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

[TheItalianStallion]

I think Condit vs Lawler deserves to be mentioned here. Condit outstruck Robbie in every round and went even with him on knockdowns. There hasn't been a clearer striking differential in an all striking fight and it go the wrong way. I personally had Condit 4-1 and would argue it's the biggest robbery in title fight history

 

[TR1]

Tibau did nothing to win, so it's not a robbery.

Anderson clearly lost to Brunson.

I thought Jones-Reyes was close, but I don't really feel like rewatching it. Wasn't that great of a fight (like every post roids Jones fight, hmmm).

I'm not re-watching a GSP decision in 2020.

 

[Morning Star]

The worst out of the 4 was Brunson-Silva, but it really didn't mean much overall since they weren't fighting for anything.

GSP-Hendricks would be 2nd. GSP's face was mush. IIRC it was like 70% Hendricks on the Sherdog poll the night of. That also was skewed due to GSP having the biggest contingent of blind nuthuggers on this forum, plus Hendricks basically having none. It was probably 90% of the fighters for Hendricks and 70-80% of the media. Lot of revisionist history over the years by the GSP kneepads crew.

Reyes was 3rd. Pretty clearly won rounds 1-3. He didn't batter Jones as bad as Hendricks did GSP but he out struck him 3 out of 5.

 

[Perrichet]

Is it "effective grappling"?

I’ll ask again, do you get points for defending a TD?

 

[glavinator]

Attempting a takedown is not trying to finish the fight. It's attempting to get the fight to the ground, attempted Octagon control.

Getting your takedown stuffed is failing. It is not effective, it does not exert control, it does not score points, and does not automatically equate to aggression. What if the attempted takedowns are out of desperation because they're losing the clinch exchanges? What if they missed every punch they attempted, couldn't close the distance, and shot from 8 feet away - barely touching a toe of their opponent?

Remember Bader vs Rumble? Was Bader the aggressor there when he immediately shot on him? Or was it a desperate and failed attempt at avoiding striking? Again, attempted takedowns do not automatically equate to aggression. They are commonly seen as the opposite in MMA, especially repeated failed attempts, and your opponent is displaying more effective grappling (and Octagon control) by denying your attempts. Failing does not score points. Re-read the criteria you posted, more specifically the one quote that I re-quoted for you and asked you to read. You're not comprehending.



I didn't say that, but fighter B would not score points by missing. Striking and grappling are different in this regard, however, and if that needs to be explained further, let me know. In this exact scenario, would you say that fighter B "outstruck" fighter A by attempting to hit him and failing every time?

I'm not even reading it. You don't get it. Youre dumb as bricks. Read the rules, or don't, it doesnt matter anymore

 

[Fioretti]

I’ll ask again, do you get points for defending a TD?

I'm not even reading it. You don't get it. Youre dumb as bricks. Read the rules, or don't, it doesnt matter anymore

Both of you seem to be avoiding the initial and most valid point. I'll ask again:

Do you both consider missing all of your strikes and failing all of your takedowns "outstriking" and "outgrappling" your opponent? Asking for a friend.

 

[Shaddows]

1. GSP vs Hendricks
2. Khabib vs Tibau
3. Silva vs Brunson

IMHO Jones vs Reyes was not a robbery

 

[Intellidamus]

I'm not even reading it. You don't get it. Youre dumb as bricks. Read the rules, or don't, it doesnt matter anymore

The thread is about robberies. Anything that has no impact on the scoring of a fight is irrelevant to the thread. Therefore defense is irrelevant to the thread, as it has no impact on scoring.

 

[CroCopsLHK]

Bisping vs Hamill

 

[glavinator]

Both of you seem to be avoiding the initial and most valid point. I'll ask again:

Do you both consider missing all of your strikes and failing all of your takedowns "outstriking" and "outgrappling" your opponent? Asking for a friend.

We are done going in circles. You can try and manipulate the rules to fit your narrative and move the goal posts all you want. What you consider true or false doesn't matter. The judging criteria and rules have been posted and explained adnauseum. Feel free to familiarize yourself with them. Or go on not understanding them, that's fine too.

 

[Fioretti]

We are done going in circles. You can try and manipulate the rules to fit your narrative and move the goal posts all you want. What you consider true or false doesn't matter. The judging criteria and rules have been posted and explained adnauseum. Feel free to familiarize yourself with them. Or go on not understanding them, that's fine too.

So, you agree that Brunson didn't outgrapple Silva by getting 80% of his takedowns stuffed? You know that was the initial question, right? You two tried to twist and turn it, not me.

Is normal.

 

[glavinator]

So, you agree that Brunson didn't outgrapple Silva by getting 80% of his takedowns stuffed? You know that was the initial question, right? You two tried to twist and turn it, not me.

Is normal.

No, that was not in fact our initial argument. The argument was two fold...

1.) That defending takedowns has no bearing on scoring points and

2.) "if fighter A attempts 10 takedowns and fighter B strictly stuffs them all, fighter A will win."

Again, you have twisted it

 

[Fioretti]

No, that was not in fact our initial argument. The argument was two fold...

1.) That defending takedowns has no bearing on scoring points and

2.) "if fighter A attempts 10 takedowns and fighter B strictly stuffs them all, fighter A will win."

