UFC 127: Penn vs Fitch Discussion thread

[David]

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.

Personally, I'd have marked the final round of the Penn/Fitch fight down as a 10-8 round because of the complete domination, and would have given Maynard the 10-7 in the first round of his fight with Edgar because the fight was very close to being stopped.

 

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?

I really fucking hate that term, and Dana White is to blame for it.

 

Does anyone seriously think that Jon Fitch, or anyone else for that matter, fights a fight with the intentions of letting it go to the judges? Of course not. What what he expected to do? The fight took place on the ground 80% of the time, and Fitch was fighting a guy who has never been submitted in his 10 year MMA career.

 

The sport is established well enough now to actually have it's own judges surely? Why the fuck are we still getting boxing judges?

[Egg Shen]

when an MMA fight only last 3 rounds, something like a 10-7 shouldn't even be considered. 10-8 for a dominant round or a round where siginificant damage is enough...anything else means it's fairly impossible for the recipiant to win the fight.

 

10-8 is enough a reward for the guy dishing out the punishment...if someone scores 10-8 in round 1 it means the other guy has to win the next two rounds to get a draw or finish the fight. If the round is scored 10-7, he's fucked really.

[David]

when an MMA fight only last 3 rounds, something like a 10-7 shouldn't even be considered.

The 10-7 I was talking about was the Maynard/Edgar title fight though.

[MoChatra]

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.

 

That was strikes landed. According to another site, Fitch landed 149 strikes. I don't remember that quantity of strikes landing from one fighter in a UFC round ever (to put it into context, that was over three times as many strikes as what Maynard landed against Edgar in the first round of their fight two months ago, even though none of Fitch's strikes were as singlularly damaging as some of Maynard's best shots). So no watering down there, I'm afraid.

 

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.

 

I do agree that going completely on statistics alone can sometimes be misleading, and the overall context needs to be factored in (which kev pointed out earlier). However, there's a VERY important point to note: the rules of MMA, on the subject of scoring, don't make reference to fights coming close to ending as being imperative for awarding a 10-8 or a 10-7.

 

Let me state again what the rules state about scores:

(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;

 

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;

 

2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

 

3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

 

4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

 

As you can see, the rules don't add "and comes close to ending the fight". That's one of the common misconceptions about the way in which MMA rounds are scored.

 

After many MMA events, especially in high-profile fights that go to decisions, huge debates rumble about some rounds regarding whether they're 10-9s or 10-8s. That's usually in the case of a round where fighter A dominates the round against fighter B, but at no point in the round does it appear like the ref should step in to stop it. Those who argue the round should be scored 10-9 do so because they claim the round was not close to being stopped. Those who argue for a 10-8 do so because of fighter A's dominance of fighter B, even though fighter A's domination doesn't get to the point where the ref would look to step in.

 

Now this is why Ariel seems to have gone with a 10-9 because at no point did it look like Herb needed to jump in to stop the fight, because BJ was intelligently defending himself and had his arms up to protect his head throughout that third round. However, and this is key- the rules don't state that a 10-8 or a 10-7 should only be awarded where a fight comes close to being stopped.

 

So that's where I'm coming from, and then it's down to definitions.

 

A 10-8 is where a fighter 'overwhelmingly dominates'. A 10-7 is where a fighter 'totally dominates'. 134-0 is about as good as you're going to get in defining 'totally dominates'. Now overall scoring of a round should go as follows:

 

Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.

 

Now on all points, Fitch was completely dominant, so for me, it had to be a 10-7. However, judges almost never score rounds 10-7s, so if it's a discussion about how rounds are scored in reality (as opposed to how they should be scored if the rules of scoring were adhered to properly) then the round absolutely had to be a 10-8.

 

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.

 

I have to be honest here. After shows I usually scour a range of sites and various forums just to see what the buzz is on fights, fighters, shows, etc. In doing this on Sunday morning I picked up on some comments about Penn looking to call the fight off thinking there were still two rounds left. However, it appears that was just a rumour so I apologise for presenting that as fact.

