UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> SCORED Condit / Hendricks


3/21/13 10:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17786
dangerboy12 - 
Pat Giles -  Your system is terrible. Getting up from a takedown is 0 points? Work off your back is 0? The unified rules suck too. Phone Post

I don't think getting up should be worth points.

And his system does reward offense from the bottom.


My only complaint with Haulport's system is the fact it rarely gives a different winner than the original scoring. When it does, the fights are so close I would rather score them a draw.

But his system does give transparency, and cuts down on subjectivity, which I like.

Thank you sir. I am glad you can see some of the merits of my system. I would counter your one criticism though, that my scoring does differ in results pretty often. Let me look up some examples.....


- BRAD PICKETT vs. IVAN MENJIVAR: I scored it for Ivan
- DEIVIDAS TAUROSEVICIUS vs. L.C. DAVIS: I scored it for Deividas
- Miguel Torres vs. Mighty Mouse was scored a BLOWOUT for Torres under my system (11 to 3.5 points)
- FABIO MALDONADO vs Kyle Kingsbury was 7 to 4 for Fabio under the alt system
- Thiago Silva vs. Rashad: I had Thiago winning.

There's a good deal more, but those were right on the first few pages.
3/21/13 10:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ausgepicht
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 58127
UGSlapshot - 
Haulport - Scored the fight using my Alternative Scoring System and here are the results:

http://www.ibiny.com/files/altscoring.pdf


JOHNY HENDRICKS
1st Round Striking - 2.5 points
Takdowns (12) - 6.0 points

TOTAL = 8.5 points


CARLOS CONDIT
Back Mount - 0.5 point
2nd Round Striking - 2.5 points
3rd Round Striking - 2.5 points

TOTAL = 5.5 points

Winner = Johny Hendricks!!!


P.S. As always, "Striking" consists of standing and ground strikes.

P.P.S. 2nd round striking was tough, but I went with Carlos because he turned it in his favor after about 2 mins or so (thus winning it for a longer period during the round).
Nobody should give a shit about alternative scoring because it doesn't matter.

Ten point must is what they use and all that matters. Phone Post

VTFD. You have to be an idiot to not be able to see the current system is shit.

3/21/13 10:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17787
ausgepicht - 
UGSlapshot - 
Haulport - Scored the fight using my Alternative Scoring System and here are the results:

http://www.ibiny.com/files/altscoring.pdf


JOHNY HENDRICKS
1st Round Striking - 2.5 points
Takdowns (12) - 6.0 points

TOTAL = 8.5 points


CARLOS CONDIT
Back Mount - 0.5 point
2nd Round Striking - 2.5 points
3rd Round Striking - 2.5 points

TOTAL = 5.5 points

Winner = Johny Hendricks!!!


P.S. As always, "Striking" consists of standing and ground strikes.

P.P.S. 2nd round striking was tough, but I went with Carlos because he turned it in his favor after about 2 mins or so (thus winning it for a longer period during the round).
Nobody should give a shit about alternative scoring because it doesn't matter.

Ten point must is what they use and all that matters. Phone Post

VTFD. You have to be an idiot to not be able to see the current system is shit.


He's not an idiot. He's just another PAID POSTER...
3/21/13 10:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
D241
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 15022

It's bullshit to call Hendricks/Condit a fight where one guy clearly showed he's better than the other guy.

 

UFC was so different than boxing when it first came out. That was one of the intriguing things about it, draws were quite the norm and you really had to "leave it all in the cage" if you wanted to really advance your career.

Of course back then we didn't have as many events, but I often find myself debating if I'd rather have a whole bunch of fights with some questionable decision victories or older days with less events but fighting where lasting until time runs out is NEVER a gameplan.

 

I didn't really care who won the Hendricks fight, and I tell you if they gave it to Condit, my argument would be the exact god damn same. Nobody could convince me Hendricks wouldn't have been able to land a flush shot and separate Carlos from his senses.

 

It's also sad when I hear people defending a win. Make an argument that your guy had momentum because of this and that, but don't say he proved himself the better fighter, which calling someone a winner does imo.

3/21/13 10:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ausgepicht
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 58128
FinestScotch - 
RKing85 - so your scoring system came to the same result that the current system came to.

Groundbreaking.


