UFC 123 Main Event Breakdown: Rampage vs. Machida By The Numbers
There have been many complaints about MMA’s scoring system for years now and Saturday night was just the latest chapter in this ongoing saga.
It seems as though the UFC 123 headliner between Quinton “Rampage” Jackson and Lyoto Machida has sparked many complaints about a fight being fixed and this seems to be because many believe Machida won the fight and because of Rampage’s exclamation that “Machida whipped my ass tonight.”
With that said let us look at the fight by the numbers provided by FightMetric.com:
Round 1: The fight metric scoring system scores the round for Rampage due to Rampage outstriking Lyoto 26-16 and zero grappling attempts by either fighter. Using the 10-point must system, this leads to a 10-9 round for Rampage.
Round 2: Fight metric scores the round 31-27 under their formula for Rampage, because he outstrikes Machida 28-11 and took Machida down while stuffing Machida’s takedown attempt. That said, Machida’s strikes were almost all power shots, which allowed him keep the round close. However, 31-27 is too close of a round under their formula (due to reasonable standard of error) so the round is given to neither fighter. This results in a 10-10 round.
Round 3: This round was a definitive round for Machida. Machida outstruck Rampage 26-16, landed a takedown, and then attempted an armbar, resulting in the round being given to Machida 10-9 and a 29-29 draw (which is also what MMAFrenzy.com scored the fight live)
Analysis: In the end, the bout went to a draw by the numbers. When you look at the total number of strikes landed Rampage lands 70 to Machida’s 53, but Machida won the significant strikes battle 33-16, which are not easy to judge in person. Rampage stopped two takedowns and gave up one to Machida, while Machida gave up one to Rampage. This made it so the takedown game favored Rampage due to the successful blocks. In addition, Machida attempted the only submission of the night with the third round armbar attempt. So it is easy to see how this fight could be a draw looking at it as a whole.
So why are there complaints about the Machida-Rampage fight being fixed? This could be attributed to something called the “recency effect.” The recency effect is a psychology term used to describe the fact that people remember the end of something more so than the middle. So basically, since the third round was a very decisive round in a fight marked by two close rounds early, people will be more apt to name Machida the “clear” winner. In reality, the numbers favored Rampage in each of the first two rounds (albeit the second was not a significant margin), which means it is easy to see how Machida lost two rounds to one. The recency effect also explains Rampage’s reaction at the end of the bout as well.
Ultimately, it is the perceptions of the three people who are at three different positions around the octagon and turn in their scores at the end of each round. I place special emphasis on “the end of each round,” because judges do not look at the entire fight and then decide how to score each round nor are their cards there in front of them to change a previous round later. I try this method when I watch fights at home and in all honesty, I was shocked by how much different things seem when you try it this way. That said, in a 10-point MUST system, judges seem to already be primed that they MUST award a winner of a round. This can discourage a judge from giving a 10-10 score in a round no matter how close it is. So at this point, it comes back to what the judges see. This presents a problem for a fighter who fights a more passive style, like Machida, in two of the first three rounds because aggression counts for a lot in a closely fought bout.
In the end, if anyone unfairly set the scales against a fighter in this bout it was Machida sabotaging himself, not some judging conspiracy.
MORE: UFC 123 recap, UFC 123 results, UFC 123 coverage
Pictured: Quinton “Rampage” Jackson and Lyoto Machida
Loading ...
machida won in my eyes, i train bjj, boxing, wresting… hears how i see it, and i might be wrong all together or in the eyes of some others… i could give the first round to rampage for shots landed, the second round could have gone either way, the third round cleary machida, he blocked and outstruck rampage and landed heavy hits whiched pushed rampage back and back, then machida scored a takedown, plus got into mount (which should count for another point as well, as in bjj, you get a takedown and hold for a few seconds you get that point, the if you get mount that is another point) but now in bjj you dont get points for attempting any submissions, but as far as takedowns and strikes go, machida all the way plus machida escaped rampage’s takedown later on… but maybe in mma they give points for trying submissions, if so then another point for machida, so clearly how did rampage win, maybe i should just push the pace all the time, why not !!!! either way i like both fighter a lot, there both cool and have different styles, it was a good fight !!!!
interesting, i thought the first round was the visualy closest, and the 2nd rnd was definatly rampage. i gave the 3rd to machida, like evryone did. and as far as machidas “armbar” attempt, did it not put him in as much possible danger as it did rampage? we have all seen the ricardo arona clip. machida hurried that armbar attempt a lil, tried to lock it in, and got crunched up on HIS back (reversal?) and then lifted off the ground in what would have been a slam had machida not let go of the arm and stood back up.
