Where was the energy the Dana brought to the Aldo Vs Moraes “Robbery”

[Joshuaace]

But if you watch fights regularly it’s very clear most judges do not score fights this way, and thank god they don’t because under that logic it’s almost impossible to make a grappling based style work at a high level…. not everyone can be fucking Khabib lol.

So you are celebrating the judges who don't apply the scoring criteria correctly in accordance with the unified rules? And at the same time criticizing the judging in this fight? Genuine Sherbro angle right there.

 

[Paralakz]

I wouldn't "lmao" against anything in public if my position was held by less than 10% of the population. Then it is probably a better idea that I keep it to myself.

You're not getting how this works. More than 90% of anyone asked says Yan won. The burden of proof is on the less than 10% to say why everyone else on the planet is wrong, just like if you wanted to argue that Rashad beat Jones on points the burden would be on you to explain why everyone else on the planet is wrong.

I already made the case as to why a decision was awarded on the part of the judges. The fight was fixed / they want Sean to get a title shot and are corrupt. Now you tell me why all the media, all the fans, and all the objective people were wrong.

Actually, it we’re looking to real world analogies we’d look at something else that gets judged. So, the general idea of having JUDGES is that they’re more qualified than us. It is, in fact, upon you 90% to justify your argument. The judges, and the results, are with O’Malley and his camp.

 

[Joshuaace]

I do like that quote at the end where you're trying to put words in my post. That's a good one, lol.

The one followed by the question asking you directly if that was your view? That's not at all putting words in your mouth. That is a way of framing a specific question - which you chose not to answer. Which is all good.

 

[Paralakz]

Yan still landed five more strikes than O'Malley in round one, landed a TD and had a full minute of control. Through rewatch, it clearly isn't Sean's round despite his success. I find it hard to give him the first two rounds. O'Malley did great, especially relative to expectations, but I find it hard to award him that fight. It is what it is.

As someone who scored it for Yan but felt it was super close I think everyone’s steadfast clinging to their belief here is interesting.

I’ve also rematched round 1. I don’t believe COUNTING the strikes is the best way to measure their relative impact. So, if I have O’Malley ahead by damage then the takedown occurs, and I’m a judge, and Yan does nothing with the takedown, I’m in a pickle.

My thing is this: MINIMUM two rounds were close enough that arguments for O’Malley CAN be made. Whether they should or shouldn’t is a different story. But if the possibility exists, then the possibility exists the judges see it that way.

My point is. Is it a robbery if the only round that, to me, was conclusive, was the second?

 

[Substance Abuse]

The one followed by the question asking you directly if that was your view? That's not at all putting words in your mouth. That is a way of framing a specific question - which you chose not to answer. Which is all good.

I replied, in detail earlier. If you think that's what I clearly stated by using every level of the criteria to delve into my perspective, then you either can't read or have an agenda and it isn't worth my time. We can both carry on and enjoy our evening. It's as simple as that.

 

[Typrune Goatley]

It sure looked like O'Malley won the first round and the third round. I will have to watch again but upon watching it live, I scored it for O'Malley.

I hate to admit it too because I wanted Yan to win and predicted Yan to win. I don't even like O'Malley. Even the people who think Yan won must at least concede it was a very close fight.

 

[Joshuaace]

I replied, in detail earlier.

This thread, post #66 ?

I don't want to put words in your mouth. But I'm not totally sure I accurately understand your position. Are you basically saying you awarded Yan round 1 on tier 1 criteria, but if needed he would have taken it on tier 2 or tier 3 criteria anyway? Upon re-reading it that's what I think you are saying, rather than you awarded Yan the round because of the total sum of the 3 tiers.

My card:
Rnd1: Sean, tier 1 criteria(close)
Rnd2: Yan, tier 1 criteria(clear)
Rnd3; Sean, tier 1 criteria.(clear)

btw, my agenda runs no deeper than discussing scoring under the unified rules, and it's application to this specific fight, the topic of the thread. You're over it, Cheers.

 

[Dude Incredible]

When I can. I will rewatch. Initially - I had Yan 1 but close. Yan 2 not close. Omalley 3 very close.

I do think when you see the initial fight scores from fans and media it is surprising Dana didn't say something. Comparing it to the Jose situation is okay. But considering who O'malley is and what their likely plans are it also isn't surprising.

