Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65

Thread: Davis vs. Machida: Fight Metrics at odds with official score

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    9,493

    Default

    Davis' stand-up is so tentative that I think he'll get carved up WAY too easily.

    At least Goose can stay in the pocket without balking and flailing.
    You say shark I say hey man, Jaws was never my scene and I don't like Star Wars

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    11,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Masscore View Post
    Sorry RH but I am not going quote you for a reply lol. Just too much work to short it. IMO Round 2 was clearly Davis' who outstruck and out grappled Machida and round three was clearly Machida's.

    So are you saying the two significant strikes that Machida outlanded Davis by in the first round should be worth more then the takedown? Those two strikes should give Machida round one over the takedown by Davis, the guard pass and GnP?
    You're quibbling over 2 significant strikes in round one, but simultaneously saying Davis "outstruck" Machida in round 2 with only one significant strike. Makes perfect sense...for someone who still doesn't know what he's watching after years and years.

    Effective striking doesn't just look at how many shots landed...it should look at effectiveness: percentages of shots landed and how they impact the fight. Davis did not outstrike Machida in round 2, and going 1 for 4 in TD attempts doesn't indicated effective grappling. Moreover, it indicates an absurd level of lack of octagon control.

    I had Machida edging Davis in all three rounds. He was the more effective striker, he controlled the octagon the vast majority of the fight, and the grappling was a push...the takedowns Davis finally landed were nullified by his failed attempts.


    When you talk about "judges scoring takedowns and takedown attempts higher than anything else" you have two flaws: not all judges do so, many keep it in perspective--thus a lack of consistency across the board--and anyone who is scoring a takedown attempt for the failed aggressor should be taken out and shot. Failed attempts should not be scored for the fighter who failed--they should be scored for the fighter who stopped them.

    But your bias has always clouded your perception.


    rh
    All manner of men came to work for the News: everything from wild young Turks who wanted to rip the world in half and start all over again -- to tired, beer-bellied old hacks who wanted nothing more than to live out their days in peace before a bunch of lunatics ripped the world in half.

    Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
    The Rum Diary

    Yeah, Bye.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    16,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _DCdoctr_ View Post
    I would say yes that if one stuffs a TD and then uses it to mount an offense then a positive should be had; and not solely from the offense, but from using the stuffed TD to go on the offensive. Now if one simply stuffs the TD and does nothing with it then the stuff and TD should negate. However, I can't help but think that there should be some value in controlling the situation by stuffing a TD.

    Yes, it's risky to shoot in for a TD, but if a competitor is going to get points from a mere TD attempt then there definitely needs to be points for stuffing it/controlling the manuever. Otherwise there would be a legitimate assumption that scoring favors wrestling/TDs. One could potentially shoot in unsuccessfully the duration of the match and score points to win a decision, provided that zero strikes are thrown at said wrestlers in this hypothetical proposition.

    If stuffs are cipher then negation would equal a positive for the one who performs an unsuccessful TD attempt(s), especially if the latter receives points on merit of risk alone.

    On the flipside, one would have to argue that stuffs alone shouldn't win fights either. To me it's what you do with the takedown or stuff. Hopping on someone in the final 30 seconds only to do nothing with it shouldn't be scored the same as a TD that is followed up by transitions or maneuvers that lead to better positioning for subs or strikes. Sticking to the same with stuffs: stuffing a TD shouldn't be scored the same as a stuff that is followed up by a counter that moves the stuffer (laugh it up) into an advantageous position than they were pre-shot.

    Maybe I'm just being naive, but judging needs to become more of a science. Judges, especially MMA judges should have to undergo extra schooling than is currently accepted, be tested (national or unified boards), and be required to maintain CE credits. When all the criteria is met they should be paid for their expertise rather than the little payment they're receiving at this juncture. Can I finish? Can I finish? (-Ross Perot).

    This brings us to who would fund this deal. Surely there is a way that the UFC could help back the commissions to finance this endeavor, that is, without corruption tainting its purity. I believe that if judges are gonna get their act together then the science of judging MMA needs a massive update to facilitate its evolution. As difficult as it would be to learn, people would commit their lives to it if they were required to receive a doctorate level of training and analogous level of monetary compensation was to be had for their performance. But then again, I'm most probably being naive.




    BP
    A doctorate in judging? Surely you jest.

