1). Again, my POINT covered KOs and Submission as black and whites. And my point was in instances where black and white wins occur, it is just that, black and white. If a fighter submits or gets KOd, it is black and white and that is the most ideal way of determining the winner. Not a point system that may (more often than not) end up making fights controversal.
TKO can have controversy and can have gray areas, yes. But that has nothing to do with my point.
If an official determines that a fighter cheats/violated the rules sufficiently to invalidate the entire fight, then that nullifies any right that cheating fighter had to compete in the first place. This might be controversal at times, but it is a necessary component to maintan order. This is a sport after all.
Changing the entire criteria of winning just so that the fighter you want to win may end up looking better is another thing entirely.
2). You want to come up with a system wherein a KO/Submission in a fight stops and only awards a 10-7 round to the person who managed the KO. This is not the system implemented in MMA right now. I was simply suggesting that maybe you should come up with your own sport. Like I said, Lovetaptango Psuedofighting Championship has a nice ring to it.
3) I know what I said. Nothing I said discounts the supplementary requirement of having a point system in place in case the fight runs out of time.
Of course gameplan/tactics to score points are (not becoming, but is already) a necessary component of the game. It still cannot replace the black-and-white criteria of making someone give up or knocking him out.
Edit. PS. You DO know the system you're suggesting is inherently flawed right? If a fighter dominates the first round (10-7) and gets KOd in the 2nd, are you saying it should be a draw?
Pardon my grammar errors. 2:30am and it's been a long day.
Last edited by Nibedicus on Oct 12th, 2012 at 06:28 PM
And as I already explained that is not always the case. KOs can take place after illegal blows land, fighters can recover from KOs very soon afterwards but the fight can still be called off, TKOs are often called as KOs incorrrectly by the referee. And KOs are usually the result of the progression of the fight up until that point, so if a fighter fights dirty on his way it getting it it questions the true validity of it.
Not to mention, due to the nature of the 5 round system, and each round always beginning standing regardless of how it last ended, plus even referee stand ups, sometimes sudden or "comeback" finishes only took place because the format of the fight enabled them to survive earlier dominations and helped put them into a position where they get the finish.
So it's not really every truly black and white no matter what you try to argue.
So your usage of the word "finish" was compeltely out of synch with mine, everyone else's in this thread, and general usage in the mma community, but you decided to use it anyway without informing anyone? That's what id call "smart".
So you can use human error and subjectivity to claim that point scoring can never be black and white but not to claim that its use with regard to DQs and point removals and the like can't ever be used to render finishes not always black and white? Sounds like major double standard to me, bro.
Prove this is the case. Some of my favorite fighters are finishers that often get dominated by wrestlers and the like, such as Vitor Belfort,
Duh. No shit Sherly. My whole point was how the system can be made *better*.
And yet your claims that it is "just" about finishing would seem to point to that, wouldnt it?
Not true. There are still plenty of fighters who solely go for the finish, don't give caution to their cardio and don't care about volume punching at all but put power into all of their punches, and still find success.
Except if you want to access the entire fight, the finish can be a product of everything that leads to the finish, a lot of which isn't black and white. The current format of fighting, as I said, heavily favours flash finishing over grinding finishing, and often the flash finish is not an accurate reflection of how the fight was going down, or how the fight would go down under a different, better system.
An example: Anderson's finish over Chael in first fight. It is not black and white in the confines of our argument, in that the fight taking place exactly as it did did so under the format of restting the fight eveyr round, and we have reason to believe that say, having no breaks between rounds would have lead to Anderson getting, comapratively, much more tired and beaten up then he was.
Like with second fight, it is not black and white, alrgely because of all the cheating that lead up to it.
And in your silly format, Sonnen would have won or tied only due to your format's silliness.
Nope, you made three excuses, it was pointed out.
Your system would allow a fighter who tapped out or was KO'd to possibly not lose. That makes your system both unfair and retarded.
It's not arguable if Silva is superior to Sonnen, it's a fact that Silva is. Silva's record proves it; the fact that he submitted and then beat the crap out of Sonnen in the rematch proves it. Stop denying facts.
The fact of the matter is you simply can't accept facts. Sonnen lost to a superior fighter and did so twice. Trying to change the rules so a loser can win is stupid. Sonnen's moved on, you should too.
Cheating/doing anything illegal will of course illegitimize any victory (regardless of how it was attained whether by points, KO or submission), yes. ANY win carries with it the requirement that it was attained via legal means as determined by the official.
This line of thought does not make a KO/Submission victory any less black and white.
This is how the sport was designed. Go make your own sport if you don't like the rules. And the nature of the sport DOES NOT somehow make KOs/Submissions (as a win condition) any less black or white.
Actually, it still is.
Actually, I explained it and indicated it in my initial response (read right below the paragraph where I indicated "finishing") and I even immediately clarified my meaning on my reply that followed as soon as it was indicated that there may well be a discrepancy between the general lingo and my meaning of the word I when I used it. Why are you trying to argue what my meaning was when I'm the actual author of the sentence? It's a sign of desperation when one tries to move the debate towards semantics, btw.
