UFC 123 Jackson vs Machida

**RollPlayer** · 11-21-10, 12:30 PM

Fightmetric had it as a 29-29 draw with a 10-10 tie in the second round, so that doesn't settle any debate there

**Vaughany** · 11-21-10, 12:31 PM

**Kaladarus** · 11-21-10, 12:40 PM

It was a close fight no big deal who got that decision really. It just sucks a lot of people probably got screwed on prop bets.

**dooman14** · 11-21-10, 01:13 PM

shock at 1st when decision was announced then angry and name calling while discussing it now love......best thread ever!!!

**Varker** · 11-21-10, 02:53 PM

was surprised rampage got it cause 3rd round was so dominant by machida, but 1st and 2nd could arguably have gone to rampage.

**THE_LOCKSMITH** · 11-21-10, 03:30 PM

the Rampage win didn't upset Dana White, he thought the judging was right. But for him best case senerio is a future Rua/Jackson title fight, and a Rampage loss to Machida would kill that.

**Stinger** · 11-21-10, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by THE_LOCKSMITH

the Rampage win didn't upset Dana White, he thought the judging was right. But for him best case senerio is a future Rua/Jackson title fight, and a Rampage loss to Machida would kill that.

**Pabinator** · 11-21-10, 10:36 PM

Even Rampage thought he lost, what does that tell you?

**Gee** · 11-22-10, 12:13 AM

There should be a "split decision no bet" option in MMA for sportsbooks IMO. Ive dropped quite a bit of money on some very dodgy decisions in my time. Whenever my mates and I bet with each other, we don't pay out on split decisions.

Bitching aside, I can see how the Judges came to the score they did. Typically stupid americans over valuing the take downs and pushing up against the cage in r1 and r2 give them to Rampage. They were close anyway. I had the last round 10-8 to Machida, so a drawn fight. When is the UFC going to realize that this is not how you should be scoring an MMA fight... it ain't boxing. in the old pride days with pride scoring, machida wins that fight easy.

oh how i miss the days of pride :/

**MadTiger** · 11-22-10, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by RollPlayer

Fightmetric had it as a 29-29 draw with a 10-10 tie in the second round, so that doesn't settle any debate there

Referring to the punches landed. Punches landed. I am not talking about their subjective scoring. Look at why I quoted them: I am talking about OBJECTIVE, QUANTITATIVE results. Rampage hit him more.

**MadTiger** · 11-22-10, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by brooks85

rampage did not land more strikes, as a matter of fact, he got outstriked 2-1 but im glad he won.

70>53
LXX > LIII
etc.

Rampage.
Total strikes

**lasker** · 11-22-10, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by MadTiger

FightMetric is objective. Rampage landed more strikes. Period.

Originally posted by MadTiger

Referring to the punches landed. Punches landed. I am not talking about their subjective scoring. Look at why I quoted them: I am talking about OBJECTIVE, QUANTITATIVE results. Rampage hit him more.

I had forgotten that total strikes landed is the only legitimate judging criterion in MMA.

Funny how this OBJECTIVE, QUANTITATIVE Fightmetric gives its Fightmetric Effectiveness score for striking as "Strikescore: Jackson: 55 / Machida: 115"

Funny how this OBJECTIVE, QUANTITATIVE Fightmetric scores the fight as "Fightmetric Winner: Lyoto Machida"

There is no such thing as purely objective scoring in MMA, precisely because number of strikes landed is not the only criterion. There are many different things to look for. The real winner of that fight was clear enough. The round-by-round winner was in question.

**brooks85** · 11-22-10, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by MadTiger

70>53
LXX > LIII
etc.

Rampage.
Total strikes

70 is more than 53, good job.

It still does not change the FACT machida landed more strikes, 2-1.

Now if you want argue who threw more strikes it was clearly rampage. But there is a world of difference between throwing a strike and landing one that is why fightmetric is much better than compustrike.

I just wish this page could have been the one that showed up against evans, page had machida scared to engage the whole fight. Even when machida got off in the third, page turned the tables very quickly and machida had to go in for another hug.

**brooks85** · 11-22-10, 03:40 PM

well i guess technically you are right, now that I re-read your posts. If you take the objectiveness out of it and just count anytime fighter A hit fighter B anywhere on their body as a strike, than yes, Page did hit machida more because of the foot stomps.

That is where compustrike comes in with page landing 59 strikes.

**iifold** · 11-22-10, 03:57 PM

You guys break this down too much..

I had Machida..

I got robbed...

That's how I know the fights are fixed...

Things are what they are...

UFC is crooked...

End of story...

**THE_LOCKSMITH** · 11-22-10, 05:52 PM

yea total strikes landed can't be the only reason to win a fight. the majority of those 73 landed were in the 3rd round that Machida won on the scorecards.

**Harry Beever** · 11-22-10, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by 36mafia

this card is lookin really great machida is gonna ko rampage

good call. =p

**Kaladarus** · 11-22-10, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Harry Beever

good call. =p

It almost happened. Rampage didn't even know where he was or what happened in the first two rounds after the fight.

**99Boxster** · 11-22-10, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by THE_LOCKSMITH

the Rampage win didn't upset Dana White, he thought the judging was right. But for him best case senerio is a future Rua/Jackson title fight, and a Rampage loss to Machida would kill that.

Shogun will crush rampage again. i'd rather see rampage/rashad 2

**Gee** · 11-23-10, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by lasker

There is no such thing as purely objective scoring in MMA, precisely because number of strikes landed is not the only criterion. There are many different things to look for. The real winner of that fight was clear enough. The round-by-round winner was in question.

you miss pride (and pride scoring) too huh? i still talk to my mates about the old pride days. even a UFC card these days doesn't compare to what i felt then when there was a big GP or stacked card back in the day. was sapp/nog @ shockwave a big deal in america back then? defining fight for its time.

**stefan084** · 11-23-10, 08:19 AM

if sportsbooks had the "no split decision" bet imagine the extra juice they would charge for that bet. might be interesting

**raydog** · 11-23-10, 09:19 AM

in case you didnt know, which obviously not many do, you earn points for stopping takedowns too... just because you bullrush someone into a corner, doesnt mean you earn more points.... the judges gave the fight to rampage because dana white told them if it was even close at all, give it to rampage because nobody wants to see machida/rua 3. thats the bottom line of the decision.

**lasker** · 11-23-10, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Gee

you miss pride (and pride scoring) too huh? i still talk to my mates about the old pride days. even a UFC card these days doesn't compare to what i felt then when there was a big GP or stacked card back in the day. was sapp/nog @ shockwave a big deal in america back then? defining fight for its time.

Yeah, I'm also nostalgic for the Pride days. I loved the production value. I bet a lot... too much... on Machida, but I almost started rooting for Rampage when his walk-in music started.