DW: The Nevada State Athletic Commission is Atrocious..Ruining Sport Like Boxing"

Dana White is a hypocrite. He blames the NSAC for the decision, yet one of the judges who scored the fight for GSP--Sal D'Amato--is the same guy the UFC pays to fly around the world and judge at almost every single one of its international events.

Similarly, after Dan Miragliotta flubbed two calls at UFC on FX 7 in Brazil, White tweetedthat "Ok that is officially the END of Dan M!!!!"

Yet just a few months later, Dana White & Co. were paying to fly Miragliotta back to Brazil for UFC on FUEL TV 10. And they did so again at the recent UFC Fight Night 32 card.

White can whine he wants about how bad a job the NSAC is doing, but the UFC routinely hosts shows in places where they can choose some or all of their own judges and referees, yet they voluntarily choose the same incompetent people.

He defended Jones for getting busted up but lashes out at GSP for the same exact thing.

He has no ability whatsoever,no intelligence,no personal skills,no self-control, nothing,he has rich friends and lucked out by buying a rough diamond.

He should be a regarded as a clown,for being a bully without balls,a hypocrite,an endless liar...an insult to humanity.

And for the record,i thought JH won the fight and i've been rooting against GSP in probably every fight except against Penn.But he's been nothing but a great role model and a true ambassador of the sport and to treat him for doing nothing wrong (after all he didn't score the fight for himself,did he?)is absolutely shameful.
 
Dana is cringeworthy and sounds like an uneducated dick that came into a position of power. You would think after being in this position for a few years he would learn to tone it down. When he begged Pride to give the UFC some exposure, he seemed like he was willing to whore himself out to get a chance. When the tables turned, he acted like the jerk he is today. I hope one day the UFC replaces him with someone else as the face and relegates Dana to his role on TUF.
 
Dana White is a hypocrite. He blames the NSAC for the decision, yet one of the judges who scored the fight for GSP--Sal D'Amato--is the same guy the UFC pays to fly around the world and judge at almost every single one of its international events.

Similarly, after Dan Miragliotta flubbed two calls at UFC on FX 7 in Brazil, White tweetedthat "Ok that is officially the END of Dan M!!!!"

Yet just a few months later, Dana White & Co. were paying to fly Miragliotta back to Brazil for UFC on FUEL TV 10. And they did so again at the recent UFC Fight Night 32 card.

White can whine he wants about how bad a job the NSAC is doing, but the UFC routinely hosts shows in places where they can choose some or all of their own judges and referees, yet they voluntarily choose the same incompetent people.

Exactly.

I posted this in another thread.

His talk is such a joke. For all these years they could bring any commission or whoever they want to Aus, UK, Brazil, etc. Guess who they always bring? People from that shitty commission that they just hate so much every single time for years now. Yup Dana, damn them, grrrr.
 
I was rooting for Hendricks, but it was a close fight. I see a case for both winning.
Dana could have handled this better. Did he throw GSP under the bus? If so, what did he say?
 
I was rooting for Hendricks, but it was a close fight. I see a case for both winning.
Dana could have handled this better. Did he throw GSP under the bus? If so, what did he say?

He was just kind of an asshole about the whole situation.
 
Dana White had strong words about the judging of UFC 167 and the Nevada Athletic Commission.

Dana White: "I want what's fair, and that's not fair. The Nevada State Athletic Commission is atrocious. I think the governor needs to step in immediately before they ruin this sport like boxing."

"No one I talked to thinks George St. Pierre won that fight."

"I'm FUCKING scared to come back here and do fights in this state! I'm afraid of this state."


Starts around 2:00



Just do it!
Stop having fights in Nevada.
I know it would be weird but what other option do you have whenb they have guys like Cecil Peoples judge fights.
(Who openly said he didn't scored kicks because they don't finish fights)
 
Just do it!
Stop having fights in Nevada.
I know it would be weird but what other option do you have whenb they have guys like Cecil Peoples judge fights.
(Who openly said he didn't scored kicks because they don't finish fights)

Dana doesn't have the balls to do it, he's just pissed because decisions like that can hurt the sport. His comments were dumb, but they were directly after the fight. Wouldn't expect anything less.
 
I think Dana misspoke on this one. He should know the judges aren't looking at damage primarily and that it's a game of points.
I've always been a DW fan and not a GSP fan.

I thought this fight was close POINT wise.
 
Question guys.
Are the judges supposed to take damage into consideration?

I don't know personally.
 
1. All bouts will be evaluated and scored by 3 judges who shall evaluate the contest from different location around the ring/fighting area. The referee may not be one of the 3 judges.
2. The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
3. Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the ring/fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.
4. Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.
5. Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.
6. Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active threatening guard.
7. Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler's attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking, taking down an opponent to force a ground fight, creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
8. Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.
9. Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.
10. The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:
A. a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;
B. a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
C. a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
D. a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
11. Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:
1. if the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:
1. Effective grappling is weighed first; and
2. Effective striking is then weighed
2. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:
1. Effective striking is weighed first; and
2. Effective grappling is then weighed
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.



Nope, don't see anything in there about damage... guess Dana should read the rules sometime.
 
