What is your take on UFC 123?

BJ Penn's win. Luck? Skill? Going to end his career in Welterweight with a run at the top?

How does George Sotiropoulus keep winning?

How did you score the Jackson vs Machida fight?

Penn has gone back to his old training camp, no more super workouts, just fighting, I see him making a run in either division...

Jackson vs. Machida was a no brainer, when Jackson's jaw hit the mat after the decision and then he immediately offers Machida a rematch even though it would not be his preference otherwise, it tells you a lot about who really won. Machida clearly landed more strikes in the first round, even though Jackson was the aggressor. Second round was close and could have gone either way, even though Machida again landed more strikes; Machida annihilated Jackson in the 3rd. This was the worst case of a fighter being robbed than I've ever seen. It's not like the first Machida Rua fight, where fans where divided pretty evenly. How does one judge score 30-27 Machida and the other 2 29-28 Jackson, were they watching 2 different fights???

The message the judges sent was; a fighter cannot have an elusive style (essentially his Karate background), they all have to be white knuckle brawlers (risking injury) to get their vote...rediculous, It's happened a few too many times lately...Total BS

What do you think about changing the point system then? I find that this guy's comments(from mmajunkie.com) to be very interesting. It would push a fighter to actually fight 3 rounds instead of winning the first two and playing 100% defense. It probably doesn't solve the problem of awarding points based on aggressiveness as was the case in the Jackson Machida fight. I find his comments interesting none the less: UFC 123 MAIN EVENT PROVES IT'S TIME FOR A SCORING CHANGE The 10-point-must scoring system doesn’t cut it for MMA. Saturday night, it once again failed to give the win to the person who deserved it. Winning two rounds marginally should not guarantee you a decision, especially if you lose the third round decisively. A scoring system needs to be found that allows a fight to be looked at as a whole and not as three or five separate parts – a 100-point-must system. Judges would divide up a hundred points between the two fighters; close rounds would be scored 55 to 45, all the way down to (the unheard of) 95 to 5. In Saturday night’s fight between "Rampage" Jackson and Lytoto Machida, the first two round were close, but in Rampage's favor, so 55-45 by all three judges leaves Rampage winning 330-270. Third round was all Machida, so a 75-25 round would have stolen the fight 495-405 for Machida. George "hugefightfan" Wells Ajax, Ontario, Canada

I do agree with the 100 point system, but I don't think it would have made much of a difference in last nights fight as 2 of the judges were likely ogling over their Rampage Jackson action figures. The big problem with judging is that many judges don't understand the sport, they need more education and training. The sport is too political, the states control judging and refeeing...whereas I think the promotion should have more say...

I did not realize that the States control the judging... There is no doubt that there is more emphasis on aggressive fighting... how does one fix that? Training? This sport has the potential to become one of the biggest ever. I don't want to see it ruined by judging decisions.

I think the fans need to be educated too. There's a difference between strategy and avoidance/stalling in the ring...too many fans just want to see a brawl, like the guys who go to see a fight and then a hockey game breaks out. Many guys think wrestling is what they do in the WWF (or what ever it's called now)...

As someone who isn't a UFC fan but occasionally catches the PPVs I thought Machida should have won that fight, although I can see how the judges could have given it to Jackson. The first round could have gone either way and Jackson seemed to win the second, the thrid was easily Machida's but I can see Jackson winning the other two.

I don't think the 10 point scoring system works at all for MMA, especially in a fight like that when both fighters stay on their feet and spend a good part of each round each round posturing and feigning for position and there's only three or four meaningful exchanges in each round, it just comes down to a crapshoot for the judges and the fans. I don't know enough about MMA to suggest a better alternative, but from what I have seen there's definitely something wrong with the scoring system. A fight and a result like the Machida Jackson fight is almost enough to put off someone like me who isn't a commited fan but is somewhat interested in the sport and occasionally watches events. When your main event is verging on boring and comes down to controversial/bad judging it's not a great way to gain new fans.

