« Dave Meltzer: Ronda Rousey is the number five PPV draw in UFC | Home | The accuracy of fans vs. professional judges scoring fights? There’s an App for that »
The Doug Marshall fight scoring dilemma (Bellator)
By Zach Arnold | March 8, 2013
On Thursday afternoon, Nick Diaz ranted and raved on a conference call about the current state of Mixed Martial Arts.
“This is mixed martial arts some boring a** s*** we’re watching,” he said. “I like Georges. I’m a fan of Georges St-Pierre. I appreciate everything he does, and how he does everything to win, and it meets the scoring criteria that sucks. It really f****d it up for everybody, makes it especially about the strong wrestlers.”
“People will see mixed martial arts for what it is and what it used to be,” he said. “They’ve manipulated it, the scoring, the judging system. I think they should take the elbows out, too. It nullifies the action. That’s how it works. One day people are going to realize it, and realize that this motherf**** was saying it the whole time.”
Timing is everything in life and Nick picked the perfect time to sound off. On Thursday night, Bellator ran an event from Pechanga in Temecula, California and one of the Spike TV fights was Doug Marshall vs. Sultan Aliev. Classic striker vs. take-down-and-stall style clash. Even Marshall, ahead of fight time, said he was dreading the prospects of what would happen in the fight.
The fight turned out to be a painful eyesore to watch and a nightmare for Sam Caplan.
Bellator has been on a hot streak lately when it comes to bringing the violence on their shows. Before the Marshall Aliev bout, 91% fan favorite Brett Cooper escaped with a victory over Dan Cramer. Cooper was losing the first two rounds and was gassed… until he nailed Cramer with a shot and then pounded with a few more punches before John McCarthy stopped the fight. The fans erupted and Cooper was crying.
Then came Sultan Aliev vs. Doug Marshall and Herb Dean as the referee. R1 was dominated by Aliev in boring fashion. R2 saw Marshall rock Aliev but continue to get taken down. R2 was the swing round. The fans thought Aliev won the round, while Bellator commentator Jimmy Smith scored it for Marshall. R3 was a round where Marshall was voicing his frustration to Herb Dean about Aliev taking him down and doing absolutely nothing with the top position. Marshall was correct. The problem is that Marshall had no answer for Aliev taking him down in the first place. It was a nightmare scenario that Nick Diaz was yelling about earlier in the day.
It seemed a fait a’ccompli that the judges would score the fight 29-28 for Sultan Aliev. Like a 90% chance of it happening.
However, this is California and the commission can’t seem to have a show that doesn’t have some sort of controversy or authority figure suffering from heartburn over a bad decision being made.
Judge Lester Griffin scored the fight 30-27 in favor of Aliev. He gave the swing round to Aliev. I wouldn’t score it that way personally, but there is a legitimate case to be made for scoring it 30-27. A difference of opinion, but understandable.
Judges Mike Beltran (King of the Cage referee famous for his crazy beard) and Jackie Denkin scored the fight 29-28… in favor of Doug Marshall. The defense of this scoring is much, much more difficult to justify than Griffin’s 30-27 score card for Aliev. At no point during the fight did Marshall display any sort of ability to stop the takedowns. He got a few shots in and justifiably won R2, but that’s about it. At the end of R3, Marshall went for a flying knee but Aliev flopped to the mat to avoid the shot in a kind of performance that Manu Ginobli would be proud of.
During the television broadcast, you could feel the internal angst & conflict from Sean Wheelock and Jimmy Smith. The fight was hideous to watch and the outcome seemed relatively clear as to who would win on points based on the Unified Rules.
“Jimmy and I have long learned, don’t speculate on judges’ score cards.”
When the score was read in favor of Marshall by split decision… the fans at Pechanga were happy. Doug Marshall was ecstatic. The Bellator TV crew wasn’t sure what to make of it. Sultan Aliev walked out of the cage pissed. Gamblers who bet on the fight and lost money on the decision were pissed. And you know what? Everyone’s reaction is reasonable here. I don’t blame Marshall for being thrilled with the decision. I don’t blame Aliev for being upset. He had every right to be.