I hear ya but u also get points for escaping bjj and machida clearly wanted no part in the slam he was about to get.
Yup, I concur. I think a 100 point must system would be a lot more accurate, and would make fights more exciting since fighters would be fighting for more points. If I’m losing a round I a 10 point system and there’s a minute left, why not stall to regain energy for a minute? On a 100 point system in the same case and I kept pressing forward I could make the round go from 100 to 90 up to 93 or whatever. Those points might be important later in the fight.
Didn’t pride judges score the whole fight as a whole?
That is the Japanese way of judging a fight. It has its merits, but it also is foreign to the evolution of the fight game in the US with its traditional boxing-style round-by-round method of judging.
CHRISL,
Excellent write up man.
I know i’ve had my share of “bragging”(couldn’t help myself) but in all honesty, it WAS a very close fight.
Using the 10 point MUST system like chrisl explained above imho, rampage won the fight.
Two very important things to consider when judging this fight that you pointed out.
1.) The judges turn in the scores after every round so they can’t change anything at the end of the fight. (which is how it should be)
2.) This “recency effect”(very nice by the way) is so common and could sort of blind someone from seeing what actually happened throughout the whole fight.
We have to remember that every round counts and you can’t score a fight based on the last minutes of the fight no matter how exciting they are.
I think rampage tried not to fight machidas fight but ultimately did anyway by not engaging and exchanging as much as he should have.
Machida fought the way he always fights, which is waiting and countering but since rampage didn’t engage as much and with a boxer with good defense like rampage, it wasn’t as easy to score shots.
Machida should have pushed the pace like he did against rashad and thiago silva and he might have had more success in this fight,
Awesome stuff though chrisL
I have an easy fix…
1. I’ve stated in the past than judges need to score more rounds 10-10. If rounds are that close with no definitive winner, 10-10 rounds should be encouraged.
2. Make the third round a 20 point round. It should be more important anyway. If a fighter loses the first two rounds, but wins the third, it should count just as much. Third rounds would get a lot more exciting.
Let me correct myself…by 20 point round, I meant the round would be scored 20-18, and never 20-19.
you’d have wayyyyyy too many draws that way, and I’m ok with giving draws under normal circumstances… but making it count double would essentially make it a four round fight. We always said in wrestling that the third is where matches are won and it holds true in MMA.
Why is the third round more important than the first or second? Why should you be able to slack for a round or two and still win? No offense, but that is the worst idea I think I’ve ever heard.
quick point, I’m not saying that round is more important. Just saying it’s typically where fights are won and lost anyways so there’s no need to weight it differently.
HAHA..I hear ya, it sounds strange. It just seems that if a fight goes in to the third round, it would be more exciting if there were more of a chance for a come-from-behind victory. Maybe not the best idea, but I DO think there should be more draws. I think the judging puts emphasis on deciding who “won” a round. Sometimes (more times than not) NOBODY clearly won the round. I have no problem with ties. Mathmatically, you would think there would be more draws anyway.
If there were more ties, they might be able to include a Sudden Victory round like on the reality show. Good luck getting the Atletic Commissions to pass it, but still…could be cool.
@GarRule yeah I see what you mean and I do agree there should be more draws but this would create too many.
The sudden victory idea would be impossible to pass due to contractual issues and the fact that the rules would have to change in both boxing and MMA. Boxing still has the influence to keep at what it is.
Is the third round more important? I mean, if it’s close and someone dominates the third round, doesn’t that show better cardio and most of all heart?? I would think the this round is the most important…not that it matters, really. HAHA
well take your plan and look at the Falcao fight… ;)
There are flaws in any scoring plan. Just look at the olympics in wrestling, you win the round based on the points scored in the round but the points no longer carry over to the next. So you could be up 10-1 in one round, lose the next two 1-0 and lose the match even though you outscore the guy 10-3 overall and yes… I am using this as an example of the Machida Rampage fight ;)
since this would cause more draws do u think there should be an overtime round whether it be 3 4 or 5 mins?
