« Where does Machida fit into the UFC 205-pound title picture? | Home | UFC’s new big sponsor »
Quote of the Day – MMA is a thinking man’s game
By Zach Arnold | July 8, 2008
Bill Ordine in The Baltimore Sun:
I gained a new appreciation for mixed martial arts watching it from a distance of 50 feet. There is a very intriguing technical aspect to it as punchers try to stay on their feet and ground fighters try to wrestle them to the ground and exert more subtle violence on their opponent. Such a fight was between middleweight puncher Patrick Cote and all-arounder Ricardo Almeida. Almeida began the fight by literally jumping into the arms of Cote and trying to drag him to the canvas. He was successful and easily won the first round. But Cote managed to stay upright through most of the next two rounds and his obvious aggression forced the judges to award him the next two rounds, and Cote ultimately won on a split decision. It was all strategy and tactics. Almost cerebral.
Runner-up goes to Josh Gross of SI:
It doesn’t look like (Juanito) Ibarra’s gripes mean much. Keith Kizer, the executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, told me Monday that the decision can be overturned for one of four reasons: (a) a winner tests positive for performance-enhancing drugs; (b) judges’ scorecards were added incorrectly; (c) collusion between a judge and one of the fighters (which has never happened in the state); or, (d), a catastrophic refereeing error.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 17 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
“the decision can be overturned for one of four reasons: (a) a winner tests positive for performance-enhancing drugs; (b) judges’ scorecards were added incorrectly; (c) collusion between a judge and one of the fighters (which has never happened in the state); or, (d), a catastrophic refereeing error.”
Jackson uppercuts Griffin, knocks him loopy and drops him to the canvas in R1. Then two of the three judges award the round to Griffin.
In my mind that covers (d), with the possibility of (c).
How exactly does the JUDGES scoring round 1 have anything to do with (d), a REFEREEING error? And how is scoring a round incorrectly considered (c) evidence of collusion between a judge and a fighter in this particular instance, but never in any controversial decisions in the past? I agree with Josh, Ibarra’s protest is dead in the water.
I stand by my assessment.
Sorry, that should be (b) judges’ scorecards were added incorrectly, and possibly (c), only because without collusion, I don’t see how a sane, non-bribed, non-drunk person could give R1 to Griffin.
Ultimo Santa,
I am sorry you lost money and I am sorry your hero got his “ass whipped”. TUF luck. People have come back in life from far worse things and I am confident you will recover whatever dignity you once had with the passing of time.
“Thinking mans game” live translates to “stagnant boring matches” on TV.
I tried explaining to my friend the other day why knees on the ground are a good thing. He was appalled, but I assured him to speed up the action and make a fight better you have to do two things the UFC does not do —
1. Put the fight in a ring
2. Add knees on the ground
Rampage has been vocal about how he hates training, Forrest obviously loves it.
He who loves it usually takes it in the end. Would love to see Wandy – Forrest.
My assessment of Ultimo Santa is that he’s a 12 year old with little intelligence. Many stand by that assessment, including his parents.
MMA isn’t all that different from other sports. Good strategy pays off. Although I do I think there’s an argument that it takes a much more thoughtful athlete to find success in MMA than in other sports. For example, a wide receiver in or a defensive tackle.
Again, for example I’ve always thought Wanderlei Silva’s strategy – lots of hooks, lots of counterpunching – is, perhaps ironically, quite intelligent. It keeps opponents off balance, driving open opportunities to end the fight. He knows it, and he’s used it, with variations, in most of his fights.
I guess inept referring is not a good enough reason to get a decision overturned.
MMA Doesn’t need a dozen weight classes just mwn and women that can judge mma fights correctly,
One thing to remember is that Forrest landed some nasty leg kicks in the first round. I would guess they felt those were enough to win it.
I thought that Page won the first round, but the leg kicks were enough for it not to be a 10-8 like Ibarra is saying.
Ibarra is insane. He needs to spend more time working on a different strategy and less time crying all the time.
I have no problem with people saying Rampage won rnd 1. But 10-8? Come on. ONE uppercut does not total domination make. In fact Besides that ONE punch Forrest stayed busier, and landed more shots. Frankly its insulting that this is even a real debate. Not even a bad decision much less a robbery.
Rollo the Cat,
1) I did not lose anything on the fight. I do not gamble with money…only with people’s lives.
2) Rampage is not my hero. The only heroes in my mind are Batman, Hugh Hefner, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
3) I never had much dignity to begin with, so no big loss.
I think if you nit-pick, and count punch-for-punch, etc. (ie. score it like a boxing match) then yes, marginally, Forrest Griffin won.
My main gripes are that a) MMA should not use boxing’s stupid scoring system, b) judges have no idea how to score MMA with this system anyway, and c) a championship should not change hands on a marginal judges decision. There SHOULD be an overtime round in these cases.
And 10-8 for Jackson would indeed be a stretch in R1, but giving the round to Forrest? Whether he won the whole fight on points or not, this fact alone raises **serious** questions about the system, it’s effectiveness, and possibly the judges themselves.
it this WAS a boxing match the belt would not have changed hands. gotta beat the champ to be the champ.
The fact that the judges gave the first round to Griffin show me that, at least in that fight, the judges understood the difference between boxing and MMA. The knockdown is not nearly as significant in MMA and the judges understood that.
Landing a crisp uppercut, knocking your opponent off his feet, and then gaining top control isn’t as significant as landing a couple more jabs and leg kicks?
And Forrest, after being backed to the fence by Jackson, intentionally reached out, laced his fingers in the cage and used it to re-adjust himself (there might have been a warning by the ref, but if it was it was inaudible).
Then, by some miracle, he WINS the round?
Those factors might not have constituted a 10-8 for Jackson (as some have argued), but 10-9 for Griffin? That’s either a massive judging error, or there was some alternative reason that Forrest was given that round.
iain: Forrest won three rounds on the judges’ scorecards, Jackson two. He beat the champ.
as for “beating the champ” in boxing, see Hagler-Leonard.