Mike Beltran and Jackie Denkin, in my opinion, made the wrong call here. If you scored the fight based on emotion, I can understand giving Marshall the nod and not rewarding the hard-to-watch fight style of Sultan Aliev. However, if you applied that kind of logic to scoring Ben Askren’s previous fights, he would have lost at least half of his bouts. The rules are the rules here. Aliev did what he had to do to win the fight on points. It was painful to watch and a crowd-killer for sure, but the rules on the books are what they are.
When Andy Foster gets back to the Sacramento office on Monday, I think he has to make phone calls to Mike Beltran and Jackie Denkin to review the scoring for that fight. Whether the Executive Director chalks up the scoring to a difference of opinion or something more serious that results in pulling Beltran & Denkin off of some shows for a while, I’m not sure what call should be made there. However, an evaluation is in order.
I am reminded of what Teddy Atlas has been recently preaching on television, which is some sort of real-time fan scoring system to replace the judges being used by athletic commission. Teddy makes the case that the fans often get the scoring right on many more occasions than the commission judges do.
In the case of Marshall/Aliev, Bellator’s App allowed fans to score the fight — and the consensus was 29-28 Aliev with the swing round of R2 going to Aliev. However, they gave R3 to Doug Marshall. By that curious round scoring, you can make both a case for Lester Griffin’s 30-27 scoring and the 29-28 scoring for Marshall (the two outliers to a standard 29-28 score in favor of Aliev) based on the way you scored R2.
Think about it this way — because the fans said Marshall won R3, then Beltran & Denkin can claim that Marshall got the swing round (R2) and thus there’s your 29-28 decision. Griffin can say, hey, if you give Aliev R3 then R1 & swing round R2 gets you 30-27. The way the fans scored the fight on the App gave the two outliers some cover here for what should be a run-of-the-mill 29-28 Aliev win. More details at MMA Decisions.
Cooper and Marshall will face other in the Bellator tournament finals.
Topics: Bellator, CSAC, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 50 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Marshall winning wasn’t a horrible decision. His opponent was literally backing away and trying to avoid fighting.
Is it me or is the talent levels in these tournaments getting worse? If Bellator’s idea is to build stars internally, then they need to fill these tournaments up with a higher level of fighter.
Bellator is 92 shows in and Ben Saunders and Doug Marshall are Top 5 fighters as Welterweight and Middleweight respectively. That is horrible.
It would seem like real prospects are now afraid to sign with Bellator…. as outside of Russia…. none of them are entering the toughest tournament in sports….
If you mean Aliev was taking Marshall down and stalling, yes. But backing away? He got clipped a couple of times, but that was about it.
Again, no cheers at all for Aliev’s performance. But by the book, he won the fight.
I agree that if you are going by the rules that Aliev won. And by the rules Guida beat Maynard. But this is still a fight. And no matter what the rules, if a fighter avoids trying to fight it will hurt him on the judges scorecards. The judges are human and nobody wants to see that sort of garbage in MMA.
But you just made my point for me — you have to separate the personal from the professional when you are an MMA judge.
I am surprised that you name dropped Guida/Maynard in the same breath as Marshall/Aliev, though…
I know I am making your point. My point is that it just doesn’t matter. The judges are human and don’t want to see that garbage in the sport. And no matter what the rules are, they are going to find a way to give the guy who actually wants to fight the win.
And at the end of the day…. If the fans are happy…. The promoter is happy…. The AC is happy…. And the judges are happy…. There is nobody left to complain except the fighter who came to a fight and tried not to fight. And he will be complaining to deaf ears…
@45 but that is a bit of a slippery slope though…I mean wouldn’t a lot of fans, the promoter, etc. have been happy if Nick Diaz beat Condit on the scorecards? There was some argument (however small/unrealistic) that you could have scored it for Diaz and the GSP-Diaz fight is a bigger sell and more people like Diaz…under your logic that would also justify a bad decision.
The problem is they need to fix the rules and scoring system – 99% of it is to just make it absolutely clear as to what is going to be scored/penalized/recognized in mma’s 10-pt must system.
IMO what you’re really saying is that the PRIDE judging system is the best…and I know you wouldnt agree with that!
Pride judging the fight on a whole… And then having basically a system that they can pick whoever they want to win was bad.
But there are some elements of Pride’s scoring system that should absolutely be ported over to the 10 Point Must System. A fighter making a serious effort to end the fight should absolutely be given a better chance of winning under the rules. I know when I score a fight, 8 out of 10 times the guy moving forward gets an automatic slight advantage in my eyes. And I know even in boxing the judges often give the advantage in close rounds to the fighter moving forward. They even talk about it on the HBO Telecasts like it is a fact.
