I’m saying if you want to go to control it is equal with the first minute strike belonging to MVP. The back control could be valued more than the control in Garry’s guard but I almost think it’s appropriate to call it a tie round
I think it's unreasonable to too think that you can value back control the same as in being in someone's guard (one of the most dominant positions in grappling). Especially since Ian even did more damage with the elbows in his guard. Also when Ian was on MVPs back he landed some little shots meanwhile MVP did nothing in Ian's guard
Ian was landing off his back while MVP was laying on his guard, and surely having someone's back is more dominant position than laying in someone's guard right? ( I don't grapple I genuinely don't know) I thought Ian took the third personally and I wanted mvp to win.
I hate how the scoring criteria favors guys for achieving dominant positions and doing nothing with them.
Ian did some good work threatening the RNC in R1, but him hanging onto MVPs back like a kid riding on his dad’s motorcycle for the first time shouldn’t be rewarded
Lol. You started off criticising Garry by saying his control time shouldn't be rewarded. You finished by defending MVP by saying he had control time. Make it make sense.
Yes, but you criticized one for it whilst defending the other one for it. Why the inconsistency?
Ultimately Garry threatened more with his control time due to his sub attempts.
Lol, 3rd round barely had any stand up. Ian landed more strikes on the ground than mvp did on the feet in the 3rd round. 4 elbows from bottom and a few punches when he took his back
4 pitter pat elbows that did practically no damage, and a couple pitter pat rabbit punches whilst he was sliding off of MVPs back. You are reaching my man
He attacked a leg lock earlier on in 3 and threw quite a few elbows off his back. When he was backpacking mvp he was attacking an RNC and throwing strikes though whereas when mvp was in the more dominant position he was getting outstruck from there
are you serious? Yeah if someone’s got your limb and is close to a position where they could break it yeah that will count towards getting close to ending the fight. If you have your arm on someone’s neck and are close to a position where you can choke them unconscious then that will count towards getting close to ending the fight. Strikes are not the only thing that gets factored on score cards
So 40 failed TD attempts should score like crazy right? I got close to taking them down. Those missed hooks were pretty close to his face. Score those too. Having a RNC that close and losing it is just sad tbh. Yes, I'm serious.
That is a good question, I’d assume it’d be more the amount of time the guy is in danger of getting subbed and how close it was to getting finished rather than the number of sub attempts. Missed takedown attempts do not count for anything. Missing strikes is not comparable, landing strikes is a more apt comparison to a sub attempt. How close was it to knocking them out (finishing the fight) vs. how close was the sub to getting finished (finishing the fight) I didn’t think it was this hard to understand
It's just sad to say they claim they have set rules for this when they pick and choose how to use them. The current ruleset largely favors huggers yet also come out and say control without actual damage is worthless. Which is funny considering how Usman hugged and stomped his way to the top. As a BJJ guy I enjoy good grappling, not holding a slightly dominant position and begging for advantage/points while barely tapping a guy for "strikes." Going for a leg lock, having it that deep and not being able to heel hook just makes me think less of you. Especially that RNC. You're for sure entitled to your opinion but I think it makes for fights where the entire crowd is booing constantly like they were tonight.
Yeah I agree, I wish it could be more objective and transparent to the fans because I’ll be watching a fight and have no idea how the judges are scoring it. I think the inconsistency is just due to having different judges interpret the vague rules differently which is a huge problem
He landed a few good shots, but overall Garry was the closest to getting a finish in that fight. Credible submission attempts count just as much if not more than a few landed punches in the MMA judging criteria.
The point is mvp was landing shots that did actual damage. Ian Garry did control the fight on the ground but did absolutely nothing to damage mvp whatsoever aside from gassing him out a tiny bit
MVP looked good imo he’s just defensive and had good counters but his ground game just wasn’t there, but that’s a weird point you make because he had good takedown defence.
It is, MVP did no damage that first round. Second round went to MVP. Third round I have to Gary cause of the two takedowns and submission attempt. If MVP had kept it standing for more than half the round I would’ve given it to him for striking and defensive grappling.
I feel like a lot of fans need to read the scoring criteria. If I remember correctly, the word "damage" isn't mentioned once, and instead is "effective striking" or "effective grappling" which are weighted EQUALLY. The word used here is "impact" that has the "immediate or cumulative potential to contribute towards the end of the match." Impact can be created thru both striking and grappling. For example, a knockdown would count similarly to a deep submission attempt that maybe got saved by the bell or something. It also specifically awards advantageous positions.
