Do Judges & Fans Give The Fight To Whos More Flashier Rather Than Whos More Effective

Okay i dont know if its just me or does anyone think the same. A few examples of this for me are pearson vs barboza, edgar vs henderson 2 & nick vs condit(please dont hijack thread and turn it into another condit ran thread).

okay with pearson,edgar and nick i felt that they were pushing foward, controlling the centre of the octagon, establishing the jab landing more shots that mattered and i think were striking more effectively and not wasting any shots personally they where the winners in my eyes. I think stuff like barboza/condit/henderson more "diverse striking" and flashy spinny kicks that dont even land properly or seem to do much damage sway the judges and fans but if you look who is getting hit flush on the face rather than omg did you see what he just did when it didnt even land propely like, when henderson did that weird capoiera looking kick and hit frankie in his neck did it damage frankie no but because its a thing we dont see often in the octagon and looks flashy fans will see that and think no way he just did that to him.

dont get me wrong i believe all three fights were close but im not the type who takes flashy into account probs why im more of a fan of boxer/wrestlers that just keep it simple,technical and effective rather than guys who do spinny kicks spinning back fists that rarely land. henderson,condit ,barboza still did a good job of keeping it more in kicking range when there opponents where more boxerish barboza/henderson didnt land as often but sometimes landed the harder shots of the round so i guess that may effect some peoples judging but in my opinion all three fighters where backing up all three fighters were being punched in the face quite often.

even if you dont agree with the fighters i picked if you agree that you think flashiness steals rounds or have any good/better examples feel free to provide them im not trying to bash bendo/edson or condit there just three close fights where i think the more flashier striker was rewarded maybe the fact that i watch alot of boxing/k1 effects the way i judge mma hey what do i know Lol



P.S The more diverse striker isnt always the most effective E.g our heavyweight champion himself

 

Sometimes. Look at the number if people who said Browne was beating Bigfoot before he pulled his hamstring. Bigfoot was patient and waiting for an opening while Browne bounced around.

 

Didn't watch Pearson v. Barboza live so I was a bit biased by the time I got to watch it.

Edgar v. Bendo I, I thought it was Bendo's win. The rematch I thought Edgar won.

Diaz v. Condit I thought Condit won.

Only consistent time I can think of "flashy," winning is Leonard Garcia's "flashy" windmill punches of doom getting him decisions

 

Judges should be in a back room watching on a monitor. Better vision plus no crowd to sway them.

 

ahh i need to see this fight.

 

I think intent is too heavily judged in MMA.

A guy could miss 20 punches in a row, but if he looks mad and alpha while he throws, he usually is ahead on scorecards.

 

sorry i was reffering to the 2 fight ive edited it now yeah i can easily understand why people would give henderson the first fight.

 

the best view is at the table cage side.
The major problem with making them watch on a monitor is they are limited to watching what some camera men decide to show them. Not exactly a fair way to judge a fight.

 

yes thank fudge im not the only guy that thinks this i thought i was going crazy.

 

lay n pray is not flashy, and the judges seem to love it. i will agree though that the judges are much better at rewarding things that are super obvious.

 

^Sanchez vs Kampmann

 

Yezzir, amongst others.

 

judges got it right. just look at edgars and diaz faces ? they did not get like that from flashy ineffective strikes.diaz didn't control anything,edgar got beat up. talking shit or coming forward should not give you points in a fight.people feeling sorry for edgar should not win him fights. just because he comes close to beating a bigger guy doesn't make him the winner.

 

It's who is on top in missionary position a little longer.

"Effectiveness?" That kind of stuff only matters in fighting.

 

This is basically all of Leonard Garcia's last few wins.

 

if someone is kicking elbowing and kneeing at you even if a lot of shots are missing your more likely to get your face cut and damaged if you landing punches clean on someones faces you wont necessarily damage there face that much alot of cuts from punches come from grazing blows so if someone is landing accurate punches on the face of there opponent but there opponent is throwing loads of different stuff its more likely to cut them plus some fighter bruise easier in terms but even if you dont agree with my picks would you agree that being flashy can win rounds over being effective ?

 

Fans love flashy shit. see Tim Elliot Vs Dodson, there was actually people on saying that Elliot won the fight:redface:

 

those kicks that franky caught hit the target before he caught them. nobody bitches when franky gets takedowns and can't make them count. i know everybody wants to see a striker ko someone and a wrestler take someone down but this is mma. fighters prepare for this and when they are prepaired it makes the fights boring and people complain. i don't like gsp,edgar,sonnen because of their takedowns. if they can't take it to the ground they can easily lose. mma win how you can. greg jackson screaming take him down like a crazed monkey.you get points for takedowns just because. they should not reward points for takedowns.

 

i agree with you on that. but i think some judges are getting tired of the shit talking and taunting. just because you don't get finished doesn't mean you should get rewarded. i like the watching fight from a monitor. no screams when a fighter throws a hard air punch.

 

This guy is a good prop for illustrating what is wrong with judging. Thanks, man.