Exactly, seems like the refs are overlooking these types of displays of dominance and are more interested in who's pressing the action, even if they're landing nothing.
If a guy moves forward the entire round and throws more strikes (not many land) and presses a guy against the fence with some takedown attempts that go nowhere, he could still win that round in the judge's eyes even if his opponent gets some brief good ground work and dominant transitions in.
Same situation might be true for a guy winning a round that displays octagon control, then gets dropped briefly by a strike, then recovers back to control.
I think judge's are way to focus on who's pressing the action vs who's scoring points like with strikes, takedowns and dominant positions on the ground.
I don't understand it players, but seems like a guy can get dropped with a strike and even mounted, but if he was pressing the action for 4 of the minutes of the round and recovers quickly, the judges can still give him that round.
That's hard for me to acknowledge because ever since watching and training in this stuff since the late 90's, I see a knock down and a mount as winning rounds if all else they did was hug against the fence.
I am huge Randy fan and I hate Verra. I think Verra won. However, if there was another 2 rounds, I feel Randy would have gotten stronger and Verra would have faded.
Immaculata - He put Brandon on the defensive pretty much the whole rnds. 1 & 3. Defense doesn't win fights.
Inaction doesn't win fights, either.
Just because Randy initiated the neutral clinch doesn't mean he should be given the round for it. Nothing happened.
dbl. post
Immaculata - Gordo1581 - Immaculata - He put Brandon on the defensive pretty much the whole rnds. 1 & 3. Defense doesn't win fights.
Gordo1581-"Inaction doesn't win fights, either.Just because Randy initiated the neutral clinch doesn't mean he should be given the round for it. Nothing happened."
Noted it was a boring fight, but you are incorrect. It was not a "Nuetral clinch". Brandon was DEFENDING what Randy was Offensively trying to accomplish. Randy was the one being offensive.
Gordo1581 -Herring In A Fur Coat - Round 1: 10-9 Couture. Boring but Vera did nothing the whole round after the initial exchange.Round 2: 10-9 Vera. Clear victory but not dominating enough for a 10-8 round.Round 3: 10-9 Couture. He clearly outstruck Vera and won all exchanges but one. Vera got a takedown and good position but didn't do anything with it.
Round 1: Randy did even LESS in that whole round than Vera did with that initial exchange.The clinch against the fence was a neutral position.How can you score that for anyone when nothing was done by either fighter. 10-10 round easily.
Round 3: Vera got the takedown and good position but did nothing with it, so he gets no credit for that, yet, in round 1, Randy initiates a neutral clinch and also does nothing but he still gets credit for that round?
This is ridiculous.
For real, Vera gets mount in Round 2 and the refs stands them up for no action in LESS THAN A MINUTE.
Randy clinches for 2+ minutes doing nothing but failed takedowns and the ref keeps them there.
Immaculata - Noted it was a boring fight, but you are incorrect. It was not a "Nuetral clinch". Brandon was DEFENDING what Randy was Offensively trying to accomplish. Randy was the one being offensive.
Absolutely it was a nuetral clinch. A feeble attempt to accomplish some sort of offense does not mean that offense was effectively accomplished.
No adavntage was gained by either fighter while in the clinch. No meaningful strikes were landed. Nothing. That's what made it a neutral position.
Gordo1581 -Immaculata - Noted it was a boring fight, but you are incorrect. It was not a "Nuetral clinch". Brandon was DEFENDING what Randy was Offensively trying to accomplish. Randy was the one being offensive.
Absolutely it was a nuetral clinch. A feeble attempt to accomplish some sort of offense does not mean that offense was effectively accomplished.
No adavntage was gained by either fighter while in the clinch. No meaningful strikes were landed. Nothing. That's what made it a neutral position.
No, Randy initiated it. Randy was the offensive one.
Stop looking at the fight AS A FAN.
U guys have to understand the JUDGING CRITERIA.
Randy won 1 & 3.
Come on guys, I'm only trying to save U from future suffering.
Immaculata -Gordo1581 -Immaculata - Noted it was a boring fight, but you are incorrect. It was not a "Nuetral clinch". Brandon was DEFENDING what Randy was Offensively trying to accomplish. Randy was the one being offensive.
