UnderGround Forum >> Guida vs Hioki: Robbery of the Year candidate

TDogg926 -

Ryann Von Doom -

TDogg926 - Takedowns. My friend. Takedowns.

He's not your fren, budday.

And take downs with little to no work > sub attempts and good striking. Gotcha.

You're not my buddy guy.

I agree with you. I'm just saying why he won. Doesn't mean I agree with it at all.

Wasa-B - Fair enough casehearts, i think you're saying YOU have a preference from being on top, perhaps due to your original wrestling background. Myself, i started in wrestling, then to judo, not a day in BJJ but always liked the guard in judo.

Anyhow, preferences aside and with the MMA context, not just BJJ, at the end of the day, imo still, if both guys are doing nothing, both guys are doing nothing and its a wash.

caseharts - 

Gokudamus stole my name - If neither the top guy or the bottom guy is doing anything then thats a draw at best and two guys having sex at worst. I dont deal in what if scenarios, you dont win fights based on what you could do, you win based on what you actually do

Did the bottom guy get taken down? If so he lost. Take downs Mayer to me. Not as much as some crazy judges but they matter.

caseharts - 

Soul Gravy -

caseharts - 

Wasa-B -

caseharts - 

MdGeist -

Pork Sword - 

This problem will not go away until full guard is considered a neutral position like it should be. If you get a takedown great but you need to do something with it besides eating elbows and fighting off chokes.

 

I totally agree.

I don't think it will happen over night but in the next few years, hopefully were going to see more judges that actually have BJJ/grappling backgrounds that can recognize the significance of an offensive guard and weigh certain strikes/sub. attempts from guard/half-guard equally to comparable offensive techniques from top-control.

Guard is not a neutral position. The guy on top is winning for sure if the bottom guy isn't going for subs constantly or sweeps. I thought clay was losing but I knew how judges would react.

Being on top is winning. Look at koch vs lamas most of those bombs were thrown in guard then lifted his legs and unleashed some heat.

What on earth does Lamas GNPing the living death out of Koch on top have to do with Hioki making Clay hang on for dear life from the bottom?

Guard IS a neutral position. Its up to either to put their offense/control/etc from there. Clay may have "controlled" more of the time but was also in sub attempts (fight finishing attempts) and also had to defense sweeps, GNP from guard where he landed hardly any GNP himself, only got half guard once which was lost and which he did nothing with.

I don't agree. Guard is not neutral to me. Guard favors the top guy unless we see what hioki did to clay.

Have you ever even been in someone's guard?

Lengthy of high level black belts. This is mma. Not bjj though.

caseharts - 

Gokudamus stole my name - If neither the top guy or the bottom guy is doing anything then thats a draw at best and two guys having sex at worst. I dont deal in what if scenarios, you dont win fights based on what you could do, you win based on what you actually do

Did the bottom guy get taken down? If so he lost. Take downs Mayer to me. Not as much as some crazy judges but they matter.

Wasa-B -

caseharts - 

Gokudamus stole my name - If neither the top guy or the bottom guy is doing anything then thats a draw at best and two guys having sex at worst. I dont deal in what if scenarios, you dont win fights based on what you could do, you win based on what you actually do

Did the bottom guy get taken down? If so he lost. Take downs Mayer to me. Not as much as some crazy judges but they matter.

Irrelevant. It still comes down to what you do after the td. Look at the slam from Guida, he couldnt even establish position, Hioki immediately went to a switch so Guida got a td, a flashy one but was not in full control after that.

Its like saying if you score one jab and the other backs up, that doesnt mean you should be given credit for 3 jabs, only the 1 jab esp if you are not necessarily in control of the sequence after. If the other guy backs up but is still in position to counter and not hurt or cowering in defense, why would you be given credit for what theoretically COULD happen next?

And what do you mean by "he lost." A td is only a td. YOu have read it in the OVERALL CONTEXT of what's going on OVERALL.

caseharts - 

Wasa-B - Fair enough casehearts, i think you're saying YOU have a preference from being on top, perhaps due to your original wrestling background. Myself, i started in wrestling, then to judo, not a day in BJJ but always liked the guard in judo.

Anyhow, preferences aside and with the MMA context, not just BJJ, at the end of the day, imo still, if both guys are doing nothing, both guys are doing nothing and its a wash.

I understand I have a preference. But if a guy takes another guy down and is a stalemate and they get stood up and the same repeats as boring as it is he won. Im not implying stalling. I mean a real stalemate. Those transforms and top position are a divider. They should count for a ton but enough to split a tie yes.

I actually like being on bottom more.

Soul Gravy -

caseharts - 

Soul Gravy -

caseharts - 

Wasa-B -

caseharts - 

MdGeist -

Pork Sword - 

This problem will not go away until full guard is considered a neutral position like it should be. If you get a takedown great but you need to do something with it besides eating elbows and fighting off chokes.

 

I totally agree.

I don't think it will happen over night but in the next few years, hopefully were going to see more judges that actually have BJJ/grappling backgrounds that can recognize the significance of an offensive guard and weigh certain strikes/sub. attempts from guard/half-guard equally to comparable offensive techniques from top-control.

Guard is not a neutral position. The guy on top is winning for sure if the bottom guy isn't going for subs constantly or sweeps. I thought clay was losing but I knew how judges would react.

Being on top is winning. Look at koch vs lamas most of those bombs were thrown in guard then lifted his legs and unleashed some heat.

What on earth does Lamas GNPing the living death out of Koch on top have to do with Hioki making Clay hang on for dear life from the bottom?

Guard IS a neutral position. Its up to either to put their offense/control/etc from there. Clay may have "controlled" more of the time but was also in sub attempts (fight finishing attempts) and also had to defense sweeps, GNP from guard where he landed hardly any GNP himself, only got half guard once which was lost and which he did nothing with.

