You mean Koscheks spirit fingers may have been intentional? Perish the thought!
Sotiropolous is amazing. Favorite fight of the night by far.
Here's the fight metric report on Ortiz/Griffin II. Summary, they have it Griffin 29-27.
Forrest outstruck Tito through the round by a fairly wide margin. As far as grappling goes, Tito took him down at 3:45 left in the round, Forrest got back up to his feet at exactly 2:45 left in the round.
The following are the unified rules juding criteria, as per NSAC -
Since they were on the ground for exactly a minute, 80% of the fight was standing - therefore, as per the criteria, effective striking is weighted more heavily than effective grappling. Griffin outstruck Tito on the feet by a wide margin. Giving Tito the Effective Grappling criteria for the takedown and some GnP (even though Forrest defended most of it). Then octagon control - Tito succeeded in one takedown, Forrest succeeded in getting back to his feet with a sweep attempt, and then shut down Tito's subsequent takedown attempts. Octagon control is even or slightly in Forrest's favor.Quote:
E. Judging Criteria
1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it's full time limit based upon the following criteria:
F. Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)
G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.
H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking.
I. Effective Grappling
1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean takedown and active guard position.
2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly takedown his opponent, is effectively grappling.
3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple, through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous defense from the top fighter.
4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.
5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the preceding situations were met.(items 2-4)
6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored the clean takedown deserves the round.
7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling
J. 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
K. 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.
L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded. Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)
4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations that led to effective strikes?
5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next
6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.
7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike
-by submission attempt
-from a throw
-from clean strikes either standing or grounded.
So Forrest won the most important criteria (effective striking) and tied or won the secondary criteria of Octagon Control while narrowly losing the secondary criteria of effective grappling. That makes it a pretty clear round for Forrest - both by the unified rules judging criteria and by common sense - if you get outstruck on the feet for four minutes of the round, it's common sense that taking someone down, throwing punches for a minute and then getting thrown off as your opponent stands back up, shouldn't win you the round.
I don't like Kos but he didn't need to "ham it up"; even aside from the pre-knee eyepoke he got hit with a blatantly illegal strike, so whether he was hurt or not he was entitled to take five minutes if he wanted it.Quote:
As for the Kos-Johnson fight, **** Kos. I think he hammed up his side of things and then intentionally went after Johnson.
The subsequent eye pokes were kind of bullshit but really the outcome of the fight was decided by the fact that Johnson's ground game sucks.
The Koscheck vs Johnson fight should give chunners new arguments.
I'd have to rewatch the fight but fightmetric puts the number of strikes landed as pretty close between the two.
As for Kos, he gets his five minutes and he should. He doesn't get my sympathy particularly when it looks like he's holding the wrong eye. To turn around and eyepoke Johnson seems to be rather Kongo-esque.