|
Munoz lost that fight because he couldn't land a single takedown and was getting punched in the face throughout.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Decades posted:Do failed submission attempts count for anything? How about slick submission defense? How about if a guy is stuck in an unsuccessful triangle for half a round, in which case he's obviously being controlled, but from the bottom. I don't think failed submission attempts count for anything. Judges don't generally award rounds to guys with multiple failed submissions. In BJJ (I believe) a failed submission only ever counts if it results in a gain in position for the attacker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
I agree that failed submissions shouldn't count any more than a whiffed haymaker should, but isn't octagon control supposed to count? Why wouldn't holding the opponent in a triangle or guillotine apply? And in practice, I do think it helps a fighter when they dive on a bullshit attempt towards the end of a round.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
Decades posted:Yes that's true. But then neither are takedowns. I'd say knockdowns are something of a rough striking equivalent. In my opinion the unified scoring criteria amounts to only slightly more than "fight good" anyway. The more relevant scoring criteria in practice is probably the precedents set by past fights, but even then I'd argue there's a ton of room for interpretation in the rules, and straight up bad judges complicate things significantly. a knockdown is worth as much as a takedown, anything that occurs after a fight hits the grounds and doesn't lead to a stoppage is meaningless
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
david carmichael posted:a knockdown is worth as much as a takedown, anything that occurs after a fight hits the grounds and doesn't lead to a stoppage is meaningless I don't agree, a knockdown is damage, a takedown is not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:33
|
|
He expended too much energy and got tired
|
damage doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
its not an rpg, its a sport.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
I should have known better
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
getting taken down real hard can hurt your butt and mma judges are very empathetic to butt pain
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't think failed submission attempts count for anything. Judges don't generally award rounds to guys with multiple failed submissions. In BJJ (I believe) a failed submission only ever counts if it results in a gain in position for the attacker. At some BJJ competitions they'll award an advantage for a real submission attempt (one that would actually put your opponent in danger and not just swinging your hips and legs around). If you're tied on points when time runs out they'll go to whoever has the most advantages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't think failed submission attempts count for anything. Judges don't generally award rounds to guys with multiple failed submissions. In BJJ (I believe) a failed submission only ever counts if it results in a gain in position for the attacker. In both situations listed the triangle and guillotine are attempted when they're in a bad position anyway. If a fighter takes you down and starts landing ground and pound but you happen to get a triangle on that doesn't mean you should win points. I think someone with an active guard gets you a 10-9 rather than a 10-8 in a lot of instances, but you're still on your back, you've still been taken down and you're not showing what I'd consider good octagon control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:In both situations listed the triangle and guillotine are attempted when they're in a bad position anyway. If a fighter takes you down and starts landing ground and pound but you happen to get a triangle on that doesn't mean you should win points. IMO if you're the attacking fighter that should be worth points. If you get a triangle on and it's a real threat then that should count as attacking even if you don't succeed. Remember, sitting inside of someone's guard isn't a dominant position, it's an upside down mount. The guy on the bottom in guard has a number of leverage advantages that make it a reasonable position. If someone is in bottom guard and takes a couple weak punches but gets off some reasonable sub attempts then the round should either be a tie or go to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:IMO if you're the attacking fighter that should be worth points. If you get a triangle on and it's a real threat then that should count as attacking even if you don't succeed. On the feet, if one guy hits the other guy with "a couple weak punches" and the other guy swings for a couple huge haymakers and misses them all, we don't give the round to the guy missing haymakers. Why would we give the round to the guy missing submissions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:I think someone with an active guard gets you a 10-9 rather than a 10-8 in a lot of instances, but you're still on your back, you've still been taken down and you're not showing what I'd consider good octagon control. no one ever gives 10-8 rounds unless the dude is just laying there half dead though. and even then they usually don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:On the feet, if one guy hits the other guy with "a couple weak punches" and the other guy swings for a couple huge haymakers and misses them all, we don't give the round to the guy missing haymakers. Why would we give the round to the guy missing submissions? Leonard Garcia would argue otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:On the feet, if one guy hits the other guy with "a couple weak punches" and the other guy swings for a couple huge haymakers and misses them all, we don't give the round to the guy missing haymakers. Why would we give the round to the guy missing submissions? I totally agree that damage should always score more than position, but that's totally not how fights actually get scored. A fighter who eats a few big punches in the first minute and then spends the remainder of the round holding his opponent down will usually win on the scorecards. Keeping an opponent trapped in a triangle or guillotine should count for at least as much as being on top, is all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:I totally agree that damage should always score more than position That isn't what I said. quote:A fighter who eats a few big punches in the first minute and then spends the remainder of the round holding his opponent down will usually win on the scorecards. Effective grappling vs effective striking is weighted by how much time the round spends on the feet or the ground. If somebody eats a few big shots, then takes his opponent down and spends most of the round on top of them, effective grappling counts for more than effective striking. And if you take a guy down and punch