Bisping - Henderson and Diaz - McGregor Judging

[Donkey Kong]

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:

 

[Moral Victory]

British Isles advantage imo

 

[Donkey Kong]

British Isles advantage imo

Ireland isn't a part of Britain.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Decisions in high-profile/important matches are rigged, there's nothing to stop them from being rigged.

 

[Xenon_]

Overly simplified way of looking at it.

Nate was on top, in the fight, for much longer periods than Hendo was so the Conor/Nate was much closer.

Not only that but the storyline of the fight was completely different.

If you're going to be so simplistic then why not throw Woodley/ Wonderboy into your argument as well as just about every other 'volume vs damage' scenario there has ever been.

Makes no sense

 

[Donkey Kong]

Overly simplified way of looking at it.

Nate was on top, in the fight, for much longer periods than Hendo was so the Conor/Nate was much closer.

Not only that but the storyline of the fight was completely different.

If you're going to be so simplistic then why not throw Woodley/ Wonderboy into your argument as well as just about every other 'volume vs damage' scenario there has ever been.

Makes no sense

I re watched both before I made this thread. It was a clear example of inconsistent judging. Now that you mentioned it, the woodley wonderboy fight was also close. There are probably a lot of fights like the ones above. My point is that they should judge every fight the same and with the above fights they didnt. I thought both the fights were pretty even. Nate's and Bisping's punches didnt really do shit but they mounted up.

 

[Final Say]

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:

View attachment 192743 View attachment 192745

Those fights weren't even similar

Mcgregor was absolutely dominating Nate for portions of that fight.

 

[Moral Victory]

Ireland isn't a part of Britain.

No one said it was.
It's part of the British Isles

 

[Lejo]

They judge each round, so the total strikes means shit.

 

[Donkey Kong]

Those fights weren't even similar

Mcgregor was absolutely dominating Nate for portions of that fight.

No buddy apart from the knockdowns, Nate was the aggressor like Bisping was.

 

[Donkey Kong]

They judge each round, so the total strikes means shit.

Even for the rounds that Hendo had the knockdowns and he won, Bisping had more strikes. Same for Mcgregor / Nate

 

[Final Say]

No buddy apart from the knockdowns, Nate was the aggressor like Bisping was.

You're smoking rocks. Again, Conor was completely dominating Nate in the rounds he was winning. Bisping was winning on points and Hendo landed a few big punches and dropped him in between getting out struck. Conor was picking Nate completely apart, landing giant power shots and dropping him in the process.

They're not similar

 

[DomiDomi]

The fights weren't similar.

Mcgregor Diaz is easy to score, 1, 2, 4 Mcgregor.

Bisping Hendo was more difficult, round 1 could be 10-8 or 10-9, some people gave Bisping round 2 despite being knocked down, round 5 was close.

 

[Donkey Kong]

You're smoking rocks. Again, Conor was completely dominating Nate in the rounds he was winning. Bisping was winning on points and Hendo landed a few big punches and dropped him in between getting out struck. Conor was picking Nate completely apart, landing giant power shots and dropping him in the process.

They're not similar

Obviously he was dominating Nate in the rounds he was winning, thats how he won the rounds. But in the rounds Mac didnt win, Nate was pushing forward. In the rounds mcgregor won i think nate landed more hits. hendo hit bisping with many jabs also. If they're not 'similarity' then why were so many people unhappy with the decisions in the fights? Because of the lack of explanation in judging.

 

[Xenon_]

I re watched both before I made this thread. It was a clear example of inconsistent judging. Now that you mentioned it, the woodley wonderboy fight was also close. There are probably a lot of fights like the ones above. My point is that they should judge every fight the same and with the above fights they didnt.

You seem to have ignored a lot of what makes these two fights unique. That's an oversimplification, in my mind.

Hendo has two moments in the 25 mins where he was on top. And the 2nd one of these moments was not really that dangerous.

Conor blasted Nate up for 2 rounds straight. And won the 4th point fighting.

These fights are not the same.

Also, Nate/Conor 2 was much closer as a fight.

 

[Gilday]

1/2/4 McGregor

3/4/5 Bisping

Is normal.

 

[Donkey Kong]

1/2/4 McGregor

3/4/5 Bisping

Is normal.

McGregor 1,2,4 but Henderson 1,2,5. Henderson won the 5th in my opinion.

 

[Donkey Kong]

You seem to have ignored a lot of what makes these two fights unique. That's an oversimplification, in my mind.

Hendo has two moments in the 25 mins where he was on top. And the 2nd one of these moments was not really that dangerous.

Conor blasted Nate up for 2 rounds straight. And won the 4th point fighting.

These fights are not the same.

Also, Nate/Conor 2 was much closer as a fight.

I oversimplified so people can understand the point I'm making. Its not clear what the judges determine as "effective striking". Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the fights as a whole but watch the 4th round of Conor/Nate and the 5th round of Hendo/Bisping. These were the key rounds that won the decision. But it was not clear to people who won those rounds because of the dilemma I mentioned.

 

[SoSoSmart]

Those fights weren't even similar

Mcgregor was absolutely dominating Nate for portions of that fight.

Of course a hugger sees differently.

 

[Xenon_]

I oversimplified so people can understand the point I'm making. Its not clear what the judges determine as "effective striking". Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the fights as a whole but watch the 4th round of Conor/Nate and the 5th round of Hendo/Bisping. These were the key rounds that won the decision. But it was not clear to people who won those rounds because of the dilemma I mentioned.

Your point would have been easier to understand had you backed it up with sound reasoning.

Okay, so we're talking about two particular rounds now? Very well, but now your 1st post is largely pointless.

The scoring system is awful. Everyone knows this. Your whole presentation of your opinion is still inaccurate though.