Just because I didn't use a word (w/c was used in a sentence -I- wrote) in accordance to the general "lingo" does not make my point any less valid.
Please try to read the entire reply before throwing around words like "smart".
Point scoring/Judging in its current implementation is subjective. There is no arguing this. There are some instances where a fight is so one sided that judging becomes a formality and the winner is obvious. But this, in turn, does not make the system any less subjective.
Legit KOs and submissions are black and white, and are thus, far more dependable in determining a winner.
Never said DQs and point removals were "black and white", but it's a necessity to maintain order in a fight.
It is obvious you created this "system" just so that you could somehow make Chael look better in his losses against Silva.
W/c you failed at.
Nope, it wouldn't.
And I didn't use the word "just", you did. That is why I placed it in quotations.
It is a component of the sport itself. I didn't say every fighter uses it. Just that it has always been part of how many fighters prepare themselves since waayyy back.
Do you INTENTIONALLY try to mis-interpret what people say to try to derail an argument you are losing in or am I sensing a language barrier here?
Any sport that allows for KOs and submissions will always have flash finishes as a possibility. Your system is flawed and does not make the sport "better". If you do not like flash finishes, then I suggest you either make up your own sport or watch something else.
Last edited by Nibedicus on Oct 12th, 2012 at 07:48 PM
The fight went down like this: Fighter A got the advantage on Fighter B on the first round but failed to put him away as Fighter B managed to fend him off. Fighter B got the advantage on Fighter A on the next round and managed to put him away as Fighter A is eating dirt. Winner: Fighter B.
And what happens if there is no position reset after round 1, and no break after round 1?
A fighter who specialises in flash kos is mroe ehavily favoured by the current system than one who specialises in grinding out and finishing an opponent, as the fight continuously resets the positions of the fighters, taking away a dominant position each round,a nd immediately putting them fighters in a state where the flash ko artists egts to make another attempt at going for his finish.
Anderson was unable to get out from his vulnerable position in round one and relied on the position reset of the round system.
Then you're better off arguing that the rounds be removed and that position resets not be allowed. Coming up with a retardedly bad system is not the way to go about it. Like I said, make up your own sport.
Chael knew the rules/guidelines of the fight he got into. Just because the format favors something in your eyes, does not make his loss any less valid.
And sour graping about allegedly cheap tricks is just that, sour graping.
This sport is supposed to imitate a real fight. Obviously, there are rules in place to keep the fighters safe, and a time limit on how long they can fight, but it's still supposed to actually be a fight.
Agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter, but your proposed idea will never be accepted.
Actually, even in a non combat sport and see how your rationale falls apart. A team could be getting beat until the 4th round and make a comeback because the other teams mistakes, should they not be given the win because of a "miracle" comeback?
Sometimes all you have left is your Rage
Last edited by Mindset on Oct 12th, 2012 at 08:08 PM
Yes it does when the very gray area of officiating is a part of the process that leads to the KO or submission.
Now you're just being silly. Sports can be changed. That is what this discussion is about. If you don't like the discussion, go to another forum.
See above, and WRONG!!
Not trying to move the debate towards semantics. Just making note of your poor use of them. You explained it in subsequent posts, not original, and it was a poor use of wording as it isn't at all in line with general usage, and there is a very iconic argument in mma right now about finishing and not elaving it in the hands of the judges etc and they all include TKOs as finishes.
Nope but it makes your syloggism inept.
What does this stand for?
There are two factors at play here though. One is how objective the measure of asseccment is. In this case, as I have explained, both can be subjective in parts, objective in others. The other though is how well the entire fight is being represented. Points concern itself with entire fight. Fluke finish with just the moment for the most part, and is something which as I have explained is favoured by the format of the fights.
Sure but sometimes they can have some impact on the process that leads to KOs or submissions and are very much subject to human error or subjetcivity.
1/ Your opinion.
2. Prove it.
Nope, it wouldn't.
These were your words bro:
I'll have to disagree about "it isn't just about finishing".
You quoted me and said you disagreed with what you were quoting, hence essentially saying that it IS just about finishing.
So it isn;t necessary for everyone then.
Cheap, petty tactics and for the record english is my second lanmguage but i have been speakign it for over 7 years.
You have lost, your arguments destroyed, made a mockery of and laughed at. I am V; V for Victory and V for Peace!
Perhaps. But it is not just about the format of fights. It is the nature of one moment not being a great reflection for the whole it is a aprt of. So it is wider rpoblem about finishing being so decisive.
Prove that it is sour graping please. I made valid points, prove how the three tactics weren't illegal or that they didn;t contribute, pelase.
My format better reflects how the whole fight went down.
Prove that they weren't illegal or that they didn't cotnribute to the fight, pelase.
Not true. Not all fights go down the way they shiuld for one, and two, styles make fights, its possible one fighter matches up well against another but in general doesnt match up as well against others.
