Machida vs. Jackson Prediction Commentary

This is the official prediction commentary thread for Machida vs. Jackson. Let's see what you've got.

Both fighters are coming off of losses and both need a win to remain in the near-future title contention conversation. Both have the ability to win the fight convincingly with strikes and neither particularly likes to work on the ground. Both are 32 years old, 6'1" tall, and have held the UFC Light Heavyweight title. In short, and on paper, this is a very close matchup. If Jackson is able to bully Machida, or catch him with a hook on his way out of a strike, Jackson can deliver Machida his second straight knockout loss. But I don't see it happening that way. Machida will play this one by the books, keeping himself out of harm's way for three rounds en route to a decision victory.

My heart says Rampage, my head says MACHIDA KARATE

Rampage does not seem like he really is enjoying fighting these days.

I think?

If forced to side one way or the other in round 1 and 2, you could go either way, and I was thinking Rampage.  And then easily R3 for Machida, which would make it 29-28 Rampage.

But that's the problem with how scoring is done today.  I'd be happier if they called R1 and R2 10-10.  That would make Machida the clear 30-29 winner.

Machida landed the more effective shots throughout the fight. Judges stole that fight from Machida.  

Jackson won the first two rounds it seemed. Would like to see this as a 5 round fight instead! Where does Machida go from here? Matt Hamill?

i thought it was a pretty easy fight to score.  10-9 jackson / 10-9 jackson / 10-9 machida.  i'm not sensing a whole lot of furor over this one today.

Bad judging is killing MMA in the states.

Look at the surprise on Jackson's face at the decision.

I can't understand the idea that Jackson won the first two rounds. Trying to hold Machida against the cage and stomping on feet does nothing. Same with moving forward and hitting air. Machida out landed Jackson in meaningful shots in every single round and completely dominated the 3rd. The first 2 rounds were 10-10 and best for Jackson. 

i really didn't think machida accomplished anything in rounds 1 and 2.  he threw out some leg kicks in the first 2 minutes of the fight that really only landed with the top of the foot, and he never really connected after that.  rampage took him down in the 2nd, hit hit with a few flush shots in both rounds, and was constantly the aggressor and moving forward.

no question machida dominated the 3rd as bigj said but i thought rounds 1 and 2 belonged to page.

Those judges are basically working under the assumption that you HAVE to make each round 10-9.   I've heard Sal D'Amato say as much in person at a Q&A session. His reasoning is that there should always be some difference in the round that you can find in order to give one fighter 10 and the other 9.

If you look at it that way, it's easy to see how R1 & R2 were scored 10-9 for Jackson.  They were very close and those judges won't give 10-10's.

But I disagree with that approach to scoring. I think there should be more 10-10's and more 10-8's.  Under that system Machida will come out the winner, because he had a clear advantage in R3, whereas nobody had a clear advantage in R1 & R2.  The R3 advantage then becomes the only thing that matters - makes perfect sense. Except that's not the system the judges are using.

This is the same debate as taking someone down and not doing any effective striking. Rampage clearly controlled the fight. Was keeping Machida on the outside. I think this was a bad match-up based on their styles. They are both counter fighters. My style is very similar to Rampages and that is to cut off the cage and work off the cage. Would not want to watch a rematch because it would play out the same way. Machida will not fight aggressively until he has nothing to lose. He needed to finish and his corner new that too, which is why he attacked in the 3rd.

Well I was wrong here.  Machida came close in R3 though but it takes some Wandy knees to finish him I guess.

@Gregory ... If there were 10-10 rounds do you think that would change fighters game plans coming out ... in the 3rd the fighter that is losing is most likely going to try to finish ... if both fighters think it's a tie do you think that they would be willing to risk being finished rather than trying to edge out the other fighter?

Hmm well you are a legit fighter and I am only a keyboard warrior. You know what it's like sitting on that stool between rounds and I don't. 

Either way I think you just have to try and improve it and revise it if necessary. In the NFL they tweak a few rules every year, measure how much offensive output there is, or how many injuries/etc... and then the rules committee meets and tweaks it again.  Same thing would ideally be done in MMA.

Take this extreme example:
- Round 1:  fighter A lands a single jab, nothing else happens
- Round 2:  fighter A lands a single jab, nothing else happens
- Round 3:  fighter B dominates, landing dozens of strikes, takedowns, and sub attempts

The Sal D'Amato philosophy is that every round needs to be 10-9, and this becomes a 29-28 victory for fighter A. 