    At this point I'd be happy with requiring these clowns to take a year long course and be confined to judging MMA.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,605

    Default

    Davis is nowhere near a title fight. Jones would clown him 100x worse then Evans did, it would just be a filler fight, and even then how do you hype Phil Davis? Does he have a highlight reel?lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Trojan Fight Club View Post
    well now I've seen War Machine's dick. fantastic.
    Quote Originally Posted by GL Jeff View Post
    Ill go against the grain.
    Werdum via triangle
    Someone needs to cheer for those poor souls.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    16,362

    Default

    Davis is 1-2 wins from a title shot. It's fairly obvious.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    16,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GL Jeff View Post
    Davis is nowhere near a title fight. Jones would clown him 100x worse then Evans did, it would just be a filler fight, and even then how do you hype Phil Davis? Does he have a highlight reel?lol
    Davis is 1-2 wins from a title shot. It's fairly obvious.

    Like it or not, Machida was ranked #2 or 3.

    Of course he has a highlight reel. Goose would most certainly be the centerpiece.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    Effective striking doesn't just look at how many shots landed...it should look at effectiveness: percentages of shots landed and how they impact the fight. Davis did not outstrike Machida in round 2, and going 1 for 4 in TD attempts doesn't indicated effective grappling. Moreover, it indicates an absurd level of lack of octagon control.rh
    Effective striking looks at the total number of hard shots landed. Not significant strikes, not harder shots (I'm not saying you stated this, I'm just talking to the masses on that part). Davis landed more shots total, that's a fact. Davis landed more total strikes and significant strikes through rounds 1 and 2, the rounds most people think he could have won. In round 3 he slowed down, which is of course the round most people gave unanimously to Machida. Now the argument is, did Davis land more hard shots? The judges must have thought he did. It might suck but they might have scored the striking properly as per the rules anyway.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Without blinking I bitch slapped him right across the face and grabbed him and yelled, "You go out there and beat his ass!!!" Nate "The Rock" Quarry.

    "Shit just got real here in the Max!" Michael "The Voice" Schiavello at K-1 World Max Rd of 16 2010, Zambidis vs. Chahid.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Anyways, Davis' movement and striking aren't good enough for Jones IMO, and I don't think he'll get him down either.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Without blinking I bitch slapped him right across the face and grabbed him and yelled, "You go out there and beat his ass!!!" Nate "The Rock" Quarry.

    "Shit just got real here in the Max!" Michael "The Voice" Schiavello at K-1 World Max Rd of 16 2010, Zambidis vs. Chahid.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    11,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by earle View Post
    Effective striking looks at the total number of hard shots landed. Not significant strikes, not harder shots (I'm not saying you stated this, I'm just talking to the masses on that part). Davis landed more shots total, that's a fact. Davis landed more total strikes and significant strikes through rounds 1 and 2, the rounds most people think he could have won. In round 3 he slowed down, which is of course the round most people gave unanimously to Machida. Now the argument is, did Davis land more hard shots? The judges must have thought he did. It might suck but they might have scored the striking properly as per the rules anyway.
    I've read where BJM breaks down effective striking as landing a higher percentage and shots that more obviously impact the fight. Not just a high number of potentially just pitter pat shots. Cecil Peoples was ineptly applying that standard when he said "leg kicks don't win fights" regarding what I recall as Griffin/rampage.

    Simply counting the number of shots landed and awarding that aspect of the round to the guy who lands the most is a horrible way to judge. It's like giving fights to clay guida for "staying busy."

    I'm not saying that isn't how a lot of terrible judges do it. I'm saying it's a terrible way for terrible judges to do it.
    I'm also repeating that anyone who scores failed takedown attempts for the fighter who failed has his head up his ass.

    rh
    All manner of men came to work for the News: everything from wild young Turks who wanted to rip the world in half and start all over again -- to tired, beer-bellied old hacks who wanted nothing more than to live out their days in peace before a bunch of lunatics ripped the world in half.

    Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
    The Rum Diary

    Yeah, Bye.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    I've read where BJM breaks down effective striking as landing a higher percentage and shots that more obviously impact the fight. Not just a high number of potentially just pitter pat shots. Cecil Peoples was ineptly applying that standard when he said "leg kicks don't win fights" regarding what I recall as Griffin/rampage.

    Simply counting the number of shots landed and awarding that aspect of the round to the guy who lands the most is a horrible way to judge. It's like giving fights to clay guida for "staying busy."

    I'm not saying that isn't how a lot of terrible judges do it. I'm saying it's a terrible way for terrible judges to do it.
    I'm also repeating that anyone who scores failed takedown attempts for the fighter who failed has his head up his ass.

    rh
    I don't know if they take it into account or not, but higher percentage landed should not matter. I don't care if the 10 times you swung you hit the guy 100% of the time. The guy that threw a 100 shots and landed 20 is doing more....period. As for round 2, Davis had more sig strikes (even if by one) more strikes total (even if by 4) and more takedowns (the only takedown in the round).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •