Originally Posted by rampage9712
Machida was tentative... and didnt turn it on until the 3rd round... Rampage won the first 2 based on control and aggression, as stated in the rules...
There are few fighters I like more than Rampage, Machida being one of them... I still say rampage won that fight.... is he the better fighter? no.
score the fight round by round... Machida won round 3... clearly, but was it a 10-8? No.... Score the fight, dont just look at it as a whole.
hit with what?
and again, you are going off how the judges are told to score it... I can see how anybody would like to interpret it themselves, but how can you be surprised by scoring like that.
I don't know why you are under the impression that I am judging the fight as a whole. I specifically posted my thoughts about each round. The round that we are debating is round 1.
You stated that Rampage won that round based on control and aggression "as stated in the rules"...
Are you familiar with the rules? Granted, the rules might be different in Michigan, but for argument's sake, lets go with judging criteria used by the NSAC.
Striking and grappling are weighed more heavily than control and aggression. Machida won the striking in the first round. Jackson didn't even land a single strike within the first two minutes of that fight, while Machida was able to land kicks hard enough to make Rampage swivel. Most of Rampages strikes landed in that round were in the clinch against the cage, and they were arm punches to the body, with no real power behind them. He only landed two decent strikes to the head, while otherwise swinging and missing like crazy.
Furthermore, Rampage went for a takedown and Machida stuffed it in that first round. And Machida controlled Rampage's posture in the clinch, spun it around, outmuscled him, and even forced him to walk backwards at one point.
You seem to think that Rampage won the "Octagon control" criteria. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities
Rampage missed wildly trying to chase down Machida. He got controlled in the clinch. And he had that takedown stuffed. Machida clearly deserves the nod in this department based on that definition.
And effective aggression? Effective Aggressiveness
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring) 2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness.
Rampage doesn't even deserve to win that area of the judging criteria. Even if we were to give it to him, effective aggression is the criteria of "least importance" according to the rules.
THAT... is why Machida won the first round and the fight.
Thanks for playing, better luck next time. NAC: CHAPTER 467 - UNARMED COMBAT