Mike Chiapetta: Bad for the Sport?

Well, strangely enough it isn't Kevin Iole we get to call out first as a misinformed sensationalist, but Mike Chiappetta instead, thanks to his recent post on the "controversial" Couture vs. Vera fight at UFC 105. Steve Coefield would get called out the same way too thanks to his post at Cagewriter, but his post seems to be more a lack of understanding about how fights are scored, rather than Chiappetta's more strongly worded/MMA-impaired post about the so-called controversy.

But before we get started; was this a close fight? Absolutely. Was it challenging to score? Absolutely. That's why they have judges and criteria for judging MMA fights. We'll get deeper into this in later posts, but hit on a few things that even I can understand, which highlights exactly why those two posts above are sensational and misinformed about the results of the fight.

Was it controversial? No way. Close fight, but not controversial. If you want a controversial fight, how about Chase Beebe vs. Mike Easton at UWC 7? Couture vs Vera? No comparison. Here's why:

Round 1: I would have judged it as a 10-9 round score, which the judges probably did, given the final score. Not a terribly exciting round for the casual fan, as Chiappetta states Couture had Vera in a "futile clinch" for 4:34 (of a 5 min round). However, it is because of the clinch, and Couture's control of Vera using the clinch and his ability to mount some type of offense using it that gives him this round. Couture also managed to score a takedown, but did very little with it, however again, it should his more effective aggression and control of the fight during the round than Vera. Most of the round was standing, Couture controlled the standing fight and was the most aggressive during the standing, therefore, Couture ground out the round.

This was not a 10-10 round in any way, as Chiappetta claims. While not exciting to watch from an all out brawl standpoint, Couture controlled this round in the clinch while Vera did little in comparison. Only offense wins fights, not defense.

Round 2: 10-9 Vera in my opinion, which was probably what the judges scored based on the result. Vera landed some damaging blows here, especially the 2 body kicks and knee to the solar plexus sequence and was more aggressive and more effective in his offense overall than Couture. He managed an effective takedown and mounted an effective offense from it, even though Couture escaped, which probably won Vera the round, as while he did land some damaging blows on his feet, Couture was also mounting his own offense, which kept this from being a 10-8 round Vera.

Round 3: This was a 10-9 round Couture, which was probably how the judges scored it. Again, Couture controlled and was more aggressive than Vera for most of the round using the clinch. Here's where Chiappetta might get his controversy from: Vera managed to get a full mount. Problem is Vera did absolutely nothing with it, and Couture was able to escape, and the round finished with Couture and Vera exchanging blows. Takedowns should only be scored if you do something with it. Lay and pray, or being tied up by your opponent when you have a dominant position, shouldn't score points if you can't do anything with it. Which Vera didn't. Hence, given the fact that Couture controlled most of the round on the feet, and Vera doing little to nothing in the short grappling sequence, the round, naturally, would go to Couture.

Final Score: 10-9, 9-10, 10-9, for a final score of 29-28, Couture over Vera, by unanimous decision.

It was a close fight and could have been scored for Vera is he had mounted more of an effective offense, in Rounds One and Three, especially when he achieved the Full Mount. If he had been able to mount an effective offense from that position for the remainder of the round, I expect that Vera would have and should have, won the round and the fight.

We'll get more into specifics later about scoring. As for Chiappetta calling this controversial, he does MMA a huge disservice to try to create a controversy where there really isn't one. Judging is maturing and developing in MMA, and there are cases where the judges are not using the best methods for scoring MMA fights, however Chiappetta calling Couture's clinch futile, when it obviously wasn't, and discussing punch counts (sorry Chiappetta, not boxing this is MMA, they use more than just their fists to strike) as well as his analysis of Vera in mount, is just as bad as an MMA judge using the wrong criteria to score fights. In fact it is probably worse, since the judges in that fight probably won't speak to the media about their scoring, due to typical ethical restraints put on them by the commissions, while Chiappetta in free to spread his MMA ignorance under the banner of legitimacy by posting on well known sites like MMA Fanhouse, and get fans riled up and create controversy where there really isn't. Sensational? Yes. Get more people to read your work. Responsible? No. Creating an image of fixed fights, judges constantly stealing fights from the "winner" and generally trying to make allusions to the mess that is boxing does the young sport of MMA no good and does little to educate the new or emerging fan.

Judgment has been passed Chiappetta: that post of yours is bad for MMA.