i just watched a fight where the dude got the other dude bleeding hard, kept on hitting him in the same spot, but then the guy that was bleeding took down the guy that made him bleed, and then he littery sat on the guy, so basiclly a guy with blood all over his face was sitting on a grown man... and guess who won... the guy that was bleeding, just because he was frigin SITTING on the guy, that made me mad.

I actulllay said this in real life

WTF

Sadbutrue wrote:being in control is pointless if you are not threatening the other fighter. sitting in a guys guard defending sub after sub for a round should NOT win you the round. if the guy on the bottom is being effective and is threatening to finish then he should be ahead in points. the judges should learn wtf is going on in the cage.

Well, I understand what they are thinking (I don't agree, but I understand their logic). They see it as being on your back as a BAD position. Which it is, you would rather be in the mount. Thats not to say people aren't good off their backs, but there is no one that would rather be on their back than in the mount (Not that I can think of). So, you would RATHER be in another position, but you're not. So you're getting controlled. Octagon control being part of the point system. So you get points for being on top, even if you're getting destroyed. It makes sense when you think about it, but its still stupid.

The only thing that they could really improve is to see if the guy on bottom is TRYING to get out. If he isn't then he wants to be there, so no points should be given/taken for it. But, if they are squirming and trying to get out and can't, they should give points to the other guy.

no the mount is a dominant position. i am talking about sitting in a mans guard which can be seens a neautral position. when a fighter does not attempt to transition to a more dominant position and does nothing it is called LAY and Pray. these fighters are simply holding their opponent and are avoiding posturing up to avoid getting subbed or swept and are unable or unwilling to try to pass guard.

Oh, I see what you mean.

I think they TRY to cover that in the "Aggression" portion of it, but I'm not even sure how much they USE that field of it. It seems like Aggression isn't even counted. But then again, thats flawed too because a lot of fighters are counter-fighters so they don't rush in.

I think their scoring system is bound to fail when you're trying to judge a fight, especially if its close.

well one ref thought that guida won the fight.

I thought he did too, because he was on top for two rounds. I didn't think he should have, since he got destroyed. But I thought the judges were gonna give it to him because of him being on top...

guida was brutalized from the bottom

I agree with Sadbutrue, sitting in someone's guard is not doing anything. If you are not advancing the action, it is basically a stall technique. Sometimes it goes too far the other way. The guy on the bottom shouldn't just look like he is trying something, but actually advancing the action.

Unfortunately you get into one of the problems Boxing has had forever. Different referees call the action differently. Some referees restart the action too quickly and others let fighters stay on the ground despite a stalemate. That can also influence the judge's decisions.

Just as fighters need to cross train to be able to at least defend against fighters with different strengths, some of the referees need more or better training in understanding what is action and what is non-action.

I saw one ref break up a perfectly good clinch because the crowd was booing. They were both working and weren't just lying on each other. But the ref was an idiot and as soon as the crowd booed, he broke them up.

I never saw that ref again, actually.

I've always liked John McCarthy, he seems very good. Mazzagati seems to do fairly well, too.

Rampage is one of the coaches next year for the ultimate fighter, i cant wait for that season!