Wow the judges' scorecards are insane (official scores inside)

Roberts also had Knight 30 - 27
Sutherland also had Scott 29 - 28
 
I had the same, but I thought RD 1 was probably a 10-10 too. Hell you could've called had all the rounds outside of 5 draws, and wouldn't of gotten a complaint from me.
Maybe. I'll watch it again and score it again but I really did not feel that should have gotten 3 or 1.

WB needs a new team for sure tho. His corner should have lit a fire under his ass in round 4
 
I thought it was 4 rounds to 1 for Wonderboy - Rounds 1, 2, 3, and 4.

But after thinking about it and seeing Joe Rogan's fight companion podcast on the fight, Rogan, Schaub, and Eddie all thought Till won. They also do the podcast with no volume on from the commentators, so they aren't open to bias on judging the fight.

Based on guys that watch hundreds of fights and commentate, I trust their opinions. Also, the superior damage was from Till with the leg kicks and round 5 drop.

However, I don't agree with one thing, there shouldn't have been two 49-46 scores; that is straight up fucked!

I would be okay with 48-47 either way or even a draw.
 
I was there live so obviously I'm a bit biased

That being said, can anyone say with a straight face that either fighter clearly won any of the 1st 4 rounds? I personally had it 2-2 going into the 5th, but honestly nothing of note happened for either of them in those rounds.

5th round was decisive and was for Till. I really don't think it's crazy to give him 2 of the first 4 rounds.
 
There were multiple rounds that were a toss-up and easily could have been scored a 10-10. The fact that not a single judge gave out a single 10-10 score for any of the rounds demonstrates the serious issues with the scoring system. Why do you have to arbitrarily choose a winner of a round that neither fighter clearly won?
 
. Hell you could've called had all the rounds outside of 5 draws, and wouldn't of gotten a complaint from me.

This is how I scored it. 50-49 Till. Every round a draw, except the fifth, obviously.

Now, i wasn't exactly watching the fight like a hawk, with the intent of scoring it, but to me, all the rounds were basically even. I don't like giving someone a round based on one punch landing slightly harder, or getting three leg kicks compared to two. If it's even, it's even.

Neither fighter managed to get a clear advantage in any round. They were all essentially coin tosses, dependent on what you value more; elusiveness or cage control.

MMA needs to start scoring draw rounds like they are, not just arbitrarily giving a guy a round because he edges it by the closest of margins.

50-49 illustrates how close the fight was, while still giving the win to the only guy who actually had an impact.
 
Regardless till won 2, 3 and 5. I agree giving him 4 was silly. But he won on strikes landed, stuffed TD's and dropping him in the 5th.
3 was a WB round IMO. I gave till 2 and 5 but called it a draw because of the KD.
 
Dude one judge had it 30-27 Jason Knight, I could tell right away there would be fuckery if the main event went to decision with WB’s style and Till being the hometown guy
 
Round 5 we have no choice but to give Till.

Rounds 1-4 we pretty close to a stalemate and can be argued for either guy. Till had some good leg kicks and definitely was the aggressor 80% of the time. Wonderboy blitzed a little but look at the metrics - NOBODY was landing substantially.

There is no such thing as a controversial score in this fight. One round was decisive and the judges all got it right.
 
I didn’t watch but I was following mmajunkie. They had it 3-2 for wonderboy.

I generally agree with their scores, but it sounded like a close fight other than the 5th.

Wonderboys passive style did him in again from the sounds of things
 
2 judges gave him 4 rounds. You cannot tell me that was the right decision.


Should he have had all 5 or only 3??? I'm confused. I thought till won every round with only 1 and 3 being that close. Till was way more aggressive. He was constantly coming forward. He used his jav very good whereasw WB did not. Tills shots were harder.
 
What pisses me off is that people are getting paid to do this. You could pull anyone out of the stands, and judging quality could only go up
 
Should he have had all 5 or only 3??? I'm confused. I thought till won every round with only 1 and 3 being that close. Till was way more aggressive. He was constantly coming forward. He used his jav very good whereasw WB did not. Tills shots were harder.
1,3,4 WB landed better strikes imo. Only rounds I'd give Till was 2 (which was still close) and 5
 
the one scorecard against Pedersoli, the one that had Knight winning 30-27... these were pretty easy to score imho...
 
Till had the control while WB was landing the better shots...the decision was left to the judges that were paid the most
 
Back
Top