UFC 127: Penn vs Fitch Discussion thread

[Happ Hazzard]

In my mind 10-9 should be when there is very little between the fighters in the round, 10-8 should be when the judge does not have to think about who won the round, 10-7 should be a very dominant round, and 10-6 should be when the fight could realistically have been stopped. 10-10 should only be given when virtually nothing happened in the round.

[MoChatra]

Yeah I totally agree, there have been far more one sided rounds that haven't been 10-7's, I actually think a couple of the judges in Starnes v Quarry did give 10-7's but I think that only goes to support the argument of how hugely one sided or down right ridiculous a round needs to be before it is worhty of a 10-7.

 

Again as you quite rightly said you could make an argument that the 3rd round fitted the official description of a 10-7 round...but that doesn't mean it was one and in my opinion it definately wasn't, without a doubt.

 

That's based on how fights end up getting scored in practice as compared to how they SHOULD be scored. We very rarely see rounds scored 10-10 but we've all seen plenty of fights where rounds were pretty much even and should have gone 10-10. However, judges are 'encouraged' to avoid going with those scores and on the flip side they're also concerned about dishing out 10-7s.

 

Also, if a round is 134-0, how can there have been 'far more one sided rounds'? The only thing I can think of is situations where strikes have gone something like 160-0, but I'm sure Starnes-Quarry wasn't like that (I know Starnes just stopped fighting). Just because it might have been scored a 10-8, it doesn't mean it should have been scored a 10-8.

 

The problem isn't the system- it's the people that put it into practice.

[Kenny McBride]

In a three round fight, a 10-7 round is effectively giving the fight to that person. In boxing, it's only used when a judge thinks the ref erred by not stopping the fight. If that was 10-7, what was the first round of Maynard/Edhar, or the aforementioned Starnes/Quarry?

[kev2050]

Also, if a round is 134-0, how can there have been 'far more one sided rounds'? The only thing I can think of is situations where strikes have gone something like 160-0, but I'm sure Starnes-Quarry wasn't like that (I know Starnes just stopped fighting). Just because it might have been scored a 10-8, it doesn't mean it should have been scored a 10-8.

 

The problem isn't the system- it's the people that put it into practice.

 

If That Penn -Fitch round was a 10-7 then Manyard - Edgar Round 1 should have been 10-5, but that's just getting a bit silly. Yes, Fitch outstruck Penn massviely and completely dominated, but just think you rely on compustrike stats too much as the be all end all. One strike that knocks someone down deserves more merit than 50 that graze someone. I do think it was definately a 10-8 round though, and wish judges weren't as afraid to deviate from the 10-9 score.

[Jonny Vegas]

Also, if a round is 134-0, how can there have been 'far more one sided rounds'? The only thing I can think of is situations where strikes have gone something like 160-0, but I'm sure Starnes-Quarry wasn't like that (I know Starnes just stopped fighting). Just because it might have been scored a 10-8, it doesn't mean it should have been scored a 10-8.

 

The problem isn't the system- it's the people that put it into practice.

 

If That Penn -Fitch round was a 10-7 then Manyard - Edgar Round 1 should have been 10-5, but that's just getting a bit silly. Yes, Fitch outstruck Penn massviely and completely dominated, but just think you rely on compustrike stats too much as the be all end all. One strike that knocks someone down deserves more merit than 50 that graze someone. I do think it was definately a 10-8 round though, and wish judges weren't as afraid to deviate from the 10-9 score.

 

Exactly Kev, it's all about context...stats are all well and good but they can be so easily manipulated to make things look better or worse than they are. Fights aren't judged on stats and there's a good reason for that...because stats can be misleading. Regardless of that obviously being a remarkable statistic it really doesn't tell the story of the round.

 

For what it's worth, Ariel Helwani...one of the most respected journalists in MMA by both fans and fighters alike had the 3rd round as 10-9 Fitch and a draw overall...take that as you will.

[Dead Mike]

Some (belated) thoughts on the show & related incidents.