As for the Condit/Diaz fight…. Condit was backing away and then during each exchange getting the better of Diaz (on a whole) and then getting out of harms way. It is very different compared to what we saw at Bellator last night. Condit was being technical…. Aviev was avoiding. And it is one of the few times where the guy going backwards did enough in each exchange for me to award him the majority of rounds.
**********
Really at the end of the day…. These borderline/bad decisions between guys who don’t matter in the rankings don’t get me too mad. Just like the Gomi/Sanchez fight. That fight was a bad decision. But neither of them will be fighting for a title again, so who really cares. It is a bad decision with basically no ramifications.
Bad decisions in title fights or between two guys who are trying to win and fight for the championship…. Those are the bad decisions that really irk me as a fan.
IF you go by the rules, Maynard beat Guida. He outstruck him in three out of the five rounds.
this post, even more than most of your other drivel, makes me do this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
your inconsistency and hypocrisy is astounding.
“The judges are human and don’t want to see that garbage in the sport.”
But their job is to set aside “being human” for two hours and neutrally score by the rules
Like a robot
A soldier at war cannot consider his enemies wife and children and dog or he would not be able to do his job and would get killed
Every time the judges are “being human” and “not wanting to see that garbage” they are failing to fulfill the requirements of the job
Thats the point
In fact it may be that referring to them as “judges” is an unfortunate choice of title
They should not really be “judging” anything,
including who was more popular
They should be score keepers
I pointed that out to you about 6 topics ago that Bellator competition is lacking. but its just not Bellator. Its all around the world for some reason. About 1-2 percent of the fighters UFC, Bellator or any outsider organization finds will have end up being a superstar. Gone are the days of invinicble fighter, undefeated auras and etc.
I don’t think the UFC’s that bad. They certainly have a lot of muck at the bottom and I am in favor of them making cuts.
I think the UFC is strongest with 20 fighters at Heavyweight & Flyweight…. 30 fighters at Light Heavyweight & Bantamweight…. And about 40 fighters at Middleweight, Welterweight, Lightweight, & Featherweight.
So excluding the females, that is a roster of 260 fighters tops. I think every fight will at least be of a solid “quality”. But as you pointed out…. The number of superstar level guys like a Silva or GSP…. They are completely rare.
Right now I watch some of the UFC Facebook Prelims and some of the Bellator main cards and just shake my head at how bad it is.
“being a superstar.”
What does superstar mean?
A fighter who can beat an endless parade of hand picked or underwhelming comp at his leisure and becomes popular for it?
You could take anybody and do that
Do you mean a guy who genuinely can not be beat on a bad night, in a bad matchup or by a steady diet of legitimate comp?
That probably never existed
Not longer then a year or two I’d guess
Yes, a legit guy who can not be beaten on a bad night. in a bad matchup and has fought legit competition from start to end. A guy who comes off as if he has no flaws, hasnt been knocked out or submitted and can make things look far too easy in the ring/cage.
Handpicked thing exist in lower organizations. But talking about a major company finding a monster who has tools to come off as invinicble/dominating fighter even in dangerous situations.
Then again we still do have a guy like Jon Jones is still in that mold.
UFC Huddle crying as usual. Frodo looked awesome last night and Cooper is building a fanbase on his way through this tournament.
Fightopinion needs more Bellator discussion in its own subject heading like this…
How am I crying? If Cooper vs Marshall is the best Bellator can do at building a title contender…. Then they need to do MUCH MUCH better.
They really should scoop up all those ufc castaways like Fitch
It wasn’t so long ago that Nick Diaz was a UFC castaway
Those are still top level guys from a sport wide perspective
Bjorn wisely took Killa B and various other ex-ufc and Sf fighters
He’s being a dipisht to get all snitty and say that he”s not interested now
Dallas Winston at Bloodyelbow.com scored it for Marshall.
Lol
You said bloodyelbow
Perhaps it’s time where we say
“We keep exciting fighters and win/losses do not matter as much”
If you do that, you probably can’t say that you have the “best” fighters in the world, but you can say you’ve got the “most exciting” fighters in the world.
Which would you guys rather see:
a) Best Fighters In The World
b) Most Exciting Fighters In The World
Let me know in the comments.
Zach,
You got it right. The fight was not pretty to watch but no way should Marshal have gotten the nod. He should not be rewarded for having the inability to stop the wrestling and take downs of Aliev. It’s a prizefight not charity.
I also thought Herb Dean did Aliev a real disservice by calling for a standup with 12 seconds left in rounds 2 and 3.
That decision really was a travesty. Doug Marshall was on the ground complaining rather than doing anything to stop the takedown. This coupled with the crowd booing persuaded Herb Dean to stand the fight up TWICE at the end of rounds for no real reason. I mean really, standing them up with 9 seconds left in the 3rd round??? By round 3 Aliev was completely gassed which is why he did barely anything but still managed to score 3 takedowns and maintain control of Doug. I absolutely HATE when stand up fighters complain about being taken down during the fight. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
Fight stats ended at somewhere around Aliev with 77 strikes landed and 8 takedowns. Marshall at 26 with 0 takedowns, not even considering the time that Aliev maintained control over Marshall.
Regardless of what a judge thinks is a fun fight to watch, the fight should be judged based on the guidelines set forth by the Athletic Commission, not based on an emotional response from the judges. It is not the judges job to decide who in their opinion “deserves” to win, but who EARNED a victory.
“…Aliev flopped to the mat to avoid the shot in a kind of performance that Manu Ginobli would be proud of.”
Ha!
Greetings Zach. I’ve long called you the most under-rated writer in MMA and even once applied for a job with FO back when I was writing for TheGarv.com.
Being the lone media source giving the nod to Marshall, I just wanted to share my reasoning. I’m speaking “naked,” i.e. I haven’t rewatched after seeing the fight live.
My basis was that Marshall’s offense, though obviously lesser in volume, was by far the most effective. I realize “effective” is probably the most subjective measure in the unified rules, and actually appreciate that flexibility in the rules.
I didn’t weigh Aliev’s takedowns heavily because they didn’t lead to much effective or threatening offense, and certainly didn’t give him credit for initiating a stalemate by clinging to Marshall in the midst of a mere attempt; in other words, I don’t interpret trying really hard for a takedown for prolonged periods as a successful TD attempt nor one that leads to effective offense.
The end result of Aliev’s persistence was a small portion of time in half and side control with busy but short and less than threatening GnP. I did recognize the brief 3rd-round encounter where he took Marshall’s back, but the position broke almost immediately.
To summarize, scoring a round is about contrasting the amount of effective offense. I don’t think it’s inconceivable to emphasize Marshall’s lesser but more threatening offense over Aliev’s high quantity/low effectiveness output. However, even though I don’t feel it did, I could never assuredly state that the emotion-factor you mention didn’t play into my score, even if it was subconsciously or unintentional.
I don’t understand how you can give the 3rd round (which is the real point of contention here) to Marshall. He was neutralized the entire round, even if Aliev did little with cage and ground control.
Marshall’s unprofessional whining and pandering to the crowd influenced you, Herb Dean, and the judge’s decision.
“I’M JUST TRYING TO GIVE EVERYONE WHAT THEY WANT, A FUN STAND UP BRAWL, WHICH JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE THE PLACE I HOLD AN OVERWHELMING ADVANTAGE OVER MY OPPONENT.. I’m doing it for the fans!”
Didn’t you just give me a reason though?
“I don’t understand how you can give the 3rd round (which is the real point of contention here) to Marshall. He was neutralized the entire round, even if Aliev did little with cage and ground control.”
“Neutralizing” someone doesn’t score. It just prohibits them from scoring, and scoring (i.e. mounting effective offense/striking/grappling) is how you win fights. Plus you admitted he did “little with cage/ground control,” which is always secondary to effective striking/grappling.
So I weighed the high volume of 3-4″ (ineffective) hammer-fists, a brief moment of side control and literally a second or two of taking the back vs. Marshall’s power shots on the feet. Hell, the flurry of GnP landed in the last few seconds was more effective and significant than those spurts of pitter patter.
I’m not trying to prove I’m right; just reinforcing my thoughts.
Also Dallas, you should add the .com to your website URL so that BloodyElbow gets the SEO love despite the fact that these links are nofollow and BE probably isn’t hurting for traffic
BREAKING NEWS!
Nick Diaz doesn’t care for wrestlers!
