Rate the "robberies": Khabib-Tibau, GSP-Hendricks, Silva-Brunson, Jones-Reyes

[Hotora86]

Sanchez - Pearson
http://mmadecisions.com/decision/5249/Diego-Sanchez-vs-Ross-Pearson

 

[Fioretti]

2 TD’s > No TD’s

Didn’t realise this need explaining

Is 2 TD's > stuffing 8 TD's?

Silva was successful in 80% of the 10 grappling exchanges, while Brunson was at a 20% success rate.

I realize that needs explaining. Especially to you.

 

[Hirashin]

Silva doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[Perrichet]

Is 2 TD's > stuffing 8 TD's?

Silva was successful in 80% of the 10 grappling exchanges, while Brunson was at a 20% success rate.

I realize that needs explaining. Especially to you.

Do you get points for defending TD’s?

 

[RockyLockridge]

Silva vs brunson was the most offensive.

 

[Gregoire1]

Jones beat Reyes 3-2
Khabib - Tibau - draw
GSP lose to Hendricks 2-3

 

[Fioretti]

Do you get points for defending TD’s?

Is it "effective grappling"?

 

[glavinator]

Is 2 TD's > stuffing 8 TD's?

Silva was successful in 80% of the 10 grappling exchanges, while Brunson was at a 20% success rate.

I realize that needs explaining. Especially to you.

Defending is not part of the criteria for scoring points though...

 

[Le Choad]

Gsp Hendricks was the only clear robbery. I thought Reyes won as well so that's 2. The other 2 were really close

 

[glavinator]

Is it "effective grappling"?

Put it this way...
If absolutely nothing else happens in a fight and fighter A attempts 10 takedown and fighter B strictly stuffs them all, fighter A will win.

 

[HaulParris]

GSP-Hendricks was a close fight. Diego-Kampmann and Diego-Pearson were robberies.
The common thread in a lot of close decisions that go against the fighter who should have won, is them taking their foot off the gas down the stretch. Hendricks coasted in the 5th round, Brunson didn’t push enough, etc.

 

[Al Stone]

Jones Reyes
Silva Brunson

Thats it.

Hmm I wonder why that is?

 

[Intellidamus]

Defending is not part of the criteria for scoring points though...

From everything I’ve read, defending takedowns, strikes or submissions does not score points. It simply prevents your opponent from scoring points. So you are correct.

 

[glavinator]

From everything I’ve read, defending takedowns, strikes or submissions does not score points. It simply prevents your opponent from scoring points. So you are correct.

On top of that though, like I said in another post above...if nothing else in the fight happens except td attempts and stuffs, the fighter attempting the TD's will get the win. May not score points per se, but will get the nod based on aggression and forward movement.

By his logic of defending being effective grappling, blocking 10 punches to the face is effective striking

 

[Fioretti]

Defending is not part of the criteria for scoring points though...

Put it this way...
If absolutely nothing else happens in a fight and fighter A attempts 10 takedown and fighter B strictly stuffs them all, fighter A will win.

On top of that though, like I said in another post above...if nothing else in the fight happens except td attempts and stuffs, the fighter attempting the TD's will get the win. May not score points per se, but will get the nod based on aggression and forward movement.

By his logic of defending being effective grappling, blocking 10 punches to the face is effective striking

These all seem to be your opinion. Defending takedowns actually hits two of the scoring criteria: effective grappling and Octagon control.

If nothing happened in a fight except 10 takedown attempts, and all 10 were stuffed, the person stuffing the takedowns would win. The person going 0/10 had zero success. That is the exact opposite of "effective grappling". The person defending the takedowns is controlling where the fight takes place (Octagon control) and demonstrating more effective grappling. The person going for the takedowns could edge the "aggression" criteria, true, but they would lose 2 to 1 out of the three applicable criteria in this situation.

That aside, a user claimed Silva was out grappled by Brunson, and that is simply not true. 20% success vs 80% success is not out grappling your opponent.

 

[Pierced7681]

1. GSP vs Hendricks
2. Khabib vs Tibau
3. Jones vs Reyes
4. Silva vs Brunson

View attachment 792170

Rarely happens, but the media fucked up on this one and didn’t score the first round accurately.

 

[Calipwnia]

According to the media:

And it’s not like those are sherdoggers posting their opinions. That was round by round scoring from the most professional mma analysts from the most accredited mma media companies.

I felt the exact same way and it took a lot it effort on the part of GSP fans to explain that decision.

 

[glavinator]

These all seem to be your opinion. Defending takedowns actually hits two of the scoring criteria: effective grappling and Octagon control.

If nothing happened in a fight except 10 takedown attempts, and all 10 were stuffed, the person stuffing the takedowns would win. The person going 0/10 had zero success. That is the exact opposite of "effective grappling". The person defending the takedowns is controlling where the fight takes place (Octagon control) and demonstrating more effective grappling. The person going for the takedowns could edge the "aggression" criteria, true, but they would lose 2 to 1 out of the three applicable criteria in this situation.

That aside, a user claimed Silva was out grappled by Brunson, and that is simply not true. 20% success vs 80% success is not out grappling your opponent.

Nah son, that is your opinion

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndic...-mma-judging-changes-a-positive-step.amp.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts_rules

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2uwUCw06sDFwBnJg70TLtQ&cshid=1598040107845

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3Xss8zB5d-CEQ2uZ6Bcm0p&cshid=1598040107845

Try and find something in there that affirms your stance. If there is no aggression and no attempt to finish the fight you simply cannot win. I'll take an excerpt for the third link on the unified rules, judging criteria section E

"Effective grappling is assessed by the successful executions and impactful/effective result(s) coming from: takedown(s), submission attempt(s), achieving an advantageous position(s) and reversal(s)."

Thus, effective defending via grappling has zero effect on scoring points.

 

[MirRocksFedor]

People really hate JJ

 

[Fioretti]

Nah son, that is your opinion

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndic...-mma-judging-changes-a-positive-step.amp.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts_rules

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2uwUCw06sDFwBnJg70TLtQ&cshid=1598040107845

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3Xss8zB5d-CEQ2uZ6Bcm0p&cshid=1598040107845

Try and find something in there that affirms your stance. If there is no aggression and no attempt to finish the fight you simply cannot win. I'll take an excerpt for the third link on the unified rules, judging criteria section E

"Effective grappling is assessed by the successful executions and impactful/effective result(s) coming from: takedown(s), submission attempt(s), achieving an advantageous position(s) and reversal(s)."

Thus, effective defending via grappling has zero effect on scoring points.

You just seem to not understand the words you copied and pasted.

"Successful executions and impactful/effective result(s)."

Re-read that particular line a few times and then try to comprehend what that means. If you still need help determining which end is successful, impactful, and effective - after reviewing - I'll be glad to clear that up for you.