- Joined
- Nov 14, 2019
- Messages
- 21,217
- Reaction score
- 46,317
I've been saying this for a while. It's not a solution but it would reduce the chance of a bad decision.5 judges would help instead of 3.
How would open scoring help a robbery like Barber x Maverick? I like open scoring, but it doesn't help to solve the issue.Open scoring.
Also put up a finish bonus that decreases with each round.
Nah more shitty cooks in the kitchen = crash, we just need more COMPETENCY. Some calls are so fucking obvious to us, and they still get it wrong and it's their fucking job.5 judges would help instead of 3.
That's accurate imo. Statistically, the more judges, the higher the chance of a correct decision. So, why not 5 over 3I've been saying this for a while. It's not a solution but it would reduce the chance of a bad decision.
No YOU!How would open scoring help a robbery like Barber x Maverick? I like open scoring, but it doesn't help to solve the issue.
With robbery's, the athletic commision simply has to overule the scores and suspend judges.
This would only work assuming the judges weren't defective. If they can handle the training aspect first, then it would be a better idea.That's accurate imo. Statistically, the more judges, the higher the chance of a correct decision. So, why not 5 over 3
That's incorrect. Judges don't work as a team.If you let 5 average cooks cook a meal, chances that 1 nails it are statistically bigger than with 3 cooks.Nah more shitty cooks in the kitchen = crash, we just need more COMPETENCY. Some calls are so fucking obvious to us, and they still get it wrong and it's their fucking job.
5 judges would help instead of 3.
I work with the idea judges are competent, but make mistakes. If you feel judges are totally incompetent, more judges doesn't do muchThis would only work assuming the judges weren't defective. If they can handle the training aspect first, then it would be a better idea.
Ok fair that they don't work as a team, but bringing in two more idiots doesn't help. They need to train these judges properly and get rid of dumbasses like Sal D'Amato.That's incorrect. Judges don't work as a team.If you let 5 average cooks cook a meal, chances that 1 nails it are statistically bigger than with 3 cooks.
It's certainly the easiest way to immediately reduce bad decisions.That's accurate imo. Statistically, the more judges, the higher the chance of a correct decision. So, why not 5 over 3
You get fired for fucking up over and over again at most jobs. Let's make judging one of those jobs.It's certainly the easiest way to immediately reduce bad decisions.
What we really need is accountability for bad decisions. If a judge submits a scorecard like 29-28 Barber, there has to be some sort of review of that judge. Right now there are zero consequences for incompetence.
So in a fight what comes priority? Damage or cage/ring control?
This causes too much recency bias. Expecting judges to remember the details of a 15 or 25 min fight is asking for disaster.Judge the fight as a whole
So in a fight what comes priority? Damage or cage/ring control?
Because by answering that question, an answer to who really won the fight between TJ and Sandhagen also comes forth into the spotlight.