#edit
should’ve read all the other posts
Actually, they do have a “Sudden Victory” round. In a 3 round fight, if it is tied at the end of 2 rounds, the winner of the 3rd round wins the fight.
One thing I would like to add, regarding 10-10 rounds. Under the 10 point must system, scoring a 10-10 is allowed, it’s just that within the community of judges, if you score a 10-10 round you are seen as not being able to do your job. The theory is that every round has a winner, even if by a narrow margin, and a judge should be keeping track of who is winning a round as the round progresses. At the the end of the round they should already know who won the round because they were keeping track throughout. Because it is viewed that “every round has a winner” and that judges “should be able to determine that” judges always score a round to someone. Unless the perception that scoring a 10-10 marks incompetence is changes within the judging community, you will never see 10-10s in large volume. As far as public perception is concerned, judges have a hard job to do, and a lot of pressure, but they also feel like the viewing public isn’t in their same position, so that don’t care that the public wants more 10-10, it’s what other judges think and other officials at the athletic commissions think that matters to them.
Thanks for making that point, I should have made that point clearer. Like I said though, I think having must in the title kinda primes judges to make a decision either way and not down the middle. Even when there was no clear winner.
Intersting point Justin. I didn’t know that but it does make some sense.
Welcome back too man I haven’t seen you around!
When you cover local events and get to sit at the table with the judges and talk to them between fights you can learn a lot about the way it works.
Thanks, I’ve been busy.
I had this fight going to Machida….but I have no complaints about it going to Rampage, for the exact reasons outlined above. I personally give more weight to significant strikes, than I to do volume. Mostly because volume could be deceiving….I reference the Sonnen/Silva fight. The pitter-pat shots on the ground, just volume…not a whole lot behind then, it seemed to me. And I do agree that significant strikes, unless you knock a guy down, are harder to score…again, in the Sonnen/Silva fight, where Sonnen was putting Silva on the defensive with his strikes….which I gave some serious weight to.
All in all, if you don’t want controversy, Finish the Fight.
@chrisl -
Excellent stuff, dude.
Overall every sport is plagued by officiating issues, MMA is no different.
We could use a thousand point round system, but we’re never removing the human element from the process, and maybe we shouldn’t.
Ultimately the sport has 2 choices:
The North American point/round system, or the Japanese “who won the fight” system. Both have good and bad points, and both require the judges to have a higher degree of MMA understanding than some judges currently possess.
At the end of the day this is a deal where the fighters, Machida in particular, have no one to blame but themselves for any rendered decision.
The secret is out in that SAC officials are having trouble scoring whats dropping inside of North American cages. Refs are also missing stuff left and right whether the fight be in front of 19,000 or 1900 or 190.
Leaving ANY fight in their hands is a huge mistake IMO. Far better for a fighter to “go for broke” and risk a loss rather than to cruise and hope the judges get things right.
We routinely get shady decisions at every level of the sport from local promotions to the UFC, so the “fixed fight” thing is sort of nonsensical.
For what reason would Jackson-Machida be “fixed”?
To p!mp A-Team 2?
No one would risk the consequences doing something that Hollywood studios pay hundreds of people millions of dollars a year to do.
To ensure an eventual Jackson-Evans rematch?
He11, Dana White can do that on his own with a phone call. No need to swerve the process for that. Its pretty clear that if DW gets a result in a big fight he doesn’t like, he just orders an immediate rematch.
Machida won the Jackson fight in a lot of people’s eyes, but lost the decision.
Machida won the decision in his first Rua scrap, but in a lot of people’s eyes he lost the fight.
Karma? Justice? Coincidence?
Does it really matter with a fight that close?
Can an airtight case be made for Machida’s “win”?
I scored the fight for Machida…from my couch…just like a lot of us did.
And I don’t think I even have to get into the impairment issue for those scoring the fight from the comfort of their barstools.
