For his lack of aggression. Hear me out.
The rules say that judges should favor a fighter who is pressing the action and controlling the Octagon. Counter fighting, while an effective style, should put the fighter employing it (to the extent that that fighter is almost ALWAYS backing up) at a disadvantage from the perspective of the judges.
When Peoples says that Machida was employing his strategy and thats why he gets awarded Octagon control is moral hazard. The rules are set up to favor aggression, period. Thats how it should be. That aspect is built in so that fighters are forced to press the action. I understand Machida darts in to strike, but that it not enough when the other fighter is chasing you 95% of the time. I also understand Machida does come forward at times, but in his fight with Rua he was backing up much more than coming forward (say vs. Silva or Rashad).
Based on this thinking (in my opinion the correct interpretation of the rules) Rua won Octagon control and aggression in every round and won a fight that was close in the first 3.5 rounds 48-47.
Although I can see how the judges got it wrong. Peoples, the idiot that he is, fails to realize that the fans have the much better perspective taking into account rewind and slo-mo, in fact our perspective is TOO good. We can see that most of Machida's flurries don't connect, but when it happens live the judges probably score them highly.
But the striking was always close enough (even with the flurries) that the aggressor should have been awarded the rounds, and that would have been Shogun.
Also, Machida never COUNTERED Shogun, he EXCHANGED. Machida timed Shogun so that he was throwing a punch when Shogun went to attack. if you watch in slow-mo you'll see most of those punches didn't land well. but the judges don't have that luxury.
So Machida exchanged missed/grazing punches for hard leg kicks. He lost. Stop with the "he countered every kick!!!" argument.
Any judge who knows fighting/MMA at all and knows the fighters' styles as well will allow for this. One of the most ignorant things is to say "so and so won the aggression aspect because he was stepping forward or willing to stand in the middle and bang". there is a HUGE difference between running away and circling or countering, especially if that is your style and you are landing your shots. Because landing the strikes is what is important, not abandoning your game plan.
That criteria needs to be either changed or better defined, because the same can be said for the ground. If you are Damien Maia and you pull guard because on your back is where you are comfortable, then you are controlling the game, yet many judges would still give the guy in top the advantage. If you are on the bottom and going for submissions constantly vs a guy who is on top doing nothing to advance position, then you have to get points for aggression and trying to end the fight.
It is not fair for any sport to expect a practitioner to abandon their game plan or lose points. Why should a BJJ guy be expected to stand in the middle of the cage with a great striker, trade blows and risk losing or losing points for not being 'aggressive'? This rule is meant to discourage avoiding. What guys like Machida, Chuck and Anderson do is counter strike, not avoid. We don't deduct points for stuffing shots, which is avoiding the ground and therefor not being 'ground aggressive'. Point is, that aggressive can be defined in many ways and is heavily dependent upon style and game plan. As long as the fighter's putting the fight in their world and implementing their game on their opponent, landing strikes, getting take downs, etc. they are winning this aspect... The problem is the majority of the judges still don't fully understand the entire game of MMA. giving them either a bias or a insufficiency in their judging.
FightScientist - Any judge who knows fighting/MMA at all and knows the fighters' styles as well will allow for this. One of the most ignorant things is to say "so and so won the aggression aspect because he was stepping forward or willing to stand in the middle and bang". there is a HUGE difference between running away and circling or countering, especially if that is your style and you are landing your shots. Because landing the strikes is what is important, not abandoning your game plan.
That criteria needs to be either changed or better defined, because the same can be said for the ground. If you are Damien Maia and you pull guard because on your back is where you are comfortable, then you are controlling the game, yet many judges would still give the guy in top the advantage. If you are on the bottom and going for submissions constantly vs a guy who is on top doing nothing to advance position, then you have to get points for aggression and trying to end the fight.
It is not fair for any sport to expect a practitioner to abandon their game plan or lose points. Why should a BJJ guy be expected to stand in the middle of the cage with a great striker, trade blows and risk losing or losing points for not being 'aggressive'? This rule is meant to discourage avoiding. What guys like Machida, Chuck and Anderson do is counter strike, not avoid. We don't deduct points for stuffing shots, which is avoiding the ground and therefor not being 'ground aggressive'. Point is, that aggressive can be defined in many ways and is heavily dependent upon style and game plan. As long as the fighter's putting the fight in their world and implementing their game on their opponent, landing strikes, getting take downs, etc. they are winning this aspect... The problem is the majority of the judges still don't fully understand the entire game of MMA. giving them either a bias or a insufficiency in their judging.
i disagree with the analogy of machida backpedalling and maia pulling guard. when you pull guard you are engaging your opponent, not running. You might be avoiding the stand up striking, but you're still fighting.
that whole game plan stuff doesn't fly and shouldn't. if you choose to move AWAY from your opponent until he comes after you, you are avoiding the fight and should be penalized, period. I'm not saying it is not effective or manly or whatever, just that in the SPORT aspect it should be penalized. Someone employing a countering style should accept that. The rules should encourage fighters to engage.
Take the extreme example, I punch you once in the face, hard and then run away for the rest of the fight. Should I win? Do i have control? No. I'm not saying Machida does this, what I'm saying is the rules are set up to avoid this kind of situation and the lesser forms of it.
This thread is correct. LOL @ running away for 5 rounds now being counted as "Octagon Control".
Shogun fought an awesome fight and won.
ends - Are you guys seriously still talking about this fight?
wow
can u believe it?
fucking ridiculous.
people still talk bisping hammill
real question why post such a useless statement on a thread you diva