"I don't know how you can say BJ never moved forward when you plainly admit how much time Edgar was moving backwards and away. Did BJ do that? No. He was mostly going after Edgar. "
I'm just talking about the strict definition of effective aggression in the rules. "Moving forward and landing a legal strike." -- moving forward and missing because your opponent moved away does not qualify under that definition, and neither does counterpunching when your opponent moves in.
Also, back to the third round -- as I said, striking was essentially dead even. I give Frank "effective aggression" by the definition in the rules. So it comes down to octagon control: "Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities."
I think it's pretty inarguable that at that point Frank had begun dictation the pace and position of the bout. BJ was tiring already due to the pace; when BJ would move forward to attack, Frank would not be there; the engagements largely happened when FRANK decided to engage, not when BJ did. BJ does get recognition for stopping a couple takedown attempts, but note that is just an "example" of a factor to "consider". The main point is who is dictating the pace etc of the bout, and I really don't see how anyone can watch ANY round of that fight and not think that those two were fighting Frank's fight and not BJ's. You've said yourself, BJ wanted to move in and throw heavy leather; Frank wanted to stick and move, tire BJ out with movement, and use superior speed and footwork to tag the supposedly superior, more dangerous striker without getting sucked into a dangerous brawl. Which guy was successful? BJ's frustration, fatigue, and swollen eyes should make it clear who was having more success dictating how the fight went.
orcus - "Again, agree, as do the rules. That's why control is a secondary category to striking. That's how I formulated my assessment of the fight."
I'd say the decision really comes down to round 3. Compustrike had it dead even in terms of strikes landed, Fightmetric had BJ up by a single strike. So basically that round was as even as a round can get in terms of what was landed, and that's when I think you go to the more subjective categories. I give Frank the octagon control because he was simply doing more, controlling the space to move away from BJ's strikes and get in to land his own, while BJ was far more reactive as is his tendency. Again by a literal interpretation of the rules, Frank would also get effective aggression as his strikes were landed while moving forward, while BJ's counterpunching took place while Frank and not BJ was moving forward. If you want to get even more subjective, I think most would agree that the visible accumulating damage to BJ's eyes and apparent change in momentum and activity level this round also could quite understandably tip the scales in Edgar's favor.
How so many people are taking a round that was dead even in terms of strikes landed, where neither guy was rocked or dropped, and saying giving it to Frank is ridiculous and thus makes the overall decision "wrong", is mind-boggling. Especially since, let's face it, none of these complainers are going by a studiously strict application of the unified rules' scoring criteria.
Damn... I thought for a second we were going to agree, but I had Penn winning round 3.
I guess, all I can say is read my blow-by-blow breakdown, but it might just contain the same issues we're disagreeing on above... which is still cool with me.
Frankie either faked or shot for a takedown twice that was stuffed, and I had Penn getting the better of the exchanges (more significant blows landed) for a much larger portion of the round. I gave Penn octagon control for being the one who was constantly moving forward (which is "initiating" to me more than moving in and out, i.e. partial engaging IMO) and he also stopped the takedown attempts/fakes, or disallowed Edgar's intention to bring the fight elsewhere.
By the way orcus, maybe we can meet on common ground because my overall summation was that any score was acceptable, 48-47 for either fighter or a draw, but that 50-45 for Edgar was not.
I scored it 48-47 Penn, I'm thinking you scored it the same but for Edgar?
Agree? crosses fingers
this has been one of the best/most informative threads in this place in a very long fucking time...this and keith kizer personally addressing my question re: real time scoring make today, and this site, awesome.
orcus - "I don't know how you can say BJ never moved forward when you plainly admit how much time Edgar was moving backwards and away. Did BJ do that? No. He was mostly going after Edgar. "
1, I'm just talking about the strict definition of effective aggression in the rules. "Moving forward and landing a legal strike." -- moving forward and missing because your opponent moved away does not qualify under that definition, and neither does counterpunching when your opponent moves in.
2. Also, back to the third round -- as I said, striking was essentially dead even. I give Frank "effective aggression" by the definition in the rules. So it comes down to octagon control: "Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities."