 

That said, Penn was completely gassed at the end, was still looking gassed when the decision was being announced and his body language was completely that of a dejected, defeated fighter (his corner even told him to stand up so as not to give judges any reason to consider him the loser). In contrast, Fitch looked like he still had plenty left in the tank. Of course, that's not to say Penn couldn't have gone on to pull off a victory in the fourth or fifth if it had been a title fight, but there was only looking like one guy who was in charge at the end. That's why Penn felt he was lucky to get the draw. As a final point- if Penn and his corner felt he won the first two rounds but Penn felt he had lost the fight, then that would mean in his mind the final round was 10-7.

 

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.

 

I really like Ariel. The guy's cool. His video interviews are invariably good. But why should I say "I respect his opinion but I courteously disagree". What fucking bullshit. There are plenty of guys in MMA who are knowledgeable about MMA but they sometimes come out with bizarre opinions that anyone may find ridiculous. They don't always respond to those opinions on message boards, blogs, social networking sites or whereever with "I respect you but I do disagree". By that logic, you should have taken the same tone with me.

 

After all, I do make money from writing about MMA, I've followed the sport for seventeen years and I've been writing about it for fourteen years. Despite that, when people disagree with me on here, they don't usually get all respectful in disagreeing with me. They just get straight to the point, just like you did in your original response to me in this thread (well, except for all the stupid insults you made).

 

Yes, I said Ariel's opinion doesn't mean 'anything'. That doesn't mean I don't have any time for what he says, but if he has an opinion that differs from mine, it's not like I'll then be all "hmm, maybe I should reconsider my view because Ariel Helwani disagrees". I have a mind of my own, as do you, and I don't need my views to be informed by others on a subject matter I know and understand reasonably well. By the same token, I'm sure a lot of the other regular MMA posters on this forum like ebb, wandshogun, David and Supremo aren't going to be all "hey, Dave Meltzer has such and such an opinion on a fight, so that's going to sway my feelings on it".

 

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.

 

Yes, there are major issues with scoring, but the point I'm trying to make is that judges should:

a) start applying the MMA scoring system in the correct way

b) not to be afraid of awarding 10-10s and 10-7s when appropriate.

[Kenny McBride]

Does anyone seriously think that Jon Fitch, or anyone else for that matter, fights a fight with the intentions of letting it go to the judges? Of course not. What what he expected to do? The fight took place on the ground 80% of the time, and Fitch was fighting a guy who has never been submitted in his 10 year MMA career.

 

The sport is established well enough now to actually have it's own judges surely? Why the fuck are we still getting boxing judges?

 

I think there are plenty of guys who feel that they're in a dominant spot, leading on the scorecards and don't take any risks in an attempt to finish the fight because they don't want to risk getting caught in something themselves. Look at Silva/Maia for the clearest possible example. I don't think many guys have it as a gameplan, but I think there are plenty of guys who fight a very, very conservative, risk-free style knowing that if they don't get knocked out standing and score a takedown near the end of each round, it doesn't matter what else happens because they'll win on points. If the chance comes to finish the guy, they'll take it but for the most part they're playing to the judging criteria, not trying to win the fight.

 

There are a number of MMA judges. Gene LeBell is a judge in California, for example.

[MoChatra]

There are a number of MMA judges. Gene LeBell is a judge in California, for example.

 

Also, Jeff Blatnick. And I was really surprised a few months back when he judged at a UFC event recently and at least a couple of his fight scores were particularly bizarre. Considering he's one of the authorities on the sport and actually coined the term mixed martial arts, that was surprising.

 

The point is, just because someone is drafted in as a judge who has an MMA background, it doesn't necessarily guarantee better officiating. Unless we're talking Cecil Peoples, in which case even a numbskull like Jordan would do a better job.

[Ghostface1982]

Fitch's punches might not have been devestating but even a half arsed hammerfist to the face hurts like a mother fucker. 130 odd of them have got to take some effect at the end of the round.

[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.

 

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.

 

Yeah that's what I thought. I thought Fukuda won but Ring getting the nod wasn't robbery to me.

 

There's been other fights Rogan called robbery in that I didn't get, Akiyama/Belcher and Matt Brown/Dong Hyun Kim spring to mind. Both close fights but I never had a problem with the decisions and Rogan was going nuts about them. If a fight's that close I don't think you can say a guy was robbed.

