I don't understand why you've equated a less exciting fight with a draw, especially something like Nogueira/Evans. Good fight? Wasn't the best. Close fight? Not even a little. This fight isn't even a hotly contested fight, either. Virtually no media scores were for Dan, and I don't see anyone here claiming he won either.
Originally Posted by ante_up81
Are you implying you'd be happy with Dan's performance if he'd gotten the nod in the decision? He was terrible Saturday. I realize a lot of Dan's fans have deluded themselves into believing only the result of a fight matters, so it's hypocrisy to nitpick a loss of his. Not to mention, the implication that Lyoto only won the fight via a takedown at the end of round 1 also implies that he was not handily winning the stand-up portions of the fight.
Originally Posted by ATroms
To go off on a tangent here (not directed towards anyone specific), I was reading elsewhere people griping about this decision and almost exclusively the main gripe was that they felt Dan should've won based on the fact that he was pushing forward a majority of time. That not only isn't how a fight is scored, but actually doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Everyone should know that. For some reason, people seem to assume that the very "effective aggression" and "Octagon control" criteria refer to carelessly plodding forward and ignore the tangibles of the fight. It's why Diaz lost against Condit, and why Dan lost Saturday; if you can't mount any offense, you're not doing anything to win the fight. If you're moving forward, getting picked off, whiffing on punches almost exclusively, and unable to get your opponent to fight the way you want them to, how exactly is that effective aggression or Octagon control?
There's a real disconnect between some people and their understanding of how judging works. I mean, look at any time someone rightly loses a fight (on paper or not) and the people that complain about it; they'll almost exclusively cite criteria that doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Look at the debates about decisions here, be it Condit/Diaz, Rampage/Griffin, or Overeem/Werdum. All 3 subjects are rife with statements that Diaz/Rampage/Overeem should've won the fight followed by illegitimate and illogical reasons. It boggles my mind that people would care enough about MMA to, you know, discuss it and such, but a lot of people have no idea how a fight is scored.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.