Pimblett vs Gordon was not a clear robbery

[regmma123]

First two rounds were very close, and it's not absurd to give them both to Pimblett. Gordon mostly just held Paddy against the cage in the third. The best call would've been a draw.

This is coming from an American who cant stand the fanboy stuff, but people acting like this was a Bas Rutten vs Kevin Randleman level robbery is way, way off .

 

[BangBang]

Yes it was

 

[Siver!]

It was a close(ish), but easy-to-judge fight.

People who got it wrong are stupid.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

 

[AmericanMMA]

People are acting like it because they hate Paddy. Bad decisions happen more often than we'd like to see.

I don't see how it is coming from Americans. Everybody seems to hate him.

I don't get why personally.

 

[Will G]

I was wondering when someone would finally start a thread about that fight.

 

[pastamurk]

I rewatched the fight three times and I give it to Gordon as I did when I watched it live.

No shade towards Pimblett, he has no control over how the judges score the fight, and if I were a fighter and clearly got handed a W I'm going to lean into it and say I won it handily too.

Self-promotion 101

 

[regmma123]

I was wondering when someone would finally start a thread about that fight.

I fell a little behind and finally watched the whole fight

And you're welcome

 

[DOMMA]

At the conclusion of the fight, I said it will be a split decision, not sure who won, knew it was very close.

 

[Joshuaace]

Hopefully this is a judging trend where meaningless control stops being rewarded. Effective grappling leads to positions that produce sub attempts or effective striking. Long periods of control that lead to neither of those is more like stalling than fighting.

 

[jimmy dakine]

First two rounds were very close, and it's not absurd to give them both to Pimblett. Gordon mostly just held Paddy against the cage in the third. The best call would've been a draw.

This is coming from an American who cant stand the fanboy stuff, but people acting like this was a Bas Rutten vs Kevin Randleman level robbery is way, way off .

Nope, it is absurd to give PP round one...he got lit up.......left after left after left after left after left after left.....Plus if you hold someone against the cage, you certainly dont give the round to the guy being held there. Paddy lost.

 

[Cobra 03]

It was a close fight, and Gordon coasted in the 3rd round. Glad he lost.

 

[jeff7b9]

It is time to finally end the stigma that blocking punches with your arms is somehow better than blocking punches with your face.

 

[B-Man]

At the conclusion of the fight, I said it will be a split decision, not sure who won, knew it was very close.

This is how I saw it too. In my eyes a fight that close can't be called a robbery.

 

[TempleoftheDog]

Yeah, I’m pretty sure we talked this to death a month ago.

 

[mjfan23]

It wasn’t merely a robbery but a screw job

 

[pastamurk]

It wasn’t merely a robbery but a screw job

At least it wasn't in Montreal.

 

[MMAATHLETE]

bullocks

 

[FlyingDeathKick]

Hopefully this is a judging trend where meaningless control stops being rewarded. Effective grappling leads to positions that produce sub attempts or effective striking. Long periods of control that lead to neither of those is more like stalling than fighting.

The scoring system is supposed to be that way as far as I'm aware. Effective striking and grappling is the main criteria with damage trumping all. Only thing I'm not sure on is whether holding somebody is considered control time or not because the only control time I see mentioned when looking for rules is "octagon control time".

I've read a few sites and they say the second criteria is effective aggression and that only comes in to play if they are even in the first criteria. So if they are even as far as attacking goes the one who appeared to be trying to finish the fight wins the rd. Only if they are even in both the first 2 criteria does octagon control time come into play.

"When determining the winner of a round, the referee considers every aspect of the fight, including takedowns that result in effective attacks on an opponent."

"The effectiveness of a fighter’s usage of their position on the ground, whether top or bottom, is evaluated based on how well they damage their opponent."

"Takedowns, obtaining attacking positions, and attempting to submit the opponent are all examples of successful grappling tactics."

Commentators always talk about control time but is it even counted if the rd isn't dead even?

 

[dipstickjimmy]

The scoring system is supposed to be that way as far as I'm aware. Effective striking and grappling is the main criteria with damage trumping all. Only thing I'm not sure on is whether holding somebody is considered control time or not because the only control time I see mentioned when looking for rules is "octagon control time".

I've read a few sites and they say the second criteria is effective aggression and that only comes in to play if they are even in the first criteria. So if they are even as far as attacking goes the one who appeared to be trying to finish the fight wins the rd. Only if they are even in both the first 2 criteria does octagon control time come into play.

"When determining the winner of a round, the referee considers every aspect of the fight, including takedowns that result in effective attacks on an opponent."

"The effectiveness of a fighter’s usage of their position on the ground, whether top or bottom, is evaluated based on how well they damage their opponent."

"Takedowns, obtaining attacking positions, and attempting to submit the opponent are all examples of successful grappling tactics."

Commentators always talk about control time but is it even counted if the rd isn't dead even?

If literally dead even yes the guy controlling the octagon wins. Gordon holding him against the fence is Octagon Control.