# Rampage vs. Griffin



## Fiendlover (Jul 6, 2008)

Awesome fight!  I loved how Forrest didn't back down or cower away from Rampage at all!  He was always in there taking all the hits and getting great strikes in there especially with those kicks to Rampage's leading leg.  It was hard deciding who to root for on that one.  At first I was rooting for Forrest Griffin because he was the underdog but as soon as I saw Rampage get hurt from those kicks to his leading leg I began rooting for him.  I'm glad Forrest won though and I think he completely deserved it but I'm sad that Rampage's trainer will now retire or so he said it was on record.  He said that if Rampage lost then he would retire and Rampage lost.

Another fight that I especially liked was Chris Lyttle against Koshchek.  Chris was doing good at the beggining but Koshchek took him to the ground and that was the end of him.  But Chris stayed in there he blocked as best as he could and fought back despite how much blood he was loosing!  He lost A LOT of blood from gashes on his face and it was just flowing from his face into good size puddles but he kept in there, he didn't tap and he just kept going despite how weak he was becoming until the timer ran out.  Chris had a lot of heart in that fight and I realy admire him for that.

Cheers to him.  :headbangin::cheers::asian::bangahead:


----------



## thetruth (Jul 6, 2008)

I am super suprised Forrest won but I much prefer him to Quinten.   Quinten has done nothing to impress me outside of the ring.  He just constantly behaves like a tool.  Can't wait to see the fight. Sounds like a war.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 6, 2008)

Here is the video:

http://www.mmaroot.com/quinton-rampage-jackson-vs-forrest-griffin-ufc-86-video/

It was a great fight!


----------



## Pacificshore (Jul 6, 2008)

Yeah, was a great fight and glad that Forrest did win this one.  Also happy with Rampage acknowledging that he got his *** kicked fair and square, so in that respect Rampage was a great Lightweight Champ as well.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 6, 2008)

Definately there will be a rematch and I can see it going either way next time.


----------



## AceHBK (Jul 6, 2008)

thetruth said:


> Quinten has done nothing to impress me outside of the ring. He just constantly behaves like a tool.


 
His job is to win fights inside of the ring, not try and impress people outside of the ring.  Outside of the ring he has a awesome personality and seems like a cool down to earth guy.  How is he a tool?  All he has done was win in Pride and UFC.


----------



## Fiendlover (Jul 6, 2008)

AceHBK said:


> His job is to win fights inside of the ring, not try and impress people outside of the ring. Outside of the ring he has a awesome personality and seems like a cool down to earth guy. How is he a tool? All he has done was win in Pride and UFC.


 I agree.  He is a really cool guy outside of the ring and even so after the fight when he admitted that he got his *** handed to him.  When he's in for the fight he's in for the fight.


----------



## ppko (Jul 6, 2008)

Forest definately controlled this fight and that is why he won.  I think that if  Jackson would have fought like he did against Liddel the outcome could have been different it seemed that when Jackson did rush Griffin he was definately in control but then again it does take some awsome  stamina to keep that going a whole fight.


----------



## bowser666 (Jul 6, 2008)

I enjoyed this fight. Both fighters have great conditioning and a championship material in my book.  I do think Griffin is a better fighter though. He basically started picking Jackson apart. He dominated him in ground game, and he basically set the pace for the stand up.  That is what the judges noticed. Jackson was mostly counter striking and only hitting half the time. I wish all fights were this good though.  full 5 rounds that were incredible.  I would love to know what Jackson did to make the pain go away in his leg.  I thought he was done in the 2nd. Way for him to pull through and go almost 3 more full rounds !   Would love to see a re-match.


----------



## Fiendlover (Jul 6, 2008)

bowser666 said:


> I would love to know what Jackson did to make the pain go away in his leg. I thought he was done in the 2nd. Way for him to pull through and go almost 3 more full rounds ! Would love to see a re-match.


Oh I know!  I thought he was done too.  It shocked me when Joe Rogan asked him how his leg was and Jackson said that it didn't bother him until Forrest kicked him there again.  Wow.  I can't wait for the rematch too.  It'll be awesome!!!!!!


----------



## IcemanSK (Jul 6, 2008)

Good on Forrest!:asian:


----------



## Tames D (Jul 6, 2008)

thetruth said:


> I am super suprised Forrest won but I much prefer him to Quinten. Quinten has done nothing to impress me outside of the ring. He just constantly behaves like a tool. Can't wait to see the fight. Sounds like a war.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


I don't know about his behavior outside the ring but I thought he handled this defeat with class.


