Anyone see the score cards for the Kai Kara France v. Amir Albazi fight over the weekend? One of the worst calls I've seen in a while.
Sorry, there's so few posts here that I missed this earlier. Yeah, for sure....I thought Kara France won for sure. Jamaal Emmers was robbed against Jack Jenkins yesterday (though Jenkins fought well). I guess looking at it pragmatically....I'll quote MinistroRaven from his last post here---"but hey, that's how it goes sometimes".
But I guess that's my question....WHY does it go like that on the ones that seem pretty clear? Of course there is nuance, and things we don't see octagon side. But I wonder A) if the judges are paying close attention throughout the fights B) if they are competent enough in their assessments to make a discerning call on every fight C) if they are instructed to look for certain things in a fight and weigh them subjectively, instead of looking at the fight as a whole
On that last point, I have heard Rogan talk repeatedly about taking the entire fight into account. A fighter might squeak by with 2 rounds of better scoring, but get beat clearly in the other round (but not enough for a 10-8). I guess it's the same way in many other sports. A tennis player could lose more games total in a match, but win 2 sets to 1.
I've mentioned it before, but bears repeating to bolster this argument.....damage shouldn't always be the clear decider. Often it should be...esp. if it's damage done by clean and consistent or high volume striking. But some fighters through a few good punches or kicks in a fight...then do nothing the rest of the time. But the other fighter might be more prone to cutting or showing abrasions on the face (while other fighters get hit repeatedly with less marking). I don't think that's how "damage" should be assessed in many cases. Not saying there shouldn't be subjective evaluations, but I think it needs to be combined with more objective things like clean strikes that don't always show up on a fighter as damage.
To wrap up and emphasize one more thing.....it's funny how a narrative begins and it just becomes adopted almost colloquially as being a truth. For example, the whole "they took them down but didn't do any damage" thing. Not saying it isn't BETTER to do damage. But I think we just automatically dismiss the takedown as being NOTHING. That's not right. Taking someone down in and of itself is a skill, and yes....the other fighter should be noted when they get right back up and don't sustain damage. But they still did not stop the takedown. That should be a mark against them. To what extent is something worth discussing, but I think something that is one of the key scoring points (2 points) in a wrestling match (and yes, an escape is 1 point, I get it)....should have similar merit in an MMA fight.
Speaking of yesterday, did anyone see the Trevor Peek vs Chepe Mariscal fight? Fight of the Year candidate. Crazy! Proof you don't need big name fighters for a fantastic fight.