UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cerrone

@Pie that is literally the most ******** thing I have ever seen you post. You just demonstrated exactly what I was saying and further demonstrated that you don't understand the scoring. So again, what you're telling me is, despite JJ landing the better cleaner power lands ( and even cumulative damage) that Mazo somehow won the round because JJ was backing up?

Ok, I'm done.

lol Pie are you for real? How exactly did JJ wear the damage? Who was the one pissing blood out her nose the whole fight and getting her head snapped back? Mazo was landing pitter-patter the entire fight and only looked semi-decent in the third when JJ gassed. The moments Mazo had in the second weren't close to enough to give her the round. Aaprt from a knee, she landed NOTHING significant in the clinch, JJ simply took it on the arms/shoulders.

look at the strike stats


Already accounted for but you didn't read it


look at the damage


Mazo was the one visibly beaten up, JJ simply looked gassed


look at the ring generalship


Again, a lower-tier consideration which cannot factor into scoring assessments unless no fighter displayed an immediate damage advantage which JJ did, and you didn't even understand this until I explained it to you. Let's not pretend you did.


You don't what the rules are. Never read them. And if you did, you probably still wouldn't understand how they are meant to be interpreted. In fact if you had any more understanding of the way scoring is meant to function than my morning ablution you'd make the argument that the cumulative impact of Mazo was greater and led to a higher probability  of the fight being brought to a conclusion, which is part of the primary criteria. I wouldn't accept that argument but it's the only sensible one you can make for Mazo winning that fight. It's also something you'd know if you had read the rules, and you have not. It's actually not even possible to understand scoring at all unless you understand the tenets of the primary criteria, and since you do not, my assertion that you have no idea what you're talking about is probably accurate.


I don't care what you think, and I'm not interested in reading why you think what you do, because you haven't read, let alone studied, the judging criteria.  Read it, then get back to me.

* Edited at 01.19.2020, 9:55 PM ET *

Every round is an island. MMA is scored by rounds.

Aldrich landed the better, cleaner lands that caused the most significant damage in  rounds 1 and 2. Since she did this, and met the primary criteria in terms of advantage, she outscored Mazo who was less effective.

That's how it works, and that's how it is.

Again, I invite you to read the guidelines. I didn't create them, and I do not even necessarily agree with them.

http://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/juding_criteriascoring_rev0816.pdf

* Edited at 01.19.2020, 10:03 PM ET *

See here's the thing Pie: I don't even care if anyone disagrees with me on a scoring outcome on the condition that they actually know what the criteria is, how it works, and how it should be applied.

But you will read and understand them if you want to have an opinion that is predicated on knowledge that should be taken seriously. Oh yes. You will. Because saying **** like I'm 'suggesting' the criteria is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting them. They are what they are, they exist whether you think they do or not, are what judges refer to when scoring, and you don't just get to say 'oh well **** that, here's how I think it works'.

Now, it is very possible to win a decision and lose a fight. But that's a different deal.

* Edited at 01.19.2020, 10:16 PM ET *