Absolutely it was a nuetral clinch. A feeble attempt to accomplish some sort of offense does not mean that offense was effectively accomplished.
No adavntage was gained by either fighter while in the clinch. No meaningful strikes were landed. Nothing. That's what made it a neutral position.
No, Randy initiated it. Randy was the offensive one.
Stop looking at the fight AS A FAN.
U guys have to understand the JUDGING CRITERIA.
Randy won 1 & 3.
Come on guys, I'm only trying to save U from future suffering.
What are these judging criteria are you using?
Because the UFC criteria:
"J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities
K. Effective Aggressiveness
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring)
2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness."
Doesn't seem to support your argument.
Look at the 1st. point of J & K and try and say Randy didn't win rnds. 1 & 3.
Immaculata - Immaculata - Gordo1581 - Immaculata - He put Brandon on the defensive pretty much the whole rnds. 1 & 3. Defense doesn't win fights.
Gordo1581-"Inaction doesn't win fights, either.Just because Randy initiated the neutral clinch doesn't mean he should be given the round for it. Nothing happened."
Noted it was a boring fight, but you are incorrect. It was not a "Nuetral clinch". Brandon was DEFENDING what Randy was Offensively trying to accomplish. Randy was the one being offensive.
Lol at anyone not being able to tell that Randy was on the offensive in the clinch 90% of the time.
Just lol. This place....
Wasa-B - Lol at anyone not being able to tell that Randy was on the offensive in the clinch 90% of the time.
Just lol. This place....
Inaction = Offense?
Wtf is this shit?
It was a neutral clinch. They were stalled. Nothing happened.
It really can't be that difficult to understand.
that kind of judging will turn the TUF generation off of mma. I can't imagine betting on a fight like that. Bullshit
I rewatched rd 3, i can see why it went to Randy looking back. He controlled the first 3 mins of that round, throwing punches here and there in the clinch pressing Brandon against the change while Vera did almost nothing. Not that Randy did a lot, just more then Vera. He was also more active in the stand up. Brandon got mount, but didn't do anything with it, and got reversed.
It was close, certainly not worth calling the judges out on it. I think if you examined punches thrown and landed, it would look more in Randy's favour.
I think a lot of people got bored during the fight, and only remember the parts Brandon did cause there was more an element he could end the fight, whereas Randy was methodically playing to win on the scorecard.
Vera is one of the most overrated fighters - I hate the guy - yet he clearly beat Randy.
Where are the idiots that claimed Randy could beat Fedor? LOL
LOL at anyone giving the fight to Couture - you guys are too biased.
Jiu Jitsu Panda - So in your opinions Randy should give up his game plan of taking Vera down and trade punches? If thats the case Vera should of stoped fighting the take down and let Randy take him down. Yes Vera landed some good kicks but he couldn't finish it. Randy was consistently working to get Vera to the ground. Thats pressure, thats controling the fight. not exciting but it gets the job done.
I agree! It's ok if your a Vera fan, it's even ok to think he won, but to say there's no way to justify giving the win to Couture is ignorant. I was pushing for Vera, and while his flurries were nice they weren't enough.
Threads like drown out decesions that turely were robberies...Rua/Machida.
Everyone who scored this fight for Randy, apparently, have never scored a round 10-10 (nor a 10-8, perhaps).
Whether it's a stall-fest or a beatdown, they're all equally scored at 10-9.
And THAT'S the problem with MMA scoring. The ridiculous judges and many of the fans see every round as a 10-9.
Whether it's a stall-fest or a beatdown, they're all equally scored at 10-9.
And THAT'S the problem with MMA scoring.
thats what ive been saying
gotta use a larger range of scoring
Id have to watch again but I think Randy's flurries and initiating pushed the fight more than Vera's last minute td in which he never really established attack nor control won Randy R3.
On the other hand, even if you think Randy lost R3 or Vera won it, I def dont remember Vera winning it clearly enough to get the nod. The more i think back, the more I seem to think Randy by R1 and R3 was the only real choice.