----------



## masherdong (Jul 6, 2008)

> I don't know about his behavior outside the ring but I thought he handled this defeat with class.



It is very humble of him when he told Joe that, "Forrest, whooped my a**".  Then, when he was asked about his leg, he said that Forrest jacked it up.


----------



## thetruth (Jul 7, 2008)

AceHBK said:


> His job is to win fights inside of the ring, not try and impress people outside of the ring.  Outside of the ring he has a awesome personality and seems like a cool down to earth guy.  How is he a tool?  All he has done was win in Pride and UFC.



He seems easy going I guess.  I watched 'rampage unleashed' (I'm pretty sure that was the title) and he just behaved like an idiot through the whole documentary(if it can be called that) with some of his mocking behavior towards the Japanese in the video being borderline racist. I hoped to get some good training footage or something but it was just a waste of time. He admits to being lazy and needing a trainer to whip his *** into shape but seems to have no real drive himself to rectify that. One thing I like about MMA is the fact that after getting beaten most  fighters are respectful and admit they got beaten by a better fighter so that really doesn't  make him stand out too much as most fighters a classy losers.  I guess Rampage Unleashed was a poor area with which to introduce myself to Quinten.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jul 7, 2008)

WOW, it seems I miss a great card and a even better fight for the belt.


----------



## zDom (Jul 7, 2008)

Forrest did a great job. Ate some hard punches and yet kept his head in the fight. Really well done.

Rampage looked smaller in the chest and shoulders than he used to be and seemed to not have the viciousness and strength he has demonstrated in other fights.


----------



## bootcampbj (Jul 7, 2008)

Indeed an awesome fight.  Great strategy by Forrest, and it paid off in spades with that crushing leg kick.

Forest has some amazingly powerful kicks, good to see them put to good use with more strategy now.

I also can´t wait for the rematch.


 - bj


----------



## MattJ (Jul 7, 2008)

thetruth said:


> I am super suprised Forrest won but I much prefer him to Quinten. Quinten has done nothing to impress me outside of the ring. He just constantly behaves like a tool. Can't wait to see the fight. Sounds like a war.


 
Jackson does not seem "like a tool" to me. Interviews I have seen of him have been friendly, humorous, and humble.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 7, 2008)

MattJ said:


> Jackson does not seem "like a tool" to me. Interviews I have seen of him have been friendly, humorous, and humble.


There's a bunch of videos floating around from his early days in Japan where he was doing stuff like getting random fat Japanese guys to say "I have nice boobs" basically him getting people to repeat stuff they had no idea what it meant to make them look stupid etc. 

He's apparently mellowed quite a bit after finding religion so it's not totally fair to hold his old jerky ways against him now.


----------



## Odin (Jul 7, 2008)

IMO it was the leg kicks that decided the fate of the fight, if you notice forrest threw them to the knee ( which is in the rules but isnt that nice to do not because its more effective then the centre thigh but because it can cause more serious and long term injuries) after that jackson could not close the distance fast enough, when he did i thought he threw the better punches unfortunately for Rampage by round 4 and 5 there was too much damage done to his leg chase forrest down, so all you really got was forrest striking an immoblie man........not to mention for personal experience trying to throw anything of the left hand after having you lead leg 'jacked up' is not only painful but usually useless.

Good fight though, im not sure the leg kicks where the plan but it did work.well done to forrest.

Also it was interesting to see how big the holes in Rampages ground game were he will need to work on that because any fighter that watched that fight just saw a massive opening.

look forward to watching the rematch soon.


----------



## thetruth (Jul 8, 2008)

Just watched the fight. Forrest fought a great fight.  Quinten took his medicine which was great to see.  He just accepted he got his *** whipped which was great.  Maybe Quinten has grown up.  He seemed cool aftre the fight, that rampage unleashed vid was a joke though

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## thetruth (Jul 8, 2008)

The Cote result over Almeida was a joke though.  Maybe they wanted to give him a kick start but he did nothing to deserve the win.   Almeida executed his game plan well and Cote didn't. 

