The Miscellaneous Thread

You know, I am genuinely starting to worry about Greg. I don't think he'd let the levels of flaming and spam happening on the boards pass under usual circumstances.

BLM ladies and gentlemen.

So this lady got shot at by a black guy, in her apartment, in front of her kids. He was trying to kill her. She called the cops, they turned up and shot him. So now BLM has turned up at her place to picket her and support the shooter, and harangue her. They repeatedly call her a ***** and tell her to shut the **** up. Her kids are in the car.

This **** needs to end. These people are cancer. White ****libs front and centre for virtue-signalling points as usual.

https://twitter.com/DrewHLive/status/1548723955833323521?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1548723955833323521%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatriots.win%2Frising

* Edited at 07.17.2022, 4:32 PM ET *

@Casual the thing about that is, in a 'teleological' sense at least, damage is almost always indissoluble from 'impact'. Ultimately, the criteria is about who hurt who more, and the operative syllogism of that system must always necessarily be damage. There's not really any other way to define impact, and damage is pretty much the only way that a human being can observe impact in such a way as to make a distinction between one fighter's performance relative to another's in a bout. 

Damage can take many forms, however. If one fighter got outlanded with pitter-patter--and even sustained a minor cut in a round but was not visibly effected by this--but forced a pressure wrestling game in that round causing their opponent to be completely gassed and exhausted, they should win the round despite being outlanded because of impact.


However:


“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact. Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.”

So in practicum, striking damage--knockdowns, wobbling, cuts etc--are always going to be favoured more as per the criteria because their impact is always deemed 'immediate' which superates the cumulative. Pressure wrestling does cause an impact, but it's never the case that it's immediate because fighters gas over time.

The real clause that causes issues is this one due to the amount of epistemological liberty in grants the judges:
"the potential to contribute towards the end of the match"


Because of this little throwaway tag, Judges ostensibly have the right to determine what kinds of damage, be they immediate or cumulative, fit that definition.

As I've said many times, if there is a perfect system of scoring heuristics/philosophy I'm yet to see it. I don't think the criteria is bad at all, it's the application of it that's often very bad.

@Casual they're exactly the same. The updated version is just a facsimile of its predecessor. There is nothing that you can point to in either which separates them as fundamentally different in any way. MMA scoring is what it has always been and MMA fights are judged the way they always have been. It's not really worded differently at all.

c. Judges shall evaluate Mixed Martial Arts techniques, such as effective striking/grappling(Plan A), effective aggressiveness(Plan B),and control of the fighting area(Plan C).Plans B and C are not taken into consideration unless Plan A is weighed as being even. d. Evaluations shall be made in the specific order in which the techniques appear in (c)above ,giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking/grappling, and effective aggressiveness, and control of the fighting area.


All that's different is the words used, not what the words mean. 'Effective' is just a transplant for 'Dominant'. Judges are still defining what that means based on the same visual cues they always have. Or should be, anyway.

* Edited at 07.17.2022, 5:45 PM ET *

@Casual well there's three main problems with it as far as I can see:

A) Teenage sociopaths/manteens/adulteens who infest this site who cannot admit that the fighter they picked lost and subsequently redefine their pick as something other than failure by calling it a robbery despite the preponderance of evidence.

B) Some fights are kind of just impossible to score.

C) Ultimately, we can never really know how affected by anything any fighter is based on visual clues alone, and this will not be achievable until judges have some way to interface with competing fighter's consciousnesses live, in real time, and measure that on that particular fighter's 'damage scale'. So never.  Judging is a bit like cloud-gazing. Some people see faces, animals, some people see fairly floss. Fights that aren't very apparently dominant by one fighter are always going to result in decisions that people believe are either bad or good. I don't think there's any solution to it.