3. I think it's pretty inarguable that at that point Frank had begun dictation the pace and position of the bout. BJ was tiring already due to the pace; when BJ would move forward to attack, Frank would not be there; the engagements largely happened when FRANK decided to engage, not when BJ did. BJ does get recognition for stopping a couple takedown attempts, but note that is just an "example" of a factor to "consider". The main point is who is dictating the pace etc of the bout, and I really don't see how anyone can watch ANY round of that fight and not think that those two were fighting Frank's fight and not BJ's. You've said yourself, BJ wanted to move in and throw heavy leather; Frank wanted to stick and move, tire BJ out with movement, and use superior speed and footwork to tag the supposedly superior, more dangerous striker without getting sucked into a dangerous brawl. Which guy was successful? BJ's frustration, fatigue, and swollen eyes should make it clear who was having more success dictating how the fight went.
1. I'm saying that it's not fair to have BJ moving forward the whole time, and Edgar moving forward only a part of the time as a reason to say "Edgar was the only one moving forward during striking". If BJ wasn't moving forward, then these guys are standing at opposite sides of the octagon doing footwork. That's counter to productive offense.
Again, this is not a blanket statement- sometimes BJ was effective, and other times Edgar's tactic you're describing was absolutely effective.
2. I didn't have the striking dead even. I had BJ winning for the bulk of the round, then Edgar coming on strong in the last minute or so, finishing strong. It lead to my point about perception and finishing the round on top.
3. I think we're disagreeing again on Edgar's movement. I'm just not buying that the guy that runs 50% and fights 50% is the guy dictating things more than the guy trying to fight 100% of the time. I agree on your assessment of the tactics, and think BJ was more successful in 3 of the 5, Edgar in the last two.
Your score is totally acceptable though. I disagree (subjectivity) but agree it's a logical and conceivable interpretation of the objective foundation.
"I scored it 48-47 Penn, I'm thinking you scored it the same but for Edgar?"
Yep.
"I'm saying that it's not fair to have BJ moving forward the whole time, and Edgar moving forward only a part of the time as a reason to say "Edgar was the only one moving forward during striking". If BJ wasn't moving forward, then these guys are standing at opposite sides of the octagon doing footwork. That's counter to productive offense. "
Again, I'm going by the strict definition given in the rules for that criteria. BJ landed very few strikes while moving forward, it's that simple -- most of his punches were landed as counters when Edgar moved in. The wording of the rule makes it sound to me like it is meant to weight strikes from attacking more than strikes from counterpunching, hence "moving forward AND landing a legal strike [i.e. at the same time]". I disagree wholeheartedly that if not for BJ moving forward there would have been no engagement -- BJ's moving forward led to nothing but Edgar moving away. It was Edgar's moving forward and attacking -- under his terms -- that led to all engagement.
"I didn't have the striking dead even."
I'm going by strikes landed, which were dead even. Whose were heavier is so entirely subjective that I don't feel it's worthwhile to try to guess at that in a situation like this where neither guy was getting wobbled or dropped or busted up. Both guys landed plenty of shots throught the fight; neither guy was ever visibly hurt, much less in trouble; both guys were bruised up (BJ very uncharacteristically); and BJ faded very visibly, despite being very fresh in 4-5 round fights where he was not tagged repeatedly (Florian and Diego). I really don't see why everyone is so confident that BJ landed the better shots, especially given how much damage he has done in virtually every fight where he does land anything significant.
" I think we're disagreeing again on Edgar's movement. I'm just not buying that the guy that runs 50% and fights 50% is the guy dictating things more than the guy trying to fight 100% of the time. "
Well, I'd say the guy who is doing his damndest to fight 100% of the time but is only able to fight when his opponent lets him is certainly NOT dictating the fight. It sounds like you're conflating octagon control and aggression a bit. For me, BJ wanted his typical fight where a guy moves in, BJ touches him and the guy falls down. Or where they stand there trading and BJ's superior chin and power give him the huge advantage. In either case, where BJ doesn't have to spend much energy. Whereas we've seen Edgar use precisely his strategy before, as in the Sherk fight -- moving target, in and out. Obviously BJ's timing let BJ be even in terms of actual striking effectiveness (strikes landed); however, divorcing that from octagon control, I really don't see how it's arguable that Edgar was the one effectively dictating the pace etc. They absolutely fought Edgar's fight and not BJ's. Even in the most objective terms, they engaged when and where Edgar chose to engage, not when BJ did.
Should you get points for "effective aggression" when you move in, land a legal strike, but get countered?
kipling200 - Should you get points for "effective aggression" when you move in, land a legal strike, but get countered?Going by the rules, yes. Effective aggression is basically just a tie-breaker kind of criteria.
Thanks for answering my questions concerning the wording of the original article.
Your explanation of using the language choices on purpose to indicate the subjective levels of the action makes perfect sense.
Of course, for me, that leads back to the entire original problem, that under the Unified Rules, the is too much room for personal interpretation by the judges as it stands.
