Discussion in 'Cageside - MMA Discussion' started by Haulport, Jan 9, 2019.
There is only one round where the striking is remotely close: the 5th
Round 2 was 15-11 Mighty Mouse. Cejudo took him down and kept him down in that round.
Doesn't represent quality of punches. And I don't think thise numbers are accurate.
FightMetric LLC :.: The World's First Comprehensive MMA Statistics Provider
I dont post here often anymore, but @Haulport this is a great thread! I think you hit the nail on the head. Nice work.
Meaningless to me. MM fucked up Henry's face. Cut him, bruised him. Made him switch out of his stance to protect his damaged leg. Beat up his body and forced him to set his elbows to help protect his midsection. Henry didn't hurt MM at all with strikes. None of that is represented in that extremely broad, flat, misleading data.
Just my point of view onnit.
Thank you my fren!
I read that three times and still don't understand! Lol!
EDIT: Oh I got it now, lol
Just for the hell of it I went back and rewatched the 2nd round and counted ONLY clear, clean, hard shots landed and I counted 7-3 in favor of DJ.
On a separate but related note: what you refer to when stating "close striking so go to take downs" (paraphrasing) is the scoring criteria of Control. Which, imo, is the worst aspect of MMA scoring under the 10 Point Must system. To me, a fight is supposed to be a fight, so if you reward control that results in no strikes and no sub attempts you are rewarding STALLING. With my system you are rewarded points for a take down that clearly lasts more than 3 seconds and that's it. You don't get extra points for laying on a guy for 1:20 and doing ZIP because he is kicking your lead leg in...
To take this to the extreme: because there is no set amount of points awarded for a single take down "Control" has no point limit. If a fighter is the best wrestler on earth and comes in and can take down anyone in MMA and pin them down for 5 mins at a time he will win every match against anyone under the current ruleset. He will be stood up maybe 2 times per round, get another takedown and lay on his opponent. I have no recollection of ever seeing a point deducted in 10 point must MMA for stalling so this strategy is a sure winner.
That's just not what I want to see.
And in the less extreme examples the adherence to this poorly thought out rule results in the kind of timidity MM has been accused of his whole career. And it seems he has a valid point because the first guy since Ian who could get a couple of take downs against him that last more than 3 seconds (and, yes, there are only two in the whole fight) takes a decision from him, takes his title, is lauded as an amazing fighter for "beating" such an amazing champ and effectively ends DJ's career in the UFC...
Hey dipshit, you spelt @Hwoarang wrong.
So you gave points to MM because HC adjusted?
That wasn't a well constructed sentence, I admit.
It's a sport, not a fight.
Logical nonsequitor. A sport is a sport because of RULES. I am clearly stating in this thread that I don't like the rules and that they should be changed and that I don't believe Henry won under the current rules. In the post u quoted I lay out how effective MM's striking was (a specifically stated part of the unified rules). No where in the unified rules does it say "the guy with the most strikes according to fightmetric...."
Don't disagree just because you don't like what I am saying. Make a valid argument or just agree to disagree and be off on ur merry way...
If u switch stances because a guy is kicking ur leg then that is visual evidence (all we have to go on) that ur opponent is landing effective strikes as far as I can tell.
Technique was not Mo's strong suite......lol
So if a guy avoids MM's leg kicks then you give MM a point for making his opponent adjust but if the guy doesn't then you give MM a point for landing strikes?
I know that can't be how you look at it but that's how it reads to me right now so I'm just putting it like that so you can see how I am misunderstanding you.
Gotcha. Let me figure out how to say this properly. I'll try and break it down into scenarios that are based on 10 Point Must scoring criteria and results.
If MM repeatedly kicks a guys lead left leg hard (hard to me is a visible sign of knee bending; opponent being moved by force of the kick; visible bruising; limping - that sort of thing) and then the opponent switches his stance in response to this to put his right leg forward, that indicates to me that the striking is effective. If the opponent is hitting MM with strikes also during that round that are landing but not causing visible signs of effectiveness (like the above examples) then MM would be leading in striking.
If MM is throwing leg kicks that show no signs of being effective (i.e. knee bending; opponent being moved by force of the kick; visible bruising; limping; etc.) and the opponent is hitting MM with strikes also during that round that are landing but not causing visible signs of effectiveness, then it does come down to who is landing the most strikes and if anything else happens (take downs) that can change who gets the round.
This scenario is also where the Unified Rules fail miserably since they encourage guys to keep the striking close, if they can and then take a guy down and lay on him for as long as possible since they will be awarded the round.
If MM is throwing leg kicks (obviously effective or not) or he throws a couple and then the opponent adjusts (however they may) and it prevents MM's leg kicks for the rest of the round and MM doesn't start landing other strikes to keep up to his opponents output then the opponent would be ahead in striking.
So effectively adjusting to your opponent's strategy and negating it takes away the advantage of the opponent. Adjusting to your opponent's strategy by letting your right leg get kicked because your left leg has taken too much damage already does not help a fighter move towards gaining the striking advantage. You still keep getting hit in the right for left strategy.
Hope that makes more sense.
Except he did. Why he did has been explained to you, you're just refusing to acknowledge it.
Whatever dude. He got beat up and got only two fuckin' takedowns in 25 mins. Under the Unified rules that's a loss. You should go read the UR cause you're as clueless about them as the terrible judges.
Unified Rules - Learn the Rules of MMA | C.O.M.M.A.N.D.
"Effective Striking/Grappling shall be considered the first priority of round assessments. Effective Aggressiveness is a ‘Plan B’ and should not be considered unless the judge does not see ANY advantage in the Effective Striking/Grappling realm. Cage/Ring Control (‘Plan C’) should only be needed when ALL other criteria are 100% even for both competitors. This will be an extremely rare occurrence."
Learn something before u go popping off about who knows what...
Sorry @Haulport but due to this thread I went and watched the fight. We usually agree about tight decisions, but on this one, going by the 10 point must system, which we're unfortunately subject to, Cejudo clearly took that fight. Round 2 and 4 are the main ones to debate. In round 2, so little happened that Cejudo's dominant ground control where he was working the pass and threw in a few shots unfortunately has to count for more than the few strikes both landed. Cejudo took rounds 2, 4, and 5, in my view, albeit barely.
He was actively trying to pass the whole time he was on the ground and even threw a couple solid shots in the 4th. DJ is my favorite fighter of all time, but justice was done for Miguel Torres that day.
don't be a stranger...the tide is rising
lots of good threads lately
Totally, the summary drove the point home. Cheers for that.
all I know
is that I was so tired of Rogan pushing MM as the p4p best ever I started rooting against him so I didn't have to hear that again
I also prefer larger fighters with more KO power and they are slower so I can actually see WtF is going on
was happy henry won...was really fucking close so I didn't know what the judges would decide
MMA judging is a total joke
Here's the thing. 1) You're completely discounting what constititues "effective grappling". 2) You're willfully ignoring that both of the takedowns you're referring to took place in rounds that were close in terms of effective striking. I can see how any of the rounds that Cejudo won were close, but pretending that it was some sort of unjust robbery is craziness. I've explained it to you, @Maroon has explained it to you, the people who apply the rules disagree with you but you're insisting it's everyone else who doesn't know what they're talking about.