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

Fioretti said:
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.
Click to expand...
Also, that is 100% my last reply to this idiocy. Idc what else you post or argue, it all comes down to my last reply and that is where I'm leaving it
 
Perrichet said:
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?
Click to expand...

Perrichet said:
Him twisting things is what he does best
Click to expand...

glavinator said:
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.
Click to expand...

Intellidamus said:
Spin master in full effect.
Click to expand...

So all three of you disagree with the actual rules?

I posted the source, highlighted the key points, and even explained to you how they apply to your hypothetical situation. You're wrong. The only applicable criteria is "fighting area control", and that goes to the guy controlling the place and position of the fight by defending the takedowns.

Deal with it.
 
glavinator said:
Also, that is 100% my last reply to this idiocy. Idc what else you post or argue, it all comes down to my last reply and that is where I'm leaving it
Click to expand...

This is you tapping out because you've been proven wrong. In a fight with only 0/10 takedowns, the fighter defending the takedowns wins based on fighting area control only.

Defending takedowns doesn't score points, I never said they did. I did say it was effective grappling and Octagon control. Per the official rules, it is not technically considered effective grappling, but it is clearly more effective than failing takedowns, as it determines control, and ultimately leads to the W.

Sorry for ya, friend.
 
I honestly never watched Brunson/Silva. Heard it was a shit show. not interested in watching over the hill Andy Dick around.

with that said.

Hendricks/GSP...was irate when it happened. Have gone back and watched it since, was closer than I remembered. Still not sure how anyone can see GSP winning it though tbh.

Reyes/Jones - thought Reyes won, but can see the arguemnt for Bones. Reyes cardio failed him and he faded hard the last couple rounds. Rounds 2 and 3 were pretty close. Hard to decisively say Reyes won the fight.

Khabib/Tibau was scored correctly. Good decision. Only mentioned with other robberies because of Connor fanboys/khabib haters. Khabib won that fight pretty clearly
 
Gsp vs hendricks wasn't a robbery. It comes down to what 5 second portion of the first round you favored more. That's just a close fight
 
Hendricks GSP was the only fight on that list I saw except the Jon Jones fight which was not a robbery. There is no way GSP won the hendricks fight though
 
Khabib / Tibau was in no way a robbery. Tibau pressed and tried for takedowns, khabib stuffed them. Not to mention Tibau was on the juice. I gave the edge to khabib for nullifying all of gleisons efforts
 
Off-topic but notice how Fedor isn't on this list?

Fedor = GOAT
 
Sinthesized said:
Khabib / Tibau was in no way a robbery. Tibau pressed and tried for takedowns, khabib stuffed them. Not to mention Tibau was on the juice. I gave the edge to khabib for nullifying all of gleisons efforts
Click to expand...
Its funny that all these people who claim Khabib a weight bully,dont ever say shit about Gleison Tibau

1065031276.jpg.0.jpg
 
Brunson-Silva one of the worst robberies ever

GSP-Hendricks

Jones-Reyes 3-2 Reyes, but I’m not upset with the result, cause it’s possible to see how they judged it for Jones

Tibau-Khabib shouldn’t even be on this list
 
The only robbery is GSP/Hendricks. Confirmed GSP fan here too. Burgers won that fight. Jones and Khabib won close fights, but I believe the results were fair. Didn't watch Spider/Brunson and I'm not that interested in doing so.
 
Reyes Lost said:
Hendricks GSP was the only fight on that list I saw except the Jon Jones fight which was not a robbery. There is no way GSP won the hendricks fight though
Click to expand...
Rewatch that GSP fight and actually score it. GSP takes 3 rounds.
 
jsbx45 said:
The only robbery is GSP/Hendricks. Confirmed GSP fan here too. Burgers won that fight. Jones and Khabib won close fights, but I believe the results were fair. Didn't watch Spider/Brunson and I'm not that interested in doing so.
Click to expand...
Reyes/Jones was the biggest robbery I’ve ever seen. How can Jon win a round while being comfortably outstruck? Idiotic judging
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHJ
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TGArthur
Media Derek Brunson made a lot more money in PFL than the UFC
Replies
18
Views
994
Kowboy On Sherdog
Kowboy On Sherdog

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,215
Messages
55,475,141
Members
174,786
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top