I don't agree. Guard is not neutral to me. Guard favors the top guy unless we see what hioki did to clay.

Have you ever even been in someone's guard?

Lengthy of high level black belts. This is mma. Not bjj though.

Then you should know better than what you're saying on here.

Wasa-B -

caseharts - 

Wasa-B - Fair enough casehearts, i think you're saying YOU have a preference from being on top, perhaps due to your original wrestling background. Myself, i started in wrestling, then to judo, not a day in BJJ but always liked the guard in judo.

Anyhow, preferences aside and with the MMA context, not just BJJ, at the end of the day, imo still, if both guys are doing nothing, both guys are doing nothing and its a wash.

I understand I have a preference. But if a guy takes another guy down and is a stalemate and they get stood up and the same repeats as boring as it is he won. Im not implying stalling. I mean a real stalemate. Those transforms and top position are a divider. They should count for a ton but enough to split a tie yes.

I actually like being on bottom more.

" But if a guy takes another guy down and is a stalemate and they get stood up and the same repeats as boring as it is he won."

I think what you're trying to say is that the td/top guy should get credit as "winning" that entire sequence from td to stand up?

COmpletely disagree. The only thing he should get credit for is the td which is minor. If both guys do nothing on the ground, they should be credited as such - doing nothing.

caseharts - 

Wasa-B -

caseharts - 

Gokudamus stole my name - If neither the top guy or the bottom guy is doing anything then thats a draw at best and two guys having sex at worst. I dont deal in what if scenarios, you dont win fights based on what you could do, you win based on what you actually do

Did the bottom guy get taken down? If so he lost. Take downs Mayer to me. Not as much as some crazy judges but they matter.

Irrelevant. It still comes down to what you do after the td. Look at the slam from Guida, he couldnt even establish position, Hioki immediately went to a switch so Guida got a td, a flashy one but was not in full control after that.

Its like saying if you score one jab and the other backs up, that doesnt mean you should be given credit for 3 jabs, only the 1 jab esp if you are not necessarily in control of the sequence after. If the other guy backs up but is still in position to counter and not hurt or cowering in defense, why would you be given credit for what theoretically COULD happen next?

And what do you mean by "he lost." A td is only a td. YOu have read it in the OVERALL CONTEXT of what's going on OVERALL.

No take downs hurt. Especially that slam man. They matter. Remember im not referencing clay hioki fight in those posts.

Takedkwns can hurt more than a super knee it all is circumstantial.

Wasa-B -

caseharts - 

Wasa-B -

caseharts - 

Gokudamus stole my name - If neither the top guy or the bottom guy is doing anything then thats a draw at best and two guys having sex at worst. I dont deal in what if scenarios, you dont win fights based on what you could do, you win based on what you actually do

Did the bottom guy get taken down? If so he lost. Take downs Mayer to me. Not as much as some crazy judges but they matter.

Irrelevant. It still comes down to what you do after the td. Look at the slam from Guida, he couldnt even establish position, Hioki immediately went to a switch so Guida got a td, a flashy one but was not in full control after that.

Its like saying if you score one jab and the other backs up, that doesnt mean you should be given credit for 3 jabs, only the 1 jab esp if you are not necessarily in control of the sequence after. If the other guy backs up but is still in position to counter and not hurt or cowering in defense, why would you be given credit for what theoretically COULD happen next?

And what do you mean by "he lost." A td is only a td. YOu have read it in the OVERALL CONTEXT of what's going on OVERALL.

No take downs hurt. Especially that slam man. They matter. Remember im not referencing clay hioki fight in those posts.

Takedkwns can hurt more than a super knee it all is circumstantial.

As a wrestler, you know then that some flashy looking slams do NOT hurt esp if you break the fall.

I would say TDS unless you dump someone on their heads and KO them or noticeably daze them, the knee to a face will always hurt more (depending on if it connects or not of course).

On the Steetz of course a slam is gonna hurt more than in MMA, but we're talking MMA right.

Look at Randleman/Fedor, did Fedor look "hurt" after that? He immediately reversed position? The slam that Hughes did on Trigg in the rematch, yeah it looked good but you think it hurt Trigg? And the slam on Hioki, im not saying Clay doesnt get credit for being the aggressor and initiating offense there but you think Hioki was actually hurt?

Wasa-B - case, i respect that your opinion is honest but i disagree. Anyhow, back to the subject of the thread, Clay did not beat Hioki. Hioki was putting subs on Clay, Clay did nothing.

caseharts - 

Wasa-B - case, i respect that your opinion is honest but i disagree. Anyhow, back to the subject of the thread, Clay did not beat Hioki. Hioki was putting subs on Clay, Clay did nothing.

I'm glad we can respectfully Disagree. I really respect you. And I agree he lost but I bet on clay because I knew how dumb judges are. ..

Wasa-B -

caseharts - 

Wasa-B - case, i respect that your opinion is honest but i disagree. Anyhow, back to the subject of the thread, Clay did not beat Hioki. Hioki was putting subs on Clay, Clay did nothing.

I'm glad we can respectfully Disagree. I really respect you. And I agree he lost but I bet on clay because I knew how dumb judges are. ..

Cool.

I was very impressed with Hioki because of his crisp and powerful striking that came in spurts but I had it 30-27 and was shocked that not all the judges had it that way as well. To suggest it was a robbery is insane. I was backstage and saw one of Hioki's cornerman come over and talk to Guida and he was anything but upset or showing feelings that they thought the decision was incorrect. 

We've seen lots of examples of fighters threatening from their back to end the fight and not get credit for it but this was not one of those instances. It would seem to me that most of the judges gave him too many points for it despite his inability to control where the fight went and stayed.