can you spot the pattern here?

But Chad is a nasty goblin who tried to tear Conors cut with his fingers. He tried to rip the skin open using his fingers. Glad he lost that one. So that one is a false accusation.
 
Re-read the OP section specifically about Jon man.

Jon is a REALLY interesting case because he is the only fighter I know of that does what you described: falls in and out of the UFC's good graces. I mean sure people go from marketing favorites to marketing enemies (Randy Couture for example) historically but no one does this weird roller coaster thing like Jon where he flips constantly back and forth between positive and negative for years on end with Dana.

Anyway, that was what I found most interesting about Jon: in his "I'm feeling the UFC love" portions of his career 69% of his fights are Dean. In his "Dana doesn't like me" portions of his career he literally got the Herb treatment 0% of the time. Pretty funky coincidence, right? I notated the times when he dips off the UFC promotion roller coaster in green font in the OP in case you were curious.

That's part of the problem I have with this whole thing though. Not saying you're consciously doing this, but this is how people manipulate or "interpret" data to make it support their hypotheses. Jon Jones doesn't quite fit the pattern of the other two you looked at, so you change it to various periods of time when Jones falls "in and out of grace." And how do we know when Jon is falling in and out of grace? That's easy, we can tell by when Herb Dean is or is not reffing his fights. It's circular reasoning.
 
That's part of the problem I have with this whole thing though. Not saying you're consciously doing this, but this is how people manipulate or "interpret" data to make it support their hypotheses. Jon Jones doesn't quite fit the pattern of the other two you looked at, so you change it to various periods of time when Jones falls "in and out of grace." And how do we know when Jon is falling in and out of grace? That's easy, we can tell by when Herb Dean is or is not reffing his fights. It's circular reasoning.
I hear you, but one good way is to simply listen to what Dana/UFC says. He was pretty public about being pissed off that UFC 151 collapsed and was very public blaming Jon for that. Likewise UFC made no hiding of the fact that he caused 200 to implode when he tested for roids. Both times afterwards his normal Herb hookup evaporates.

Granted I'm no psychologist so maybe Dana secretly loved him while trashing him in public but if all we have are public statements it is somewhat easy to diffentiate his marketing ups (now with Dana literally yelling at his slavish media to repeat that Jon is #1 P4P and GOAT) and downs (when the UFC was publicly accusing him of being scared of Chael Sonnen of all people).
 
But Chad is a nasty goblin who tried to tear Conors cut with his fingers. He tried to rip the skin open using his fingers. Glad he lost that one. So that one is a false accusation.
lol can't tell if you are serious or not man. Language seems over the top enough that you are doing some kind of satire ("nasty goblin who tried to tear" and "rip the skin open") but maybe you actually feel strongly enough about that fight all these years later, I dunno

I think unfortunately the only way to be sure is to look at all ME from your 50 fights list and see if a clear trend in behaviour is spottable.
Coupling how one guy utterly dominates reffing for marketing favorites and how the SAME guy exclusively makes controversial call after call after call within those fights... and that none of his controversial calls have EVER benefited the marketing challenger... pretty clear trend IMHO. But that's what this thread is about / so others can make their own decision once looking at the data.
 
Pretty good conspiracy theory. Hard to refute.

Most experienced and recognized ref being called on by several commissions to ref the biggest fights isn't much of a conspiracy.

I'm sure the data here is fine, but it's all pretty meaningless.
 
Most experienced and recognized ref being called on by several commissions to ref the biggest fights isn't much of a conspiracy.

I'm sure the data here is fine, but it's all pretty meaningless.
Just curious how you address the pattern of Herb Dean controversial calls that directly benefit marketing favorites and yet he NEVER has any kind of "incompetent" call that helps the marketing challenger...

If there was no pattern/true incompetence it should be 50/50. So after 3 weird Herb calls you'd expect at least 1 to hurt the marketing favorite. How many controversies in a row would it take for you to raise an eyebrow when it is one ref that has a clear pattern where his reffing ONLY benefits marketing favorites? 5 weird calls in a row? 10 in a row? 50?