 

[Eiger]

I really think a lot of these guys are interpreting the scoring criteria incorrectly, they basically argue that TD’s and ground control don’t score whatsoever. If fighter A takes down fighter B and controls him for 4:50, but doesn’t land any solid strikes on the ground, then fighter B gets up and lands a single jab, their logic is fighter B did more damage so fighter B wins the round… that is completely ludicrous to me.

It might be completely ludicrous to you, but that absolutely can be a legitimate way to score a round. It'd wholly depend on the nature of the TD, and what happened in that 4:50 of control.

Control - just control with no other elements of "effective grappling" - loses to a single jab. Like just holding someone against the fence. It's a scenario we're unlikely to see now as refs break it up (unless it's WMMA, seemingly).

 

[Orochimaru 大蛇丸]

So you are celebrating the judges who don't apply the scoring criteria correctly in accordance with the unified rules? And at the same time criticizing the judging in this fight? Genuine Sherbro angle right there.

Did you read what I said before that?

IMO you guys are interpreting the judging criteria incorrectly… then I said thank god the judges don’t score the fights in the way you guys interpret the rules… that’s what I obviously meant.

It’s a very sherbro angle to take one thing I said out of context on purpose to make me sound like an asshole lol.

 

[Substance Abuse]

Did you read what I said before that?

IMO you guys are interpreting the judging criteria incorrectly… then I said thank god the judges don’t score the fights in the way you guys interpret the rules… that’s what I obviously meant.

It’s a very sherbro angle to take one thing I said out of context on purpose to make me sound like an asshole lol.

He did the same thing to me. I just washed my hands of it. It isn't worth the time.

 

[BEATDOWNS]

because O'Malley is a needle mover and Moraes isn't.

 

[Orochimaru 大蛇丸]

It might be completely ludicrous to you, but that absolutely can be a legitimate way to score a round. It'd wholly depend on the nature of the TD, and what happened in that 4:50 of control.

Control - just control with no other elements of "effective grappling" - loses to a single jab. Like just holding someone against the fence. It's a scenario we're unlikely to see now as refs break it up (unless it's WMMA, seemingly).

As someone who appreciates grappling and how hard it is to take someone down and control them, it’s pretty sad so many people think this part of the sport should be pretty much eliminated by not scoring for it whatsoever

I guess it’s a lot more palatable for casuals who want to see dudes sling bombs at each other (not saying that’s you) or even hardcores who just very much prefer striking

Another good example is Valentina’s last fight, I am more biased for her than any other fighter, but I think it was an absolute joke that she and others argued she is winning when her back is taken, but she is throwing some meaningless strikes… but damage is all that matters so I guess she was winning lol

 

[Papasmurf45619]

Easy, we're all sherbros here.

 

[El Fernas]

Omalley is #1...that tells everything, close fight, i still think Yan won and i thought Aldo won that one.

 

[maximus__]

As someone who scored it for Yan but felt it was super close I think everyone’s steadfast clinging to their belief here is interesting.

I’ve also rematched round 1. I don’t believe COUNTING the strikes is the best way to measure their relative impact. So, if I have O’Malley ahead by damage then the takedown occurs, and I’m a judge, and Yan does nothing with the takedown, I’m in a pickle.

My thing is this: MINIMUM two rounds were close enough that arguments for O’Malley CAN be made. Whether they should or shouldn’t is a different story. But if the possibility exists, then the possibility exists the judges see it that way.

My point is. Is it a robbery if the only round that, to me, was conclusive, was the second?

Even without counting the strikes you can't score it for O'malley though on the feet.
There is no damage so you have to go to the other criteria for scoring on the feet.
Yan wins every criteria. He is landing the bigger shots with Sean reacting by defensively moving back and creating distance with long shots and teeps.
He has the volume and is controlling where the fight is happening by pressuring and he is the one forcing O'malley to be defensive.
That's all before we take into account he lands strikes that lead to O'malley being pushed against the cage multiple times and taken down.

He can't win the striking unless you somehow deem the fact that he lands 2 punches in the middle of the octagon(a neutral position) with no visible reaction somehow won him the round?
If he rocked or dropped Yan sure, but it doesn't even halt his forward moment, yet O'malley has to visibly retreat multiple times from yan's strikes and has much bigger reactions.