It's wrong.  Fighter A clearly was less effective in the fight and deserves to lose. We need a scoring system that can recognize that.  I think half-point scoring would be too complicated, but that heavier usage of 10-10's and 10-8's, and even 10-7's would make things a lot better.

10-10: no clear advantage
10-9: slight advantage for one fighter
10-8: obviously one-sided
10-7: absolute ass-kicking

Apply this system to a fight like Clay Guida vs Diego Sanchez and it's pretty interesting.  Diego Sanchez dominates the first round and wins it 10-8 or even 10-7.  Now if Clay Guida simply sits on top and controls position in the next two rounds, the best he can do is 10-9, 10-9 for a 28-28 draw. If he wants to win he needs to do something spectacular.  And rightly so, since he got beat to a pulp in round 1.

I don't have a problem with handing out more draws. If a fight was basically a draw, why not just call it a draw? So many guys have all these split decision blemishes on their records, for fights that they really didn't lose.

Maybe Hamilton is right and they need a 1/2 point system. So even if your saw the first two as a slight advantage to Rampage it would be no more than 10-9.5, 10-9.5, then for Machida's dominate last round 8.5-10. In that system Machida wins 28.5-29. So: Slight advantage = 10-9.5, clear advantage = 10-9, dominate = 10-8.5, dominate + Near finish 10-8, Absolute one sided ass wooping with multiple near finishes 10-7

So, I've done a good bit of thinking about the scoring system in MMA. I hate the 10-point-must system for myriad reasons. The short version is that is simply isn't up to the task of scoring such a complex sport. The long version, and the explanation of the system I've designed to replace it can be found here: http://rammaradio.com/2009/10/episode-17-a-new-mma-judging-system/. The score card itself, and a quick rundown of how it works is here: http://rammaradio.com/2009/10/ramma-scoring-system-scorecard/

I would love for some others to give it a try and see how it works for them. I've used it for many fights and it seems to give accurate results, that is, the winner given by my system is usually more in-line with what the community thinks about the winner of a fight than with the official score. For instance, I had Rua winning Machida vs. Rua I and BJ winning Penn vs. Edgar I.

i listened to the RAMMA segment and there's a lot of merit to it.

on a related topic, listening to the jordan breen radio show the other night, much of the discussion after 123 was not so much about the 10 point must system as it was about the fights simply not being long enough to decide a clear winner.  i certainly agree with that view; and i would point out that the more rounds there are in a fight, the better the 10 point must system works.  it was devised for boxing, of course, in which 15 round fights were once the norm, before being reduced to 12 and in some cases 10 rounds for safety. it tends to offer more just results in boxing, where a single close round that judges mis-score, or simply where nothing happens, won't tip the balance of the fight too far in favor of an undeserving fighter.

along those lines, i have had relatively fewer complaints about the 10 point must system as applied to 5 round title fights.  it's still not perfect, or even good for that matter, and i would love to see it altered or done away with completely. that being said, other than a couple of tricky instances such as penn-edgar 1 or rampage-griffin, it has tended to yield fair results. i think that is in part because the system itself becomes deemphasized when the fighters have more time to display their abilities and separate themselves from one another through the action. but the key is that scoring one or even two rounds improperly will not necessarily distort the outcome of the fight. even in a boring 5 round title fight like tim sylvia - andre arlovski III where virtually nothing happens, there is still enough action over the course of 5 rounds for judges to distinguish who is winning, either under a system like RA's or under the current system of effective striking, grappling, aggression and octagon control. and if a judge mistakenly gives a round to arlovski that he should have given to sylvia because neither of them is effectively taking over the fight, the outcome is not necessarily undermined because there are four other rounds to get things right.  i would look at sylvia-arlovski III as an example of a terrible fight where the scoring system more or less worked.

the 10 point must system is obviously worst when applied to a 3 round fight, because a single round scored improperly will have an enormous effect on the decision, as will a point taken away for a foul.  so while the 10 point must system is a major problem, it is more specifically the 10 point must system applied to 3 round bouts that is the problem, and needs to be rethought.

I just stumbled across this thread. I wrote something a while back on this. "What's Up With The 10 Point Must System" http://bit.ly/10PtMust

Some of the things I focused on are:
- While there are problems with judges the scoring system is too ambiguous.
- The scoring system allows for a fighter to win on rounds even though he doesn't do as much in the fight.
- Machida actually did more in the first round against Rampage.

I'm interested in any thoughts.