That’s on the guy losing the round, but go ahead throw more insults instead of address my points.
Mas didn’t fight hard enough to win. Had a short camp yeah which is why I’m interested in the rematch. But he lost mate get over it.
You still dont get the point. I am btw not a Masvidal fan at all, I cant stand him. But I give him credit the guy is almost impossible to give a beating, to dominate.
If you consider that a legit win by Usman whatever man. I don’t consider harmless hugging winning.
Allright I think you are unable to use logic and common sense so its better if you and me end the discussion. Dont wanna waste my time saying the same point in different ways.
I’m not the one who wants to reward fighters for losing a round but not by much.
By your logic what’s stopping a fighter from just holding on to his opponent ensuring a draw instead of deserved loss?
Didn’t put much thought into that one.
Well thats the proof they both dont differ much, ther were quite equal. The most you can say Usman was slightly ahead, just a bit in the lead. Thats all. Nothing significant.
Masvidal was stuck, he had a hard time getting out of the hugg.
Usman cannot control Masvidal because he couldnt progress either, because Masvidal wouldv escaped.
Exactly, so if 10-10 rounds are actually awarded when warranted (a.k.a. damn near every other fight it seems), it will make fighters fight in such a way so as to avoid draws. Then we will see less and less of them over the long term.
Currently, with draws, the takeaway people get is “Dang, it was a tie!”, which invokes feelings that both fighters fought admirably (in some cases this is true, if it’s a war) and that “they tied and both won”.
If we start handing out 10-10 rounds like candy, it will quickly change to “neither fighter could find a way to win.”. Public opinion will quickly change, instead, the outcome of a draw (where it’s not a war) = both fighters lose.
Isnt that true? Neither fighter could indeed find a way to win. Even though they both sucked or they both made a great war.
And again this goes back to the definition of “winning”. I have explained this multiple times here, I want to change the current definition because thats actually not winning but neutralizing (or at most having a slight insignificant lead).
1 Like
My biggest problem with your idea is that you seem to think that winning a fight by a 10-9 score is the result of neutralizing the opponent or having a slight insignificant lead.
That is just not true. And here is an example:
Robert Whittaker vs Kelvin Gastelum from this past weekend.
All three judges scored the fight 50-45 for Whittaker. So those are all 10-9’s or by your system a draw…
Here are the stats:
R1 - Whittaker wins the round by 25 more total strikes landed than Gastelum. And 1 takedown. With 2.28 minutes of contorl time.
Total strikes landed for Whittaker 33 to Gastelum 8
R2 - Whittaker wins the round by 28 more total strikes than Gastelum. And 1 takedown.
Total strikes landed for Whittaker 44 to Gastelum 16
R3 - Whittaker wins the round by 18 more total strikes than Gastelum
R4 - Whittaker wins the round by 20 more total strikes than Gastelum. Gastelum lands 1 takedown more than Whittaker.
R5 - Whittaker wins the round with 8 more total strikes than Gastelum. And 2 takedowns with 1.45 minutes of control time.
Now you are telling me. That you believe in your heart and mind, this fight should be called a draw?
I am gonna need to hear you tell me that you believe this fight should be called a draw and then I am out of this thread because you my friend must be retarded.
And my dude, if you go into this shit about your dumb ass definition of winning…
If you land 15+ more strikes on your opponent you deserve to win the damn round.
Those 25 strikes Whittaker landed on Gastelum in the first round were not insignificant.
The 28 strikes he landed more than Gastelum were not insignificant.
The audacity of a fan to call strikes insignificant is laughable.
Let Usman stomp your foot 5 times and try to throw a solid punch or kick.
Take a knee to the thigh and try to move around after.
Eat some jabs and tell me its insignificant.
Dominik Cruz saying about Gastelum in the 5th round “He is not even close to broken”
Bisping about Gastelum in the 5th round “You cant think this fight is already won cause he is a dangerous daangerous man”
Yes, to Gastelum they were. You see this was a classical charging bull vs countering matador fight. Gastelum didnt even slow down one bit until the end! Let alone being hurt!
So whats so significant about all those counter punches of Whittaker then? Yes, Whittaker did a good job, no doubt. He stayed on the outside, waiting, and countering and disconnecting. He was the better tagger, the better one at touching and pointstriking, no doubt. But all that doesnt mean anything against just one KO punch. Or just one succesful sub attempt. Just one, enough. It overrides the 1000 Whittaker punches.
So the point is, he did NOT give any significant damage on Gastelum. Gastelum just kept charging and trying and trying and figuring out and figuring out how to catch this guy. But he was never ever hurt and never to being close in danger.
To make things clear, lets say for instance in the last minute of the 5th round Gastelum KOs Whittaker cold, now what?
You still gonna regard all those Whittaker punches more valueable against 1 KO punch? Im curious what your criteria of “significance” and “damage” are…
You’re not gonna wind back your argument at all after all my great points?
Not even a little?
Nothing?
I want you to say Whittaker vs Gastelum was a draw. I honestly feel like you can’t say it with a straight face.
Not at all indeed. I consider it a draw.
Its like almost nothing changed. Nobody got hurt coming into the cage and nobody got hurt coming outside the cage (just some bruises). They couldv both kept fighting on like that for I dont know have many more rounds. Whittaker was the better pointstriker, and Gastelum is tough. When it comes down to getting hurt, they are equal.
Now can you respond to my questions please, thanks.
Well you are retarded.
No need to continue with this discussion if we can’t agree that Whittaker won the fight against Gastelum.
I gave you the arguments, I made the case. Only an honest person will deal with the arguments and questions. But I guess you are not that honest, sadly you instead ran away.
Not true. Look at the card tonight, how many were finished?
This card is a rare rare rare exception. I can’t even remember a card this good, it’s been literally years.
Implementing 10-10 in the way described in this thread wouldn’t have affected tonight’s card, so there’s no reason not to do it.
But finishes are not some rarety mate. If we implement win only by 10-8 or finish, it would not hurt. It would only improve. Fighters learn early on to develop into lethal fighter, and cannot really anymore into playing it safe to get an easy win.
Schaub signed up for a BJJ match and proudly refused to engage in any grappling for 20 minutes just to get a draw
Well then its a draw. But you cant make a career out of doing that. How can you ever climb up the ranks then? So its just suicide.