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## matsu (Jul 8, 2008)

AGAIN AS SAID I THINK RAMPAGE WAS A CLASS ACT WITH HOW HE oops caps!!......conducted himself. ive always thought he came across asa humble genuine guy in any interview ive seen and ulti fighter 7 ,he had cool people skills-encouraging motivating and informative,

the fight showed his ground game lacking and that possibly he is a one trick pony-to a degree before i get bashed and flamed. he is devastating at that game but now someone has out gamed him ,more can follow??.... just gotta be able to take punishment like forrest! great fight!

one last point ...with forrests* high* kicks..... totally ineffective and downright predictable esp agaisnt someone like rampage who counters well...
so many good mma fighters telegraph them kicks, they lean they drop hands, they swing them up. what gives???
just my tuppence.
matsu


----------



## masherdong (Jul 8, 2008)

> Rampage looked smaller in the chest and shoulders than he used to be and seemed to not have the viciousness and strength he has demonstrated in other fights.



That is what happens when you take 9 months off.  At least that is what he said.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 8, 2008)

zDom said:


> Rampage looked smaller in the chest and shoulders than he used to be and seemed to not have the viciousness and strength he has demonstrated in other fights.


 
I have noticed alot of the Pride fighters are smaller in the UFC where certain standards are in play.  Wanderlei looked smaller as well as when compared to his Pride days.


----------



## Brian S (Jul 8, 2008)

I think that if Rampage was more aggressive and would have pushed he would have won,but that's neither here nor there.

 Forrest did a great job executing his gameplan and Rampage handled his defeat with class. Look for him to tear the next guy up though!


----------



## MeatWad2 (Jul 8, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> I have noticed alot of the Pride fighters are smaller in the UFC where certain standards are in play. Wanderlei looked smaller as well as when compared to his Pride days.


 
You're right.  It's because in Japan they really don't care if you are on steroids.  Yeah, you'd get a percentage taken from your purse, but it's not like you were going to receive a suspension like they do in the states.

Also, Juanito (Rampages trainer) is already contesting the fight with the NSAC.  I saw the story on MMA.tv, but forgot to get the link.  Juanito isn't going to retire just like Rampage probably won't give his purse to Forrest for winning.  (Rampage said on TUF that he would give his whole purse if Forrest won.)


----------



## allenjp (Jul 9, 2008)

How 'bout that CHIN on Griffin??? Holy Moly I thought he was going down so many times during that fight, but he just kept going. He is definitely a tougher man than me. 

Also I liked the Joe daddy fight, I thought it looked like he was getting beat up to the point of the submission. I like to see fights like that where someone is losing but then pulls out a win with a good submission. 

On the whole these cards are getting better I think...


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 10, 2008)

MeatWad2 said:


> Also, Juanito (Rampages trainer) is already contesting the fight with the NSAC. I saw the story on MMA.tv, but forgot to get the link. Juanito isn't going to retire just like Rampage probably won't give his purse to Forrest for winning. (Rampage said on TUF that he would give his whole purse if Forrest won.)


 
On what grounds?


----------



## Spinback (Jul 10, 2008)

MeatWad2 said:


> You're right. It's because in Japan they really don't care if you are on steroids. Yeah, you'd get a percentage taken from your purse, but it's not like you were going to receive a suspension like they do in the states.
> 
> Also, Juanito (Rampages trainer) is already contesting the fight with the NSAC. I saw the story on MMA.tv, but forgot to get the link. Juanito isn't going to retire just like Rampage probably won't give his purse to Forrest for winning. (Rampage said on TUF that he would give his whole purse if Forrest won.)


 
Actually, I believe what Rampage said was "I bet you our fight won't go to no decision. I'd by my whole damn purse on it!"

Then Forrest commented to his team, "I'm gonna keep my purse, guys."

So I guess if Forrest had taken the bet, he'd have won Rampage's purse, but he didn't.

It was a great TUF moment though. I hope they do another one.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jul 10, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> On what grounds?


 
I believe his complaint is that he said some of the judging was biased in favor of Forrest.  

Example, two judges gave Forrest the First round 10-9 (Forrest got knocked down with an uppercut in the first round after getting staggered a couple of times in a pretty close round).  At the most, he should've gotten a 9-9 (I felt jackson won the round giving him a 10-8 first round).  

Also, the 2nd round, Forrest just held onto Jackson and didn't really do much in the way of offense, but got a 10-8 round for positionally dominating, but doing no real offense or damage.

Essentially, they felt the judging was extremely biased and want an immediate rematch.  



Personally, I was surprised at how much smaller rampage looked.  He did say he took 9 months off of his training, but damn, I thought he was just talking...  I think he underestimated Forrest and got his butt kicked for it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 10, 2008)

Skpotamus said:


> I believe his complaint is that he said some of the judging was biased in favor of Forrest.
> 
> Example, two judges gave Forrest the First round 10-9 (Forrest got knocked down with an uppercut in the first round after getting staggered a couple of times in a pretty close round).  At the most, he should've gotten a 9-9 (I felt jackson won the round giving him a 10-8 first round).
> 
> ...




