- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: UFC 313: Pereira vs Ankalaev
Posted on 3/10/25 at 11:45 am to TackySweater
Posted on 3/10/25 at 11:45 am to TackySweater
quote:
So the only way a challenger can win a belt is to beat the shite out of someone? Ok lol
Is this a real question? You really can't think on that comment and process a clear difference?
If Ankalaev beat the shite out of him then we wouldn't be having this conversation. By making that comment you essentially agreed that Ankalaev didn't beat the shite out of him. So why would you be so surprised when there are controversial takes?
And yes it is not great for the UFC when fighters are winning belts or defending belts by simple controlling the fight and not delivering damage to their opponents.
I think the confusion is that you assume if they gave the win to AP that I'd be with the group saying "hell yeah this guy is unstoppable". You are wrong, it was a shitty fight and you should expect more from a champion.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 11:47 am
1
Posted on 3/10/25 at 11:50 am to Dantheman504
Would I? He won round 1 and arguably round 3, but not in my opinion. 63% of his significant strikes were leg kicks that obviously didn't keep Ankalaev from being the aggressor and initiating basically all of the exchanges throughout the fight, round 3 included. Before the 5th round, even his own corner said it "might be 2-2." They knew he was just as likely to be 3-1.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 11:51 am to Dantheman504
quote:
and not delivering damage to their opponents.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 11:59 am to subotic
quote:
Before the 5th round, even his own corner said it "might be 2-2." They knew he was just as likely to be 3-1.
Yeah I agree but being up 3-1 by dominating them is different then being up 3-1 or 2-2 in a toss up that has minimal damage. That's not a 49-46 scorecard.
If Ankalaev had a few more significant strikes instead of 5+ minutes of significant hand holding then I would be inclined to agree with you. But that reasoning is exactly why we are having this conversation.
It could have been 49-46 if Ankalaev did more but he didn't. How they scored this card is exactly how it should be scored for a championship belt. Its closer because AP lost and not because Ankalaeav decisevly won.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:09 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
Yeah I agree but being up 3-1 by dominating them is different then being up 3-1 or 2-2 in a toss up that has minimal damage. That's not a 49-46 scorecard.
Um, being up 3-1 and then clearly winning the 5th round IS a 49-46 score unless there were 10-8 rounds, which nobody would say there were.
I'm not sure you understand how 10 point scoring works.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:20 pm to subotic
quote:
Um, being up 3-1 and then clearly winning the 5th round IS a 49-46 score unless there were 10-8 rounds, which nobody would say there were.
I'm not sure you understand how 10 point scoring works.
I'm explaining to you that Ankalaev was essentially punished for being timid instead of doing more.
Fighters shouldn't get a 49-46 by fighting with the style he fought. The judges gave AP a round out of spite saying "it was too close to call because you held him on the fence instead of choosing to fight".
He got a 48-47 instead of a 49-46 for being timid and that's exactly how it should be judged. These fighters shouldn't get more credit for choosing to strategically fight LESS.
Defending 11 takedowns from Ankalaev is more impressive than Ankalaev winning a fight by controlling it and taking minimum chances to win a belt.
You don't get rewarded by large margins doing this (unless your name is Omalley) and if you do then the reward should be minimized. The judges were correct with how they scored it.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:35 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
Fighters shouldn't get a 49-46 by fighting with the style he fought. The judges gave AP a round out of spite saying "it was too close to call because you held him on the fence instead of choosing to fight".
He got a 48-47 instead of a 49-46 for being timid and that's exactly how it should be judged. These fighters shouldn't get more credit for choosing to strategically fight LESS.
That's not how 10 point scoring works. The winner of each round is awarded 10 points and the lower is 9 or less. You getting hung up on how the fight went down is irrelevant.
The two judges that scored the fight 48-47 didn't score it that way for any other reason than they thought Ankalaev won 3 rounds.
This is seriously getting ridiculous. You can call it a boring fight if you want and you can hate on "boring" fighters but trying to argue that the judging criteria should be changed or be different in title fights to cater to a certain preference of fighting/action is anathema to what MMA is. It's also not logical to expect a higher standard for an entertaining, balls to the wall fight when the belt is on the line and all of the money, fame, and power with it. Ankalaev did what he needed to win and straight up outstruck one of the most decorated strikers in UFC history...then neutralized him when the urgency of needing a finish started creeping in during the championship rounds.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:48 pm to subotic
quote:
You getting hung up on how the fight went down is irrelevant
No its not irrelevant and its exactly why it was scored 48-47 instead of 49-46. You saying "it shouldn't matter how the fight goes down" is exactly why you would not be a good judge.
