Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
mewse
May 2, 2006



Does anyone want a treatise on why Machida won that decision

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mewse
May 2, 2006



Tezcatlipoca posted:

Machida kicked and punched more than Anders so he won.

This is basically it. Someone commented yesterday "Anders didn't realize he was fighting a points fighter".

It's true Machida got wobbled once every round but that was like the only effective aggression coming out of Anders, and almost KOing someone doesn't count as much on the scorecard if the other guy is dictating the tempo for the other 4m30s. There's an argument that splitting Machida's forehead open was significant but that's just scar tissue opening up, judges aren't supposed to score with stockton rules.

Somewhere in the middle of the fight Anders looked like he was mesmerized by Machida's movement because he wasn't throwing anything and just letting Machida circle around the outside of the canvas. His coach was screaming "jab" for half the round, and that was the only good advice I saw from his corner, because it was looking like the kinda fight you get when two counterpunchers circle each other and wait for something to happen.

Later in the fight during Anders' bursts of power he would throw 2-3 punches and then shoot on Machida and then get shucked off. It was infuriating to watch because if you are lighting a guy up on the feet, why are you shooting on him and not completing the takedown (he did complete one in rd5). Later we saw between rounds his coaches were actually telling him to do that and that "it doesn't matter if you don't actually take him down". I guess what they were aiming for was for Anders to lean against him on the cage Randy Couture style for the majority of the round, which can win rounds but isn't what was happening in this fight.

What was happening was that Machida was landing more strikes than Anders. This is from fightmetric:

quote:

SIGNIFICANT STRIKES LANDED, PER ROUND
Rd 1
Machida: 15 of 26 - 57%
Anders: 2 of 6 - 33%
Rd 2
Machida: 14 of 22 - 63%
Anders: 6 of 13 - 46%
Rd 3
Machida: 10 of 19 - 52%
Anders: 9 of 19 - 47%
Rd 4
Machida: 10 of 18 - 55%
Anders: 6 of 18 - 33%
Rd 5
Machida: 13 of 27 - 48%
Anders: 9 of 21 - 42%

Brazil is using the new unified rules, and here is what the new rules have for judging criteria:

quote:

The document clarifies that an MMA fight should be judged on a single criterion: Effective Striking/Grappling. Only if Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal, would a judge move to the second criterion (Plan B) of Effective Aggressiveness. And only if Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal, would a judge move to the third criterion (Plan C) of Cage/Ring Control.

So as a judge you have one criteria to evaluate the fight: effective striking/grappling. The audience sees Anders' power and thinks that's more effective, but judges tend to go with quantity of strikes. This is a thing that was a big problem in amateur boxing with computerized scoring. Anders didn't really do enough grappling to overshadow the amount of strikes that Machida was landing. Since striking wasn't 100% equal, they don't even consider the criteria of aggressiveness or ring control.

And it was Brazil. The fact that Anders' coaches thought he had it in the bag is loving sad.

mewse
May 2, 2006



After I wrote all that out there is more clarification about what effective striking means

quote:

Effective striking/grappling is defined with the word "damage" removed from the previous proposal. "Impact" is the substitute for "damage." The definition is meant to train judges' attention towards effectiveness over things like flashiness or top control without - dare we say - any damage.

Effectiveness in striking/grappling is about "impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match," with immediate impact receiving more weight than cumulative impact.

The new criteria also explain that, whether on top or bottom, fighters should be assessed more on the "impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position." So if a bottom fighter's throwing nasty elbows from guard while the top fighter's hanging out with body, body, head every once and a while, the bottom fighter's winning.

Since Anders' strikes had potential to end the match they should've scored more heavily than Machida's output, so really it was whoever the judges wanted to win and lol Brazil

mewse
May 2, 2006



CommonShore posted:

Speaking of which, I can only think of one time that the towel flew in the UFC, which was Josh Thompson vs Nate Diaz, and nobody thinks less of Diaz or his corner for it.

There is probably a rule against doing it literally

mewse
May 2, 2006



TheTofuShop posted:

Novitsky was very specific that the responsibility for what they are taking is on the fighters and their training staff.

