"Are you sure? I could be wrong, but I thought that all of the criteria counted equally."
Nope. The rules say to weight them in order from effective striking/grappling (whichever most of the round is spent doing is what gets priority), then the others.
"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."
Honestly I suspect if you asked the judges what the criteria are and in what order of weight, they wouldn't know.
And therein lies part of the problem. Judges are supposed to be applying the same criteria but who knows what criteria they're really applying?
ron den otter - It doesn't -- it is beneath them in scoring weight.I'd like to thank you and BKViper once again for the thoughtful comments and participation.
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.
The more I try to apply the scoring criteria, the more positive I am that the issue rests mainly on the judges and the flat-out difficulty of scoring something as complex as an MMA fight.
1. All the criteria basically says is that offense is the #1 criteria (grappling or striking).
You prioritize grappling vs. striking by wherever the most time of the round was spent (standing vs. ground). If it's equal, the two are weighed equally.
2. If the #1 criteria of "effective offense" is too close to call, you then look at octagon control, i.e. who is dictating and controlling the action.
3. "Effective aggression" comes next, which is who is moving forward and mounting offense better.
4. "Effective defense" is the last and lowest.
If you try to simplify the basic segments of a fight, I am alright with this set up and the way it's intended to work. The biggest issue that has come up lately has been the interpretation of "octagon control", which I think was clearly targeted at a grappler being able to control the location of the fight.
Now, we're seeing the difficulty of how to interpret control between two fighters who remain standing, where one is the aggressor (Penn, Shogun) and the other is more evasive (Edgar, Machida). The only mention in the definition that applies to striking is "creating striking opportunities" besides "dictating the pace and location". This makes fights like Shogun/Machida and Penn/Edgar hard to score.
Again though, for whatever it's worth, Nick Lembo did basically state that Shogun should've earned the control points versus Machida.
The stipulation about prioritizing striking vs. grappling by the time spent doing each is what caused me to launch into a similar tirade that Torres vs. Guillard should've been a draw, because the third and deciding round was equal time grappling vs. striking, where Torres dominated on the ground as Melvin did standing.
"This makes fights like Shogun/Machida and Penn/Edgar hard to score."
I still say there is no similarity between Machida's and Edgar's strategy beyond both being "elusive".
Machida constantly moves away, and even his attacks mostly come while he is moving backward and his opponent is moving forward, typically when they are over-extended chasing him -- without them moving forward, there would almost be no fight. He attacks when his opponents attack, so in that sense THEY are deciding when the engagements take place.
Edgar moves away when his opponent attacks, but moves in for his own attacks. If they didn't move forward, there would still be a fight, because Edgar closes the difference to strike. His moving away is simply to take away from his opponents the ability to decide when the engagement takes place. He attacks when HE wants.
Good observation Orcus.
In a sense, what you said about Machida, you can almost say about Anderson as well esp of late. Thing with Machida is that, up until the Shogun fight, his attacks (or counters) are almost always the more dominant or its very clear who won the exchange or who scored or whatever. ie) Machida normally completely catches his opponents with his counters flush and his opponents are not ready for it.
orcus - "This makes fights like Shogun/Machida and Penn/Edgar hard to score."
I still say there is no similarity between Machida's and Edgar's strategy beyond both being "elusive".
Machida constantly moves away, and even his attacks mostly come while he is moving backward and his opponent is moving forward, typically when they are over-extended chasing him -- without them moving forward, there would almost be no fight. He attacks when his opponents attack, so in that sense THEY are deciding when the engagements take place.
Edgar moves away when his opponent attacks, but moves in for his own attacks. If they didn't move forward, there would still be a fight, because Edgar closes the difference to strike. His moving away is simply to take away from his opponents the ability to decide when the engagement takes place. He attacks when HE wants.
I agree with most of that (except for the "blanket statement" point I was trying to make), and thought if I left it as open as that they're both more "evasive/elusive" rather than marching forward, that it would avoid argument...?
My point was simply that octagon control was designed mostly for whoever was dictating if the fight was standing or grappling, and now MMA is advancing enough where the sole description of "creating striking opportunities" is far too ambiguous to determine who is in control.
I am trying to get another interview with Lembo on this exact topic that orcus and I have been discussing.
"If I had never seen the fight, and read your breakdown, I would think Penn won 50-45, or maybe 49-46"
That is because that is exactly what a person with a solid knowledge of mma judging would think.
I scored the fight 50-45 Penn and my brother had it 49-46 Penn. There was 15 people watching the fights at my house for my brother's birth day. I don't know anyone who watched the fight live who didn't score it for Penn 3-2 or better, most were 50-45. Noone had Edgar winning 3 rounds because it didn't happen and it leads me to beleive anyone who scored 3 rounds for Edgar is either severely anti BJ or pro Edgar. Or they are classically retarded. There was 10-15 people watching the fights at my house.
"In a sense, what you said about Machida, you can almost say about Anderson as well esp of late."
Agreed.
" I agree with most of that (except for the "blanket statement" point I was trying to make), and thought if I left it as open as that they're both more "evasive/elusive" rather than marching forward, that it would avoid argument...? "
Yeah, I just wanted to make it clear that I think there is a very big difference between Machida's and Edgar's strategy and the purpose of their elusiveness, partially to address the pretty common complaint here that Edgar "ran" the whole fight and Penn made the fight, which I don't think is true at all.
^ I agree with that totally.
I also agree that Edgar's movement almost every time BJ didn't get the better of the striking exchanges was more effective and dictated the pace more than BJ's.
If you remove the success of the striking and measure movement only, then Edgar's was more effective overall.
Good job, guys
There is hope on the UG
Now that the forum has been cleansed of venomous trolls like Sandy Panties, logical discussion is possible.