Machida fight (spoilers)

Posted by: duanew

Machida fight (spoilers) - 10/25/09 06:27 AM

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=ki-ufcearly102409&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

One writers response to the "controversial" decision.

Duane
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Machida fight - 10/25/09 10:53 AM

Looks like the UFC will be granting Rua an immediate rematch. Bad news for Machida, as Rua appears to have figured him out. I have to say that I didn't think he would even get close to Machida. Leg kicks and combinations FTW!
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Machida fight - 10/25/09 12:58 PM

My personal opinion, I would have thought the fight would have ended in a split decision with the final nod going to Rua. However the champ never seems to have to beat his opponent the opponent has to decisively beat the champ; and in this case he didn't do enough.

I was rooting for Rua, the underdog. I did find the commentary one sided especially Rogan. At the same time he was praising Rua, Machida was getting in his licks too. Perhaps it was because nobody expected him to do well and that Machida was going to run away with things. This was not the best Machida we've seen however this is the best Rua we have seen in the UFC so far.

I think he should have won.
Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: Machida fight - 10/25/09 06:25 PM

i thought it was going to Rua via split decision after watching the fight. But I guess what Mike Goldberg said was right (and Dereck) that the challenger has to clearly defeat the champ, while the champ can just kinda get by with things.

I'm a Machida fan, but I thought the decision was fishy....
definitely a
Machida vs Shogun 2
Posted by: Supremor

Re: Machida fight - 10/25/09 06:51 PM

I saw it rounds 2, 4 and 5 for Rua
round 3 for Machida
round one 10-10

The last two rounds were so obviously Rua's, I was very surprised he didn't get the nod. I didn't thing for a moment that Rua would do so well- his style seems tailor-made for a counter fighter like Machida. But Shogun had a great gameplan; he'd obviously reviewed a lot of footage of Machida in action, and he used it to his advantage.

I don't know what the UFC's going to do about it. The other top guys in the division have all been in title fights before, and there is no obvious contender out of them who stands out. Having said that, I would prefer both guys to have at least one more fight with other people, because it will make the rematch more interesting- seeing how they've changed their games and so on.

Good fight though. I'm not used to seeing Light heavyweights perform so well!
Posted by: Cord

Re: Machida fight - 10/26/09 05:25 AM

I made it a draw. Rounds 1&5 to Rua, 2&3 to Machida, and a share of round 4.

I dont think Machida performed well, but I dont think Rua did enough to take the belt.

Anyway, Dana is tapping the TMA market with his 'Karate Kid', so while there are still viewer markets to milk, its gonna take a KO to shift him.

I think Cain Velasquez put on a great performance in his fight, and would be a good 'inbetweener' for either until the rematch.
Posted by: Rainbowtiger

Re: Machida fight - 10/26/09 06:17 AM

great fight. As much as i love Machida, I believe Rua won. Hey we've seen worse tradegies. UWC-Capital Punishment Easton vs. Bebe absolutely no way you can justify that decision Pure BS.(back me up if you've seen it) Shogun VS. Machida 2 I'm down lets go for UFC 110 make it Machida 1st title defense of 2010. I would say 109 but thats the UFC Debut of Rolles Gracie so let him be the draw. Hope Dana makes it happen.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Machida fight - 10/26/09 09:24 AM

Yes, Easton vs Beebe was a robbery, from what I've read (didn't see it).
Posted by: bo-ken

Re: Machida fight - 10/26/09 09:46 AM

I thought Rua won 3 rounds but then again it was real close. I enjoyed the fight and wanted to see Machida crush but it just didn't happen. I am guessing that Rua gets a rematch sometime in February or March.
Posted by: duanew

Re: Machida fight - 10/26/09 03:35 PM

Originally Posted By: MattJ
Looks like the UFC will be granting Rua an immediate rematch. Bad news for Machida, as Rua appears to have figured him out. I have to say that I didn't think he would even get close to Machida. Leg kicks and combinations FTW!


My money is on Machida-who has also had the opportunity to see what Rua can do.

Duane
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Machida fight - 10/27/09 09:17 AM

One thing I didn't like about the fight is that each time they engaged afterwards they reset up in the middle and started again; it reminded me of point sparring which I absolutely hate. Also instead of taking advantage of the other when he missed or spun around, neither did anything.
Posted by: Rainbowtiger

Re: Machida fight - 10/27/09 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Dereck
One thing I didn't like about the fight is that each time they engaged afterwards they reset up in the middle and started again; it reminded me of point sparring which I absolutely hate. Also instead of taking advantage of the other when he missed or spun around, neither did anything.


Yes, I Agree 100%. That may have been why Machida won the fight. When judges see fighters doing what they do well they usually side with the said fighter and Machida was a world-class Karate fighter before MMA was anywhere near the level it is at now. He destroyed people in point sparring there are vids on youtube if you're interested. Also a champion doesnt really have to win they just need to make sure they dont lose, since Machida was never knocked down, taken down, or in danger of any kind he didnt lose. Thats according to judges of course. I still think Shogun won as Machida took more damage.

BTW Machida was a Full Contact Point sparring champion. I actually enjoy full contact sparring competition as only knockdowns score(no restart until the knockdown ouccurs) its the most realistic form of Karate competition. But I completely agree the 1 strike= 1 point rule is unrealistic.
Posted by: JMWcorwin

Re: Machida fight - 10/28/09 05:21 PM

Saying that Machida took more damage doesn't really work in this type of scoring. The 10 point must round scoring doesn't allow you to give a 10-9 plus he looked more hurt. And there weren't any rounds where either fighter posted a 2 point lead. So you end up with this, like it or not:

(going off memory now, so I may have rounds in 1-3 out of place..but the point is stil valid.)

