PENN vs.EDGAR: Microscopic Analysis of the Score

Underground
1

 Looking for a quick, hack opinion?  Run away from this thread immediately. 



I was inspired by the controversy on the Penn/Edgar scoring, specifically Mr. Crosby's post here on the forum, to spend all damn day breaking this fight down according to the unified rules.  Here's the result, how perception may have played a role, and how I respectfully consider 50-45 for Edgar to be almost impossible.



Seriously, this article is so long, the internets are going to charge us extra.  You may want to read the intro, and just skim the round-by-round breakdown to get to the conclusions.






Penn vs. Edgar: the Controversy and a Microscopic Analysis of the Scores



Monday, 12 April 2010 13:35 | Written by Dallas Winston









(Original Penn vs. Edgar photo by Mohammed Salem/Reuters)




There are many ways to watch a fight and try to determine who won.


Some watch it on a 84" high-definition television, some watch from a corner booth in a crowded and smoke-filled bar, some spend more than eight hours diligently rehashing the action and rewinding each vital sequence for a fresh evaluation, and others watch the fight ten-feet away through the cage as it plays out live.  The last two examples represent the opposing sides of the viewing spectrum; one is by far the most accurate, and the other the least.  The kicker is that the most ineffective of the bunch is the method used by the sport's judges who render the count and decide the fate of the fighters.


I've once again tackled the chore of revisiting a fight with a fine-tooth comb to sort through the minute details.  My inspiration for this was spawned when stumbling across an array of opinions insisting that Penn actually won, and that Edgar's incessant frenzy of movement distorted the realistic outcome of the fight.  I encountered this in an article on MMAConvert,  from a journalist I regard highly at Bloody Elbow, and then, what finally convinced me that the chore of investing the hours to form a more qualified opinion on the decision, Doug Crosby's (the judge currently under fire for scoring every round for Frankie Edgar) rather eccentric and playful approach at justifying his marks for the bout.


Crosby's spin to the fans is raising more ire than the controversial score card he turned in.  Some applaud his gaudy grandstanding for being refreshing and witty; others are horribly appalled at his chosen level of professionalism and how it reflects upon the sport, the UFC, and the fighters.


I felt the familiar pangs of hesitation telling me to keep my mouth shut and adhere to my rule that one can never fully trust the primary assessment until the fight is reviewed a second time.  Last Saturday night, I noticed after the 3rd round that Edgar could arguably have taken the frame, and then gave the remaining two to "The Answer" as well, for a vaguely calculated 48-47 tally for Edgar.  Today, I have literally invested what people that actually work for a living would call "a full day" towards dissecting each and every intrinsic detail of the fight and applying the results fanatically to the guidelines in the unified rules.


For reference, my candid interaction with Nick Lembo on some of the questions stemming from the Shogun/Machida and Couture/Vera decisions can be found here; the interview also contains a link to the most current set of scoring criteria that can be viewed and downloaded as well (page 11 has the goods).





FULL ANALYSIS AND ARTICLE AT THE GARV





 


2

Summary:<br /><br />He has rounds 1 & 3 going to Penn rather conclusively with round 2 up for grabs(although he gave all 3 to Penn). Rounds 4 & 5 he swayed towards Edgar but mentions that several rounds were so close that either fighter COULD have been given the decision.<br /><br />But in no way does he see it possible to score the fight 50-45 for Edgar based on Penn winning round 1 conclusively.

3

 You forgot #2 in your summary.

4

 ttt

5

 good job....i did an analysis for round 3 and agree with your assessment...

6

orcus -  You forgot #2 in your summary.



 If you were talking to me, I can't even count to 2 right now.

7

goku -  good job....i did an analysis for round 3 and agree with your assessment...

Thank you.



I read your thread this morning, and it was one of the sources that inspired me to re-watch the fight with a lot of detail before lending my opinion.



I enjoyed your take as well.

 

8

crosby is an unprofessional ass.

9

Kirik -  ttt


C'mon Kirik, how'd you see the fight? : )

Who do you think won?

10

I wonder if all these judge critics realize that watching a fight from cage side gives off a view shitty enough to warrant even the president of the company to watch a 15 inch monitor in front of him from the same relative location as the judges.



Try factoring that in as you judge the fight from instant replays and multiple camera angles.