 

This was the first performance that Georgey Sot has looked sub-par for me. Maybe I'm not giving Siver enough credit but Sot's takedown's looked dreadful yet he persisted with a weak single leg? Hopefully he'll take that away from the fight & concentrate on his wrestling as he was somewhat exposed. Siver looked the business, he's got that nasty 'napoleon syndrome' look about him. Who does Siver face next?

 

I was super excited for Bisping/Rivera. After I saw the footage from the weigh-ins I was certain Rivera had bitten off more than he could chew & he looked suitably nervous coming in. I don't really get why Rivera took such an aggressive stance in the whole trash talking pre-fight? As far as I can see Bisping had never said a word against Jorge prior to this fight, I only saw the youtube vids that Rivera posted but I'm sure Rogan alluded to some other forum posts or statements that his corner has posted about Bisping? I see that Dana has said that Bisping will be 'punished' for his post-fight antics but you've got to think that really he's loving it. As previously mentioned, it seems like any fighter can bad mouth his opponent & then just hug it out post fight. This makes the sport seem even more WWE, yet people get shocked/surprised when fighters show genuine dislike/aggression

[tiger_rick]

Caught the Pearson/Fisher fight from the prelim show last night. Very decent fight. Pearson looked very, very good again. He took some decent lefts from Fisher, worked his way into the fight and hit some tremendous kicks and some gret shots from inside his guard. Very impressive.

 

The result of that Yukuda fight was pretty surprising. Ring looked surprised to fuck when his name came out.

[David]

The result of that Yukuda fight was pretty surprising. Ring looked surprised to fuck when his name came out.

The judging in that fight was a fucking joke.

[wandshogun09]

I'm gonna have to rewatch the Ring/Fukuda fight. When Buffer was about to announce the winner I thought it could easily go either way. They seemed to split the fight winning half each to me watching live. I thought Fukuda edged it but it was close. I wouldn't call it a robbery.

 

I need to give it another watch I think judging by the reaction online.

[wandshogun09]

As for the rest of the card. I thought it was a really good night of fights. The card was getting criticized going in and once again it proves you can't really knock a show till it's over.

 

Can't really add much to the Bisping/Rivera stuff. I've always defended Bisping but that post fight stuff was pathetic. Mouthing off at your opponent after the fight is one thing, I expected something like that with all the build up and it's kind of understandable with the emotions running high. Spitting at the corner was too much IMO.

 

In the end it's hurt Bisping because he battered Rivera like he said he would, finished his opponent which he was getting criticized for not doing and because of how he went on after the fight people will naturally talk about the negative stuff. It's his own fault.

 

If he wants a contender match next he should have to beat a top guy. Belfort, Sonnen and Maia are all without upcoming fights. It's gotta be one of them.

 

Really enjoyed Pearson/Fisher, Siver/Sot and Lytle vs Ebersole was a pleasant surprise. What a great fight. I didn't know much about Ebersole going in but just going by his experience and record, I thought about putting a bet on him and Siver. Wish I'd done it now Great fight though, my FOTN. Hunt winning was nice too, hope they put him in with Pat Barry next.

 

Fitch got robbed IMO. I had BJ winning round 1, Fitch winning round 2 and 3 with the 3rd a 10-8 easy. Good fight too. I was rooting for BJ but I've gotta admit Fitch deserved the win. If GSP beats Shields and goes to 185 I can see 'em just making Fitch/BJ 2 for the vacant title.

[MoChatra]

Also, if a round is 134-0, how can there have been 'far more one sided rounds'? The only thing I can think of is situations where strikes have gone something like 160-0, but I'm sure Starnes-Quarry wasn't like that (I know Starnes just stopped fighting). Just because it might have been scored a 10-8, it doesn't mean it should have been scored a 10-8.

 

The problem isn't the system- it's the people that put it into practice.

 

If That Penn -Fitch round was a 10-7 then Manyard - Edgar Round 1 should have been 10-5, but that's just getting a bit silly.

 

Except that you can only go down to a 10-7, which is the biggest margin a judge can give to an MMA round. Also, Edgar did land some good shots in that first round so it was by no means complete domination by Maynard, even though he came very close to getting the stoppage.