I am confused by the judging in general. 

Sometimes they give points for control from the bottom. Other times the person on the bottom could be working the person on the top and even striking but they give the round to the person on the top just because he is on top. 

This is why some many people including the fighters want to get a TKO a KO or a Tap out. Then there is no doubt. 

But the scoring on the fight was 48 to 46 by two judges in favor of Forest. The other judge had it as 49 to 46 in favor for Forest. The point here is that three judges were in favor for Forest. But lets look at the data again.

To get a 48 to 46:

9/10/9/10/10  versus 10/8/10/9/9  or 9/9/10/9/9 which is only possible in a 10 point must with a point deduction. 

The third judge 49 to 46:

There is only one way to get a 49.

9/10/10/10/10 

While the 46 is 10/9/9/9/9 which is possible as Forest was given the 10 points in the same rounds. 

So, two judges had him winning three rounds and one of those round by two points. 

The third judge had him winning four rounds all by a point. 

In the end it was a close fight. But there was enough for the judges to say that he took it from the current champion. 

I see a rematch and as Rampage stated he will not take as long off in the future and he handled it very well. He did not contest the situation, he went with it. He grew in respect in my eyes with this. Let him take it away and come back for the rematch and we will see what happens then.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jul 10, 2008)

I agree the judging is pretty confusing.  It seems like the criteria changes from event to event, and even from fight to fight.  There don't seem to be any clear guide lines that judges follow with any consistancy.  


As for Griffin X Jackson, the judges official scorecards were reported by Dave Meltzer ( http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/07/06/official-scorecards-for-jackson-vs-griffin/ )as:

Adalaide Byrd who scored it 48-46, gave 4 and 5 to Jackson and Griffin 1, 2 and 3 with 2 as 10-8
Nelson Hamilton had it 48-46 with 1 and 4 for Jackson, and Griffin getting 2 10-8
Roy Silbert had it 49-46 with only round 4 for Jackson

Meaning that only one judge gave jackson the round that he knocked Forrest down in, and even that round wasn't 10-8 as it would be expected to be with a KD.  But that same judge gave Forrest a 10-8 round for round 2, meaning that a knockdown isn't scored as highly as holding position?  


I had scored the fight:
Rd 1 Jackson 10-8 due to KD
Rd 2 Griffin 10-9 
Rd 3 Jackson 10-9
Rd 4 Jackson 10-9 
Rd 5 Griffin 10-9

48-46 Jackson

I could see someone giving Rd 3 to Griffin as it was close, but I can't see the judges giving him a round he got knocked down in

YMMV


----------



## Fiendlover (Jul 10, 2008)

Skpotamus said:


> I agree the judging is pretty confusing. It seems like the criteria changes from event to event, and even from fight to fight. There don't seem to be any clear guide lines that judges follow with any consistancy.
> 
> 
> As for Griffin X Jackson, the judges official scorecards were reported by Dave Meltzer ( http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/07/06/official-scorecards-for-jackson-vs-griffin/ )as:
> ...


 I'm so confused.  I don't know how the UFC is scored at all.  All these numbers are confusing even as I do replay the rounds over and over again in my head lol.  Any clarification would be great but according to the posts it looks like a lot of you are confused about the scoring at least in this fight lol.  :uhohh::nuke::idunno:


----------



## Skpotamus (Jul 11, 2008)

The UFC uses what's called a 10 point must system like boxing uses.  It means that the rounds are scored on a 10 point system.  The winner of the round gets 10, the loser gets less, depending on how they lost the round.  So, say you have a pretty even round, but one fighter is more aggressive, lands more damaging punches.  They get 10, their opponent gets 9.  Say during that round the less effective opponent gets knocked down, they would get a point deduction for the knock down, resulting in a 10-8 round.  Say the aggressive fighter is clearly winning the round, but is deducted one point for a foul, then the score would be 9-9.  It is possible for a fighter to be winning a round, but get knocked down and get a draw for the round with a 9-9.  

At the end of the fight, if there isn't a knockout or submission, the judges add up the point totals for their rounds.  So if you won all 5 rounds, you'd have 50, where your opponent would have a maximum possible score of 45.  

Historically, in boxing, you only get a 10-8 round for a knockdown (I can't think of a 10-8 round that didn't involve a KD at least).  