He defended Jones for getting busted up but lashes out at GSP for the same exact thing.

He has no ability whatsoever,no intelligence,no personal skills,no self-control, nothing,he has rich friends and lucked out by buying a rough diamond.

He should be a regarded as a clown,for being a bully without balls,a hypocrite,an endless liar...an insult to humanity.

And for the record,i thought JH won the fight and i've been rooting against GSP in probably every fight except against Penn.But he's been nothing but a great role model and a true ambassador of the sport and to treat him for doing nothing wrong (after all he didn't score the fight for himself,did he?)is absolutely shameful.


Agree. He basically blasted his biggest star - after that star was basically fighting with a blackout/concussion. And all dana cares about is re-match, money.

Nothing about gsp's health. Then says that gsp's personal problems are not a big deal. What a fucking asshole.

For all the shit he talks about boxing promoters - he is no better. All about the bottom line - MONEY!

GsP, and other big but aging stars, have earned their right to take time off or retire and do not deserve the insolence they get from a guy who has never been in the ring.

Fuck dana white.
 
1. All bouts will be evaluated and scored by 3 judges who shall evaluate the contest from different location around the ring/fighting area. The referee may not be one of the 3 judges.
2. The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
3. Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the ring/fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.
4. Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.
5. Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.
6. Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active threatening guard.
7. Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler's attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking, taking down an opponent to force a ground fight, creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
8. Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.
9. Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.
10. The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:
A. a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;
B. a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
C. a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
D. a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
11. Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:
1. if the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:
1. Effective grappling is weighed first; and
2. Effective striking is then weighed
2. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:
1. Effective striking is weighed first; and
2. Effective grappling is then weighed
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.



Nope, don't see anything in there about damage... guess Dana should read the rules sometime.


Think items 3 and 4 may be a case for argument.
 
Last edited:
GSP got completely smashed in this fight. It's apparent to everyone with working eyesight. But you know what, Hendricks took the 5th round off, so he reaps it. Maybe next time he will act like a champ and actually fight every round you can instead of trying to coast.

Give me a fucking break. Hendricks won but GSP wasn't "absolutely smashed." It was a good competitive fight.

Sick of bullshit hater posts like this
 
Hendricks said during the postfight conference that he only used 70%...and you should've seen the look on DW's face...he told him flat out..."you should've used 100%...and now you see why"....classic...but all jokes aside...outside of the 3rd and 5th rounds...it was all JH...everytime he touched GSP with that left...Rush wasnt having any of it...and he expertly outwrestled GSP...everytime he put JH on the cage...JH was pretty much like..."ok" and just reversed it...it was more or less a great performance that actually had GSP wondering "what round is it?" (his words between 2nd and 3rd rounds) so IMO the judges need to take some time away from judging MMA and get a system that will work for all...without the judges "opinion" causing this kind of strife...dont get me wrong...the champion has to be beaten...and beaten soundly at that...in order for the belt to change hands...and we all agree that JH did more than enough...but i believe if the fight happened anywhere else (including Canada) GSP wouldn't be champ right now? anyone disagree?
 
Georges had the early takedown and more octagon control. Still don't think he won the fight, but he eked out the 1st. I had it GSP: 1 and 5 Hendricks: 2, 3, 4

You gave Hendricks 3, really......3, this is the round almost 99% of people gave GSP

I gave Hendricks 2 & 4

GSP 3& 5

Round 1 to GSP only and only because after rewatching it so many times the only difference I could see was the submission attempt by GSP. The rest of the round was even as fuck
 
Think items 3 and 4 may be a case for argument.
It has nothing to do with damage, which is way to subjective and volatile to be a determinant point. Some people bruise (much) easier then others (GSP is one of them). You'll notice damage on Kampmann's face much quicker then on Kongo. Plus what if you have a tight fight but one of the fighter is more bruised up. You give him the victory only to find out the victor actually had a broken jaw (invisible to the judges eyes).

To me damage is only relevant when it forces the ref to stop the fight (not intelligent defense/tap out).
 
It is annoying to see the sport grow with decent businessmen running companies but then you have the commissions still a decade behind in shit they should be working on.

We still don't see any real attempts at improving the scoring system or the judges for each fight. It's amazing how shitty it is. The good thing is there are different commissions in different states and countries to make it easier to avoid Nevada.
 
It has nothing to do with damage, which is way to subjective and volatile to be a determinant point. Some people bruise (much) easier then others (GSP is one of them). You'll notice damage on Kampmann's face much quicker then on Kongo. Plus what if you have a tight fight but one of the fighter is more bruised up. You give him the victory only to find out the victor actually had a broken jaw (invisible to the judges eyes).

To me damage is only relevant when it forces the ref to stop the fight (not intelligent defense/tap out).

I understand where you're coming from but the exact opposite approach can be just as dangerous. If you don't factor in any type of damage, then you can get a lot of point fighters who are just playing tag in order to win the decision. If they get their face battered up while the other guy is fine and unphased by the taps the other guy is giving, that should be factored in.

By the way, I am not using that point in anyway for the Hendricks-Pierre fight. There are other fights I've seen where it's been like that and I've dreaded the idea of not considering damage completely in the sense you are speaking.
 
Back
Top