 

Yes, Fitch outstruck Penn massviely and completely dominated, but just think you rely on compustrike stats too much as the be all end all. One strike that knocks someone down deserves more merit than 50 that graze someone.

 

Oh for sure, hardly any of the blows looked like devastating, fight-ending strikes, but the sheer number of them were so overwhelming, Penn was completely knocked silly by them and actually instructed his corner to end the fight, thinking there were still two rounds left. So even though the onslaught wasn't as explosive as Maynards, the sheer quantity of blows all effectively ended the fight and caused Penn to feel shocked and surprised that he wasn't defeated on points.

 

Point is, this isn't to do with what Compustrike has to say but about applying the rules of judging in the correct way, and the reason why so many MMA writers and others involved in the game continually criticise the current system is because of the way in which it's applied.

 

I do think it was definately a 10-8 round though, and wish judges weren't as afraid to deviate from the 10-9 score.

 

I agree on that end point. It does my head in when judges are too wussy to go 10-8, 10-7 or even 10-10 and are almost afraid of veering from the 10-9 standard.

 

Exactly Kev, it's all about context...stats are all well and good but they can be so easily manipulated to make things look better or worse than they are. Fights aren't judged on stats and there's a good reason for that...because stats can be misleading. Regardless of that obviously being a remarkable statistic it really doesn't tell the story of the round.

 

How is 134-0 misleading? Yes, none of those 134 strikes were knockout blows, but by the same token you can't score just on how many massive punches and elbows are landed because you have to weigh up the cumulative effect of so many strikes. As I mentioned above, Fitch's strikes may not have looked really punishing but the cumulative effect of Penn being punched and elbowed almost continuously for five minutes caused him to pretty much quit by the end of the third, and the fight would have been stopped had it been a five round title fight.

 

For what it's worth, Ariel Helwani...one of the most respected journalists in MMA by both fans and fighters alike had the 3rd round as 10-9 Fitch and a draw overall...take that as you will.

 

I don't take it as anything. The vast majority of MMA journalists had that final round 10-8, and even then they only awarded it that because rounds are almost always only ever scored 10-9s or 10-8s. If the MMA scoring system was applied properly, more people would have considered it a 10-7.

[Jonny Vegas]

Exactly Kev, it's all about context...stats are all well and good but they can be so easily manipulated to make things look better or worse than they are. Fights aren't judged on stats and there's a good reason for that...because stats can be misleading. Regardless of that obviously being a remarkable statistic it really doesn't tell the story of the round.

 

How is 134-0 misleading? Yes, none of those 134 strikes were knockout blows, but by the same token you can't score just on how many massive punches and elbows are landed because you have to weigh up the cumulative effect of so many strikes. As I mentioned above, Fitch's strikes may not have looked really punishing but the cumulative effect of Penn being punched and elbowed almost continuously for five minutes caused him to pretty much quit by the end of the third, and the fight would have been stopped had it been a five round title fight.

 

For what it's worth, Ariel Helwani...one of the most respected journalists in MMA by both fans and fighters alike had the 3rd round as 10-9 Fitch and a draw overall...take that as you will.

 

I don't take it as anything. The vast majority of MMA journalists had that final round 10-8, and even then they only awarded it that because rounds are almost always only ever scored 10-9s or 10-8s. If the MMA scoring system was applied properly, more people would have considered it a 10-7.

 

I would say it's easily arguable that any form of statistic in MMA can be misleading when shown on it's own and not along with every other statistic available and with regards to your other points.

 

Number 1, just for clarification is 134-0 strikes landed or strikes thrown? For example if he landed 40 of those strikes then it is a statistic that is immediately watered down.

 

Number 2, I'm not in any way questioning the fact that it is an astonishing statistic, nor that just because the blows weren't knockout powered they shouldn't count for as much, nor that there wouldn't have been a cumulative effect, but at no time whatsoever did it look as though Fitch was about to stop him. Also if it was a boxing or kickboxing match and one of the participants had landed 134 strikes compared to the others 0 then yes that would be a direct indication of the events of that round, however it is MMA, meaning the statistics for strikes alone aren't something for which a round could or should be judged on solely.