Typically, (from boxing at least), close rounds tend to go to the champion, hence the old expression "to be the champ, you have to BEAT the champ", meaning that you have to be decisvie to beat the reigning champion.  

How to judge which fighter won comes from the athletic commissions

From the NSAC (Nevada State Athletic Commission):

VIII. JUDGES

A. No judge will have a financial interest in any fighter he judges.

B. No judge will be a manager/trainer of any fighter he judges.

C. In a bout goes to it's full time limit, the outcome will be decided by a majority decision of
three, (3), MMAC judges.

D. A judge is accredited, sanctioned and selected based upon his character, experience, stature in the MMA world, knowledge of MMA systems and impartiality.

E. Judging Criteria
1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it's full time limit based upon the following criteria:
-Clean Strikes
-Effective Grappling
-Octagon Control
-Effective Aggressiveness

F. Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking.

I. Effective Grappling
1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean takedown and active guard position.
2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly takedown his opponent, is effectively grappling.
3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple, through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous defense from the top fighter.
4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.
5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the preceding situations were met.(items 2-4)
6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored the clean takedown deserves the round.
7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling

J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
*2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.*
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

*K. Effective Aggressiveness*
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring) 
2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
*5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness*.

L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded. Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it 
in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations
that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the 
criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is 
imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7*. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
-octagon control
-effective aggressiveness*
M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and 
control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike
-by submission attempt
-from a throw
-from clean strikes either standing or grounded.

N. Judge's Scorecard Procedures
After each round:
1. each Judge will determine and record a score each round
2. a MMAC official will collect the scorecard after each round
3. the MMAC official will track and add each Judges score by round
4. If the fight goes the time limit, the MMAC official will add each Judge's scorecard and double check total
5. the fighter with the greater number of points wins the fight on each Judges scorecard
6. the fighter who won on the majority of the Judges Scorecards, wins the fight
7. the MMAC official will hand the decision to the PA announcer

O. Types of Judge's Decisions
1. If all three scorecards agree Unanimous
2. If two of three scorecards agree Split
3. Two scorecards agree and one draw Majority
4. two scorecards agree on draw Draw
5. all scorecards different Draw

IX SCORING SYSTEM

A. The MMAC and UFC have adopted a 10 point must system.
The Judge will use the criteria to determine a winner each round. The three step procedure per round is as follows:
-*determine winner of round (can be draw)*
-determine if winner dominated round
-fouls then factored in (subtract one point per foul from fighter)

B. Draws are again acceptable in MMAC events

C. Point Totals
1. two fighters who draw are given a score of 10-10
2. the fighter who wins a round is given a score of 10-9
3.The fighter who dominates a round is given a score of 10-8
(a score of 10-7 is possible for a dominant round)
4.For each foul a fighter commits, a point is subtracted. This deduction can change a winning round to a draw. 9-9







What rampages manager is complaining about is the score the judges gave seemed to be a bit biased in Forrest's favor (keep in mind this is Jackson's trainer and manager, NOT Jackson).  

Forrest won round 1 on two scorecards 10-9.  Meaning that him getting knocked down and almost knocked out didn't count in rampages favor.  At the best, Jackson could've gotten a 10-9 for that round if the judges had been scoring it a draw up to the knockdown.  Most likely the knockdown would've given Rampage a 10-8 round since the round was close.  A draw would've changed their scores to 47-47.  

Jackson winning that round would've changed one judges score from 48-46 Griffin to 47-46 Jackson.  Another judges score would've changed from 49-46 to 47-47.  



Anyways, I hope this ridiculously long post helps clear it up somewhat.  The criteria is kind of shady at best of times and some judges get crazy on their interpretations (See Kendall Grove x Evan Tanner for crazy judging, one judge gave Tanner the win).


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 11, 2008)

Judging like this will always be a little subjective as each judge will also bring a personal bias in favor of something. ie. knock downs, takedowns, body slams, top control, ground and pound, kicking, etc.  In the UFC so far I think they do a good job and have not messed up to much.  Yet if you are a UFC or MMA fighter in general do your best to not leave it to the judges.

In the case of this particular fight clearly I think Forrest one but it was close.


----------



## zDom (Jul 11, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> In the case of this particular fight clearly I think Forrest won but it was close.



I agree.


----------



## AceHBK (Jul 12, 2008)

zDom said:


> I agree.


 
I agree. I felt Forrest won but it should of have been a lot closer scoring wise.  How Rampage didn't wint the round where he clearly knocked Forrest down is shocking to me.