In real fights there are no round and positions dont get reset.
I know that.
But this would eb analogues to a three round fight where one fighter wins the first two rounds 10-9, and the other wins the third 10-7, and it goes to decision, which I would be fine with. If a single round is so one-sided that it supercedes the others than it is fine. I'm talking about moments that are not reflective of the general way the match is going. An example would be catching the snitch in quiditch when your team was trailing way ebhind on the scorecards, but the game was made to be like that.
Your format ignores that Chael was submitted and that Chael got his ass beaten down. In fight 1 and 2 respectively.
I don't have to "prove" it, the fight's on record, Chael lost. It's for you to prove Silva cheated, you can't, you can only whine and make excuses.
Opinion and fact. A system that allows a fighter who submitted or was KO's still a chance to win (barring some possibly illegal action of the opponent) is a flawed and unfair system; this is a fact. It being retarded, sure, that's opinion.
And what does that have anything to do that Chael is inferior to Silva? Silva's record proves it. Deal with it already. In the other thread you ranked Chael well below Silva, so you're really just arguing with yourself like a retard would.
LoL, you're mad and an idiot. Just accept Chael lost to a superior fighter. He can still be your hero, that doesn't have to change cos of a couple loses.
Why should MMA be a "reflection for the whole" in the first place? Why shouldn't come-from-behind victories allowed?
Your system would just mean that any fight that hit past the midway point wherein one guy who has a commanding lead in points should just tap out to end the fight because he can't lose anyway or have the person who's trailing in points at that stage should simply give up because there's really no point in continuing to fight and risk his health.
Would that make the sport better?
Chael didn't win his fights with Silva, so you've resorted to vehemently declaring that Silva cheated even though the official and even Chael himself agreed that the fight progressed acceptably.
I don't have to prove anything. The burden is on you to prove that they were illegal and grounds for invalidating the fight.
This would make the FIGHT itself (as it progresses) subjective and prone to human error, not the results.
That is the accepted reality of the sport. Your suggestion does not, in any way, correct this.
"Gray areas" that leads to a KO or submission does not make the fighter any less KOd (unable to fight) or submitted (placed in a position wherein he no longer wants to continue the fight). Like what Mindset said, MMA tries to mimic real world conditions of real world combat. And in any real world fight, getting KOd or making you give up would be a definitive black and white loss.
Now there has been some compromises (some I don't agree with, like splitting it into rounds) to make the fights safer/more entertaining. But those were done for the benefit of the sport/fighters/fans and is an entirely different argument altogether.
The minor parts can be tweaked to make the sport better/fairer/more safe. What you're suggesting is to turn the sport on over its head and turn it completely into a points game. That is not what MMA is about.
There are other sports out there that are already like that. So I suggest maybe just watching those or coming up with your own.
/facepalm. Of course I couldn't "explain it in the original", I was unaware that there's a rule here that requires me to use words SPECIFICALLY according to established sports lingo (this is sarcasm, btw).
I immediately corrected it on my following reply. You clinging to it is just some way for you to try and drag this debate into ad hominem/semantics argument. W/c I'll not engage you in as it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
No, it just makes you desperate.
Well, I guess that went over your head.
When a person can no longer fight or willingly gives up during the fight, that in itself is as objective a result as can be in MMA. There is no going around this.
Now, the officiating itself is, indeed, subjective. But that has to do with the fight itself (as it progresses) not the results. If the official deems that there is grounds to pause/stop the fight, then that's his call to make.
The fighters, the sports commission, the sports promoters, the audience, the media would accept that as a reality in the sport. And that applies whether we maintain the sport as it is or change it to a point system.
W/c I already stated is an accepted reality in this sport (and any sport for that matter) itself.
Here's what you said:
It's not fair (in your mind) that Chael lost, so you make up a system that would make him win in the fight.
Nope. YOU were the one making the suggestion to change the sport. Burden is on you to prove it, sport. From where I stand you've failed at that.
You need to stop taking snippets from what ppl say and then change the context of it just to make it look like you have a point, it's cheap and makes you look like a hypocrite, seeing as that you're incessantly whining about Silva's "cheap" tactics:
Here is what I said in its entirety:
I'll have to disagree about "it isn't just about finishing". It IS about finishing in MMA. As it is about "finishing" in any sport (fighting or otherwise) where a clear winner can be decided via a clear criteria. That is how any winner should be determined: Black and white. When things aren't that clear, you go to a subjective (and oftentimes undependable) alternative: W/c is letting the judge's scorecard decide.
In no way did I discount the point system.
Never said it was. So what's your point?
Not really. I sense a disconnect with what I see as the meaning of my sentences vs. how you're interpreting them. It's not a "tactic", I was trying to determine if I needed to be more concise with my explanation to help you understand my meaning a little better.
The same way that Chael "won" his fights with Silva, right?
Last edited by Nibedicus on Oct 13th, 2012 at 03:57 AM