 

Number 3, you have said that after the third round Penn had ''pretty much quit'' and ''the fight would have been stopped had it been a five round title fight''.

 

You have no way whatsoever of being able to state that as a fact...I'm in no way trying to start any argument but how can you possibly know that? What's to say that in the 4th round Fitch comes out a little gassed from such a hard working round and gets caught by a punch or walks into a submission...stranger things have happened in MMA...Cung Le dominated Scott Smith for nearly the entire fight and Smith looked out on his feet...only to stop him in the third round. Also after the beating Lesnar took from Carwin in the first round of their fight what odds would you have gotten on a Lesnar win with 4 rounds remaining...let alone for that win to come via 2nd round submission. That's the beauty of MMA, you cannot know for sure what's going to happen until it HAS happened, so for me...and this is only my opinion...to say that Penn had pretty much quit and had it been 5 rounds it would have been stopped is ridiculous.

 

Number 4, with all due respect how you can not take Ariel Helwani's opinion on the round as ''anything'' is beyond me. I could agree if you take it for what it is...one man's opinion...but for you or I or anybody else on here to say that they don't take the opinion of a professional MMA journalist who is one of the most respected by fans and fighters alike as anything would just be silly. At the end of the day he makes a good living from doing that and as I said is widely respected by fans and fighters alike whereas for everyone on here this is a hobby.

 

If you had said that you respect his opinion due to the fact he is so well respected in his field and makes a living from doing this on a daily basis...but you disagree with him then that would be fair enough but saying that you don't take his opinion on an MMA fight as meaning ''anything'' would be like if you came on here with an opinion on how to make a delicious chinese meal then when given the opinion of Ken Hom you said you didn't take that to mean anything.

 

As I've already said, I personally think it was a 10-8 and nothing more...a 10-7 should be reserved for when a round is so ridiculously one sided in all aspects of the scoring system that it is warranted without any reasonable doubt. With the state MMA judging is in....with recent examples of far more questionable decisions being those in the Fukuda/Ring and Garcia/Phan fights then as already stated in this thread once 10-8's and then 10-7's start being given out willy nilly then it won't be long until we get 10-6's, 10-5's and 10-4's thrown in which in my opinion has the potential to do the sport far more harm than good.

[David]

Jonny Vegas vs Mo Chatra at BAMMA 6!

 

It has to happen!

[Kenny McBride]

Comparing Maynard/Edgar and Fitch/Penn is interesting. Fitch landed 134 unanswered strikes. That sounds pretty dominant. However, at no point did it look like the referee was considering a stoppage, and at no point did Penn look like tapping. There was domination, but no really significant damage and no chance of the fight ending. Maynard/Edgar, by comparison, was non-stop power-striking by Maynard, to the point where I thought the referee fucked up by not stopping it. Edgar was knocked down and knocked loopy. There were at least two occasions when it appeared the fight should have been stopped.

 

Now, are both of those round 10-8? Should one by a 10-7? Should both? It's a pretty complicated issue. My view would be that the guy who came closer to finishing the fight deserves a wider winning margin than the guy who just had dominant control, even if the guy who almost won the fight absorbed some more shots himself.

 

The point is that judging is a very strange world with a whole lot of very subjective judgements about several different aspects of fighting. It's also a relatively young art, and it's probably going to be a long time before a suitable set of standards are developed that satisfy everyone. There isn't really an absolute right or wrong about these things at the moment. The simplest answer is (and I think this applies to Jon Fitch more than almost anyone else in the game) - don't let it go to the judges. If Nick Ring can win his fight, do you really want to let those same people decide your spot?

[Egg Shen]

I'm gonna have to rewatch the Ring/Fukuda fight. When Buffer was about to announce the winner I thought it could easily go either way. They seemed to split the fight winning half each to me watching live. I thought Fukuda edged it but it was close. I wouldn't call it a robbery.

 

I need to give it another watch I think judging by the reaction online.

 

i think it's the perfect example of a commentator swaying the viewer's opinion...i need to watch it again but when i did watch i couldn't help but notice how much Rogan was all over Fukuda's nuts. I did think Fukuda had won the fight though.