11

Ansari - I wonder if all these judge critics realize that watching a fight from cage side gives off a view shitty enough to warrant even the president of the company to watch a 15 inch monitor in front of him from the same relative location as the judges.



Try factoring that in as you judge the fight from instant replays and multiple camera angles.



 This was not only attempted to be factored in, but one of the main points of the article.  It's referenced throughout.


12

The only round that Penn was not moving forward and controling the octagon was the last round.

i just can not find it to give that fight to edgar.

i still think it is the worst Dec. i have seen.

13

 "The only round that Penn was not moving forward and controling the octagon was the last round."



How was he controlling the octagon? I've seen some people say he "took the center". Who cares? Edgar wanted to move in and out, punch and get away from BJ's heavy hands before being countered, and that's exactly what he did. I don't know what BJ wanted to do, but judging by his expression and performance as the fight went on, I don't think he did it.

14

Congratulations on this article UJ its obvious an enormous amount of work went into this.

After a few days I still felt Penn won rounds 1-3 but after rewatching it tonight I can see arguments for Edgar taking round 2 as well.

15

I actually read the whole thing!  Every word! 

I commend you for taking so much time to break down a long fight.

The only thing I had a problem with was your use of adjectives, in that they were almost always reading as embellishing for Penn, and read as dissuading for Edgar.

Whether you are a BJ Penn, and did this on purpose, or whether you were not aware of how prevalent it was, I don't know.

It just came across very clearly to me that you used more colorful language (rapid fire, crisp, bombs) and used stronger negative language for Edgar (retreats, thwarted, ambiguous).

I am not saying you didn't have positives for Edgar as well as negatives for BJ, but the language used in those occasions didn't carry the same weight as those used in the opposite situations.

If I had never seen the fight, and read your breakdown, I would think Penn won 50-45, or maybe 49-46.

Again, this is not meant to bash your work, and I do appreciate all you put into it.

This was simply the one thing that stood out to me and I wanted to bring to light.

In case you did it subconsciously, I figured it would help you to be aware of it when writing future pieces.

I wholly agree with your statement that measuring the effectiveness of strikes is subjective at best, and interpretive at worst.  And this subjectiveness of the subject is what places such weight on the language used to express the measurement.

16

BKViper - I actually read the whole thing!  Every word! 

I commend you for taking so much time to break down a long fight.

The only thing I had a problem with was your use of adjectives, in that they were almost always reading as embellishing for Penn, and read as dissuading for Edgar.

Whether you are a BJ Penn, and did this on purpose, or whether you were not aware of how prevalent it was, I don't know.

It just came across very clearly to me that you used more colorful language (rapid fire, crisp, bombs) and used stronger negative language for Edgar (retreats, thwarted, ambiguous).

I am not saying you didn't have positives for Edgar as well as negatives for BJ, but the language used in those occasions didn't carry the same weight as those used in the opposite situations.

If I had never seen the fight, and read your breakdown, I would think Penn won 50-45, or maybe 49-46.

Again, this is not meant to bash your work, and I do appreciate all you put into it.

This was simply the one thing that stood out to me and I wanted to bring to light.

In case you did it subconsciously, I figured it would help you to be aware of it when writing future pieces.

I wholly agree with your statement that measuring the effectiveness of strikes is subjective at best, and interpretive at worst.  And this subjectiveness of the subject is what places such weight on the language used to express the measurement.


 I want to start out by saying that when I post my work and ask for intelligent feedback, it's posts like the one above that I always hope to get.  This is the best and most thorough critique I've read (besides maybe Mike Sanders' input), so I want to genuinely thank you for your response.



First, I completely agree that my descriptions may have strongly favored BJ.  I think that does nothing more than prove one of the main intentions of the article, and that is how personal opinion and human interpretation of fights, and more importantly, how the actions of a fight should be interpreted according to the rules, will never be exempt from personal opinion and subjectivity.



So... I'm okay that it may have come off that way, because that was truly how I assessed the action.  For example, I believe the "rapid-fire" reference was used to describe BJ's very strong succession of uppercuts to Edgar's face when he shook off the takedown.



To me, those blows were much more meaningful and made a strong statement on who was in control of the top two categories to decide the winner:  striking and octagon control.  Even if Edgar was "creating striking opportunities" with his movement, as I conceded, I think that BJ stopping the takedown and landing what looked like some of the hardest and most effective shots of the round hold more weight in justifying "striking" and octagon control".