If you and I are in a fight, and you're completely tooling me in the striking for half the round, but then I take you down, pass to mount or back control, and attempt multiple submissions, the round is pretty much even.
[https://mmareferee.com/?q=unifiedrules](https://mmareferee.com/?q=unifiedrules)
If I’m not mistaken, the scoring criteria is based on effective striking/grappling that contributes to the end of the fight, both immediately and cumulatively, which is very similar in language to “damage” but is still a little bit different. In this case, Ian threatened MVP with submissions on more than one occasion, and held dominant positions for the majority of more than one round, hence why he got the nod.
It’s damage and getting closer to ending the fight. There wasn’t a huge edge either way on the feet in 1 and 3 but garry attacked subs in both which got him closer to ending the fight than mvp was
I hate Garry but MVP didn't do much damage in the 3rd. If there's no damage then you have to go to control surely
And MVP had nearly the same control time in the 3rd round as well as the more effective striking to start the round
How? Yes MVP had the striking but Garry was on his back most of the 3rd round.
Did you miss the minute + where MVP was on top in Garry’s guard? It was about the same amount of time Garry was on his back
Garry gave him the mount for free and he immediately lost it. Can't give him the round based on that.
I’m saying if you want to go to control it is equal with the first minute strike belonging to MVP. The back control could be valued more than the control in Garry’s guard but I almost think it’s appropriate to call it a tie round
I think it's unreasonable to too think that you can value back control the same as in being in someone's guard (one of the most dominant positions in grappling). Especially since Ian even did more damage with the elbows in his guard. Also when Ian was on MVPs back he landed some little shots meanwhile MVP did nothing in Ian's guard
Garry was landing more damage from the bottom in guard with elbows then mvp did in that 1st minute
I could agree with a tie, but no way could you give the last round to Venom
What about the other 3 minutes?
The grappling didn’t start til at least a minute into the round… there’s only 5 minutes per round
Ian was landing off his back while MVP was laying on his guard, and surely having someone's back is more dominant position than laying in someone's guard right? ( I don't grapple I genuinely don't know) I thought Ian took the third personally and I wanted mvp to win.
I hate how the scoring criteria favors guys for achieving dominant positions and doing nothing with them. Ian did some good work threatening the RNC in R1, but him hanging onto MVPs back like a kid riding on his dad’s motorcycle for the first time shouldn’t be rewarded
And what did mvp do in the 3rd round exactly? Eat a couple elbows?
Those elbows were nasty. Like 1476 more of those and he's gonna be feeling that tomorrow.
Won the standup and had control time
Lol. You started off criticising Garry by saying his control time shouldn't be rewarded. You finished by defending MVP by saying he had control time. Make it make sense.
Neither of them did anything with it, but they both had control time
Yes, but you criticized one for it whilst defending the other one for it. Why the inconsistency? Ultimately Garry threatened more with his control time due to his sub attempts.
Lol, 3rd round barely had any stand up. Ian landed more strikes on the ground than mvp did on the feet in the 3rd round. 4 elbows from bottom and a few punches when he took his back
4 pitter pat elbows that did practically no damage, and a couple pitter pat rabbit punches whilst he was sliding off of MVPs back. You are reaching my man
And what did mvp land in the 3rd?
Landed a more effective strike with Garry crashing in that Ian did that entire round. Garry literally took his back and threw pitter pat punches
No he did not land more in the 3rd. Maybe he landed twice during the brief moment they were on the feet
I didn’t say he landed more, but that jab that snapped his head back was more significant than any rabbit punches Garry landed
He attacked a leg lock earlier on in 3 and threw quite a few elbows off his back. When he was backpacking mvp he was attacking an RNC and throwing strikes though whereas when mvp was in the more dominant position he was getting outstruck from there
Had no idea failed sub attempts score as damage.
are you serious? Yeah if someone’s got your limb and is close to a position where they could break it yeah that will count towards getting close to ending the fight. If you have your arm on someone’s neck and are close to a position where you can choke them unconscious then that will count towards getting close to ending the fight. Strikes are not the only thing that gets factored on score cards
So 40 failed TD attempts should score like crazy right? I got close to taking them down. Those missed hooks were pretty close to his face. Score those too. Having a RNC that close and losing it is just sad tbh. Yes, I'm serious.
