to score a round .I'd bet money on it.

LOL

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

You and anyone else who scored round 1 for Cerrone have no idea how to score a fight.I actually know the rules on how a fight is suppose to be scored so ....You dont score a fight by "who you feel" on what "you feel is important" you score it by the rules.Scoring MMA is done by 4 categories:

effective striking,

effective grappling

control of the fighting area

effective aggressiveness and defense


The rounds are to be scored on those four categories in that order

In round 1 Henderson landed about 30 strikes to Cerrone's 5 so the most important categorey with the most weight goes to Henderson.The grappling I'll give to Cerrone for the attempted submissions .The octagon control and aggressiveness and defense both go to Henderson

So if A fighter wins the most important categorey in scoring and two of the other three how does he lose the round??

Its funny because everytime someone disagrees how I score a round its exactly how the judges score it.Maybe you guys just dont know how to score a round and should learn the rules.

Just because you think Cerrone should win the round because of the submission attempts doesnt mean thats how its scored.Strikes are scored first not grappling.

Just like Saturday I gave round 2 in the Mousasi-King Mo fight to Mousasi .Ludocain said I was nuts because strikes from the bottom dont mean anything.Ah yes they do .There are still the first thing judges are looking for.Sorry Ludo but grappling is still second in scoring.Just because King Mo was on top the whole round doesnt mean he won it not when Mousasi landed 35-5 strikes.Its amazing that all three judges also gave Mousasi round 2

Learn the rules guys

[poopoo333]

Re: WEC 48

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

[zY|]

Re: WEC 48

I'm not gonna waste my time responding to all that since Luke is just trolling anyways. Good thing you and Doug Crosby score rounds the same though. I'm glad you're excited about that.

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

I'm not gonna waste my time responding to all that since Luke is just trolling anyways. Good thing you and Doug Crosby score rounds the same though. I'm glad you're excited about that.

LOL I'm trolling because I know how to score a round and the rest of you are scoring rounds on what "you" think is important and not what the rule book says

good one

I completely explained it to you and now you dont want to respond because you know you're wrong and score rounds wrong

[SPX]

Re: WEC 48

^^^^^ I think your oversimplifying the situation in a big way. It's clear that even the judges don't really agree on exactly how they should score a fight. Yes, they have the listed criteria, but how do you think one judge gives a fight 30-27 to one guy while another gives it 30-27 to the other guy (and how many times have we seen this)?

Also, "effective striking" etc is subjective. For instance, I remember Cecil Peoples saying that he credited Machida with "effective grappling" because he was able to stuff Shogun's takedowns . . . but I believe another judge gave Shogun the "effective grappling" edge as well as the "aggression" points because Shogun was going for takedowns in the first place. Or how about the fact that one judge gave Machida "octagon control" because he evaded some of Shogun's strikes and made Shogun move forward and therefore "took the fight where he wanted it."

Or how about this. What is "effective striking?" Is it one guy who lands 10 medium shots in a round or his opponent who lands one good bomb that rocks him?

Clearly there is lots of room for interpretation.

[zY|]

Re: WEC 48

I'm not gonna waste my time responding to all that since Luke is just trolling anyways. Good thing you and Doug Crosby score rounds the same though. I'm glad you're excited about that.

LOL I'm trolling because I know how to score a round and the rest of you are scoring rounds on what "you" think is important and not what the rule book says

good one

I completely explained it to you and now you dont want to respond because you know you're wrong and score rounds wrong

No I assumed you're trolling because 98% of the time you are.

And it speaks volumes about your 'knowledge' (as well as your reading comprehension) that you think striking is weighed higher than grappling, when they are in fact weighed the same.

[Luke]

Re: WEC 48

^^^^^ I think your oversimplifying the situation in a big way. It's clear that even the judges don't really agree on exactly how they should score a fight. Yes, they have the listed criteria, but how do you think one judge gives a fight 30-27 to one guy while another gives it 30-27 to the other guy (and how many times have we seen this)?

Also, "effective striking" etc is subjective. For instance, I remember Cecil Peoples saying that he credited Machida with "effective grappling" because he was able to stuff Shogun's takedowns . . . but I believe another judge gave Shogun the "effective grappling" edge as well as the "aggression" points because Shogun was going for takedowns in the first place. Or how about the fact that one judge gave Machida "octagon control" because he evaded some of Shogun's strikes and made Shogun move forward and therefore "took the fight where he wanted it."

Or how about this. What is "effective striking?" Is it one guy who lands 10 medium shots in a round or his opponent who lands one good bomb that rocks him?

Clearly there is lots of room for interpretation.

I judge by the rule book just as I do in boxing.

Effective Striking:

Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

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