Right now that's where we're at... double digit territory where literally no one in this thread can offer a single time he made a controversial call that hurt a clear marketing favorite. So how many times exactly does a Conor-Khabib or a Sean-Mountinho need to happen before you raise an eyebrow that Herb's supposed "incompetent" fuckups just so happen to never ever help the guy that the UFC clearly wants to lose?
 
lol can't tell if you are serious or not man. Language seems over the top enough that you are doing some kind of satire ("nasty goblin who tried to tear" and "rip the skin open") but maybe you actually feel strongly enough about that fight all these years later, I dunno


Coupling how one guy utterly dominates reffing for marketing favorites and how the SAME guy exclusively makes controversial call after call after call within those fights... and that none of his controversial calls have EVER benefited the marketing challenger... pretty clear trend IMHO. But that's what this thread is about / so others can make their own decision once looking at the data.
bro Chad tried to rip Conor cut with his fingers, it´s on camera. The goblin part was ofc joking. But it is fucking nasty. To try to finger an open wound, he cheated and got called out for it.
 
So after 3 weird Herb calls you'd expect at least 1 to hurt the marketing favorite.

So IDK how much you know about statistics, but you don't cherry pick your samples, and 3 is not a statistically significant sample. So I'd take a statistically significan't and random sample of calls, or a complete data set since that's available.

But more over, controversy doens't mean bad call. And bad calls in less high profile fights are typically less controversial because less people care. I disagree with calls all the time, but that doesn't make me right.

For example when Herb let Bobby Green kick Dan Lauzon in the junk 38 times over the course of a round I thought it should have been stopped and Dan given a DQ win, because it's crazy to think he could still compete. Herb chose to let it go on and Dan did get the choke. So it turns out the most experienced ref in the sport knew better than me. The one thing we can be CERTAIN of is that Bobby who was getting a lot of slack for some reason was not the marketing favorite.

Perhaps a good way to analyze this kind of thing would be to look at calls that have been disputed with the ACs because there would be some level of analysis to that where we could make an evaluation of the merits of the ref's account of their decision making.
 
Also, in before PR accounts attack me personally rather than try to refute any of the facts I posted ITT.

SEPT 19TH EDIT #1 FOR PEOPLE REQUESTING CONTROL GROUP DATA:
Here is every ref for the last 50 main events. I omitted the data included in the OP (O'Malley fights) for obvious reasons of not duplicating what has already been covered. I also noted, among those last 50 MEs, five instances of MEs with a clear marketing favorite.

EVENTREFSTRONG MARKETING ADV?
FN: Burns/BradyHERB
ESPN: Cannonier/BorralhoMirg
305: DDP/IzzyGoddard
ESPN: Tybura/Spivac 2HERB
ABC: Sandhagen/UmarGoddard
304:Edwards/BelalHERBBelal clear enemy
ESPN: Lemos/JandirobaSmith
ESPN: Rose/CortezHERB
303: Alex/Jiri 2HERBAlex clear favorite
ABC: Rob/AliskerovGoddard
ESPN: Perez/TairaHERB
ESPN: Cannonier/ImavovHerzog
302: Islam/DustinPeterson
FN: Barboza/MurphyHERB
ESPN: Derrick/NascimentoHerzog
301: Pantoja/ErcegGoddard
ESPN: Nicolau/PerezSmith
300: Alex/JamahalHERBAlex clear favorite
FN: Allen/Curtis 2Smith
ESPN: Blanchfield/Fiorothispanic guy I don't know
ESPN: Rose/RibasHerzog
FN: Tai/TyburaHERB
FN: Bigi Boy/GazievGoddard
FN: Royval/Moreno 2HERB
298: Volk/IliaHerzog
FN: Joker/PyferSmith
FN: Dolidze/ImavovHERB
297: Sean/DDPGoddard
FN: Ankalaev/Walker 2Goddard
296: Edwards/ColbyHERBColby clear favorite
FN: Song/GutierrezHERB
ESPN: Beniel/ArmanSmith
FN: Allen/CraigSmith
295: Alex/Jiri 1Goddard
FN: Almeida/Lewiswhite guy (camera didn't pan to him much)
294: Islam/Volk 2Goddard
FN: Yusuff/BarbozaHERB
FN: Dawson/GreenPeterson
FN: Fiziev/GamrotHERB
FN: Val/Grasso 2HERB
293: Izzy/SeanGoddardIzzy clear favorite
FN: Gane/SpivacGoddard
FN: Max/ZombieGoddard
ESPN: Luque/RDASmith
ESPN: Sandhagen/FontHerzog
291: Dustin/Justin 2HERB
FN: Aspinall/TyburaGoddard
ESPN: Holm/SilvaPeterson
290: Volk/YairHERB
ESPN: Sean/MagomedovSmith