Maybe there is some sort of personal issue between Machida and Dana White.
We all know by now, or should know by now, that their are guys DW digs and guys he tolerates.
But in no way would any personal beef reflect in the scoring, only in DW’s refusal to order an immediate rematch, a rematch that both fighters called for.
For whatever reason/s DW wanted/needed Jackson to come out of 123 with a win, and Jackson did enough in the cage so that 2 judges gave him the nod under the current scoring system. The numbers support that Jackson at the bare minimum earned a draw, and only using PRIDEful judging can a case be made for Machida.
And even then not a terribly strong case.
Its really as simple as that…
lets not forget what mmafrenzy failed to mention and that is rampage was the agressor and controlled the center of the octagon all three rounds. and I dont know how they scored the second round a 10-10 shouldve been a 10-9 for rampage for scoring the takedown and landing those uppercuts. Machidas got to learn to take some more risks.
Aggressor? haha you must be having a bubble, firstly i didnt know fights were judged on aggression and machidas style dis allows him to be aggressive. Secondlt i never saw one point where Jackson was aggressive he was constant in the whole fight.
didnt know fights were scored on agression? doesnt joe rogan say before every ufc when they are going over the rounds and scoring say “fights are scored on agresson, octagon control, etc”? or has he stopped and i just didnt notice?
@jc you are correct, it says “effective striking, rappling, aggression, and octagon control” before every broadcast.
I agree, I had rampage winning because he was aggressive and tried to fight. I like machida but there is a difference between being elusive and getting on your bike and running away. There were points when machida just refused to engage after rampage kept cutting off the octagon. The same goes for that falcao guy, he should have lost the last round for doing nothing.
Being in the center of the octagon doesn’t mean you are controlling anything, in and of itself. Look at Edgar-Penn I where Penn stood there and Edgar danced around, got in and out, and landed more strikes. Edgar controlled that fight BECAUSE Penn took the center and stayed there.
Otherwise, I don’t disagree too much with what you’ve said.
Jackson won. He set the pase the entire fight. He walked into the cage looking to fight and he chased Machida all over that cage trying to get one. I’m so tired of paying money to see these so called amazing fighters not ingage themselves and look for the counter attack. Machida can be great to watch but this weekend he looked nervous and scared to test the waters with Jackson. I can’t believe people are saying its an upset decision or fixed fight. I think Jackson saying Machida kicked his ass is Jackson just being respectful goofy Jackson. He knew he won that fight.
I had Rampage ahead on points based on first two rounds. Machida was too little too late and needed to be aggressive. An advantage of this point system is that it forces fighters to make every round count. My complaint was not the point system, it’s why they didn’t make this headline fight a five rounder as they do with title fights…. Both fighters had plenty of gas in the tank, another two rounds would have resulted in a clearer winner.
I disagree, I think Machida turned it on because it was the third round in a tight three round bout, in a five round bout they’d likey been in the same spot in the 5th.
All fighters know the scoring system coming into the fight… If a fighter waits until the last round to come alive and has been laid-back the preceding two or four rounds then he’s followed a risky strategy on points and has dug his own grave if the points don’t go his way. That approach is risky, Machida should have known that ahead of time and shouldn’t be overly surprised at the outcome based on the his approach to the fight.
I agree with you there, I’m just saying 5 rounds would not have changed Machida’s gameplan.
I will put it like this if u can win a fight in one round rampage should have got the win vs. Evans because he almost put him to sleep the final round.. My dog looked good out there a kot better then his last figjt when he is rusty.. But everyone in tht class is in trouble when “bones jones” grows up.. Thts real talk..
One other point I’d like to make a bout a “Win” and a “Loss”…
Wins and losses might mean something to you, me, the fighter, the fighters legacy. However, the only thing that REALLY matters is the opinion of Mr. Dana White. We all know that DW can see more in a loss (Jon Jones, anyone?) than in a win (Machida / Shogun 1). This fight is sorta the same way.
The more we talk about this, and the more we all watch and re-watch the fight, the more apparent it becomes [at least to me] that BlackHouse is going to have to adjust Machida’s style if the SAC crew can’t or won’t differentiate between “elusiveness” and lack of aggression…