More winable fight for Frankie Edgar?

Ludo wrote:

Ninja wrote:

Every single media outlet scored it for Frankie....Sherdog, Bloody elbow, MMAjunkie, mmamania....Jordan Breen, Josh Gross, Jeff Sherwood, Greg Savage all for Frankie. I am in 100% agreement with OU. It's okay if you scored it for Bendo, but to say it was clear and cut...well maybe you should rethink how you judge fights.

http://mmadecisions.com/decision.jsp?id=3313

MEDIA SCORES
Mike Chiappetta (MMAFighting.com) 47-48 Edgar
Chris Nelson (Sherdog.com) 47-48 Edgar
Jordan Breen (Sherdog.com) 47-48 Edgar
Freddie DeFreitas (Sherdog.com) 48-47 Henderson
FightMetric.com 49-46 Henderson
MMAJunkie.com 49-47 Henderson
MMAWeekly.com 48-47 Henderson

http://mobile.bloodyelbow.com/2012/2/25/2824082/ufc-144-edgar-vs-henderson-live-online-ppv-results
http://mobile.mmamania.com/2011/11/28/2595221/ufc-144-results-online-live-fight-coverage-ppv-edgar-vs-henderson-feb-26-japan-mma

Honestly the way things have been it's an uncertainty to know how the judges will score ANY fight lately. Cariaso gets the nod for work from the bottom but Torres didn't last year against Mighty Mouse. Frankie routinely involves himself in close fights that often go the distance and it's a dangerous game to play. What it comes down to is your point of view on scoring things. Do you give weight to takedowns that led to both fighters standing again in under a five count? Do you give more credence to the guy who appears to be controlling the action by moving constantly, or the guy who's always coming forward and landing just as much?

Also, Jordan Breen isn't the best name to be tossing out there. Let's remember he scored the Ronny Markes/Aaron Simpson fight all kinds of fucked up. Scored Simpsons best round for Markes and Markes' best round for Simpson.

Ninja wrote:

Ludo wrote:

Ninja wrote:

Every single media outlet scored it for Frankie....Sherdog, Bloody elbow, MMAjunkie, mmamania....Jordan Breen, Josh Gross, Jeff Sherwood, Greg Savage all for Frankie. I am in 100% agreement with OU. It's okay if you scored it for Bendo, but to say it was clear and cut...well maybe you should rethink how you judge fights.

http://mmadecisions.com/decision.jsp?id=3313

MEDIA SCORES
Mike Chiappetta (MMAFighting.com) 47-48 Edgar
Chris Nelson (Sherdog.com) 47-48 Edgar
Jordan Breen (Sherdog.com) 47-48 Edgar
Freddie DeFreitas (Sherdog.com) 48-47 Henderson
FightMetric.com 49-46 Henderson
MMAJunkie.com 49-47 Henderson
MMAWeekly.com 48-47 Henderson

http://mobile.bloodyelbow.com/2012/2/25/2824082/ufc-144-edgar-vs-henderson-live-online-ppv-results
http://mobile.mmamania.com/2011/11/28/2595221/ufc-144-results-online-live-fight-coverage-ppv-edgar-vs-henderson-feb-26-japan-mma

The fact remains that not "every single media outlet" scored it for Frankie.

Jordan Breen isn't the best name to be tossing around and you base that on one fight? Please Ludo... Jordan Breen is the most knowledgable and most respected journalist in MMA....

If you say so, Ninja. I'm really not sure what set you on this crusade against the decision, but it's starting to get wierd.

The fact remains that you thought "it was clear who was winning the rounds" yet half or even more than half of the major MMA media didn't get your memo.

Ludo wrote:

If you say so, Ninja. I'm really not sure what set you on this crusade against the decision, but it's starting to get wierd.

I'm not on a crusade against the descison. I don't mind at all Bendo getting the nod, but I just find the idea of that fight not being close crazy.

I think your stance is too defensive Ludo. It may have been driven that way from the immediate reaction of others and how they handled the decisions. But still, I think you are letting it effect your judgement. No way around this, it was a close fight. The reason I haven't sounded off on the Diaz-Condit fight too much is both because I figured I would get flammed and because I realize it was subjective.