Thats all I could really glean out of that quote
The rest sounded like the manic ramblings of a mad
man
(I’m not convinced that smoking pot is the proper medical treatment for whatever syndrome it is that afflicts Nick Diaz)
“It was painful to watch and a crowd-killer for sure, but the rules on the books are what they are.”
Sounds more like a failure of matchmaking
It was a dumb idea to put a striker with no takedown defense against a wrestler with no striking
(Huh?!)
And as far as what to do with sultan,
if he has absolutely no offense other then takedowns as is so dreadful to watch,
DONT BOOK HIM
There
That wasn’t that hard
Let him know that you are interested in his winning wrestling,
but that he needs to add some more tools to the toolbox before you’re interested in employing him
He doesn’t have to become Bernard Hopkins overnight,
but he needs to learn how to punch someone one way or the other
just like everybody else
And he’ll either do that or he wont
Everyone else not named Ronda Rousey at least
The user community on our mobile scoring app had it 30-27 for Aliev. We’ve been up and running since October and I have noticed that the crowd sourced scores are usually pretty spot on. the name of the app is iJudgeFights if you’re interested (it’s free).
[…] Zach discussed the main event from last night’s Bellator card, and in particular how the fight was scored: I am reminded of what Teddy Atlas has been recently preaching on television, which is some sort of […]
I have no problem with Marshall winning because Aliev was backing a majority of the fight and stalling more in the later stages. If he was more active there would be no debate but he was just stalling.
Bellator did 741,000 and once again did not rank in the Top 100 Cable Shows on Thursday in the key demographic.
It seems like they are on an every other week trend of actually getting into the Top 100.
It also seems when they have a spike (no pun intended) in their ratings, there is no reason for it based on the card.
I hope there isn’t a reason (fight card wise) for their every-other-week spikes, otherwise we would have to call Christian M’Pumbu one of their biggest draws! YIKES!!
I had it 29-28 Aliev, but just like the Maynard/Guida fight, I had little problem with the deserving winner to get jobbed out. I consider myself a Ben Askren fan, but if you fight/grapple like Aliev did then you MUST dominate bell to bell. Same deal with defensive boxer types in boxing. Pernell Whitaker is one of the greatest boxers ever. But some of his fights he didn’t quite dominate, and was, thereby, screwed on the scorecards in some of his fights. You fight like that, you have to dominate. Juan Manuel Marquez can attest to this.
I think the ‘Spike’ in the numbers two weeks ago was likely due to the high entertainment value of the previous weeks show. It was a helluva good event, headkick knockouts, leg lock subs; it had it all.
I sorta thought it might help bring in a few new viewers. It looked to me like it did.
Programming on some other channels can change from week to week as well having different effects on the ratings, especially sports programming.
@ 45 Huddle:
“Pride judging the fight on a whole… And then having basically a system that they can pick whoever they want to win was bad.”
Agreed. That would result in less accountability because the judge could just say, “Hey, after all was said and done, I thought this guy deserved it.” And if you score 3 rounds properly, the result shouldn’t vary from scoring the fight as a whole.
“But there are some elements of Pride’s scoring system that should absolutely be ported over to the 10 Point Must System. A fighter making a serious effort to end the fight should absolutely be given a better chance of winning under the rules.”
That’s already in the 10PM though. The individual has the freedom to decide what was more effective, and offense that’s more significant or has a greater chance of finishing the fight can and SHOULD be prioritized higher.
“I know when I score a fight, 8 out of 10 times the guy moving forward gets an automatic slight advantage in my eyes. And I know even in boxing the judges often give the advantage in close rounds to the fighter moving forward. They even talk about it on the HBO Telecasts like it is a fact.”
Why though? What tangible advantage is produced from “walking forward more”? None. And that’s the misnomer about aggression and “trying to finish” … aggression is moving forward AND mounting offense, not just moving forward. Trying to finish the fight isn’t moving forward, that’s TRYING to engage more often/aggressively. The only tries/attempts that even score are threatening submission attempts.
Condit/Diaz is the perfect argument against that. Diaz was constantly walking forward but Condit picked his spots and landed more/more effective strikes. It’s demonstrating effective offense vs. effective offense, and I don’t consider what direction a fighter is moving in or how many times he forces a grappling battle as important as landing heavy strikes, threatening with submissions or achieving unquestionably dominant positions.
