Judging

[burningxspirit]

Quote: Originally Posted by chia

If you get a knockdown and they don't 99.9% of the time the round is yours IRL and in game..

See Condit vs GSP IRL. I think only one judge Condit the round with the kd. Also if you have great subs then it can nullify a knockdown in the game, I do it all the time. Just top control is not enough to nullify a knockdown anymore like it was in UFC 2. But yeah kds mean lot more and it's awesome. I love the feel of constant danger lol

[PocketKings88]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Top control doesnt matter unless you are doing damage.

That's incorrect. Under MMA judging criteria there is a section called "Fighting area control" which states: "FAC is assessed by who is determining the pace, place and position of the fight." Although it does state that this is implemented rarely, it is most definitely a factor. In reality, it's almost certainly implemented in every fight considering it's almost a miracle for a past or present fighter to win a decision off their back (unless you're Bas Rutten).

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Takedowns dont matter unless they are giving out damage (just like under the real rules).

Takedowns do matter regardless as to whether they're giving out damage. "It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown".

These "specific" rules and wording aside, everybody knows that takedowns score relatively well in MMA and they are clearly seen as significant moments in close fights.

In regards to your comments about damage, seen as damage is evidently so important, I did more damage throughout the fight. I'm pretty sure I can even get a screenshot of the post fight stamina/health display. My point is that I basically had a close, 6 minute striking battle with a guy who maybe landed 15 significant or "more damaging shots" over the course of three rounds, whilst 9 of those 15 minutes were spent with me on top, landing a lot more strikes, doing more damage, mounting and gaining other dominant positions multiple times trying to finish the fight and completing 7 takedowns. I was never rocked or knocked down etc.

As someone who has watched probably 1000+ Individual fights, I can confidently say that if that was a real MMA / UFC fight, there is absolutely no way in any parallel universe that I would've gotten the loss on the judges score cards, regardless of what the rules state. I am a critical thinker. I am not being biased towards myself because I'm bummed out that I lost. I've assessed the fight in regards to exactly what happened. I was dominant. If that was real MMA, it would almost certainly be considered the worst decision in the history of MMA (ok maybe after Fedor's "win" over Maldonaldo haha).

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by PocketKings88

That's incorrect. Under MMA judging criteria there is a section called "Fighting area control" which states: "FAC is assessed by who is determining the pace, place and position of the fight." Although it does state that this is implemented rarely, it is most definitely a factor. In reality, it's almost certainly implemented in every fight considering it's almost a miracle for a past or present fighter to win a decision off their back (unless you're Bas Rutten). Takedowns do matter regardless as to whether they're giving out damage. "It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown". These "specific" rules and wording aside, everybody knows that takedowns score relatively well in MMA and they are clearly seen as significant moments in close fights. In regards to your comments about damage, seen as damage is evidently so important, I did more damage throughout the fight. I'm pretty sure I can even get a screenshot of the post fight stamina/health display. My point is that I basically had a close, 6 minute striking battle with a guy who maybe landed 15 significant or "more damaging shots" over the course of three rounds, whilst 9 of those 15 minutes were spent with me on top, landing a lot more strikes, doing more damage, mounting and gaining other dominant positions multiple times trying to finish the fight and completing 7 takedowns. I was never rocked or knocked down etc. As someone who has watched probably 1000+ Individual fights, I can confidently say that if that was a real MMA / UFC fight, there is absolutely no way in any parallel universe that I would've gotten the loss on the judges score cards, regardless of what the rules state. I was dominant. It would almost certainly the worst decision in the history of MMA.

Fighting area control only comes into play if effective striking/grappling and effective aggression are tied.

Effective grappling isnt just taking someone one down and staying on top. It has to be followed up by moves or strikes that have an impact on potentially ending the fight.

http://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/...ng_rev0816.pdf

I dont have a video of your fight so I cant judge it.

[chia]

Quote: Originally Posted by burningxspirit

See Condit vs GSP IRL. I think only one judge Condit the round with the kd. Also if you have great subs then it can nullify a knockdown in the game, I do it all the time. Just top control is not enough to nullify a knockdown anymore like it was in UFC 2. But yeah kds mean lot more and it's awesome. I love the feel of constant danger lol

Congrats on noting the .1%

[Sivo]

there are new rules from the GSP/condit fght. I think allot of the problem ppl are having is this. a good percentage(not sure on the numbers)of the fights that are happening currently in the ufc aren't under the new scoring criteria so u have to examine just the ones using the new criteria

[fitch is my homeboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

FYI, control time doesnt factor into the judging in real life or in the game anymore. Its all about the amount of damage.

This statement needs some clarification because it's not totally correct. "Damage" is not the criteria used but rather "quality"

Quote:

Success in grappling and striking exchanges to determine winner of rounds Quality of strikes rather than volume to be given more emphasis Control of grappling exchanges given emphasis in grappling-dominated fights

Now why's that important? Because the game doesn't have the ability to judge quality and success subjectively. It can count total strikes and measure damage inflicted. This means that spamming jabs would score higher than a well timed counter.

Control time as you can see still plays an important role. We know the game tracks time in dominate positions it makes sense it would be also used for scoring rounds. And it should.

[Skynet]

Quote: Originally Posted by chia

I will next time it happens. I think it has happened to me 5 times in 230+ fights so it's not common per se' but I specifically remember raging like a two year old in the Walmart toy aisle because I lost decisions based on THOSE knockdowns.

Does it cross no-one's mind that just because a stat shows up in the post-fight doesn't mean the judges use it, or even score them evenly?

There are four severities of finding one's *** on the mat. Falls (trips, slips, leg sweeps, etc.) count for nothing in the judges eye. They're flukes and generally don't mean much. Alert knockdowns are when the fighter immediately stands back up, and are counted but not as much as the others. Active knockdowns are when a fighter goes down but immediately recovers to their back. These are worth more than alert, but less than the final KD. Health knockdowns or finish the fight knockdowns are when the fighter goes down and is dazed on the ground for a time, allowing you to jump on them and go into ftf. These are the most severe health event before a straight up KO, and are worth the most points.

They're all tallied into the one post-fight stat on-screen, but the judges account for them all differently, along with any other health events they deem important.

We're looking at ways to expand on the health events post-fight, to actually clear some of this up, but until it's in the game you never know.

[Skynet]

Quote: Originally Posted by fitch is my homeboy

This statement needs some clarification because it's not totally correct. "Damage" is not the criteria used but rather "quality" Now why's that important? Because the game doesn't have the ability to judge quality and success subjectively. It can count total strikes and measure damage inflicted. This means that spamming jabs would score higher than a well timed counter. Control time as you can see still plays an important role. We know the game tracks time in dominate positions it makes sense it would be also used for scoring rounds. And it should.

As noted by Aholbert, control time is only used when effective grappling and striking are deemed too close to yield a decision. Under the new unified scoring criteria, the most important thing is damage; causing notable and lasting harm to your opponent, and performing actions which directly contribute to ending the fight.

With that said, many actions can cause certain amounts of damage, such as takedowns/submissions; however, compared to landing clean & heavy strikes, they don't weight in as much. Top control is about giving one's self the opportunity to inflict damage, top control is not in and of itself worth being scored. If you sit in mount and do nothing, you've really accomplished no more than your opponent as far as ending the fight. Similarly, tiny punches have nearly if not no effect on the judges what so ever, as they are not truly contributing to ending the fight.