I get confused because each states athletic commission sets whatever rules they choose to adopt and we have multiple variations of the "unified" rules (making them very much not unified).
Under the new rules aljo won the first. Striking trumps any aggression or octagon control. You could literally do 2 leg licks and run away the rest of the round and win.
The judges got round one correct. You didn't even need to go to aggression and octagon control, but if you did, Aljo wins in those areas too. Aljo was throwing far more offense out there than Yan. That is aggression. Yan did not have octagon control-- if he did, he'd have gotten the fight in boxing range more often, but he couldn't. No, it was Aljo who kept the fight at his range and thus had octagon control all while trying more offense.
Regardless of which aspect of scoring criteria you look at, Aljo edged it in all of them
They should just cross that section out.
It is never ever used or applied.
Once a strike is thrown or a takedown attempted or executed then someone will be awarded the round based on effective striking or grappling. As this applies to all rounds, this is the only scoring criteria needed. The rules state that even the smallest perceptible advantage is enough to award the round to that fighter.
Aggression and octagon control don't matter.
To take it a step further, if you are arguing that a fighter deserved to win a fight or a round based on aggression or octagon control, all you are doing is demonstrating that you don't understand the rules and their application.
On the surface it’s easy to say Yan was more aggressive. He pushed forward and threw with more intent. However when you dig a little deeper, the term “effective” makes it questionable.
Sure he attempted harder strikes, but didn’t land often or cleanly, so not very effective. Aljo on the other hand, didn’t throw much with fight ending intention but did engage more often. It’s a wash in my book, even aggression going by the criteria laid out in the rules.
Quite clear that the average Sherdogger is so blinded by hate or nuthuggery that they can’t score a fight properly. It was a close fight, and it’s understandable that some have Yan winning the first round, but a majority of MMA journalists who generally get it right, had it for Sterling. The only conclusion I can draw is that the “hardcore” fan who was hanging from Yan’s nuts, can’t imagine that Sterling actually won.
The way the scoring criteria are written, judges should theoretically score rounds like this:
1. whoever had the better effective striking/grappling wins the round
2. if effective striking/grappling is 100% even, whoever was more effectively aggressive wins the round.
3. if effective aggression is 100% even, whoever controlled the Octagon wins the round. (This should be very rare.)
In practice, it doesn't seem to quite work that way. When arguing over the result, fans often discuss which fighter was walking forward (i.e., controlling the Octagon), but not much is said about effective aggression. We mention effective aggression when we explain the rules to each other or argue over the relative importance of the scoring criteria, but rarely will anyone spontaneously offer that so-and-so won a round on effective aggression.
A few reasons for this?
1. it's rare that effective striking/grappling is 100% even.
2. basically the two ways you take out your aggression on an opponent are by striking them, or by attempting takedowns and submissions. Striking and grappling are already baked into the first criterion so Octagon control is easier to assess as a distinct thing.
3. the rules themselves don't provide much guidance.
“Aggressively making attempts to finish the fight. The key term is 'effective.' Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact should not render in the judges' assessments.” Effective Aggressiveness is only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for both competitors."
The rules literally spend more words to tell you what effective aggression isn't, than to tell you what it is. Ineffectively chasing after an opponent is not effective aggression. What about effectively cutting off the cage? It seems to me that should still fall under Octagon control but it's a bit unclear.
4. often, the more aggressive fighter is also the one who walked forward, so skipping straight to Octagon control doesn't necessarily give you the wrong outcome.
A few hypotheticals:
LEFT BODY KICK HYPO: A, a southpaw, and B, an orthodox fighter, land roughly the same number of strikes. B came forward while A backpedaled. A landed left body kicks while B landed right body kicks. Neither fighter shows signs of being hurt by the strikes.
Does A win the round because left body kicks target the liver, making them much more likely than right body kicks to end a fight?
GUILLOTINE HYPO: A and B land roughly the same number of strikes. B came forward while A backpedaled. In the last 15 seconds they clinch and A tries to steal the round by jumping guillotine, but B stays calm and easily survives.
Does A win the round because they attempted a fight-ending submission?
YAN-STERLING II ROUND 1 HYPO: Assume, for the sake of argument, that effective striking/grappling was 100% even. We know Sterling landed more strikes but some people think Yan landed harder/better strikes, so assume that cancels out. Yan came forward while Sterling backpedaled.
Does Sterling win the round on effective aggression because he threw more strikes (both landed and missed) and attempted more takedowns?
It's tempting to say that missed strikes shouldn't count at all, but if one fighter is letting his hands go, surely he's being more aggressive than an opponent who is not throwing back. Perhaps not effectively aggressive though.