It went over both your heads. It confirms that his system isn't so far off to not come to the same conclusion. The fight wasn't exactly controversial, so that would be expected with any accurate scoring system. It's HOW he got there that this thread is about. Which, if either one of you possessed any critical thinking or reading comprehension you'd have figured out.

3/21/13 10:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
D241
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 15023

Why do people think that they can create or alternate a scoring system to determine who the better fighter is rather than having a SYSTEM that lets the FIGHTERS determine who the better fighter is?

 

It was SOOOOO much easier back in the day. No judges, no 3 extra people to pay.

No controversies, you won, you lost, or you couldn't finish or be finished within the timeframe resulting in a draw.

THAT'S IT. Everything else is subjective and based on a prediction instead of actual fighting.

 

 

3/21/13 10:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
D241
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 15024
ausgepicht - 
FinestScotch - 
RKing85 - so your scoring system came to the same result that the current system came to.

Groundbreaking.


It went over both your heads. It confirms that his system isn't so far off to not come to the same conclusion. The fight wasn't exactly controversial, so that would be expected with any accurate scoring system. It's HOW he got there that this thread is about. Which, if either one of you possessed any critical thinking or reading comprehension you'd have figured out.


It's got to be frustrating to "think" that you are funny and clever yet have to always explain Why you are funny and clever.

3/21/13 11:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Immaculata
71 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/21/13 11:27 PM
Member Since: 12/14/03
Posts: 22271
TITAN Combat/TITAN Grappling Open, Promoter
.
3/22/13 11:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dangerboy12
90 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 24112
Haulport - 
dangerboy12 - 
Pat Giles -  Your system is terrible. Getting up from a takedown is 0 points? Work off your back is 0? The unified rules suck too. Phone Post

I don't think getting up should be worth points.

And his system does reward offense from the bottom.


My only complaint with Haulport's system is the fact it rarely gives a different winner than the original scoring. When it does, the fights are so close I would rather score them a draw.

But his system does give transparency, and cuts down on subjectivity, which I like.

Thank you sir. I am glad you can see some of the merits of my system. I would counter your one criticism though, that my scoring does differ in results pretty often. Let me look up some examples.....


- BRAD PICKETT vs. IVAN MENJIVAR: I scored it for Ivan
- DEIVIDAS TAUROSEVICIUS vs. L.C. DAVIS: I scored it for Deividas
- Miguel Torres vs. Mighty Mouse was scored a BLOWOUT for Torres under my system (11 to 3.5 points)
- FABIO MALDONADO vs Kyle Kingsbury was 7 to 4 for Fabio under the alt system
- Thiago Silva vs. Rashad: I had Thiago winning.

There's a good deal more, but those were right on the first few pages.

Yeah I think we've discussed some or all of these fights. I remember either thinking the fights were draws, or disagreeing with you on who won general striking, which is one of the few subjective parts of your scoring.

I was against your system at first, but it is growing on me. Just simply knowing why a guy won, with real data and measurable criteria, and promoting offense, is a huge step in the right direction.

I have always been a fan of draws in close fights, but I realize I am in the vast minority. If scoring close rds/fights a draw isn't an option, which for some reason it clearly isn't (even though the current rules allow it ) a rigid, non subjective scoring system would be better than a simple opinion.
3/22/13 11:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheMorg826
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/8/07
Posts: 11516
D241 -
ausgepicht - 
FinestScotch - 
RKing85 - so your scoring system came to the same result that the current system came to.

Groundbreaking.


It went over both your heads. It confirms that his system isn't so far off to not come to the same conclusion. The fight wasn't exactly controversial, so that would be expected with any accurate scoring system. It's HOW he got there that this thread is about. Which, if either one of you possessed any critical thinking or reading comprehension you'd have figured out.


It's got to be frustrating to "think" that you are funny and clever yet have to always explain Why you are funny and clever.

LOL Phone Post
3/22/13 12:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 76841
Haulport - Scored the fight using my Alternative Scoring System and here are the results:

http://www.ibiny.com/files/altscoring.pdf


JOHNY HENDRICKS
1st Round Striking - 2.5 points
Takdowns (12) - 6.0 points

TOTAL = 8.5 points


CARLOS CONDIT
Back Mount - 0.5 point
2nd Round Striking - 2.5 points
3rd Round Striking - 2.5 points

TOTAL = 5.5 points

Winner = Johny Hendricks!!!


