Judging criterion defined at the time as the number of legal strikes that landed on the opponent, as well as the significance of those strikes. The criterion was considered vague by commentators.
« Effective striking was judged by determining the number of legal strikes that landed. And the significance of those strikes, the significance of such legal strikes, you're swimming in vagueness, it means nothing. »
Effective striking is judged by the number of legal strikes that land on the opponent, as well as the significance of those strikes.
Is the effective striking criterion clear for judges?
Commentators have considered the criterion vague. As Alex noted, assessing the 'significance' of legal strikes 'means nothing' and leaves judges 'swimming in vagueness.'
Each definition is written from what is said in the show indicated, with the exact sentence spoken and its timestamp. No outside source.
