UFC 123 Thoughts

Come on in and watch the shadows fight... got some nice chicken soup to enjoy.

So I am a fan of martial arts, and mixed martial arts as s sport and having watched the last PPV I'm a little dismayed at the response to a few of the fights.  Particularly the main event.  I'm unsure what people want or think or if in the end the only idea is to continue to make controversy rather than adequately report on the event.  Either way quite a few of the MMA media sites I go to are all up in arms about Machida losing a split decision.  And there are a few other points I'd like to go over.

First off, let me explain something to Mike Goldburg and Joe Rogan, the two colour commentators for the UFC.  Your job should not be to continue to hype the fights once the PPV is bought.  I mean, seriously guys, if I'm watching, I've bought it, provide some insight or some interesting things on the techniques being used.  To continue to sell the fight just makes you seem cheap and whorish.  Still better than Strikeforce's commentators.  But not much.  I think our refrain when it's all the guys together to watch is something along the lines of 'STFU Joe!'

If anyone thinks that because Blow Job Penn knocked out an aging Matt Hughes, someone who has not fought a quality WW since his fight with GSP, somehow proves Penn deserves another run at the title, let me correct that thought.  Hughes is susceptible to big strikes because he doesn't know how to move his head.  Penn came out, caught one, and then set up the big right, and Hughes did nothing to defend it.  If it's true that Penn is going to fight Fitch next, we'll all see how unlikely it is for Penn to make a title run.

Now let's look at the main event.  It was slow.  Jackson has knockout power, especially when it comes to counter punching, and Machida is an avoidance fighter who counter strikes when opponents get over extended chasing him.  I don't know why anyone thought this would be a big exciting fight because for both fighters, they rely on the other fighter for their style to work and in this case, neither one sets the other off nicely.  Jackson's style works best against brawlers, as evident in his crushing knock outs of Liddel and Silva.  Jackson himself is not a balls out brawler.  He prefers to take a few shots and then unload when opponents are startled that he's still standing, and have their guards wide open after throwing a series of blows.  Dude is tough.  Machida on the other hand requires a fighter to come at him.  He is the least engaging of fighters out there.  He dances away continually, waiting for his opponent to tire or expose themselves and then he strikes.  So right there, bad bad style match up.  There was no way this fight was going to not go to the judges. 

Now let's look at the complaints as to why people think the judging fucked up the decision.  Lots of folks feel that since the only significant portion of the fight occurred in the third when Machida did indeed dominate Jackson with a flurry of blows, followed by a take down and mount, he should have won the fight.  Some others point to Fight Metric's analysis of the fight, that Machida landed more significant strikes in round one and two, and that their score cards show either a draw by ten point must or a win by Machida for being more effective. 

Normally I'm a big fan of Fight Metrics but I'm going to have to disagree with their win for Machida because A) The judging is on a ten point must system, and B) scoring a round a draw should only happen if NONE of the criteria for judging is viewed as being in favour for either fighter.  What are those criteria you ask?  Effective striking and grappling, aggression, and octagon control.  Those are the standards they are given and what they must score the fight on.

So the first round folks agree was Jackson's, and the third everyone agrees was Machida's so let's focus on that tricky second round, which FM says is a draw, and some folks are crying for Machida to have won, and one judge did award to him.  According to FM, of the five categories they track for striking, three went to Rampage, with the biggest difference coming in the total strikes.  As far as significant strikes?  Machida had one more than Rampage, but total strikes?  WOW, 28 to 11 for Jackson.  That's a lot more activity.  Of course, let's be honest, in a five minute round, a total of 39 strikes thrown by both fighters is pretty fucking tame, and striking could almost be seen as non-existent.  So let's look at the grappling.  Oh wait.  There wasn't any.  There was one clinch attempted by each fighter, and only Jackson succeeded in his.  So effective striking and grappling could be fairly muddy to determine.  So what does that leave us?  Aggression and octagon control.  Having watched the fight, Machida was backing up a lot, Jackson was keeping the center of the ring and dictating Machida's movements, and for the most part, Jackson was the aggressor.  I mean c'mon 28 to 11 strikes total?  Cut me loose here folks, aggression, as little as there was, was in favour of Jackson.  The appearance through most of the fight was that Jackson was stalking down Machida and Machida was continually dancing away.  So yeah I woulda scored the round for Jackson myself.

The point here is that if your style requires you to continually back up, dance away, and wait for the other fighter to engage, guess what chumly?  You're gonna lose a lot of decisions once people figure out how to take advantage of that.  And why by garsh, someone did.  As well it's utterly hilarious, that these same people who are bitching for a draw are the same folks who bitched when Cecil Peoples, the dumbest MMA judge on the planet, said that Machida dictated the first fight against Rua because he backed away.  He just ignored aggression.  Let's have some continuity people.