I'm not purporting to have a solution to appease everyone, but I think that the athletics commissions need to revisit the scoring criteria, simply based on the growth of the sport since the rules were first enacted. Not just the growth in the number of athletes or promotions, but with the growth of the sport itself. The fighters of today train and fight differently than fighters did 5 or 10 years ago. Yet we stay with the same judging criteria. I think the need to take into account the diversity that has developed and the equal footing that striking, wrestling, and submission grappling have each taken in the fight game. Add to all that the fact that there are new state commissions that have allowed MMA after the initial rulings were determined and that there are new state, and international, commissions due to be added in the near future.
I will say that I am not sure that judging on a round by round basis, ala the boxing model, is even the best approach. We should also consider looking into the merits of the Pride/Japan systems of scoring the entire fight as a whole, and what positives and negatives could be weighed between the two systems.
Of course, no system will ever be perfect, until we can have some computerized measuring system that can exactly measure each strike, its strength, the amount of force used in wrestling offensive and defense, and a submission analysis system!
I have to say, this is the type of thread that made me leave Sherdog and join here, because I could never find intelligent discussion without personal attacks over there! The UG certainly isn't perfect by any means, but posts like this give me hope.
Thanks again.
ttt
Orcus:
It sounds like you're conflating octagon control and aggression a bit.
I'll start with your comment above, because I was thinking the same thing about you in your opening paragraph:
Again, I'm going by the strict definition given in the rules for that criteria. BJ landed very few strikes while moving forward, it's that simple -- most of his punches were landed as counters when Edgar moved in. The wording of the rule makes it sound to me like it is meant to weight strikes from attacking more than strikes from counterpunching, hence "moving forward AND landing a legal strike [i.e. at the same time]". I disagree wholeheartedly that if not for BJ moving forward there would have been no engagement -- BJ's moving forward led to nothing but Edgar moving away. It was Edgar's moving forward and attacking -- under his terms -- that led to all engagement.
My brain is mushy, so I could be mistaken, but were we not arguing control rather than aggression? "Moving forward and landing a legal strike" pertains to aggression.
What I think we're doing is going too small-picture. Just like aggression plays into control, the deciding factor of everything is striking and grappling. I don't think either of us can make blanket statement in the context of the overall fight on control and aggression, because sometimes BJ's stalking was effective, sometimes Edgar's in and out movement was effective, and how "effective" each was is totally dictated by how successful their striking was during exchanges.
Additionally, it was not as simple as just BJ chasing and Edgar coming and striking. There were times when Edgar threw and landed blows on the way out, just like there were instances were BJ was in fact moving forward and landing strikes.
I'm going by strikes landed, which were dead even. Whose were heavier is so entirely subjective that I don't feel it's worthwhile to try to guess at that in a situation like this where neither guy was getting wobbled or dropped or busted up. Both guys landed plenty of shots throught the fight; neither guy was ever visibly hurt, much less in trouble; both guys were bruised up (BJ very uncharacteristically); and BJ faded very visibly, despite being very fresh in 4-5 round fights where he was not tagged repeatedly (Florian and Diego). I really don't see why everyone is so confident that BJ landed the better shots, especially given how much damage he has done in virtually every fight where he does land anything significant.
Strikes landed (Compustrike, FightMetric) is a very poor determination of who won the striking. It's all about the exchanges. For example, I would rate the strikes in this fight as 1) power, 2) landed with solid impact, but not KO or damage worthy, 3) landed with hardly any impact and the recipient is completely unfazed, and 4) misses. Counting numbers 1-3 tells nothing about who got the better of the exchange. There were times when each guy landed a 2 or 3 punch combo, every punch, but one of the staggered back. You can't discern momentum, movement, ah shit... I don't want to explain it all; I think you get the idea.
Also, I have to note that your constant references to BJ's past performances in comparison to this is subjectivity. None of that should matter nor factor into anything. I tried to consider the fighters two, nameless faceless figures.
As far as your last paragraph, I'm going back to the inability for us to make blanket statements. There were times the movement of both was effective, but that was mostly dictated by how successful the striking was, and I disagree that "were fighting Edgar's fight."
No homo, but I'd love to sit and watch a fight together sometime, instead of talking (typing) about it.
Hey UJ, once again, an excellent article. Nice work. I was thinking about our discussion on this forum about the scoring criteria a few months ago after the Couture-Vera and Machida-Shogun fights when the decision was announced. I had Penn winning 48-47. However, I could see Edgar winning 48-47.