Is that Sterling actually won the round because he outstruck Yan, without needing to consider effective aggression. I'm not sure yet how I would answer my own hypo.
I think A should win in both of the first two hypos.
What are some actual rounds where one fighter plausibly won the round based on effective aggression alone?
Interesting post and a lot of points of discussion but I will keep it to just two which caught my eye:
1) I don’t agree that scenarios where scoring is ‘perfectly even’ are that rare. ‘Effective Striking’ is fuzzy because it requires interpretation of impact and when neither guy really hurt the other, we are left to tally nicks and scratches so to speak. This happens a lot in rounds where ‘nothing much happened’. It would be stupid to decide these uneventful rounds via what is essentially hair-splitting and this is exactly why there are backup criteria.
In a round like rd1 of Sterling/Yan 2, since no one was ever truly hurt, significant strike differential was not wide (6-4 imo) and you can argue that Yan laded the slightly better shots, the gap becomes too close to call …meaning ‘effective striking’ is essentially even.
2) I don’t think that winning the ‘aggression’ battle is simply about throwing and connecting more - it’s actually about who was landing the more damaging shots and looking to engage/finish the fight.
In rd1 of Sterling/Yan, that was clearly Yan. Sterling’s output was 90% weak, single shots follow by a retreat - Yan was throwing harder and always looking to follow up with more shots as Sterling ran away.
Interesting post and a lot of points of discussion but I will keep it to just two which caught my eye:
1) I don’t agree that scenarios where scoring is ‘perfectly even’ are that rare. ‘Effective Striking’ is fuzzy because it requires interpretation of impact and when neither guy really hurt the other, we are left to tally nicks and scratches so to speak. This happens a lot in rounds where ‘nothing much happened’. It would be stupid to decide these uneventful rounds via what is essentially hair-splitting and this is exactly why there are backup criteria.
In a round like rd1 of Sterling/Yan 2, since no one was ever truly hurt, significant strike differential was not wide (6-4 imo) and you can argue that Yan laded the slightly better shots, the gap becomes too close to call …meaning ‘effective striking’ is essentially even.
2) I don’t think that winning the ‘aggression’ battle is simply about throwing and connecting more - it’s actually about who was landing the more damaging shots and looking to engage/finish the fight.
In rd1 of Sterling/Yan, that was clearly Yan. Sterling’s output was 90% weak, single shots follow by a retreat - Yan was throwing harder and always looking to follow up with more shots as Sterling ran away.
You're way too bias man, body kicks fucking hurt, Yan landed one good shot that entire round in the last 5 seconds, and even then it did not leand cleanly and Aljo rolled.
The other guy "running away" is the one controlling the round, what is he suppose to do? Stand and let Yan set up and find his range?
You're way too bias man, body kicks fucking hurt, Yan landed one good shot that entire round in the last 5 seconds, and even then it did not leand cleanly and Aljo rolled.
The other guy "running away" is the one controlling the round, what is he suppose to do? Stand and let Yan set up and find his range?
You claim that Yan only landed one good shot and you say I'm biased. Ok.
I know what a middle kick feels like, probably more than the vast majority of the people I argue with on here. Aljo landed maybe three solid ones but others were blocked or fell short and besides that, all he had was a couple of soft front kicks plus a straight that caught the edge of Yan's ribs. Here are a couple of those blocked middles >
The single middle Yan landed was in fact harder. Yan also landed a couple of good punches and his low kick on Sterling was the only one worth a damn in the entire round.
If you only count the solid connections, the count is nowhere near the 19-13 given by Fightmetric. It was a very close round in terms of effectiveness.
You claim that Yan only landed one good shot and you say I'm biased. Ok.
I know what a middle kick feels like, probably more than the vast majority of the people I argue with on here. Aljo landed maybe three solid ones but others were blocked or fell short and besides that, all he had was a couple of soft front kicks plus a straight that caught the edge of Yan's ribs. Here are a couple of those blocked middles >
The single middle Yan landed was in fact harder. Yan also landed a couple of good punches and his low kick on Sterling was the only one worth a damn in the entire round.
If you only count the solid connections, the count is nowhere near the 19-13 given by Fightmetric. It was a very close round in terms of effectiveness.
No, you see that's the problem: you guys read the fightmetric totals or watch a highlight on your phone. If you actually want to argue about this, watch the round closely, freezing if you are unsure about a connection, and then talk. Then again, if you think that toe slaps count, then there is no point in discussing anything with you.
No, you see that's the problem: you guys read the fightmetric totals or watch a highlight on your phone. If you actually want to argue about this, watch the round closely, freezing if you are unsure about a connection, and then talk. Then again, if you think that toe slaps count, then there is no point in discussing anything with you.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