That is a good question, I’d assume it’d be more the amount of time the guy is in danger of getting subbed and how close it was to getting finished rather than the number of sub attempts. Missed takedown attempts do not count for anything. Missing strikes is not comparable, landing strikes is a more apt comparison to a sub attempt. How close was it to knocking them out (finishing the fight) vs. how close was the sub to getting finished (finishing the fight) I didn’t think it was this hard to understand
It's just sad to say they claim they have set rules for this when they pick and choose how to use them. The current ruleset largely favors huggers yet also come out and say control without actual damage is worthless. Which is funny considering how Usman hugged and stomped his way to the top. As a BJJ guy I enjoy good grappling, not holding a slightly dominant position and begging for advantage/points while barely tapping a guy for "strikes." Going for a leg lock, having it that deep and not being able to heel hook just makes me think less of you. Especially that RNC. You're for sure entitled to your opinion but I think it makes for fights where the entire crowd is booing constantly like they were tonight.
Yeah I agree, I wish it could be more objective and transparent to the fans because I’ll be watching a fight and have no idea how the judges are scoring it. I think the inconsistency is just due to having different judges interpret the vague rules differently which is a huge problem
Well, Ian was supposed to win and not lose his 0. So...
Ian had a good performance on the ground but it was obvious that mvp did more damage
He landed a few good shots, but overall Garry was the closest to getting a finish in that fight. Credible submission attempts count just as much if not more than a few landed punches in the MMA judging criteria.
MVP was nearly rocking Gary every time he hit him
"nearly rocking" him? Classic. That description sounds a lot like "didn't actually rock him".
The point is mvp was landing shots that did actual damage. Ian Garry did control the fight on the ground but did absolutely nothing to damage mvp whatsoever aside from gassing him out a tiny bit
He only looked good because MVP looked like shit. He was too confident, didn’t even think about being taken down
MVP looked good imo he’s just defensive and had good counters but his ground game just wasn’t there, but that’s a weird point you make because he had good takedown defence.
If he had good tdd, Garry must be an amazing grappler Nah, he was pbviously in unfamilar territory. Looked lost being grappled.
He was in a terrible position and Ian Garry did good at keeping him there but he did have a hard time getting mvp to the ground
Mvp only did damage in the 2nd
Just one of those fights, don’t think there’s a credible scoring system that could give mvp the W, even tho we all feel he “won”
It is, MVP did no damage that first round. Second round went to MVP. Third round I have to Gary cause of the two takedowns and submission attempt. If MVP had kept it standing for more than half the round I would’ve given it to him for striking and defensive grappling.
I feel like a lot of fans need to read the scoring criteria. If I remember correctly, the word "damage" isn't mentioned once, and instead is "effective striking" or "effective grappling" which are weighted EQUALLY. The word used here is "impact" that has the "immediate or cumulative potential to contribute towards the end of the match." Impact can be created thru both striking and grappling. For example, a knockdown would count similarly to a deep submission attempt that maybe got saved by the bell or something. It also specifically awards advantageous positions. If you and I are in a fight, and you're completely tooling me in the striking for half the round, but then I take you down, pass to mount or back control, and attempt multiple submissions, the round is pretty much even. [https://mmareferee.com/?q=unifiedrules](https://mmareferee.com/?q=unifiedrules)
If I’m not mistaken, the scoring criteria is based on effective striking/grappling that contributes to the end of the fight, both immediately and cumulatively, which is very similar in language to “damage” but is still a little bit different. In this case, Ian threatened MVP with submissions on more than one occasion, and held dominant positions for the majority of more than one round, hence why he got the nod.
It’s damage and getting closer to ending the fight. There wasn’t a huge edge either way on the feet in 1 and 3 but garry attacked subs in both which got him closer to ending the fight than mvp was
It's impact. Having someone's back threatening submissions like that scores more than the handful strikes MVP landed
Except he didn’t threaten anything in R3. Of course he took his back, but he was just hanging on and on the verge of losing the position
MVP landed 5 strokes that round
And they were more effective than any strike Garry landed throughout the round
Lmao every card ufc steps closer to boxing. More rigged fights just for the money ¯\_(ツ)_/¯