 

[Eiger]

As someone who appreciates grappling and how hard it is to take someone down and control them, it’s pretty sad so many people think this part of the sport should be pretty much eliminated by not scoring for it whatsoever

I guess it’s a lot more palatable for casuals who want to see dudes sling bombs at each other (not saying that’s you) or even hardcores who just very much prefer striking

Another good example is Valentina’s last fight, I am more biased for her than any other fighter, but I think it was an absolute joke that she and others argued she is winning when her back is taken, but she is throwing some meaningless strikes… but damage is all that matters so I guess she was winning lol

Luke Thomas (everyone's fave, I know) in his post fight analysis suggested the rules be tweaked to somehow emphasize control should be considered effective grappling in certain circumstances, as it drains an opponent's gas tank and that should be viewed as contributing to bringing about the end of a fight - which is what the rules define as "effective".

 

[maximus__]

As someone who appreciates grappling and how hard it is to take someone down and control them, it’s pretty sad so many people think this part of the sport should be pretty much eliminated by not scoring for it whatsoever

I guess it’s a lot more palatable for casuals who want to see dudes sling bombs at each other (not saying that’s you) or even hardcores who just very much prefer striking

Another good example is Valentina’s last fight, I am more biased for her than any other fighter, but I think it was an absolute joke that she and others argued she is winning when her back is taken, but she is throwing some meaningless strikes… but damage is all that matters so I guess she was winning lol

I think that was different. We need to move away from the back being considered the greatest position in MMA because with the rules it becomes limited.
In a real fight yes the back is a fight ender because you can strike the back of the head, but pretending that locking a body triangle and not attempting anything to finish the fight means you win is wrong.
Belly down back control is the way to fix that, you have that position and the fight is seconds from being stopped.

 

[Joshuaace]

Did you read what I said before that?

IMO you guys are interpreting the judging criteria incorrectly… then I said thank god the judges don’t score the fights in the way you guys interpret the rules… that’s what I obviously meant.

It’s a very sherbro angle to take one thing I said out of context on purpose to make me sound like an asshole lol.

I just quoted you and accepted your words at face value. If you don't like them now go back and hit the edit button, happens all the time here.

Luke Thomas (everyone's fave, I know) in his post fight analysis suggested the rules be tweaked to somehow emphasize control should be considered effective grappling in certain circumstances, as it drains an opponent's gas tank and that should be viewed as contributing to bringing about the end of a fight - which is what the rules define as "effective".

Someone sent that breakdown to me since I don't watch him. That's already accounted for within the UR imo. Though it is in the 10-8 score explanation I think the spirit of the language is pretty clear about "pace" potentially scoring from control. But was Yan really advancing from guard to half to side to mount to back?

In the absence of dominance in the grappling phase, as set forth in paragraph 3 of the promulgated rules, to be considered dominate, there must be a singularly or in combination, some types of submission attempts, strikes, or an overwhelming pace which is measured by improved or aggressive positional changes that cause the losing fighter to consistently be in a defensive or reactive mode

 

[Kyojiro Kagenuma]

So some of you may recall it wasn’t too long ago that Aldo and moraes fought a very close decision fight. Without rewatching or looking too deeply into stats I remember my opinion being that moraes was moving forward and throwing a lot while Aldo was landing more accurately and effectively so it was a bit of a weird fight to score. Moraes was given the nod in a controversial split decision win. The community was super divided and the media was split nearly down the middle. See here

Post-fight Dana declared the fight a robbery as Moraes had gotten the nod, and a title shot was given to Aldo off his decision loss and he was set to fight the 135 champ at the time Petr Yan.

So that begs the question, why isn’t he bringing that same energy to this scenario? Far more fans, and media members are strongly opinionated about this fight. It seems like a much more clean definition of “robbery” given that 88% of fans, and 26/26 media outlets scored the fight for yan. When compared to the Aldo vs moraes fight in which 58% of fans scored the fight for Aldo, and only 9/18 media outlets score it in his favor, see more here

So what gives? Why is Yan not being afforded the same courtesy he was asked to grant Aldo?

Maybe he thought Sean won lol.