SEPT 19TH EDIT #2: PIE CHART FOR UNFILTERED DATA (last 50 MEs)
View attachment 1063485
As you can see, Herb is used often for MEs but nowhere NEAR as often (nearly half) the amount he is used when marketing stars are performing. His % drops to nearly even with Goddard once you remove the 5 fights with a marketing favorite from the data sample. Speaking of which, what is Herb's % for those five fights with a clear angle where the UFC may desire to favor one fighter?
SEPT 19TH EDIT #3: PIE CHART FOR FIGHTS ON THE ABOVE MAIN EVENT LIST WITH A CLEAR UFC PREFERENCE FOR WHO THEY'D LIKE TO WIN
View attachment 1063487
*sad trumpet noises* uh oh! Looks like when clear marketing favorites are in play we are right back to Herb "fight fixer" Dean's percentages hovering around his normal "important fights for UFC" %... again... nearly double his NORMAL percentage (for MEs) and I'm betting quadruple his NORMAL percentage for undercard fights of no relevance.

So I ask again... WHY is one guy used almost exclusively for fights that UFC has a pointed interest in who wins. Is it the SAME reason that guy almost EXCLUSIVELY is responsible for all officiating controversy benefiting favored fighters and the SAME guy that NEVER makes a controversial call which causes a marketing favorite to lose??
The corporate slave in me is loving the pie charts.
I hope this was done ASAP by EOD within your BAU and in line with KPIs.
 
I thought the claims were very clear. UFC brass is using its influence to ensure Herb Dean is selected to referee fights in which they have a vested interest in the outcome, and Herb Dean has acted to attempt to influence those fights towards that desired outcome.
You can argue if the statement is true, but the statement was very clear.
No, not really, since you were cagey about explicitly stating that was the case, and your examples didn't establish any kind of pattern of the sort.
 
I haven't posted any examples, I didn't start the thread. I'd never thought about it, but there's definitely some merit to his claims
No, not really, since you were cagey about explicitly stating that was the case, and your examples didn't establish any kind of pattern of the sort.
 
Any explanation on why 9 of a possible 43 refs are used most frequently? Seniority? Location?
 
So IDK how much you know about statistics, but you don't cherry pick your samples, and 3 is not a statistically significant sample. So I'd take a statistically significan't and random sample of calls, or a complete data set since that's available.

But more over, controversy doens't mean bad call. And bad calls in less high profile fights are typically less controversial because less people care. I disagree with calls all the time, but that doesn't make me right.

For example when Herb let Bobby Green kick Dan Lauzon in the junk 38 times over the course of a round I thought it should have been stopped and Dan given a DQ win, because it's crazy to think he could still compete. Herb chose to let it go on and Dan did get the choke. So it turns out the most experienced ref in the sport knew better than me. The one thing we can be CERTAIN of is that Bobby who was getting a lot of slack for some reason was not the marketing favorite.

