UFC Fight Night 20: The Tom Lawlor/Aaron Simpson Decision
by Zach Krantz on Jan 12, 2010 12:51 PM EST
in Opinion
Email
Print
This decision was a mistake.
However, let us keep it within the realm of reality as it was not even close to the level of Hamill/Bisping or Machida/Rua. In fact, using the manner in which MMA is judged the outcome is not a major surprise or controversy. Simpson won round 3 without question and it can be easily argued that he won round 2 as well. In MMA, fights are judged based on a ten point scoring system and the culture of judging almost does not allow for a 10-8 round.
Here in lies the problem though. I have discussed, along with almost everyone else with a forum to speak their opinions, the way in which MMA is scored and judged needs to be changed. Maybe Simpson did win two of three of the rounds, but there is no way he won that fight. This is proven with one simple and basic example. Lawlor won the first round 10-9, Simpson was awarded (by two judges) the second round 10-9. However, there is no way anyone can argue that those rounds were of equal dominance. If "team A" outscores "team B" in the first quarter 21-0 and then "team B" outscores "team A" in the second quarter the score is not tied. "Team A" is winning by 20 points. It is preposterous to award the same amount of points for Simpson in round 2 as was awarded for Lawlor in round 1.
The above example is not intended to imply that scoring should be judged on a whole fight as opposed to round by round action, but there NEEDS to be more discrepancy in the scoring of MMA. With the majority of the fights lasting only three rounds we cannot be reliant on 10-9s across the board. There are not 8, 10, or 12 rounds for the scores to balance themselves out. Dana White has previously made comments about how the UFC is trying to make a change and while I am aware that any change requires a long process there has been no visible efforts made. The problems with the current system and culture of judging do not appear to be a top concern for anyone except the fans. I know the purpose of this post was to discuss the decision from last night, but the decision is not the major problem. The problem is why Simpson won with two 29-28 scores. There will not be a large outcry after this fight because this decision was far from a travesty. If judging difficulties in a light heavyweight title fight (Machida/Rua) were not enough to push for change do we really expect this fight to have an impact.
It should be noted that more discretion for the judges would demand more educated judges because without it we would have even more problems.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I dont think the decision was a mistake.
It was a 15 minute fight. Lawlor had a very dominant 3 minutes of that 15 minute fight. The rest of the fight he was being outworked by Simpson, especially in the third round when he was just trying to hold on and survive since he had little in the tank.
Also to be noted, with at much shots as Simpson took, he never stopped moving forward and was never dropped.
kind of agree
Simpson was very impressive in that he never stopped coming and the point of the article is not to take away from him. The point is i think if round 1 was not a 10-8 round then what is. lawlor destroyed simpson on the feet for 3 minutes and was awarded the same points as simpson got in round 2.
i would have been fine with a 28-28 draw. the main issue is the scoring system, which i have harped on before. the decision is a mistake (in my opinion) because of how the points were awarded.
"That's an Awfully Big Mustache"-Frank Drebin
watchkalibrun.com
I think a clear criteria of what a 10-8 round is needs to be established.
I would not consider that round 10-8 because Aaron was hurt but kept coming forward and was let back in the fight for the final minute of round 1.
I think round 1 of Mir/Nog is a 10-8 and that should be displayed to the judges in some form of education.
Great points:
I really don’t care for the scoring discussion because apparently the process to change the system will take a long while. However you really brought up some really great points.
The round comparison argument makes sense to me. I’ve seen it happen in boxing often. One of the most memorable to me was Oscar De La Hoya vs. Tito Trinidad. Most boxing journalist gave De La Hoya the first 8 rounds. Now only because Oscar decided to coast the final 3-4 rounds and allow Trinidad to be the aggressor . . . Oscar lost the fight although he clearly out-boxed Tito. De La Hoya outlanded Trinidad 263-166, according to computer statistics. Trinidad had a 318-277 edge in power punches. Oscar did put on a clinic. THIS IS THE VERY SAD LEGACY OF THE 10-POINT MUST SYSTEM.
I can see how effective 10-pt must system works for 8 – 12 rounds but not 3. Although Rampage defeated Keith Jardine via unanimous decision, a judge told Jardine that if Jackson did not score the 2nd knockdown towards the end of round 3, he would have given the fight to the Dean of Mean. When I heard that report I thought that was really odd. Jackson scored 2 takedowns, 2 knockdowns and landed more strikes at higher percent rate compared to his opponent who threw more strikes but landed a lower percent rate and lower total.
It makes you really begin to wonder how these judges score:
- knock downs
- take downs
- leg kicks
and a question I’ve always wondered is how do they determine the difference between a power-strike compared to a regular strike.
Happy Holidays and A Happy New Year
Sorry for the long rant . . . basically this is a good article.
Happy Holidays and A Happy New Year
by VeeisAnimated on Jan 12, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
no worries on the rant
someone around these parts does that all the time…this guy
i have a big problem scoring points for takedowns (unless they are slams). the takedown is a maneuver to gain a dominate position, if you do nothing with it and then points should awarded. MMA is not boxing or wrestling and scoring is different. Fighters do not get point for an escape.
"That's an Awfully Big Mustache"-Frank Drebin
watchkalibrun.com
it was the right decision
lawlor could have finished imo the fight in the first round. he probably thought he would dominate rounds two and three. that did not happen and simpson i thought won both the second and third rounds. let this be a lesson for mma fighters. you should always finish off an opponent if you can in a round you dominate. i’ll bet lawlor since he was quite a bit younger thought simpson was spent and gassed. it worked out the other way around. congrats to simpson.
i'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. i was building a house, i don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. bang. "unforgiven"
by wolfmanshowlforever on Jan 12, 2010 5:11 PM EST reply actions
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