P.S. As always, "Striking" consists of standing and ground strikes.

P.P.S. 2nd round striking was tough, but I went with Carlos because he turned it in his favor after about 2 mins or so (thus winning it for a longer period during the round).

Your system seems to have flaws as big or bigger than the unified rules'.

Your scoring gives Johnny the fight for his whopping 12 takedowns. The glaring problem being that the only reason he got so many takedowns is because he was unable to hold Condit down -- Carlos kept getting back up. Going by that, if Carlos had stayed on his back, even if both fighters just stalled there, Hendricks would only have gotten 3 takedowns and thus only 4 points total for the fight (2.5 for striking plus 1.5 for three takedowns). Failing to establish any control over Condit bizarrely worked in Johnny's favor.

For all its issues, the unified rules don't give concrete points for each takedown, thus penalizing the fighter who is able to get up from them (giving his opponent the opportunity to score another).

3/23/13 1:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17790
orcus - 
Haulport - Scored the fight using my Alternative Scoring System and here are the results:

http://www.ibiny.com/files/altscoring.pdf


JOHNY HENDRICKS
1st Round Striking - 2.5 points
Takdowns (12) - 6.0 points

TOTAL = 8.5 points


CARLOS CONDIT
Back Mount - 0.5 point
2nd Round Striking - 2.5 points
3rd Round Striking - 2.5 points

TOTAL = 5.5 points

Winner = Johny Hendricks!!!


P.S. As always, "Striking" consists of standing and ground strikes.

P.P.S. 2nd round striking was tough, but I went with Carlos because he turned it in his favor after about 2 mins or so (thus winning it for a longer period during the round).

Your system seems to have flaws as big or bigger than the unified rules'.

Your scoring gives Johnny the fight for his whopping 12 takedowns. The glaring problem being that the only reason he got so many takedowns is because he was unable to hold Condit down -- Carlos kept getting back up. Going by that, if Carlos had stayed on his back, even if both fighters just stalled there, Hendricks would only have gotten 3 takedowns and thus only 4 points total for the fight (2.5 for striking plus 1.5 for three takedowns). Failing to establish any control over Condit bizarrely worked in Johnny's favor.

For all its issues, the unified rules don't give concrete points for each takedown, thus penalizing the fighter who is able to get up from them (giving his opponent the opportunity to score another).


As usual, a COMPLETELY inaccurate analysis of what happened where you create an ALTERNATE reality (where Condit does not get up) that you then proceed to describe inaccurately also...

IF Carlos couldn't get up and Johny got only three takedowns (1.5 points) then Carlos would not have hurt Johny enough on the feet to slow him down and Carlos WOULD NOT HAVE WON two rounds of general striking and he would have LOST the fight anyway...

Outside of getting back mount once in a round where he LOST the general striking, Carlos' ONLY points came from a close 2nd round of striking (that he could have lost) done on the feet and a solid 3rd round of striking on the feet where he clearly won.

So, again, you are just completely wrong, mostly because your ability to extrapolate scenarios is poor. There are some techniques I can teach you to "exercise" that area of critical thinking. PM me and I'll share them...
3/23/13 1:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17791
ausgepicht - 
FinestScotch - 
RKing85 - so your scoring system came to the same result that the current system came to.

Groundbreaking.


It went over both your heads. It confirms that his system isn't so far off to not come to the same conclusion. The fight wasn't exactly controversial, so that would be expected with any accurate scoring system. It's HOW he got there that this thread is about. Which, if either one of you possessed any critical thinking or reading comprehension you'd have figured out.


Thank you sir. Exactly correct. The two miscreants above just lack the ability to understand this or are just being obtuse on purpose because they lack self-esteem...
3/23/13 2:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17792
dangerboy12 - 
Haulport - 
dangerboy12 - 
Pat Giles -  Your system is terrible. Getting up from a takedown is 0 points? Work off your back is 0? The unified rules suck too. Phone Post

I don't think getting up should be worth points.

And his system does reward offense from the bottom.


My only complaint with Haulport's system is the fact it rarely gives a different winner than the original scoring. When it does, the fights are so close I would rather score them a draw.

But his system does give transparency, and cuts down on subjectivity, which I like.

Thank you sir. I am glad you can see some of the merits of my system. I would counter your one criticism though, that my scoring does differ in results pretty often. Let me look up some examples.....


- BRAD PICKETT vs. IVAN MENJIVAR: I scored it for Ivan
- DEIVIDAS TAUROSEVICIUS vs. L.C. DAVIS: I scored it for Deividas
- Miguel Torres vs. Mighty Mouse was scored a BLOWOUT for Torres under my system (11 to 3.5 points)
- FABIO MALDONADO vs Kyle Kingsbury was 7 to 4 for Fabio under the alt system
- Thiago Silva vs. Rashad: I had Thiago winning.

There's a good deal more, but those were right on the first few pages.

Yeah I think we've discussed some or all of these fights. I remember either thinking the fights were draws, or disagreeing with you on who won general striking, which is one of the few subjective parts of your scoring.

I was against your system at first, but it is growing on me. Just simply knowing why a guy won, with real data and measurable criteria, and promoting offense, is a huge step in the right direction.

I have always been a fan of draws in close fights, but I realize I am in the vast minority. If scoring close rds/fights a draw isn't an option, which for some reason it clearly isn't (even though the current rules allow it ) a rigid, non subjective scoring system would be better than a simple opinion.

I am glad to here I am slowly bringing you over to the darkside...

Interestingly enough, I too am a fan of close fights. I don't really care who wins (which is ironic since I created a scoring system to figure out who wins) so if a fight is crazy back and forth with no clear winner (especially if I like both fighters) I am happy.

The only thing that annoys me about close fights nowadays are the fan reactions and how it impacts the fighter who lost.
3/23/13 2:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jmacdoug
39 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/2/08
Posts: 2439
your ASS sucks
3/23/13 2:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17793
Never Paid Wolf Ticket Taxes -  Haulport, have you thought about maybe adding "desperation takedowns" as an infraction or possibly not rewarding them as many points as a regular takedown? By desperation takedowns, I mean takedowns a guy goes for when he's getting outclassed on the feet or is tired and with which he does nothing on the ground. It seemed to me that Condit controlled the pace in the last two rounds. He was moving Johny backwards for the most part, which is why I gave him rounds 2 and 3, though I admit I have only seen the fight once. Phone Post

That would be a yellow card. If the ref feels that a fighter is stalling by engaging in a desperation takedown then he'd get yellow carded (-2.5 points). If he keeps doing it, he'd get a 2nd yellow card and if he was acting bonkers like Kalib Starnes vs. Nate Quarry then he'd get a 3rd card which is a red card (auto DQ).

To be honest though, I didn't feel Johny deserved any yellow cards and I thought he was close to winning the striking in the 2nd round.
3/25/13 11:07 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17801
D241 - 

Why do people think that they can create or alternate a scoring system to determine who the better fighter is rather than having a SYSTEM that lets the FIGHTERS determine who the better fighter is?

 

It was SOOOOO much easier back in the day. No judges, no 3 extra people to pay.

No controversies, you won, you lost, or you couldn't finish or be finished within the timeframe resulting in a draw.

THAT'S IT. Everything else is subjective and based on a prediction instead of actual fighting.

 

 


I know where you're coming from D, but when I think about a fight like Fedor/Nog or Fedor/CroCop being scored a draw I just throw the whole "finish or draw" idea out the window.

Also, you can end up with Ken/Royce II type fights where one guy just fights for the draw and makes it impossible.

3/25/13 2:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
D241
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 15174

money incentive can change the mindset of a ken/royce 2 fight.

 

And Fedor would still have the belt, and nobody would question it either.

3/26/13 4:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17819
D241 - 

money incentive can change the mindset of a ken/royce 2 fight.

 

And Fedor would still have the belt, and nobody would question it either.