Perhaps a good way to analyze this kind of thing would be to look at calls that have been disputed with the ACs because there would be some level of analysis to that where we could make an evaluation of the merits of the ref's account of their decision making.
lol @ a guy with shit reading comprehension lecturing me about how statistics work

Re-read the very simple thing I said to you. I said if you made three controversial calls in marketing favorite fights and you were NOT corrupt you might expect one out of the three controversial calls to benefit a marketing challenger in the same way that I'd say if you were tossing a coin three times you might expect one of the times to be heads. There is an 87.5% chance you'd get a heads at least once if you tossed it three times. More than a 99% chance if you tossed the coin seven times. I then took that very basic concept to say that Herb has been a fuckton more than three times... controversial call after controversial call for years on end by Herb... and there's been a grand total of ZERO times it worked against the marketing favorite. And that I've asked, for literally years, for anyone to provide a single historical example only to be met with a resounding silence. So there are NO examples of Herb making calls AGAINST marketing favorites. The sample size, in case you still aren't catching on with the reading comprehension still, is every fight Herb Dean has ever reffed in the history of his motherfucking life... which I believe is a bigger number than 3. The most idiotic part of your post is you're patronizing someone that did a thread covering more than the last 50 consecutive events in a row, with a straight face, about 3 being a small data sample.

Your notion of restricting data to only looking at calls disputed by ACs is a circular logic. First off, the AC doesn't investigate jack shit, and you know that. But your logic is if a corrupt Herb makes suspiciously corrupt calls that also aren't investigated by a corrupt AC, therefore Herb would actually be innocent lol.

Again... I can cite examples until the end of time with Herb:
- auto-stoppage for Ronda dropping McMann
- auto-stoppage for a guy giving a thumbs up (Robbie) against the newly acquired fighter being set up for a title shot
- auto-stoppage for another guy givings a thumb up (Faber) against the guy marketed as #1 P4P in the sport
- auto-stoppage for Sean against Mountinho when he wasn't dropped/wobbled/or hurt in the slightest
- chastising Khabib for mentioning in public some of the 19 fouls Conor committed
- allowing Conor to cheat against Dustin
- chastising Merab for winning against Sean

There's seven examples of the coin landing on tails in a row. Going back to my example before... if Herb is just incompetent rather than corrupt (so his bad calls are 50/50 likely to hurt the marketing favorite as to help the marketing favorite just like a coin is 50/50 to land on heads or tails) after seven times there will be less than 1% likelihood to have the same 50% event occur all 7 times... so I'll ask you once again... can you name a SINGLE example of him doing something controversial which HURT the marketing favorite?
 
Ive read the OP several times and feel I'm on the cusp of solving this case I can feel it.
 
I haven't posted any examples, I didn't start the thread. I'd never thought about it, but there's definitely some merit to his claims
Gotcha. OP was cagey about making an explicit claim, and most of the examples he gives doesn't even fit the conspiracy theory.

In cases where Herb didn't show any favoritism, he claimed that Herb just didn't get the chance to yet, and listed them as examples. Most of the cases listed had the person Herb was supposedly in the bag for losing. He listed Herb acting like a human being to someone having his leg brutally snapped as some sort of evidence of favoritism.

So, no, no pattern shown.
 
I said if you made three controversial calls

They didn't make three controversial calls. He's made thousands of calls, somewhere between hundreds and dozens of which have been controversial to one degree or another.

You want to ignore all that and focus on a cherry-picked sample to suit a story you've made up.

So you'll have to pardon me if I take your skepticism of my reading comprehension with a grain of salt because you don't understand how any of this works.

You want to try to build a statistical case out of anecdotal BS And it would probably sway someone somewhere. But I'm not your mark.
 
They didn't make three controversial calls. He's made thousands of calls, somewhere between hundreds and dozens of which have been controversial to one degree or another.

You want to ignore all that and focus on a cherry-picked sample to suit a story you've made up.