him in the face repeatedly while he misses submissions, you are winning the grappling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:On the feet, if one guy hits the other guy with "a couple weak punches" and the other guy swings for a couple huge haymakers and misses them all, we don't give the round to the guy missing haymakers. Why would we give the round to the guy missing submissions? It's more like judging punches by KOs. As far as I know it is possible to show an advantage over an opponent in the standup by throwing good punches that land properly but don't knock your opponent out and be rewarded by that for points. Similarly, if a person can attack with submission attempts that are legitimate threats (the defender has to stop all offensive activity in order to stop the attempt) then he should be rewarded for it. If someone just retard flails then that's not a legitimate threat just like a wild miss isn't a threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:It's more like judging punches by KOs. As far as I know it is possible to show an advantage over an opponent in the standup by throwing good punches that land properly but don't knock your opponent out and be rewarded by that for points. Similarly, if a person can attack with submission attempts that are legitimate threats (the defender has to stop all offensive activity in order to stop the attempt) then he should be rewarded for it. If someone just retard flails then that's not a legitimate threat just like a wild miss isn't a threat. A good punch that lands properly does damage. A submission attempt that doesn't result in a submission does not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:And if you take a guy down and punch him in the face repeatedly while he misses submissions, you are winning the grappling. Asking as a guy who knows basically nothing about MMA scoring (and very little more about MMA at all,) what about a situation where no one is throwing punches, but the guy on top spends all his time avoiding subs? Do judges tend to still give it to the guy on top because he is escaping and remaining in the dominant position, or the guy on the bottom for being active and dangerous? I'm assuming the guy on top still, but I am curious if the removal of overt offence from the top tips the scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
The guy on top would then be winning by "OCTAGON CONTROL"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Asking as a guy who knows basically nothing about MMA scoring (and very little more about MMA at all,) what about a situation where no one is throwing punches, but the guy on top spends all his time avoiding subs? Do judges tend to still give it to the guy on top because he is escaping and remaining in the dominant position, or the guy on the bottom for being active and dangerous? I'm assuming the guy on top still, but I am curious if the removal of overt offence from the top tips the scale. This is such a vanishingly rare situation you really can't say much about what judges "tend to" do in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:It's more like judging punches by KOs. As far as I know it is possible to show an advantage over an opponent in the standup by throwing good punches that land properly but don't knock your opponent out and be rewarded by that for points. Similarly, if a person can attack with submission attempts that are legitimate threats (the defender has to stop all offensive activity in order to stop the attempt) then he should be rewarded for it. If someone just retard flails then that's not a legitimate threat just like a wild miss isn't a threat. The other thing is that just because someone puts a submission on but doesn't complete it doesn't necessarily mean it's an effective offensive manuever. Jake shields routinely lets himself get guillotined and passes see his fight with Kampmann. Hell I've got lovely white belt BJJ and I like using triangles as bait to pass against shittier white belts. Avenging_Mikon posted:Asking as a guy who knows basically nothing about MMA scoring (and very little more about MMA at all,) what about a situation where no one is throwing punches, but the guy on top spends all his time avoiding subs? Do judges tend to still give it to the guy on top because he is escaping and remaining in the dominant position, or the guy on the bottom for being active and dangerous? I'm assuming the guy on top still, but I am curious if the removal of overt offence from the top tips the scale. Octagon control and effective grappling. He's still keeping the fight where he wants it by neutralising his opponents efforts to escape or to submit him. Besides 9/10 in a fight the guy on the bottom is getting punched even if they're powerless while he's getting controlled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:A good punch that lands properly does damage. A submission attempt that doesn't result in a submission does not. If the fight went to points then it didn't do enough damage, and damage isn't the only thing scored. A submission attempt at the very least represents a positional advantage for the duration of the attack. You can argue that damage > position and that's probably the correct position to take, but if you have a round where there was no significant damage done but there were significant submission attempts then I'd score that as an advantage to whoever performed the sub attempt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:If the fight went to points then it didn't do enough damage, and damage isn't the only thing scored. A submission attempt at the very least represents a positional advantage for the duration of the attack. You can argue that damage > position and that's probably the correct position to take, but if you have a round where there was no significant damage done but there were significant submission attempts then I'd score that as an advantage to whoever performed the sub attempt. You can't score someone for their intent. Only what they achieve. Missing punches, missing sub attempts and missing takedowns shouldn't earn you points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:If the fight went to points then it didn't do enough damage And if the fight went to points the submission wasn't enough positional advantage. quote:and damage isn't the only thing scored. No, but it is scored, and submission attempts are not. quote:A submission attempt at the very least represents a positional advantage for the duration of the attack. You can argue that damage > position and that's probably the correct position to take If a guy defends submissions, remains on top, and lands punches, his positional advantage (remaining on top) is equal or greater than the positional advantage which results from failed submission attempts, and therefore the damage he does with punches (even if it isn't "significant", whatever you think that means) results in him winning the round. quote:but if you have a round where there was no significant damage done but there were significant submission attempts then I'd score that as an advantage to whoever performed the sub attempt. And you'd be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:This is such a vanishingly rare situation you really can't say much about what judges "tend to" do in it. Ah, something I'll notice after watching more fights, I suppose. I thought the way "lay and pray" is brought up, it might have been a thing that actually happened more than almost never.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