That is just a random example of that interaction for that very round though.



The other thing that's important to keep in mind is that one of the areas I wanted to investigate was how EFFECTIVE all of this movement from Edgar was.  Was it enough to overshadow Penn's more predictable but consistently forward movement?  There are times when I acknowledge when Edgar's energizer bunny routine was really not as effective towards meeting the scoring criteria, and then other times when I confirmed that his complex motion was indeed giving him offensive and defensive advantages in the fight and better meeting the criteria of the scoring than what BJ was doing.



This means that I intended to lend a very critical eye to the times when Edgar's movement was working and wasn't working, and also where it may have given the perception that he was doing more, when, in my opinion, he really wasn't.



Finally, I may have (unintentionally) used some of those descriptive words because of the issue of perception that I was investigating.  I think BJ's overall pace was pretty normal for a 5-round fight... he started really strong for rounds 1-3, and in the 4th and 5th you could notice he was a step slower (which is why I tried to be honest with my descriptions then, reiterating many times that BJ was visibly moving, reacting, and punching much slower).



I think because Edgar held the same unreal pace throughout the fight, that even though in the last two rounds it looked like his momentum was surpassing BJ (which, it was, IMO), the actual facts of scoring the round were much closer than it seemed... and even if he did win the last 2, I still had BJ for 3 rounds.



That's why I'm perfectly tolerant of 48-47 for either BJ or Edgar, or a draw.  What it really came down to is that, for whatever it's worth, the perception of Edgar's relentless output and many times finishing a round strong after BJ was in control for most of it could have understandably swayed the judges; and also that I don't really see how a 50-45 for Edgar is realistic or very plausible.



I feel I can present a very strong argument for BJ winning the first round.  He had the most meaningful and effective punches (in 3 different exchanges IIRC), and also stopped the takedown, and punished Edgar for it with punches.



That right there accounts for 3 scoring categories:  striking (the most significant strikes), control (dictating the location of the fight), and effective defense (stopping a takedown while countering offensively).




17

orcus -  "The only round that Penn was not moving forward and controling the octagon was the last round."



How was he controlling the octagon? I've seen some people say he "took the center". Who cares? Edgar wanted to move in and out, punch and get away from BJ's heavy hands before being countered, and that's exactly what he did. I don't know what BJ wanted to do, but judging by his expression and performance as the fight went on, I don't think he did it.



 lol@orcus twisting the criteria to fit his own agenda....

18

smth416 - Congratulations on this article UJ its obvious an enormous amount of work went into this.



After a few days I still felt Penn won rounds 1-3 but after rewatching it tonight I can see arguments for Edgar taking round 2 as well.
Thank you, I appreciate the support.



At the very least, even if my opinion/interpretation was horrid, I wanted to put in the due diligence to form a solid opinion.



Because of the danger of subjectivity, I wanted to devour the facts, so at least my opinion was based on a strongly factual foundation.


19

 Watching the fight, I said after the third round that it's possible that Penn would need a knockout to win. I could see a judge giving all fiive to Frankie.



Some of the rounds were so close in striking, with Frankie landing more but BJ landing the harder (although it didn't look that way judging from BJ's face), but the difference was who was dictating where the fight took place and who dictated the tempo.



BJ was never in control of the fight.

20

orcus -  "The only round that Penn was not moving forward and controling the octagon was the last round."



How was he controlling the octagon? I've seen some people say he "took the center". Who cares? Edgar wanted to move in and out, punch and get away from BJ's heavy hands before being countered, and that's exactly what he did. I don't know what BJ wanted to do, but judging by his expression and performance as the fight went on, I don't think he did it.



 My opinion:



"Taking the center" is being referenced because it's a position that's conducive to engagement.  The gray area is that Edgar's in and out movement contained engagement, but also a lot of backward movement, circling, and evasion.  Penn mostly walked forward and pursued.



This is important because "effective aggression" specifically references FORWARD movement.



For the "octagon control" criteria, I think this tactic for Edgar (in certain instances) "created striking opportunities"; however, I believe the most important criteria for control is standing versus grappling, meaning that it should hold more weight if one fighter is able to remain in the position of his choice and score offensively with strikes.  So BJ stopping Edgar's takedown, or any incident that dictates whether a fight is standing or on the ground is more important than various movement standing.



Of course, "how was BJ controlling the octagon" is not a simple answer, as there were times he did and didn't.