I have a few thoughts. As BKV points out, some subjectivity is inevitable. We cannot measure, at least at this point in time, how clean and forceful each blow is. The challenge would be to minimize the subjectivity as much as possible. I'm inclined to think that the trouble lies less w/ the scoring criteria and more w/ its application (and the human element involved). In other words, I doubt that "new and improved" criteria would solve most of the problems w/ judging that we typically encounter.
It's also interesting to me that most of us on ths thread see eye-to-eye on most of the aspects of the fight. That is, even if we had won fighter winning 48-47, we can see why someone else would reasonably disagree w/ us and score the fight 48-47 for the other fighter. If that is the case, then having either fighter win 48-47 is reasonable and perhaps the best that we can expect today.
I also think that anyone who scored the fight 50-45 Edgar would have to have made some serious mistakes. specially that first round when BJ's jab ws so effective when he was keeping Edgar at a distance.
"My brain is mushy, so I could be mistaken, but were we not arguing control rather than aggression? "Moving forward and landing a legal strike" pertains to aggression."
I was arguing both. Since I considered the striking too even to call in the third round, I would say the round would be decided by the lesser categories of aggression and control. The moving forward and landing a strike is the aggression category, yeah.
"Strikes landed (Compustrike, FightMetric) is a very poor determination of who won the striking."
Yeah. I just mean that the stats bear out my initial impression that the striking was too even to call in terms of who was landing more, and I didn't see anything to make me clearly decide one guy's were heavier.
"Also, I have to note that your constant references to BJ's past performances in comparison to this is subjectivity. None of that should matter nor factor into anything. I tried to consider the fighters two, nameless faceless figures."
Sure. This is more a response to the very common complaint here that Edgar just pitterpattered all night while BJ was landing heavy leather. I saw absolutely nothing to support that criticism. And yeah, in retrospect, given what we know about BJ's power, I think it's pretty clear he must not have been landing any especially significant shots.
For what it's worth, I watched the fight again last night and still thought Edgar won rounds 3-5. I thought the only round BJ clearly won was the second.
P.S.- I'm not a big fan of scoring criteria like octagon control, which strikes me as being too subjective, which isn't to say that other aspects aren't somewhat subjective as well. Why should that count as much as eiher effective striing or grappling? That sort of control is borrowed from boxing scoring criteria and I don't like it in that sport either.
Perhaps simplyfing the criteria would be a step in the right direction.
orcus...r u from canada?
"Why should that count as much as eiher effective striing or grappling?"
It doesn't -- it is beneath them in scoring weight. Like I said, it's mainly a factor if striking and grappling are too close to call, or if nothing of any significance happens in those categories. Keep in mind that basically ALL of the criteria are things for the judge to consider -- it's not like "give 5 points for winning the striking, 3 points for winning aggression, 2 points for octagon control". It's all just stuff to look at when deciding who won the round.
" orcus...r u from canada?"
Nope.
irishrottie - The stand up was so close. What it came down to imo was Edgars ability to dictate the pace for 25 mins and make BJ miss alot. And you are right in saying Edgars ability to close out rounds strong influenced things.
At the end of the day I was rooting for BJ big time but he didnt show up. Edgar deserved the win and I had him winning 4 out of 5 rounds.
During the fight I was looking at sherdogs play by play and was shocked to see how many rounds were being given to BJ.
stand up in rounds 1-3 wasn't very close at all. That's the problem.
It doesn't -- it is beneath them in scoring weight.
Are you sure? I could be wrong, but I thought that all of the criteria counted equally.
Like I said, it's mainly a factor if striking and grappling are too close to call, or if nothing of any significance happens in those categories.
I know, as a tiebreaker, but I still don't like it. It's far too subjective. I feel the saem way about ring control in boxing. At the end of the day, it doens't matter very much.
Keep in mind that basically ALL of the criteria are things for the judge to consider -- it's not like "give 5 points for winning the striking, 3 points for winning aggression, 2 points for octagon control".
In fact, it is sort of like that. If you're right, and effective striking and grappling count more than anything else, but there is a tie, then you do (sort of) give points for aggression and octagon control to break the tie, right?
It's all just stuff to look at when deciding who won the round.
But each judge is supposed to give at least some weight to each of the relevant factors, right? They don't just look at it but are supposed to use all of them. Whether they do is another matter.
My very brief synopsis: There is no way in hell anyone in their right mind could justify FE winning R1. Several rounds were arguable either way, but running in circles and getting punched in the face does not equal a win in anyone's books.
That's how I saw round one.