That's weird??? Fight Metric has Machida landing shots 12-5 in the first round and 8-7 in the second...pretty well the way I saw it. Rampage threw way more punches, but they did not land. Lesson for the aspiring MMA fighter. Throw so many punches that the judges can't help but to notice you were way bussier...

http://www.fightofthenight.com/news/...avors-machida/

BJ got lucky, that doesn't take away from his training, or skills. He threw a punch that luckily hit Hughes in the right spot at the right time to drop him. Any time a fight between to equally skilled fighters ends that fast it's usually more luck than skill.

As for Machida and Rampage, I thought it was a draw. MMA is in a tough spot right now, because wrestlers are dominating the sport, but they make for boring matches that few people can appreciate or want to see. If you never wrestled you can't appreciate the skills and strength it takes to maintain a dominant position on another fighter of equal weight. I think MMA needs to adopt PRIDE rules to ensure both fighters are fighting to finish the fight not just stall. Bring back the yellow and red cards, and fine fighers who intentionally stall.

The problem is with fighters like Machida who's fighting style is to be a counter-puncher. Boxing has this problem all the time, put two counter punchers in the ring and no one throws the first punch, or one has to go outside their comfort zone to force the fight and risk losing. In these cases it's up to promotions in the MMA to match up Machida against fighters that will ensure there's a good fight if that's what they are concerned about.

Where Pride rules would have the greatest impact would be fights like Gonclave vs. Harris at 123. Gonclaves dominated the first two rounds and avoided contact the 3rd. This is where the yellow cards and red cards would have their greatest value. If Gonclave was fighting in Pride he would have gotten both cards and lost at least 10% of his purse for what he did in the 3rd. Dana White needs to understand that while the bonuses are nice, many fighters don't believe they are worth the risk of losing and getting kicked out of the UFC.

Im sorry but your opinion on the Jackson Machida fight is almost completely wrong. Heres the stats Jackson 70 Strikes landed Machida 50. Machida only landed 3 kicks in the first round. Machida also ran away for the first 2 rounds and only showed up to fight in the 3rd he looked scared of Jackson. Dana even got mad at Rampage for acting like he lost when in Dana's eyes and the Judges Eyes Rampage clearly one. Also it was 29-28 Jacks 29-28 machida 29-28 Jackson no1 scored it 30-27. In the UFC you cant run away for 2/3rds teh fighg it scored on each round individually so wining 1/3rd the fight is not enough to win it and he def. didnt win that 3rd round 10-8. It was only a solid 10-9.

I like many people had it 2-1 Rampage. However, if you want to say that Machida did more in the 3rd than Rampage did all fight Id have to agree. However that is not how fighg is scored and thus Machida didnt "win" or get "robbed" now if the rules more like Pride or Amatuer Boxing then you would have a case. But that is not how it went down. Maybe this is good Maybe it will teach Machida(Who I really like) that he cant run away for 2/3rds of the fight anymore and to bring it from the start. edit: Source: FightMetric.com

WOW!!! There is a difference between total strikes and significant strikes. Total strikes are basically punches and kicks thrown; significant strikes are the ones that land. You are describing the total strikes thrown, not landed. You should start out by reading the article I linked, It will explain it to you. I'm not nearly completely wrong, my stats are from FightMetirc. I can see how you might be confused, but you should get your facts straight before you post so confidently.

As for Dana, he is a fight Promoter first (CEO second). No real martial artist gives a crap what he thinks (unless they are trying to get into the promotion), Dana's Job is to sell the fight. Rampage is a real fighter and obviously a stand up fighter. He was in the ring at the time, I think he knows what went down. The crowds reaction was also pretty telling. Even fans for Rampage saw that it was messed up. If you think Machida was afraid of Jackson, you know nothing about him and the sport. I've seen every one of his fights, even before the UFC. He has a significant Karate background, his style is to be elusive and find opening, this has nothing do with being afraid. No fighter that is afraid makes lunging knee strikes, which he did in the first round. Machida has a style that is unlike most other MMA fighters, most fighters with Karate background do not see success in the ring. JSP has a very similar style when standing (also Karate background), only he's worked a ton on his wrestling, so he takes his opponent down way more. I won't disagree that Machida is boring for the guy who does not appreciate his style, but you should speak for yourself, not everyone...