Nope. Their first fight in 2003 was for the belt with Fedor as the challenger. He WOOPED Nog's ass horribly and under the draw scenario, would have walked out of the arena NOT the champ...
3/27/13 12:22 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wicked smahtMF
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/22/13
Posts: 510
6 of the fights total 14 points issued for take-downs lol? the transition from one environment to another? the least damaging/ punishing/ threatening/ dangerous action of a fight. not used to facilitate some crushing offensive attack but to drag the fights tempo/ violence down to a controllable level? the total points issued for actual violence/ striking per round (2.5) is almost equal to that allocated for tackle/ pinning (2.0 avg)? gtfoh
3/27/13 12:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/27/13 12:35 AM
Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 76939
Haulport - 
orcus - 
Haulport - Scored the fight using my Alternative Scoring System and here are the results:

http://www.ibiny.com/files/altscoring.pdf


JOHNY HENDRICKS
1st Round Striking - 2.5 points
Takdowns (12) - 6.0 points

TOTAL = 8.5 points


CARLOS CONDIT
Back Mount - 0.5 point
2nd Round Striking - 2.5 points
3rd Round Striking - 2.5 points

TOTAL = 5.5 points

Winner = Johny Hendricks!!!


P.S. As always, "Striking" consists of standing and ground strikes.

P.P.S. 2nd round striking was tough, but I went with Carlos because he turned it in his favor after about 2 mins or so (thus winning it for a longer period during the round).

Your system seems to have flaws as big or bigger than the unified rules'.

Your scoring gives Johnny the fight for his whopping 12 takedowns. The glaring problem being that the only reason he got so many takedowns is because he was unable to hold Condit down -- Carlos kept getting back up. Going by that, if Carlos had stayed on his back, even if both fighters just stalled there, Hendricks would only have gotten 3 takedowns and thus only 4 points total for the fight (2.5 for striking plus 1.5 for three takedowns). Failing to establish any control over Condit bizarrely worked in Johnny's favor.

For all its issues, the unified rules don't give concrete points for each takedown, thus penalizing the fighter who is able to get up from them (giving his opponent the opportunity to score another).


As usual, a COMPLETELY inaccurate analysis of what happened where you create an ALTERNATE reality (where Condit does not get up) that you then proceed to describe inaccurately also...

IF Carlos couldn't get up and Johny got only three takedowns (1.5 points) then Carlos would not have hurt Johny enough on the feet to slow him down and Carlos WOULD NOT HAVE WON two rounds of general striking and he would have LOST the fight anyway...

Outside of getting back mount once in a round where he LOST the general striking, Carlos' ONLY points came from a close 2nd round of striking (that he could have lost) done on the feet and a solid 3rd round of striking on the feet where he clearly won.

So, again, you are just completely wrong, mostly because your ability to extrapolate scenarios is poor. There are some techniques I can teach you to "exercise" that area of critical thinking. PM me and I'll share them...

 

Did all of Carlos's striking come after being taken down in the round and getting back up? None happened before a takedown?

 

If not, then humor me with the hypothetical. If there were a fight where one guy won the striking in the early part of the rounds, but the opponent got him down a couple times thereafter -- with fighter A getting back up each time -- wouldn't your system score it exactly as I said, giving fighter B the win for takedowns that not only didn't lead to striking or subs, but couldn't even keep the other guy down? Wouldn't fighter B in fact be rewarded for failing to keep his opponent down by getting the opportunity for more nicely scoring takedowns? Wouldn't he win the fight with his ineffective takedowns by virtue of the other guy's ability to get back up giving him the opportunity to multiply his score each time with another? Meanwhile the other guy's "effective striking" gives him just fixed points per round.

If your system finds the same winner in most close fights as the unified rules do, and similarly draws as much dissent as shown in this thread, it is funny that you insist it is so superior to the unified rules that you routinely describe as awful and unworkable. Even funnier that you seem to think you have superior critical thinking and logical reasoning abilities.

Under your system the ideal strategy for wrestlers would be to take a guy down, let him up, take him down, repeat. Boom, x multiplied by .5 points per round and no one can argue he "didn't deserve the win for doing nothing".

This is aside from the fact of course that your "winning the striking = 2.5 points" is a more vague and subjective criteria than ANYTHING in the unified rules. Why not just make it "winning the striking = 2.5, winning the grappling = 2.5" while you're at it?

3/27/13 6:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ABE FROMAN
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/15/02
Posts: 70669
Hendricks won but in a title fight I don't see it going that way. Phone Post
3/27/13 4:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 17828
orcus - 
Haulport - 
orcus - 
Haulport - Scored the fight using my Alternative Scoring System and here are the results:

http://www.ibiny.com/files/altscoring.pdf


JOHNY HENDRICKS
1st Round Striking - 2.5 points
Takdowns (12) - 6.0 points

TOTAL = 8.5 points


CARLOS CONDIT
Back Mount - 0.5 point
2nd Round Striking - 2.5 points
3rd Round Striking - 2.5 points

TOTAL = 5.5 points

Winner = Johny Hendricks!!!