[wandshogun09]

Matt Hughes' take on the Penn/Fitch decision

 

"B.J. (Penn)

[MoChatra]

Matt Hughes' take on the Penn/Fitch decision

 

"B.J. (Penn)

[Jonny Vegas]

I really like Ariel. The guy's cool. His video interviews are invariably good. But why should I say "I respect his opinion but I courteously disagree". What fucking bullshit. There are plenty of guys in MMA who are knowledgeable about MMA but they sometimes come out with bizarre opinions that anyone may find ridiculous. They don't always respond to those opinions on message boards, blogs, social networking sites or whereever with "I respect you but I do disagree". By that logic, you should have taken the same tone with me.

 

After all, I do make money from writing about MMA, I've followed the sport for seventeen years and I've been writing about it for fourteen years. Despite that, when people disagree with me on here, they don't usually get all respectful in disagreeing with me. They just get straight to the point, just like you did in your original response to me in this thread (well, except for all the stupid insults you made).

 

Yes, I said Ariel's opinion doesn't mean 'anything'. That doesn't mean I don't have any time for what he says, but if he has an opinion that differs from mine, it's not like I'll then be all "hmm, maybe I should reconsider my view because Ariel Helwani disagrees". I have a mind of my own, as do you, and I don't need my views to be informed by others on a subject matter I know and understand reasonably well. By the same token, I'm sure a lot of the other regular MMA posters on this forum like ebb, wandshogun, David and Supremo aren't going to be all "hey, Dave Meltzer has such and such an opinion on a fight, so that's going to sway my feelings on it".

 

I'm not saying that in any way your opinion should be swayed by Meltzer, Helwani or anyone else...nor that mine has...my purpose for pointing out Helwani's opinion was that although I have said 10-8, he was even further away from 10-7 and to be honest when it comes down to who's opinion is worth more...a professional MMA ''expert'' or mine or yours...then I think anyone would make the same decision. Added to the fact that out of everyone on here that's had an opinion on the subject to my memory only you have said it was a 10-7 let alone argued so passionately for it being one.

 

With regards to your comparison with Helwani/yourself due to the face you have made money from writing about MMA....I genuinely am saying this with as much respect as possible but there are two things I would say;

 

1. my point wasn't that simply because he makes money from it his opinion is worthwhile...Gareth A. Davies makes money from it and he couldn't remember Jim Wallhead's name....what I was saying is that he not only makes money but is very well respected by the fans and the fighters...meaning that not only does he make money from it but he's so well respected because he's good at what he does. Again without trying to cause offence and only to state a point, no professional fighter gives a fuck what MoChatra's opinion on their fight was....nor my opinion...nor anybody elses on here...if any of us were that good at having an opinion on it then we wouldn't have time to be putting multiple lengthy posts on the UKFF about it

 

2. with regards to you saying that you make money from writing about MMA...I've made money from playing football...but I wouldn't say that entitled me to garner the same level of credibility on that subject as a well respected professional. Comparing yourself to Helwani because you also make money from it is like comparing a local burger van man to Gordon Ramsey...they both make money from selling food...but it really isn't the same thing.

 

Again i'm genuinely not trying to revert back to you and I going tit for tat nor directly insult you in any way I'm just trying to outline my point and why I stand by my original opinion on it.

[MoChatra]

I'm not saying that in any way your opinion should be swayed by Meltzer, Helwani or anyone else...nor that mine has...my purpose for pointing out Helwani's opinion was that although I have said 10-8, he was even further away from 10-7 and to be honest when it comes down to who's opinion is worth more...a professional MMA ''expert'' or mine or yours...then I think anyone would make the same decision. Added to the fact that out of everyone on here that's had an opinion on the subject to my memory only you have said it was a 10-7 let alone argued so passionately for it being one.

 

With regards to your comparison with Helwani/yourself due to the face you have made money from writing about MMA....I genuinely am saying this with as much respect as possible but there are two things I would say;

 

1. my point wasn't that simply because he makes money from it his opinion is worthwhile...Gareth A. Davies makes money from it and he couldn't remember Jim Wallhead's name....what I was saying is that he not only makes money but is very well respected by the fans and the fighters...meaning that not only does he make money from it but he's so well respected because he's good at what he does. Again without trying to cause offence and only to state a point, no professional fighter gives a fuck what MoChatra's opinion on their fight was....nor my opinion...nor anybody elses on here...if any of us were that good at having an opinion on it then we wouldn't have time to be putting multiple lengthy posts on the UKFF about it

 

2. with regards to you saying that you make money from writing about MMA...I've made money from playing football...but I wouldn't say that entitled me to garner the same level of credibility on that subject as a well respected professional. Comparing yourself to Helwani because you also make money from it is like comparing a local burger van man to Gordon Ramsey...they both make money from selling food...but it really isn't the same thing.