Unless you are Jon Jones, then Novitsky will publicly proclaim your innocence

mewse
May 2, 2006



Charles Gnarwin posted:

Word on Twitter is that Punk's Chicago opponent will be Mike Jackson. Mickey Gall being the special guest referee is not confirmed yet.

Michael Jackson is dead.

mewse
May 2, 2006




mewse
May 2, 2006



Triticum Guzzler posted:

Tai Tuivasa is the next generation of jiggly brawlers, long may he do weird poo poo

Iím more inclined to support Cyril the Frenchman who seemed bewildered to find himself inside the octagon

mewse
May 2, 2006



DO YALL WANT A BOXC posted:

Blaydes seems like an okay prospect, he managed to not get totally destroyed by Ngannou and Hunt, he seems to actually be in much better shape than in his previous fights, he's got good reach, and he fought smartly.

if he can continue to threaten takedowns against everyone, that's going to help his mediocre striking. hunt couldn't really commit to anything with how easy blaydes was taking him down, the fight seemed to change with that

I think Stipe would beat him with superior striking and enough wrestling to neutralize Blaydes' strengths

mewse
May 2, 2006



All White Guys Look The Same

mewse
May 2, 2006



Jack Slack analysis of Rockhold/Romero and the rest of the card too

mewse
May 2, 2006



Gay Horney posted:

I thought rockhold did a much better job of boxing and moving his head off the center line, but only when he was using his new tools. The counter right and the body kick both looked like old rockhold where he does the right thing at the right time but in a very exaggerated way

Slack's point that Rockhold doesn't know how to move laterally was pretty much spot on

mewse
May 2, 2006



Gay Horney posted:

He kinda does though. There were a couple combos yoel threw that had rockhold ducking weaving and pivoting. I did only watch the fight one time maybe they were really telegraphed

Rockhold seemed to be reacting to Romero's flurries by throwing his guard up and frantically backing away, and then when Yoel got him against the cage he didn't know what to do. The gif Slack used to illustrate this was when Yoel got like 6 brutal unanswered punches to Rockhold's ribs in the clinch

mewse
May 2, 2006



Please forgive my Canadian brother for thinking America cares about workers' rights

mewse
May 2, 2006




He's top fragging and he's got a dragon lore

mewse
May 2, 2006



Welcome to Carla Esparzaís Retirement Fight

mewse
May 2, 2006



Southpaugh posted:

According to Mcgregors social media hes back in the gym, and as we know hes a lazy bastard and wouldn't be there for no reason, so maybe he'll fight this year? (He's fighting Tyron Woodley.)

Three belts, baby

mewse
May 2, 2006



Skip My Posts posted:

wtf twitter banning me when the ufc specifically said ANY symbol

lol

mewse
May 2, 2006



I guess they don't like national socialism

mewse
May 2, 2006



Snowman_McK posted:

Wasn't there some announcement about them finally confirming that they will strip Conor?

per dwhite:

quote:

"I said in the last press conference that fight will be for the title," White told TMZ when asked about the matchup between current interim lightweight champion Tony Ferguson and Khabib Nurmagomedov. "It's not for the interim title. That fight is for the real title."

When further pressed, White said it was "right" that he would have to strip McGregor of the belt.

"Conor understands (about being stripped of the title). Listen, Conor made a lot of money and he wants some time off, but the division has to go on and the business has to go on," White said.

mewse
May 2, 2006



Gay Horney posted:

I didn't realize this but two out of Kelvins three losses have come against champs. one of whom he nearly kayoed. the other one was a narrow split over Neil Magny who was at the height of his powers at the time and was wrestling everybody to boring decisions.
In the meantime he's blasted through three former champs (granted, they were Vitor, Bisping, and Hendricks) and scored a win over Kennedy while he was giving top guys trouble. Souza is a great fight for him

Kelvin.. is good?

mewse
May 2, 2006



Length of suspension won't be decided until usada arbitration?

e: sorry not watching the hearing so I don't know what's going on

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mewse
May 2, 2006



I don't like Ortega's style and want to see him KO'd

  • Locked thread