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jul 12, 2008)

I scored the fight 48 (Griffin) to 45 (Jackson).
*1st Round 9(G) to 9(J)* - Griffin was winning round 1 until the knockdown with 1:38 left in the round.  Jackson was unable to capitalize and finish on the ground.  Griffin reversed position and escaped to his feet.
*2nd Round 10(G) to 8(J)* - A dominant round for Forrest.  Two very damaging leg kicks.  Jackson looked finished for the entire round did nothing but try to keep himself from getting submitted or knocked out.  Forrest did damage from the top with Ground and pound.  Controlled from the top with effective grappling.  Attempted submissions and continually improved position.
*3rd Round 10(G) to 9(J)* - Jackson begining to recover.  Very cautious and avoiding the kick. A close round but still Forrest's round.  We can't give Rampage this round as he did little more than be evasive and attempt to counter, which means Forrest was the one controlling the fight, besides he also landed more strikes than Rampage did.
*4th Round 9(G) to 10(J)* - Jackson won this round but not in a dominant fashion.
*5th Round 10(F) to 9(J)* - Forrest's striking was more effective and he controlled this round.  Rampage had some good counters but not enough to win.

We can't give Jackson a round he was losing because of one punch (round 1) but I agree the knockdown prevents the round from going to Griffin as well. So 9 - 9.  Even if you disagree with 10 - 8 for round to and we change it to 10 - 9 the score would be 48 - 46.

The fight was close but Forrest definitely won.  Even Rampage knew who won and expected the decision to go to Forrest at the end of the fight. Clearly most people didn't expect the fight to go this way, I didn't.  And this is not the way you like to see a championship belt change hands but we have to follow the rules for scoring the bout.

_Don Flatt


----------



## Fiendlover (Jul 12, 2008)

Skpotamus said:


> The UFC uses what's called a 10 point must system like boxing uses. It means that the rounds are scored on a 10 point system. The winner of the round gets 10, the loser gets less, depending on how they lost the round. So, say you have a pretty even round, but one fighter is more aggressive, lands more damaging punches. They get 10, their opponent gets 9. Say during that round the less effective opponent gets knocked down, they would get a point deduction for the knock down, resulting in a 10-8 round. Say the aggressive fighter is clearly winning the round, but is deducted one point for a foul, then the score would be 9-9. It is possible for a fighter to be winning a round, but get knocked down and get a draw for the round with a 9-9.
> 
> At the end of the fight, if there isn't a knockout or submission, the judges add up the point totals for their rounds. So if you won all 5 rounds, you'd have 50, where your opponent would have a maximum possible score of 45.
> 
> ...


Thank you so much.  They way you explained it made it easy for me to understand and that's saying a lot to me lol.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jul 13, 2008)

Fiendlover, not a problem, the scoring can be very confusing, especially since they leave it up to interpretation and different people can view it very differently (obviously due to the different points of view on the fight stated here).  For example, look at the rules on effective striking, they give two defintions (more strikes landed and more damage done).  This could be argued both ways for round one of that fight.  Yes Griffin threw more strikes, and might have landed more strikes (total number), but Jackson did more damage with his (knockdown after staggering him twice with combinations).  Which one scores more?  The judging criteria lists it both ways. 

Shrug, I just wanna see the rematch


----------



## ares (Jul 13, 2008)

I seem to remember Jackson saying during the "ultimate fighter" that if he lost to Griffin that he would give Forrest his purse. Wouldn't that be binding by law since he said it on t.v.? I would love to see him hand Forrest his purse. I thought Forrest had an excellent game plan. He didn't try to slug it out or clinch a lot. He stayed away and won the fight. Jackson didn't impress me the last couple of times I had seen him, so I wanted Griffin to win.


----------



## Fiendlover (Jul 14, 2008)

Skpotamus said:


> Fiendlover, not a problem, the scoring can be very confusing, especially since they leave it up to interpretation and different people can view it very differently (obviously due to the different points of view on the fight stated here). For example, look at the rules on effective striking, they give two defintions (more strikes landed and more damage done). This could be argued both ways for round one of that fight. Yes Griffin threw more strikes, and might have landed more strikes (total number), but Jackson did more damage with his (knockdown after staggering him twice with combinations). Which one scores more? The judging criteria lists it both ways.
> 
> Shrug, I just wanna see the rematch


 Lol yeah.  I can see how the scoring could be confusing with that and I also can't wait to see the rematch.


----------