 

Again i'm genuinely not trying to revert back to you and I going tit for tat nor directly insult you in any way I'm just trying to outline my point and why I stand by my original opinion on it.

 

Interesting that you're avoiding all my points about the scoring. Struggling to argue against them without others' help, eh?

 

Regarding Helwani, I'll ask you a question. Why has he become one of the best known MMA journalists around? Is it because he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of MMA and consistently writes the most well informed and thought provoking articles, or is it because of his video interviews and that he's got well in with UFC and does use that to break news stories before other journalists?

 

Well, if you're not sure- it's the latter. You can even get in touch with him and ask him yourself. He'd admit himself that he's not the most knowledgeable or authoritative of MMA journos around, but he's become very well known largely off the back of the video interviews which is what has set him apart from the likes of Josh Gross, Jeff Sherwood, Loretta Hunt and their like. Also, he's one of the more charismatic and engaging personalities amongst the main MMA writers, so that has helped him to befriend many fighters, trainers, promoters and other individuals in MMA. The Lesnar/Undertaker situation also really helped with his profile. The point is, just because Ariel is one of the best known MMA writers around, it's not really because he's a massive expert on the sport.

 

Also, you go on about all these MMA writers yet you do realise that many of the guys you regularly see in the press section at UFC events don't make a full time living covering MMA? Many of them cover other sports and several actually have day jobs but write for websites as a thing on the side from which they make some money- just like me. However, I write in a pro wrestling mag which most fighters don't read and hardly any in the US, so I'll be less well known than even fringe writers in some of these MMA magazines and mid-level MMA websites. It doesn't therefore mean that I know less about MMA because Alan Belcher doesn't know who the fuck I am- and that argument from you is so fucking ridiculous it's actually hysterical. By that retarded logic, John Lister knows fuck all about wrestling because nobody in the WWE locker room has heard of him. Yeah, really clever logic there.

 

All that aside, though- I'm not having a debate with Ariel Helwani, I'm having a debate with you. I am genuinely saying this with as much respect as possible:

 

a) you don't know fuck all about MMA

b) you're a nobody.

 

No offence and all, mate.

[David]

All that aside, though- I'm not having a debate with Ariel Helwani, I'm having a debate with you. I am genuinely saying this with as much respect as possible:

 

a) you don't know fuck all about MMA

b) you're a nobody.

 

No offence and all, mate.

Fucking Hell Mo, you'd managed to conduct a brilliant debate for a few pages there, which I was thoroughly enjoying reading, then you come out with that and waste it all.

 

He's a nobody? What does that mean? He's as much a "somebody" when it comes to being an authority on MMA as you are.

[MoChatra]

All that aside, though- I'm not having a debate with Ariel Helwani, I'm having a debate with you. I am genuinely saying this with as much respect as possible:

 

a) you don't know fuck all about MMA

b) you're a nobody.

 

No offence and all, mate.

Fucking Hell Mo, you'd managed to conduct a brilliant debate for a few pages there, which I was thoroughly enjoying reading, then you come out with that and waste it all.

 

He's a nobody? What does that mean? He's as much a "somebody" when it comes to being an authority on MMA as you are.

 

 

I was taking the mick out of his post. C'mon Dave- get with the programme son.

 

Seriously, though- his argument is so unbelievably flawed, it's hilarious. For example, I think Michelle McCool is the pits as a worker. However, former WWE writer and current wrestling blogger John Piermarini thinks she's the bees knees. By JV's logic, John's view is more credible than mine because he's more well known and wrestlers will place greater weight on his view than mine.

 

Also, just out of interest, what makes JV an authority on MMA?

[Scott Malbranque]

Also, just out of interest, what makes JV an authority on MMA?

 

That's a very pretentious, elitist attitude you have there, sir...