Ninja wrote:

Ludo wrote:

Ninja wrote:

Every single media outlet scored it for Frankie....Sherdog, Bloody elbow, MMAjunkie, mmamania....Jordan Breen, Josh Gross, Jeff Sherwood, Greg Savage all for Frankie. I am in 100% agreement with OU. It's okay if you scored it for Bendo, but to say it was clear and cut...well maybe you should rethink how you judge fights.

http://mmadecisions.com/decision.jsp?id=3313

MEDIA SCORES
Mike Chiappetta (MMAFighting.com) 47-48 Edgar
Chris Nelson (Sherdog.com) 47-48 Edgar
Jordan Breen (Sherdog.com) 47-48 Edgar
Freddie DeFreitas (Sherdog.com) 48-47 Henderson
FightMetric.com 49-46 Henderson
MMAJunkie.com 49-47 Henderson
MMAWeekly.com 48-47 Henderson

http://mobile.bloodyelbow.com/2012/2/25/2824082/ufc-144-edgar-vs-henderson-live-online-ppv-results
http://mobile.mmamania.com/2011/11/28/2595221/ufc-144-results-online-live-fight-coverage-ppv-edgar-vs-henderson-feb-26-japan-mma

That is a good read. lulz on the Mark Hunt Reactions!!!

OU wrote:

I think your stance is too defensive Ludo. It may have been driven that way from the immediate reaction of others and how they handled the decisions. But still, I think you are letting it effect your judgement. No way around this, it was a close fight. The reason I haven't sounded off on the Diaz-Condit fight too much is both because I figured I would get flammed and because I realize it was subjective.

It's possible I'm being effected by the immediate push and the way it was done after the fight, that much I do admit. Again I think what it comes down to is how each person interprets the scoring criteria, since it has been open to interpretation and is purely subjective at it's core.

According to the rules a takedown is a takedown is a takedown and it never specifies how heavy or light to score it against anything else depending on how long they stay on the ground or if any real work is done on the ground. I don't think a takedown that has someone on the ground for less than five seconds is worth more than getting back up in less than five seconds. I don't really count a takedown that lands but doesn't see any real ground time as a takedown at all compared to a takedown that has someone on their back for 30-60 seconds and see's punches thrown, guard passes, etc etc etc.

Ludo wrote:

OU wrote:

I think your stance is too defensive Ludo. It may have been driven that way from the immediate reaction of others and how they handled the decisions. But still, I think you are letting it effect your judgement. No way around this, it was a close fight. The reason I haven't sounded off on the Diaz-Condit fight too much is both because I figured I would get flammed and because I realize it was subjective.

It's possible I'm being effected by the immediate push and the way it was done after the fight, that much I do admit. Again I think what it comes down to is how each person interprets the scoring criteria, since it has been open to interpretation and is purely subjective at it's core.

According to the rules a takedown is a takedown is a takedown and it never specifies how heavy or light to score it against anything else depending on how long they stay on the ground or if any real work is done on the ground. I don't think a takedown that has someone on the ground for less than five seconds is worth more than getting back up in less than five seconds. I don't really count a takedown that lands but doesn't see any real ground time as a takedown at all compared to a takedown that has someone on their back for 30-60 seconds and see's punches thrown, guard passes, etc etc etc.

I accept that.

OU wrote:

Ludo wrote:

OU wrote:

I think your stance is too defensive Ludo. It may have been driven that way from the immediate reaction of others and how they handled the decisions. But still, I think you are letting it effect your judgement. No way around this, it was a close fight. The reason I haven't sounded off on the Diaz-Condit fight too much is both because I figured I would get flammed and because I realize it was subjective.

It's possible I'm being effected by the immediate push and the way it was done after the fight, that much I do admit. Again I think what it comes down to is how each person interprets the scoring criteria, since it has been open to interpretation and is purely subjective at it's core.

According to the rules a takedown is a takedown is a takedown and it never specifies how heavy or light to score it against anything else depending on how long they stay on the ground or if any real work is done on the ground. I don't think a takedown that has someone on the ground for less than five seconds is worth more than getting back up in less than five seconds. I don't really count a takedown that lands but doesn't see any real ground time as a takedown at all compared to a takedown that has someone on their back for 30-60 seconds and see's punches thrown, guard passes, etc etc etc.

I accept that.

Looks black to Ali.

I had it 48-47 Frankie but would not argue with a 48-47 Bendo. The fight was that close. Don't want to see a rematch though right now.

Ninja wrote:

Every single media outlet scored it for Frankie....Sherdog, Bloody elbow, MMAjunkie, mmamania....Jordan Breen, Josh Gross, Jeff Sherwood, Greg Savage all for Frankie. I am in 100% agreement with OU. It's okay if you scored it for Bendo, but to say it was clear and cut...well maybe you should rethink how you judge fights.

I forget which ones but some of those scored it for Bendo. Also, the idea the one upkick and the broken nose did more damage than the destroyed face broken nose etc of the Maynard fights is weird and dumb. You only dont get red votes because youre ninja, and not because you dont say pretty fucking stupid things.