Judges decisions and the grappler's strategy (Rashad/Silva vs Rutten/Randleman)
After reading a few threads debating the Rashad decision, I watched the UFC 20 Bas vs. Kevin fight for the first time.
This fight seems to be the most clear instance of striker vs grappler going to decision, where the grappler controlled the entire match in the guard and lost.
Randleman took Bas down at will, kept him pinned, GnPed him to the point of a broken nose. After 10 minutes though, Randleman was getting slower, and attacking less, and basically laying and praying.
Bas spent the last 15 minutes of the fight attacking from the full guard, punches and elbows. Bas ended up landing 160 strikes from his back, hurting Randleman, but doing less damage than was done to him.
The judges ended up giving Bas the win.
FightMetric gives the win to Randleman
I am wondering if the same people complaining about Jackson and Rashad agree with this decision.
This is the most extreme instance of this scenario, but to me, it clarifies the debate about Rashad vs. Silva.
I think that Rashad won the first 2 rounds, and put on a poor performance in the 3rd that I didn't like. The 3rd bothered me more that Jackson's takedown strategies.
I'm no expert but it looked to me that there was nothing Silva could have done against those "tackles" Evans was dishing out. By the second round, it looked like Silva was trying hard to sprawl and still getting pushed to the cage on the other side of the ring. Once there he was easy prey for Evan's wrestling trips. I think Silva's only chance was to win by TKO in the third, but he was far too tired by then.
People are complaining about Rashad's win? The guy clearly dominated the first / second round (as pointed out by yourself). And when Silva was on the ground he did nothing but try to get up.
Yes I would have preferred a finish, I do in most fights, but overall I thought the fight was pretty good.
You don't "award points" for defense; damage is the first priority followed by aggression and ring/cage control.
I had no idea the Rashad/Silva fight was even mildly controversial. He clearly won the first two rounds and lost the third. Beyond that, I think the only reason he took damage in the third is because he allowed himself to get baited into straying from the game plan, not because Silva found an answer to his strategy.
The Kevin Randleman decision though probably stands out as one of the most BS decisions I've ever seen. The only excuse there is the youth of the sport and its judging criteria. Although I suspect Bas's charisma, marketability and physical resemblance to the UFC logo probably helped him out, it was really the judge's failure to understand the importance of aggression and octagon control as well as failing to distinguish between effective striking and ineffective striking. I mean at no point was Randleman ever even mildly threatened with anything.
Many people are arguing that Rashad's takedowns had no real effect other than stalling the fight, and that the judging criteria is flawed. That's really the only reason I was posting this, was to show an extreme version of what they were arguing for. I noticed this over at sherdog more than here.
Originally Posted by h_sh_m
I think what people don't like is the takedown and then laying on top of the opponent doing nothing until the opponent stands up. Rinse and repeat throughout the round.
It's kind of rare to see because you have to have a good wrestler that can repeatedly take someone down but can't do anything on the ground because the other guy is neutralizing him (no GnP) and standing back up easily every time he gets taken down.
The way I remember the Rashad vs Silva fight, 1st round, Rashad did a little on the ground. He did get the mount and was trying to do stuff on the ground. However, he couldn't do much damage. In the second round it just seemed like he took Silva down, laid on him until Silva stood up, then did it again. No attempt to do damage.
I think it's too rare to see at the moment and we won't see too many fights like that, but it can suck to see. Although it is better than a wrestler taking someone down at the beginning of the round and laying on top of him for 5 minutes doing a lot of nothing.
Bas/Kevin wasn't scored on a 10 point must or round by round system, right? A big issue with the round by round system and 10 point must is when you have someone clearly, but at the same time just nearly, winning a round it ends up scored the same as someone clearly, and by a wide margin, winning a round. Hitting someone so hard they're rocked and just defending is clearly worth way more than just edging it out, but the way the judges score it, just barely edging it out counts the same.
This is exactly it. Bas was pumped up in their marketing in a big way, he had a bigger "push" behind him than anyone had in the UFC before, except maybe Royce. Maybe. They were acting like there was no possible way he could lose that match. But he did. So they (with no real athletic commision to oversee the horrible decision) just made him win anyway.
Although I suspect Bas's charisma, marketability and physical resemblance to the UFC logo probably helped him out
YouTube- Bas Rutten and Kevin Randleman Clash
Anybody who references fightmetrics immediately lost all credibility.
Think about that next tiem.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO