Was Jan passed it? Or..

Youth got the better of Jan. So if Jan buys a hyperbolic time chamber and trains cardio for 3 months, he will beat Pereira by decision.
 
It's a split decision, which means it could have gone either way. Hard to make sweeping statements like someone is past it after they lose a split decision to a top tier fighter like Poatan.
 
He's 40, I cant imagine that didnt impact his cardio. Good win for Pereira but didn't convince me he can beat the other contenders in the division.
 
Safton said:
He had the body-triangle; the fact that he almost lost it once or twice is inconsequential because he still maintained dominant positions and continued to attack with subs and strikes. It's not like Alex ever reversed him or something. Furthermore, as I've said, the GnP doesn't have to be "sustained or threatening" in order to be scoreable in nature though it helps. Also it was not one third of the round lol. Jan took Alex down fully and had taken his back before the first two minutes were up and attacked the first RNC at 2:55 of the round. From there he largely remained in control of the round. Math was not my strong suit, but to me that seems like decidedly more than one third....
Click to expand...

1/3 I meant the start of the round were he was not in control under some submission threat himself and again I do think what follows makes a difference, if Alex is flat on his back with Jan on his back getting pounded and fighting off tight RNC's that makes a much better case for 10-8's then Jan having to fight off escape attempts, not landing much GnP at all and having only semi threatening sub attempts himself.

Ultimately I don't think you can make a case for judging purely by reference to the wording of judging standards, some elements will always be subjective, things like "dominance". MMA judging is pretty inconsistant still BUT I think a round like this would be scored 10-9 FAR more often than it would 10-8.
 
moreorless87 said:
1/3 I meant the start of the round were he was not in control under some submission threat himself and again I do think what follows makes a difference, if Alex is flat on his back with Jan on his back getting pounded and fighting off tight RNC's that makes a much better case for 10-8's then Jan having to fight off escape attempts, not landing much GnP at all and having only semi threatening sub attempts himself.
Click to expand...

There is a spectrum of 10-8s. The Unified Rules make this clear as they list a series of factors where "If A, the Judge must consider the score of 10-8" versus "If B, the score of 10-8 should be NORMAL under these circumstances". You're listing a very specific set of circumstances as if that's the only thing that qualifies a 10-8 when in fact you're describing a situation more in-line with the old-school 10-8s of ten years ago, prior to the rule changes. Being back-mounted eating vicious GnP for for most of a round is basically 10-7 territory these days.

Ultimately I don't think you can make a case for judging purely by reference to the wording of judging standards, some elements will always be subjective, things like "dominance".
Click to expand...

So... you're suggesting that we literally don't use the provided scoring criteria in order to score fights? What's next, we don't use the NFL rulebook to score the Super Bowl?

Yes, there is some art vs. science and subjectivity to the Unified Rules but they're not that vague & arcane as you make them out to be. I've laid out the relevant subtext word-by-word and I feel there's a pretty compelling case to be made for Jan meeting those standards. If you don't agree that's fine. To each their own.

MMA judging is pretty inconsistant still BUT I think a round like this would be scored 10-9 FAR more often than it would 10-8.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with this, but we watch the sport in a time where outcry is common about incompetent judging. They tend to be particularly conservative with 10-8s. Furthermore, most fans don't even bother reading the Rules in the first place. I don't really put any stock in precedent, certainly not at the expense of the actual Rules-as-Written.
 
Safton said:
There is a spectrum of 10-8s. The Unified Rules make this clear as they list a series of factors where "If A, the Judge must consider the score of 10-8" versus "If B, the score of 10-8 should be NORMAL under these circumstances". You're listing a very specific set of circumstances as if that's the only thing that qualifies a 10-8 when in fact you're describing a situation more in-line with the old-school 10-8s of ten years ago, prior to the rule changes. Being back-mounted eating vicious GnP for for most of a round is basically 10-7 territory these days.

So... you're suggesting that we literally don't use the provided scoring criteria in order to score fights? What's next, we don't use the NFL rulebook to score the Super Bowl?

Yes, there is some art vs. science and subjectivity to the Unified Rules but they're not that vague & arcane as you make them out to be. I've laid out the relevant subtext word-by-word and I feel there's a pretty compelling case to be made for Jan meeting those standards. If you don't agree that's fine. To each their own.

I don't really disagree with this, but we watch the sport in a time where outcry is common about incompetent judging. They tend to be particularly conservative with 10-8s. Furthermore, most fans don't even bother reading the Rules in the first place. I don't really put any stock in precedent, certainly not at the expense of the actual Rules-as-Written.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the provided scoring criteria alone do not do not give you a totally objective standard and honestly even if they did ultimately what counts is the established standard in the sport in practice.

10-8's tend to need significantly more than this, maybe if Jan had taken Alex down right away at the start of the round we might be getting close but even then I do not think you'd see that consistently given 10-8.
 
moreorless87 said:
I'm saying that the provided scoring criteria alone do not do not give you a totally objective standard and honestly even if they did ultimately what counts is the established standard in the sport in practice.
Click to expand...

No, that's silly. Maybe you don't think it's a sufficiently objective scoring criteria, but I think it provides more than enough input to score a fight a fight nine times out of ten. Furthermore, as a fanbase we can't say "Judging is terrible, something needs to be done! They keep getting the Decisions wrong!" while also saying what you are: "Lol, the criteria don't matter, just the established precedent."

So which is it? Do we go with flawed precedent even though it flies in the face of the actual, written rules of the sport we're watching and despite the fact that everyone complains when judges get something wrong? Do I get to cherry-pick which precedents I follow when it's one of my favorite fighters inside the cage? Because I'm sure I could dig up some interesting robberies in the past and use those as an "established standard" to justify why Fighter XYZ should have won. And who can argue with me then? It's established standard! It's set in stone, right?

10-8's tend to need significantly more than this, maybe if Jan had taken Alex down right away at the start of the round we might be getting close but even then I do not think you'd see that consistently given 10-8.
Click to expand...

Once again, 10-8s exist on a spectrum just like 10-9s cover everything from any given round of Namajunas/Esparza 2 (i.e. flip a coin and pick a fighter because it's a staring contest and nothing is going on) all the way to Round 2 of Pereira/Blachowicz where Alex decisively outstruck Jan and clearly won the round.
 
I knew all along that once he's over 40 and old in combat sports years, he would no longer be the same. I fucking knew it.
 
He had a good 5mins but was absolutely knackered. Maybe says how strong Poatan is because he ragdolled Izzy. Was very impressed by Poatans composure.
 
He wasn't passed it, he just gassed it after trying to fight like Glover at elevation.
 
I think him getting old + the Elevation. He had ominant position for most of the 1st while being on top of Alex for a few minutes then looked completely gassed afterwards. He also gassed in like 2 minutes against Glover too
 
No he's not passed it,
1st round sucking air,
He didn't plan for the elevation properly
He was done in the first, basically plodding along each round, had enough to not get seriously clipped by Alex
 
Unfortunate. He looked totally in control in the first. He was apparently there training for a couple weeks too (I think).

The altitude got him.

Alex didn't look very good either, feels more like Jan lost it than Alex won it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,533
Messages
55,568,852
Members
174,825
Latest member
obrad

Share this page

Back
Top