All things being equal in a round…. Same number of Strikes and grappling techniques…. Who are you going to give the round to? The man moving forward, right?
So then it becomes…. How far can that take them? If all things being equal the man moving forward gets hit by 2 more strike the entire round…. The guy moving forward is still likely to win the round. It’s been proven time and time again with the way most judges score the rounds (even the good ones).
So aggression does matter, especially in close rounds. It just becomes a debate of how far that can take the fighter. Obviously if they only hit their opponent with 50% of the strikes they received, moving forward is not going to win them the round.
Judges like aggressive fighters. And they will typically award close rounds to them. Which means if a fighter is not being aggressive, it is there job to create enough of a gap in offensive effectiveness to counteract that aggression.
And the Diaz/Condit fight is absolutely a great example of the fighter going backwards winning the majority of the rounds. But you don’t see those types of fights very often. During that entire fight, Condit would walk backwards…. wait for the exchange to start…. win the vast majority of the exchanges…. and then circle away to avoid it becoming a slugfest. Condit is a perfect example of how a fighter can not be the aggressor and still dominate a fight. But most fights don’t go down like that.
“All things being equal in a round…. Same number of Strikes and grappling techniques…. Who are you going to give the round to? The man moving forward, right?”
Why would anyone do that? The entire premise of that hypothetical situation is “all things being equal in a round” which is the exact definition of a 10-10 round. So that’s how I’d score it.
And I never said aggression doesn’t matter, I pointed out that the unified rules’ definition of aggression is too often confused with Webster’s. One must couple effective offense with moving forward in order to score for effective aggression, and the same really applies to control, which is why I find both entirely superfluous and generally just score the effective offense.
As for your closing description about Condit x Diaz, I just think that was an excellent demonstration of winning control on the feet and being more EFFECTIVELY aggressive. Moving forward doesn’t dictate aggression; you have to mount offense, and that’s what Condit was doing, along with dictating the striking exchanges through cerebral movement.
10-10?
I always laugh when I see websites give a 10-10 round. Judges almost never give out 10-10 rounds. So in the REAL world application of judging…. a round in which 2 fighters do the same damage…. The fighter who is more aggressive is going to win.
“which is why I find both entirely superfluous and generally just score the effective offense.”
So you admit you are not scoring it based on the unified rules. Effective Aggression is not the same thing as effective striking or effective grappling under the rules and should not be used so when judging the fight.
Annnnnnnnnnnnnd in this thread, 45 Huddle demonstrates the idiotic mentality often displayed by judges that awarded Leonard Garcia a decision win over Chan Sung Jung and Diego Sanchez over Martin Kampmann. Good show.
Um no.
Garcia should have lost the majority of those fights he lost. Many of those are just bad judges decisions.
Who was that goofey looking old inspector who kept mugging for the camera after the Marshall fight. Hope Andy sees how poorly that reflects on his people.
[…] The Doug Marshall fight scoring dilemma (Bellator) | […]
@45 Huddle
Glad I checked back.
“10-10?
I always laugh when I see websites give a 10-10 round. Judges almost never give out 10-10 rounds.”
Isn’t it somewhat ironic that your first paragraph haughtily denounces 10-10 rounds and your 2nd accuses ME of not following the rules? I feel I follow the guidelines more specifically than most.
The URs state: “A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round.” So, when I interpret a round that way, I score it 10-10 per the unified rules. Refusing to score 10-10 rounds is quite blatantly veering from them. I’m still utterly confused by this stance and how widespread it is.
“So you admit you are not scoring it based on the unified rules. Effective Aggression is not the same thing as effective striking or effective grappling under the rules and should not be used so when judging the fight.”
I already clarified this and you continue to misinterpret.
The URs state: “Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike or takedown.” I’m emphasizing the key qualifier of that rule that many overlook, which is that aggression only scores if it’s coupled with effective offense. So everyone who scores “for the guy moving forward” is doing so incorrectly if that forward movement is devoid of effective offense.
I wonder what Huddle will counter with. Huddle does have a history of misinterpreting some things he reads. Never makes an apology about it.
From an Australian point of view (non biased) there is no way marshall should have won the fight against aliev.
Amazing! Its really amazing piece of writing, I have got much
clear idea regarding from this post.
Also visit my site: natural Leather