So you'll have to pardon me if I take your skepticism of my reading comprehension with a grain of salt because you don't understand how any of this works.

You want to try to build a statistical case out of anecdotal BS And it would probably sway someone somewhere. But I'm not your mark.
I'll explain this a 3rd time but stick to only covering the basics with you. The annoying part of this isn't that you don't understand... that is fine / there's a bunch of people that don't understand stats. It is the combination that you don't understand AND then have the audacity to talk down to the person who does understand it in a patronizing tone. That is really fucking annoying.

THREE SAMPLE SIZES
A: Every Herb Dean reffed fight ever (> 1000)
B: Every Herb Dean reffed fight that involves marketing stars (every single one of these fights is a subset of sample A)
C: Every Herb Dean reffed fight that involves marketing stars that also involved a controversial call (every single one of these fights is a subset of sample B, which--again-- is a subset of sample A)

Those three sample sizes aren't the same. What Herb does on an undercard fight fits under sample A but is not a part of sample C. Looking at the results of sample C isn't "cherrypicking" ... it is looking at sample C which is the topic in question. Me citing something that happened on an undercard in 2002 has no bearing on what we are actually analyzing (which is sample C). Sample C is 100% contained within the population of sample B, which is 100% contained within population of sample A. The data sample is not 3... it is all of sample A... more than 1000 fights. Of those 1000 fights only a small number fit into sample C. I named you 7 instances of sample C where he favors the marketing favorite. You have named a grand total of 0 instances in sample C where he favors the marketing opponent. To refer to my coin flipping example, the inability for you to name ONE while I can spit out 7 off the top of my head in the other direction is less than 1% likely if he was just incompetent and not corrupt (meaning he should be fucking up in favor of/against the marketing favorite an equal amount of time). Instead of conceding you can name 0 (among more than 1000 fights in all of sample A) you are talking down to someone who crunches numbers for a living and who knows this shit 10X more than you do. Stop. You look ridiculous.
Gotcha. OP was cagey about making an explicit claim, and most of the examples he gives doesn't even fit the conspiracy theory.

In cases where Herb didn't show any favoritism, he claimed that Herb just didn't get the chance to yet, and listed them as examples. Most of the cases listed had the person Herb was supposedly in the bag for losing. He listed Herb acting like a human being to someone having his leg brutally snapped as some sort of evidence of favoritism.

So, no, no pattern shown.
Read the above then cite me one instance of him "fucking up" that directly lessened the chance the marketing favorite would win. I named a bunch of when his officiating overtly caused the marketing challenger to be less likely to win... he does that over and over and over and over since WME took over and is doing it with increasing regularity.

Why is it so hard for you (or anyone in this thread) to name one time when he did the reverse (made a call lessening the likelihood for the marketing favorite to win)? Why do you think you are completely, utterly unable to name a single time among all of his MANY reffed fights?
 
Last edited:
The corporate slave in me is loving the pie charts.
I hope this was done ASAP by EOD within your BAU and in line with KPIs.
lol I think our acronym worlds are different brother

I understood ASAP. EOD I am more used to meaning either Entry on Duty (or Explosive Ordnance Disposal ha) so that's different obviously to how you're using it.

I think what you meant in my acronym world is "ASAP by COB FYSA covering everything in the AOR." ;)

Any explanation on why 9 of a possible 43 refs are used most frequently? Seniority? Location?
Yeah seniority/availability both I am guessing. Must suck for the other 54 guys in terms of getting adequate pay / never breaking through to the next level in the UFC.
 
Last edited:
I named you 7 instances of sample C where he favors the marketing favorite.

Which is where you are selecting your sample to fit your story insead of just reading the data. You've decided on an outcome and your fitting your "study" to your conclusion.

At this point we both know that, but you're just going to go with your A plan of trying to convince me to argue within the confines of your flawed premise.

And I'm not going to.

So you pretend I "don't get it", and I'm going to bow out.
 
Back
Top