P.S. As always, "Striking" consists of standing and ground strikes.

P.P.S. 2nd round striking was tough, but I went with Carlos because he turned it in his favor after about 2 mins or so (thus winning it for a longer period during the round).

Your system seems to have flaws as big or bigger than the unified rules'.

Your scoring gives Johnny the fight for his whopping 12 takedowns. The glaring problem being that the only reason he got so many takedowns is because he was unable to hold Condit down -- Carlos kept getting back up. Going by that, if Carlos had stayed on his back, even if both fighters just stalled there, Hendricks would only have gotten 3 takedowns and thus only 4 points total for the fight (2.5 for striking plus 1.5 for three takedowns). Failing to establish any control over Condit bizarrely worked in Johnny's favor.

For all its issues, the unified rules don't give concrete points for each takedown, thus penalizing the fighter who is able to get up from them (giving his opponent the opportunity to score another).


As usual, a COMPLETELY inaccurate analysis of what happened where you create an ALTERNATE reality (where Condit does not get up) that you then proceed to describe inaccurately also...

IF Carlos couldn't get up and Johny got only three takedowns (1.5 points) then Carlos would not have hurt Johny enough on the feet to slow him down and Carlos WOULD NOT HAVE WON two rounds of general striking and he would have LOST the fight anyway...

Outside of getting back mount once in a round where he LOST the general striking, Carlos' ONLY points came from a close 2nd round of striking (that he could have lost) done on the feet and a solid 3rd round of striking on the feet where he clearly won.

So, again, you are just completely wrong, mostly because your ability to extrapolate scenarios is poor. There are some techniques I can teach you to "exercise" that area of critical thinking. PM me and I'll share them...

 

Did all of Carlos's striking come after being taken down in the round and getting back up? None happened before a takedown?

 

If not, then humor me with the hypothetical. If there were a fight where one guy won the striking in the early part of the rounds, but the opponent got him down a couple times thereafter -- with fighter A getting back up each time -- wouldn't your system score it exactly as I said, giving fighter B the win for takedowns that not only didn't lead to striking or subs, but couldn't even keep the other guy down? Wouldn't fighter B in fact be rewarded for failing to keep his opponent down by getting the opportunity for more nicely scoring takedowns? Wouldn't he win the fight with his ineffective takedowns by virtue of the other guy's ability to get back up giving him the opportunity to multiply his score each time with another? Meanwhile the other guy's "effective striking" gives him just fixed points per round.

If your system finds the same winner in most close fights as the unified rules do, and similarly draws as much dissent as shown in this thread, it is funny that you insist it is so superior to the unified rules that you routinely describe as awful and unworkable. Even funnier that you seem to think you have superior critical thinking and logical reasoning abilities.

Under your system the ideal strategy for wrestlers would be to take a guy down, let him up, take him down, repeat. Boom, x multiplied by .5 points per round and no one can argue he "didn't deserve the win for doing nothing".

This is aside from the fact of course that your "winning the striking = 2.5 points" is a more vague and subjective criteria than ANYTHING in the unified rules. Why not just make it "winning the striking = 2.5, winning the grappling = 2.5" while you're at it?


your alternate realities are really amazing. I will humor them: in your scenario Fighter A would win the striking in all three rounds (7.5 points) and Fighter B would probably score about 1.5 points per round for, say, 3 takedowns per round. That would make Fighter A the winner and NOT fighter B.

That wasn't very difficult to understand was it? Now if EVERYONE knows that winning the striking garners you 5 times as many points as a takedown, then the fighters would be ENCOURAGED to strike as much as possible. Guys on their back (like Fighter A) would be going to town with elbows and guys on top would be going to town with GnP. So if Fighter B just takes a guy down and lays on him, not only would he get Yellow Carded under my rules (-2.5 points) but he would also LOSE......unless he compiled a whopping 20 takedowns to counter act the striking and yellow card.

So it seems, once again, your interpretation of something is EXTREMELY OFF and the others on this thread who don't seem to be able to even read are even more confused...(Finest Scotch and Wicked smahtMF)

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.