It doesnt matter how much people like Machidas style. Unless he or the Rules change then he loses that fight 10 out of 10 times. I may have come across wrongly in my first post (mostly from reading this on basically every MMA site I go to). I actually think fights should be based on the whole fight not scored each round individually and then Machida would have won. But thats just not the way it is so Machida didnt win he lost. But if the rules were even slightly different he woudlve won.

I just hope it teaches Machida to be more aggressive because we all know what happens when you lose 3fights in a row in the ufc.

I'm seriously having a difficult time understanding your point of view. First you say Machida lost based on being out struck in round 1 and 2, but now you know this is not true, based on the source you quoted. Unless the rules change, he loses the fight??? What rules, he out struck Rampage in all 3 rounds according to a credible source (clearly 2 rounds anyway)...the officiating was bad and this opinion is shared by many insiders. "Machida will have been tought to be more aggressive as a result of this fight". Why??? His style has worked for 16 fights, Rua 1 was very close and he was knocked out in Rua 2; this is the only fight he lost due to not being aggressive (as per your definition). "It doesn't matter how much people like Machida's style. Unless he changes or the rules change, he will loose the fight 10 out of 10 times"??? How is this? He lost one fight due to 2 judges not liking his style, how is this a precursor to all of his future fights??? Further, those 2 judges had little experience judging MMA fights, they are boxing judges for the most part. All athletic commissions sanction fights and have control over the judging. If this fight was in Vegas, it's very unlikely Machida would have lost. Michigan has not had a major MMA event in over a decade. Bottom line is the officiating was bad...

Of course anyone can have an opinion about how they'd like to see the sport evolve, but to say he lost because of his style is not right...his style had him undefeated for 16 fight, it only hurt him once due to unexperienced judges. The experienced judge scored the fight as FightMetric did...

There's more to the judging criteria in an MMA bout than striking, there's who's the aggressor (Rampage), who maintained Octagon control (Rampage). The way I saw it, the match could have gone either way, I'd have called it a draw. Machida's style depends on his opponent to push the action, which means if he can't stop his opponent or clearly dominate with counter strikes he's going to lose fights.

UnExperienced Judges? Well why dont you call up the UFC an volunteer then. Im pretty sure that they have made a point that if its a close fight but you are not aggressive enough that there is a good chance the decision will go against you. It has happened before it will happen again. I would like an immediate rematch and you know what I bet happens? Machida attacks rampage and gets a first or second round TKO. But he lost that fight due to lack of aggressiveness. Lets not forget "Octogon Control and Aggresssivness" in the description of how fights are scored.

You cant say Machida wasnt backing off for the entire first 2 rounds. Likely cost him the those 2 rounds in the eyes of the judges. I get it you <3 Machida but you have to admit that he could've fought better not just blame it on solely being a bad decision.

Are you serious in the way you're thinking??? The UFC has absolutley nothing to do with Judging, there are plenty of Youtube video's where Dana complains about the poor judging and the publics perception that they have anything to do with judging. There have been times where new States have sanctioned events and the judges had never judged an MMA even before. Some states even differ where a round can be scored as low as 7 whereas others have a limit of 8. When an event is sactioned, the athletic commission provides score cards to the judges which requries them to judge based on a set of criteria from most important to least, the are as follows (taken from the NSAC and borrowed from a MMA forum)

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 Only effective aggressiveness counts, so if you shoot in and are unsucsessful, you not only get no credit, your oponent gets credit for Octagon control. FightMetrics shows Machida winning every round in striking and grappling; even if Jackson won the 2 last categories in the judges eyes, it would not have been enough...that said, Machida still would have been credited with Octagon control as he won the grappling and successfully fended off Jacksons uneffective aggression. Remember, It's effective strikes, grappling, Octagon contro and aggression. I fighter can swing as much as he want and push the pace, but if it is not effective...it does not count; fending off, whether it's ducking or backing up is a form of octagon control... As for Machida's style, it is very effective (even if boring for some), it's worked for 16 wins in a row and unfortunately it hurt him in one where the judges lacked experience...he needs to change nothing... The proplem with opinion is if you don't know how the fights are judged and what the criteria is...you will see the fight completey different

here is a UFC contest that is free to enter. Shogun Rua championship fight and an all inclusive trip to the Dominican! http://www.mymonkeydisco.com/blog/2011/01/31/Ampli5-contest-info.aspx