Judging in MMA is an inconsistent mess. Sometimes guys get too much credit for cosmetic damage, sometimes guys get too much credit for charging forward, sometimes guys get too much credit for being on top, sometimes guys get credit for being famous, sometimes a judge favors striking or wrestling for whatever reason, sometimes Adelaide Byrd is judging, sometimes scorecards get filled out wrong, sometimes judges text during the fights or go to the bathroom, sometimes the judges can't see significant action from their limited vantage point, sometimes Gary Shaw is promoting the event, sometimes the UFC has flown the judge overseas to judge the event, sometimes the judge trolls the UG, sometimes the judges withhold merited 10-8 scorecards and the scoring system itself is far from precise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
"Lay and pray" is a term invented by whiny TMA types who never learned how to wrestle and who get dominated by wrestlers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Ah, something I'll notice after watching more fights, I suppose. I thought the way "lay and pray" is brought up, it might have been a thing that actually happened more than almost never. It used to happen all the time. Its an over applied term. usually hating on wrestlers. but it happens, and there are examples of all varieties of outcome on the scorecards. A couple famous examples are Bas Rutten winning the ufc championship fighting off his back against Kevin Randleman and Ricco Rodriguez losing to Big Nog despite handling him from the top. Also Clay Guida has lost a lot of rounds from the top over the years, against Sanchez, Griffin, Aurelio and Din Thomas off the top of my head. Aurelio did almost nothing except a few incredibly lame sub attempts and a judge actually scored the fight for him, Sanchez and Griffin both threw arm punches from their back to win some third round cards, and Din Thomas did a real brilliant job and won it. but theres basically no consistency to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 05:53
|
|
|
sometimes boxing judges lean over and ask Joe Rogan what just happened in the cage. Joe Rogan is too high to explain what happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
I'm sure it's been asked before, but while we're on the subject, what is the generally accepted path to becoming a boxing/mma judge? I know the Honorable Cecil Peoples was formerly a referee because of the gifs featuring his 'refereeing', and Adelaide "Angry" Byrd's husband is on the NSAC or whatever. I know almost all of the MMA judges come over from boxing, but how far away are we from having MMA-specific judges who understand the sport better? Perhaps in a few years when McCarthy, Dean, et al., retire from reffing they can become judges?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
Just watched Dana White's last video blog where Claude Patrick (at least I think it was Patrick) complains about losing a decisions and brings up his sub attempts as a reason he should have won. Which if I recall consisted mostly of holding ebersole in futile guillotines. Even the fighters don't know what's what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
1st AD posted:"Lay and pray" is a term invented by whiny TMA types who never learned how to wrestle and who get dominated by wrestlers. Stephen Quadros - dominated by wrestlers
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 07:42
|
|
|
Decades posted:Just watched Dana White's last video blog where Claude Patrick (at least I think it was Patrick) complains about losing a decisions and brings up his sub attempts as a reason he should have won. Which if I recall consisted mostly of holding ebersole in futile guillotines. Even the fighters don't know what's what. I think that was Walel Watson.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 07:44
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I'm sure it's been asked before, but while we're on the subject, what is the generally accepted path to becoming a boxing/mma judge? I know the Honorable Cecil Peoples was formerly a referee because of the gifs featuring his 'refereeing', and Adelaide "Angry" Byrd's husband is on the NSAC or whatever. I think a little while at least. It's really going to be people who've grown up with the sport, like the current crop of up and coming fighters. There are judges out there that understand the sport, it's just there's not enough of those judges out there yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
henkman posted:I think that was Walel Watson. poo poo. Didn't see that fight. Upon closer inspection pretty sure he was a combination of Phil Davis and Jon Jones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 13:00
|
|
|
Bundt Cake posted:It used to happen all the time. Its an over applied term. usually hating on wrestlers. but it happens, and there are examples of all varieties of outcome on the scorecards. A couple famous examples are Bas Rutten winning the ufc championship fighting off his back against Kevin Randleman and Ricco Rodriguez losing to Big Nog despite handling him from the top. Also Clay Guida has lost a lot of rounds from the top over the years, against Sanchez, Griffin, Aurelio and Din Thomas off the top of my head. Aurelio did almost nothing except a few incredibly lame sub attempts and a judge actually scored the fight for him, Sanchez and Griffin both threw arm punches from their back to win some third round cards, and Din Thomas did a real brilliant job and won it. but theres basically no consistency to it. Not sure the Nog fight counts as that is more seen as a gift robbery than Big Nog winning from his back. When first getting into MMA "Matt Hughes" was synonymous with LNP but even that seems invalid. At this point the only users of the term are Diaz fans (and how IN A REAL FIGHT...), Guida critics (which shouldn't apply anymore given his stoppages), and the few Gray Maynard critics who failed to watch Edgar-Maynard II and III.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
Lid posted:When first getting into MMA "Matt Hughes" was synonymous with LNP but even that seems invalid. When "first getting into MMA" Hughes had five decisions in his first thirty matches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
hi y'all. scoring points doesn't make any sense, because everyone starts with the same amount of points. you can only lose points, not get any. please watch fights, and read a book or something for further clarification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 18:11
|
|