Again, you have twisted it

Wrong.

Silva/Brunson by some distance

Outstruck, outgrappled, outfought yet wins a unanimous decision. Not even a split ffs

http://mmadecisions.com/decision/7772/Anderson-Silva-vs-Derek-Brunson

One of the worst robberies I have ever seen

My response to his statement, and my first post in this thread:

Please elaborate on how failing 80% of your takedowns is "outgrappling" someone.

Silva stuffed 8 out of 10 attempts. Have you watched the fight?

You both then proceeded to ignore that point and turn it into your life long pro-GSP/anti-Silva shenanigans.

 

[DanAndroid]

Khabib beat Tibau, Hendricks beat GSP, Brunsnon beat Silva, Jones beat Reyes.

 

[glavinator]

Wrong.



My response to his statement, and my first post in this thread:



You both then proceeded to ignore that point and turn it into your life long pro-GSP/anti-Silva shenanigans.

Lol, go look at where I entered the thread and what my specific argument was you retard. I've never met anyone so delusional in my life.

 

[Fioretti]

Lol, go look at where I entered the thread and what my specific argument was you retard. I've never met anyone so delusional in my life.

Well, since you're so insistent on believing your wiki and google searches, I've decided to give you the actual rules from a credited source (.gov), and maybe if you read carefully you can see that you are incorrect. Like - 100% incorrect.

https://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/forms_pubs/publications/unified_rules_2017.pdf

Let me also highlight some important pieces for you:

Effective Striking/Grappling

“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact. Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.” It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position. This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.

-In your hypothetical situation of 0/10 takedowns, the effective striking/grappling would be 100% equal, so it is irrelevant, and we will be forced to assess by the next two criteria:


Effective Aggressiveness

“Aggressively making attempts to finish the fight. The key term is "effective‟. Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact should not render in the judges‟ assessments.” Effective Aggressiveness is only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for both competitors.

-This means that failed takedowns do not factor into aggressiveness, and if a fight consisted of only 10 failed takedown attempts, the fighter attempting the takedowns will not get the nod for attempting them - you were wrong. This forces us to move to criteria #3:

Fighting Area Control

“Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace, place and position of the match.” Fighting Area Control” shall only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling and Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal for both competitors. This will be assessed very rarely.

- While it can be argued that the fighter attempting the takedowns is dictating the pace, it is clear that the fighter defending the takedowns is dictating the place and position of the match. This means in your very hypothetical scenario of 0/10 takedowns, the fighter defending the takedowns would win the round based on "fighting area control" only - as it is the only applicable criteria to assess the fight. Per the actual Unified MMA rules.


You are fucking wrong, buddeh, and you should probably stop trying to insult me. Thank you.

 

[Perrichet]

Both of you seem to be avoiding the initial and most valid point. I'll ask again:

Do you both consider missing all of your strikes and failing all of your takedowns "outstriking" and "outgrappling" your opponent? Asking for a friend.

You seem to be doing what you do best, avoid answering questions put to you first then go on to ask something different.

Do you get points from defending a TD, yes or no?

 

[Perrichet]

No, that was not in fact our initial argument. The argument was two fold...

1.) That defending takedowns has no bearing on scoring points and

2.) "if fighter A attempts 10 takedowns and fighter B strictly stuffs them all, fighter A will win."

Again, you have twisted it

Him twisting things is what he does best

 

[glavinator]

Well, since you're so insistent on believing your wiki and google searches, I've decided to give you the actual rules from a credited source (.gov), and maybe if you read carefully you can see that you are incorrect. Like - 100% incorrect.

https://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/forms_pubs/publications/unified_rules_2017.pdf

Let me also highlight some important pieces for you:

Effective Striking/Grappling

“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact. Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.” It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position. This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.

-In your hypothetical situation of 0/10 takedowns, the effective striking/grappling would be 100% equal, so it is irrelevant, and we will be forced to assess by the next two criteria:


Effective Aggressiveness

“Aggressively making attempts to finish the fight. The key term is "effective‟. Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact should not render in the judges‟ assessments.” Effective Aggressiveness is only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for both competitors.

-This means that failed takedowns do not factor into aggressiveness, and if a fight consisted of only 10 failed takedown attempts, the fighter attempting the takedowns will not get the nod for attempting them - you were wrong. This forces us to move to criteria #3:

Fighting Area Control

“Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace, place and position of the match.” Fighting Area Control” shall only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling and Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal for both competitors. This will be assessed very rarely.

- While it can be argued that the fighter attempting the takedowns is dictating the pace, it is clear that the fighter defending the takedowns is dictating the place and position of the match. This means in your very hypothetical scenario of 0/10 takedowns, the fighter defending the takedowns would win the round based on "fighting area control" only - as it is the only applicable criteria to assess the fight. Per the actual Unified MMA rules.


You are fucking wrong, buddeh, and you should probably stop trying to insult me. Thank you.

Lol, you're trying so hard. For the last time, defence has no bearing on the scoring of the fight and will not earn you any points toward grappling, or placement of the match.

 

[Intellidamus]

Him twisting things is what he does best

Spin master in full effect.