- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 2
The judging in the UFC is very inconsistent which is why there are many controversial decisions that fans/fighters are not happy about. Examples of inconsistent judging are the Diaz McGregor 2 and Bisping Henderson 2 fights. These fights were quite similar.
-They both involved boxers that dealt a high volume of strikes but didn't do a lot of damage i.e. Bisping and Diaz.
-The opponents were the opposite because they didn't hit as much due to worse cardio but they hit extremely hard i.e. Henderson and McGregor.
-If the judging in the UFC was consistent, either McGregor and Henderson or Diaz and Bisping should have won the fights but not McGregor and Bisping which were the real decisions. Diaz and Bisping both had more significant strikes and total strikes. McGregor and Hendo both didn't have as many strikes but did a lot more damage to their opponents which was apparent in the faces of Bisping and Diaz at the end of the fights. Henderson and McGregor both had knockdowns in 2 different rounds.
-Judging is supposed to score "effective strikes" but it isn't entirely clear whether they favour more punches vs harder punches. Quantity vs quality. If they cleared this up then there would be a lot less controversial decisions because the fans/fighters would understand the criteria to explain the win/loss.
What are your opinions on this?
Here are the statistics of each fight:
-They both involved boxers that dealt a high volume of strikes but didn't do a lot of damage i.e. Bisping and Diaz.
-The opponents were the opposite because they didn't hit as much due to worse cardio but they hit extremely hard i.e. Henderson and McGregor.
-If the judging in the UFC was consistent, either McGregor and Henderson or Diaz and Bisping should have won the fights but not McGregor and Bisping which were the real decisions. Diaz and Bisping both had more significant strikes and total strikes. McGregor and Hendo both didn't have as many strikes but did a lot more damage to their opponents which was apparent in the faces of Bisping and Diaz at the end of the fights. Henderson and McGregor both had knockdowns in 2 different rounds.
-Judging is supposed to score "effective strikes" but it isn't entirely clear whether they favour more punches vs harder punches. Quantity vs quality. If they cleared this up then there would be a lot less controversial decisions because the fans/fighters would understand the criteria to explain the win/loss.
What are your opinions on this?
Here are the statistics of each fight: