UFC 328: Chimaev vs. Strickland | Newark

bconcrete said:
See, I don't mind people scoring three for Borz. It was razor close upon rewatch, he keeps coming forward and pressuring Sean, I can see a solid argument for him winning the round.

I really don't like how takedowns and control are scored. If you can hold a guy down, you're controlling him, that's dominance. It's not as effective as damage sure, but this all or nothing shit also just isn't working. There needs to be some more nuance around it.
Click to expand...
It's getting better worded but still ignored. Funny thing is trying to escape and forcing the controlling grappler to stop you increases their dominance, doing nothing as long as they aren't becomes do nothing grappling. Officially speaking: "
Dominance in the grappling phase can be seen by fighter staking
dominant positions in the fight and utilizing those positions to attempt fight ending submissions or
attacks. Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance.
What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed. 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"

Khamzat does it, less so Merab, not so much Islam. Franny shouldn't have won and likely triggered this eventual review.

Meanwhile officials call and score for personal tastes as always
 
a-mart said:
From my understanding damage must be dead even so they never go to the other criteria
Click to expand...
Also, secondary criteria is aggression which was Khamzat, 3rd is fight area control
 
Eranys said:
How is the person constantly putting on forward pressure and also hitting the other guy in the face at the same time not the primary aggressor?
Click to expand...
Sean was backing up and counter striking most of the 3rd, and backing up and circling most of the fight. Countering is never the aggressor by design and relies on that criteria almost never becoming a factor
 
Eranys said:
That is not how I viewed round 3. I'll rewatch later in the week, but we seem to have seen two different fights.
Click to expand...
He's right. I still give it to Strickland by a hair due to the cumulative damage. I get the argument the other side is making, I just don't agree.
 
osubuckeye4 said:
Yea, that was about as even as a fight can get from a judging perspective.

R1 and R4 clearly Chimaev
R2 clearly Strickland
R3 Strickland, but not as clear cut as 1,2,4
R5 was a true tossup


If you value Octagon control and takedowns that lead to no damage, it's Chimaev. If you value striking and damage inflicted, it's Strickland.


I had a little money on Strickland so I'm not complaining .. but, I wouldn't have called it a robbery if the split decision had gone Chimaevs way.
Click to expand...
"If you value"???

The judging criteria is clear. Damage is king.
 
bconcrete said:
He's right. I still give it to Strickland by a hair due to the cumulative damage. I get the argument the other side is making, I just don't agree.
Click to expand...
If I'm in a fight, and every time the other guy swings at me, I slip and hit him with a 1-2, that is winning the fight. I don't see the person whiffing most of the round to be an aggressor.
 
Eranys said:
If I'm in a fight, and every time the other guy swings at me, I slip and hit him with a 1-2, that is winning the fight. I don't see the person whiffing most of the round to be an aggressor.
Click to expand...
He didn't always slip tbf, and it was a lot more "1" than 1-2.

I think Khamzat was the aggressor, he was pressing forward and dictating the fight. But he took a lot of damage doing it, more than he inflicted imo. So I give it to Strickland before we need to use "aggressor" in the criteria
 
bconcrete said:
He's right. I still give it to Strickland by a hair due to the cumulative damage. I get the argument the other side is making, I just don't agree.
Click to expand...
Its kinda moot anyway as long as the judges are just doing tf what they want, but cumulative damage basically can't beat out big moments like opening cuts, reversing momentum and attacking subs etc. Way I sees it is Khamzat was still wearing what Sean did in the second, but that was scored in the second and its cart blanch again soon as the 3rd starts, and Khamzat bloodying Sean was the most important big moment in the 3rd with Sean having no big moments in the 3rd, so thats what should have been the consideration. No biggie anyway, at least it wasn't a wet blanket or backpack fight.

Who's next, hopefully some fatties or some chicks?
 
bconcrete said:
He didn't always slip tbf, and it was a lot more "1" than 1-2.

I think Khamzat was the aggressor, he was pressing forward and dictating the fight. But he took a lot of damage doing it, more than he inflicted imo. So I give it to Strickland before we need to use "aggressor" in the criteria
Click to expand...
I think that part is just highly subjective. There's different kinds of backwards movement. Sometimes you need to use the other person's momentum to your advantage, and baiting them into "aggression" is how you dominate the fight.

To wit: I was once in a firefight in a town where we were could see significant numbers of insurgents headed our way, and we felt the best course of action was to fire and maneuver back towards a platoon of Bradleys. Although we were moving "backwards" we were actually controlling the pace and movement of the firefight, bringing the human wave exactly where we wanted it. And in the end, they ended up finding out how ridiculously effective 25mm autocannons are against unarmored targets. Considering we controlled every facet of the engagement, and they ended up in paste form, who won in aggression? Who dominated that fight?

I would view the fight differently if it looked like Sean was panicking and trying to get away from Khamzat the way people avoided Khabib, but I felt that he was mostly in control of the stand-up after the first round.
 
Leprechaun 5: In The Hood said:
Its kinda moot anyway as long as the judges are just doing tf what they want, but cumulative damage basically can't beat out big moments like opening cuts, reversing momentum and attacking subs etc. Way I sees it is Khamzat was still wearing what Sean did in the second, but that was scored in the second and its cart blanch again soon as the 3rd starts, and Khamzat bloodying Sean was the most important big moment in the 3rd with Sean having no big moments in the 3rd, so thats what should have been the consideration. No biggie anyway, at least it wasn't a wet blanket or backpack fight.

Who's next, hopefully some fatties or some chicks?
Click to expand...
Fatties. Not even close.
 
Eranys said:
I think that part is just highly subjective. There's different kinds of backwards movement. Sometimes you need to use the other person's momentum to your advantage, and baiting them into "aggression" is how you dominate the fight.

To wit: I was once in a firefight in a town where we were could see significant numbers of insurgents headed our way, and we felt the best course of action was to fire and maneuver back towards a platoon of Bradleys. Although we were moving "backwards" we were actually controlling the pace and movement of the firefight, bringing the human wave exactly where we wanted it. And in the end, they ended up finding out how ridiculously effective 25mm autocannons are against unarmored targets. Considering we controlled every facet of the engagement, and they ended up in paste form, who won in aggression? Who dominated that fight?

I would view the fight differently if it looked like Sean was panicking and trying to get away from Khamzat the way people avoided Khabib, but I felt that he was mostly in control of the stand-up after the first round.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top