You don't get rewarded more for a bad fight. A good judge would penalize you for a bad fight not praise you.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:03 pm to Dantheman504
The thing is, Ankalaev won two rounds clearly (actually 3, according to the judges). And Pereira only won 1 clearly.
One judge gave the remaining toss up rounds to Ank leading to the 49-46 score. While the lights two split the toss-ups 1 to 1.
At the end of the day the 49-46 came in because that judge gave Ank the 5th. Which people can disagree with, but it's not that egregious.
One judge gave the remaining toss up rounds to Ank leading to the 49-46 score. While the lights two split the toss-ups 1 to 1.
At the end of the day the 49-46 came in because that judge gave Ank the 5th. Which people can disagree with, but it's not that egregious.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:04 pm to subotic
quote:
This is seriously getting ridiculous. You can call it a boring fight if you want and you can hate on "boring" fighters but trying to argue that the judging criteria should be changed or be different in title fights to cater to a certain preference of fighting/action is anathema to what MMA is. It's also not logical to expect a higher standard for an entertaining, balls to the wall fight when the belt is on the line and all of the money, fame, and power with it. Ankalaev did what he needed to win and straight up outstruck one of the most decorated strikers in UFC history...then neutralized him when the urgency of needing a finish started creeping in during the championship rounds.
It’s so laughable that people are crying so hard because the champion got beat lol
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:05 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
You don't get rewarded more for a bad fight. A good judge would penalize you for a bad fight not praise you.
You keep making yourself look more and more foolish here
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:15 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
No its not irrelevant and its exactly why it was scored 48-47 instead of 49-46. You saying "it shouldn't matter how the fight goes down" is exactly why you would not be a good judge.
You don't get rewarded more for a bad fight. A good judge would penalize you for a bad fight not praise you.
A good judge would judge each round individually according to the scoring criteria. Which is what happened. Anything other than that is subjective bullshite. 10 point must scoring and UFC scoring criteria...it's common knowledge.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:16 pm to subotic
quote:
This is seriously getting ridiculous. You can call it a boring fight if you want and you can hate on "boring" fighters but trying to argue that the judging criteria should be changed or be different in title fights to cater to a certain preference of fighting/action is anathema to what MMA is.
It seems like many people want to watch Kickboxing instead, but a lot of people wouldn't watch it if they actually switched to kickboxing and kept everything else the same because then its just a leg kick fest.
The reason the action is so intense is because of the threat of grappling (and everything else the opponent could choose to do). The side effect of that is sometimes you get snoozers where one guy lays on top of the other guy for 4 rounds or holds him against the fence.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:16 pm to subotic
quote:
A good judge
We all know UFC judges are trash
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:22 pm to VolSquatch
I usually try to get people into muay thai that complain about grappling. High level muay thai is exciting as hell.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:27 pm to TackySweater
quote:
You keep making yourself look more and more foolish here
I'm legit explaining to y'all why it was scored 48-47 and why y'all are wrong.
Y'all are the ones arguing something that didn't happen.
That makes me the "foolish" person? Damn some of y'all are ignorant arse people.
If my point was so "foolish" then it wouldn't have been scored 48-47. Can you wrap your head around that one? That was rhetorical, I know you won't be able to.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:29 pm to TackySweater
quote:Yes, 14 in Round 1. Round 4 was mostly clinch I think, but other than that, leg kicks were his main attack / highest volume attack in the fight.
Didn’t he land something like 13 kicks to that front leg in round 1? It seemed like he just went away from that.
Leg Kicks
R1 14/18
R2 10/13
R3 15/15
R4 1/1
R5 8/8
UFC Stats
Can't get the link to work, but it's ufcstats.com
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:32 pm to TheOcean
That's why cage aggression and control are important...it's very objective criteria. Even significant strike counts leave a lot of context out. How many jabs and calf kicks equal an overhand on the button?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:36 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
in reality the correct thing to do would have been a draw even though the UFC hates doing it.
The UFC can’t just declare a draw, though. The judges’ scorecards would have to tally that way.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:42 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
I'm legit explaining to y'all why it was scored 48-47 and why y'all are wrong.
No you're not. You're trying to argue that the judges didn't score each round on specific, premeditated criteria on a 10 point must system and instead gave the fight to Ankalaev because of some emotional take of yours about how the fight sucked and nobody actually won but Pereira sucked a little bit more and championship fights need to be spectacles of sheer badassery.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 1:43 pm
Page 20 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News