Rounds 1-3, there were 2 rounds that Machida put up enough well placed shots and made Shogun miss enough to take 10-9. Say the other round is an honest toss up. That goes to Machida as well since it's the challenger's job to beat the reigning champ decisively. He didn't. So it's now 30-27 or 3 rounds to none. Even if all 3 of the first rounds were a toss up, it's still Machida 3 rounds to none by this scoring system.

Shogun takes 4 and 5 I believe. It could've been 3 and 5, etc. As I said I'm going off my old man's memory.
That puts the fight as a win for Machida unless Shogun knocks him out, submits him or takes at least one round 10-8. And even that puts it as a draw.

Shogun obviously wins 2. You can't go back and give one of the toss-ups to Shogun becuase did more overall damage. There's no overall damage score to be given, only round by round. So, we get the decision as it was, 47-48 from all 3 judges. You can't add an extra point or award him a 10-8 for round 5. That was the only round I saw as a 100% win for Shogun. (maybe 1 other wink )

That leaves that thought in your mind: Shogun figured him out. He disabled his mobility and took over the fight. True. But it still doesn't give him the fight, unfortunately. Same problem in a technical boxing match. The fans, and even the judges sometimes, get this feeling that fighter A won becuase of the feel of the last round or couple of rounds. But when you go back and count up the hash marks round by round, it takes the emotion out of it. (probably the whole point of this method) So, the crowd boos. This isn't the judges' or the fighters' fault, it's the system.

I'll end my marathon post here. Shogun did figure out a strategy to negate Machida's elusiveness. And it worked. Machida didn't do anything impressive, but Shogun didn't TAKE the fight, only round 5. Up until the last couple of rounds I couldn't really call either fighter dominant. Obviously neither did the judges. So, Machida didn't WIN, he just didn't lose. So don't boo the judges, they just did their job.

*this stuff not aimed at you, Rainbowtiger. I just started the post from your point about doing more damage.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Machida fight - 10/28/09 05:49 PM

JMWCorwin -

FWIW, FightMetric had the fight scored for Rua by a good margin. Cecil Peoples made some comments about leg kicks not being a factor in the fight, which I disagree with (remember Machida almost falling over trying to avoid them later in the fight).

FightMetric counted the leg kicks as any other strike, which put Rua ahead on their score card.

CP also mentioned Machida's ring-generalship, something I also don't agree with. Backpedaling and evasion are not typically hallmarks of ring-generalship. I truly mean no sarcasm to Machida, who is very effective with his foot work and defense. But I have never seen any other fighter get marks like that while the opponent was doing most of the stalking.

In case you haven't figured it out, I think that CP is one of the worst combat-sport judges extant. LOL.
Posted by: JMWcorwin

Re: Machida fight - 10/28/09 06:22 PM

You're right. I saw that too. But most of those came in the form of clashes up until the end of the fight. So, he'd land a kick low and Machida would land one high. I commented at the time to my brother that I couldn't really call the fight... it would depend on which fighter the judges were giving the clashses to.

I was suprised as anyone when they announced Machida the winner. But, I went back afterwards looking at the fight from a judges standpoint. That reminded me of the things I put in my other post: the first rounds being very hard to call, the fact that the challenger has the burden of winning the fight, etc. Looking at it that way is how I saw that the judges probably saw it that way. (at leasst that was the only explanation that made sense to me wink )

The main thing for me was that sense that every time the were close enough together to touch, they both seemed to land something. Very much like the stop-point sparring. In judging point matches I would've called most of them clashes, giving neither a point. So, it doesn't suprise me to hear that FightMetric had Shogun landing more. I couldn't call it. But again, that feeling of not beign able to call it was how I figured the judges were giving Machida that "tie goes to the champ" thing on the early rounds.

As for the leg kicks not being a factor I can only say... BS! shocked I think they were the only definitive factor. Machida was grinding to a complete stop becuase of them. We just needed a 7 round fight. laugh

Ring-generalship? I don't know. It would have to be in a perverse way. By his nature he always dictates where the action will take place by being so good at slipping away after he strikes? So the action only happens when he decides to stand stil for a second. wink But, here we go again, thos leg kicks ended that somewhere in the 4th round.

As I said, it's the system. The method of scoring makes this kind of ruling possible. Not saying there aren't some bad judges and refs in the sport, but that's part of the system too. And brings me back to, did Shogun win "convincingly"? I don't think so. If this were'nt a title fight I'd say he won. But it lacked that finished feel to claim a new champion.

Ok, end stransmission. I'm writing freakin' books here.
Sorry.
Posted by: Cord

Re: Machida fight - 10/28/09 06:32 PM

Originally Posted By: MattJ
Backpedaling and evasion are not typically hallmarks of ring-generalship. I truly mean no sarcasm to Machida, who is very effective with his foot work and defense. But I have never seen any other fighter get marks like that while the opponent was doing most of the stalking.


Floyd Mayweather
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Machida fight - 10/28/09 06:41 PM

Willie Pep once won a round without throwing a punch. Ring Generalship, to me, means who imposed their style better in the round/fight. Whats better, a person being aggressive but ineffective, or a defensive fighter who is making an aggressive opponent ineffective? Cripes, almost any of us could get in to a ring/octagon and be aggressive, but would we be effective? I don't see that being aggressive alone should win a fight, especially if the aggression was all sizzle and no steak.

I suppose that is the issue in many sports that rely on subjective judgement: we all see things differently, and as such are going to score things differently.