The only opinions I value are informed ones. Can you please provide proof that those "MMA analysts" used precisely the same, official scoring criteria as the ringside judges when scoring the fight and did not use variable subjective scoring criteria more commonly known as "muh feefees"?
Can you please provide proof that the ringside judges only use ringside scoring criteria without any subjectivity or variability?
Here's the proof: they are beholden to using the official scoring criteria by competition rules. If the judges score the fight based on their feefees like your "analysts" do, the fighters can appeal their decisions and damage the judge reputations. They have an obligation to score the fights based on the official ruleset. Your "MMA analysts" are beholden to nothing, the only obligation they have is to write some good clickbait. Their decisions cannot be appealed or challenged in court. This is why their decisions are as relevant as sherdog shitposts.
1 maybe wrong, 2 could be too but all 3 cant be wrong on all 3 rounds. If MMA fans and journos know everything then no need of Judges, all decisions to be based on fan + journo votes.
By this logic judges are perfect, have never scored a fight wrong, and a "judging robbery" is just a myth perpetuated by bitter casuals. Do I have that right?
And you keep bumping it up... Go figure.
Judges do not score fights wrong until they are proven otherwise through an appeal process, correct. That's why they're judges. The fact that a judge decision may be appealed implies that judges are not perfect, however, they posses a much higher degree of objectivity in their decisions, because they possess a degree of responsibility not only before the organizer of the event, but before state athletic commissions. People who answer to state athletic commissions > people who answer to no one when it comes to objectivity.
Failed attacks are scored higher than thwarted takedown attempts. Defense doesn't/shouldn't score any points.
