Do refs give fighters preferential treatment?

[mmmjojo]

This isnt about early stoppages but about warnings and point deductions, etc. My biggest/easiest example of this is Hendo vs ASilva. In the 1st rd, Hendo takes Silva down yet doesnt do much except put a hand over his mouth for 3 1/2 mins yet Herd Dean didnt give Hendo a warning to possibly stand them up. Then in rd 2, Silva gets Hendo to the mat and is punching and kneeing away at Hendo, Silva stalls for less than 30 secs to adjust his position and you hear Herb with the "lets work" warning. When I saw it live, I was kinda PO'd about it. So do you think its inconsistencies or preferential treatment?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I think Herb didn't like Silva because of racism.

 

[Bokelj]

Off course not, we live in a perfect and fair world

 

[STARSCREAM]

There's definitely times iy seems like they prefer one guy over the other

Big Dan in the Kimbo James Thompson fight comes to mind.

Mazzagatti in Brock vs Mir 1

(i think) Yammasaki in Couture vs Toney literally said hey why don't you just tap out

 

[Th3Sav4ge]

i would. not based on how much dmg i think someone can take or how long i think they might be stalling but because im bias

 

[KeepItRealist]

I think so. There's just too much inconsistency.

You have a ref that will stop a fight when one fighter is covering up and blocking literally like three unanswered punches, yet the same ref in the next fight will allow another fighter to be wailed on for a minute before stopping it.

 

[Peteyandjia]

Mazzagatti prefers that everyone die.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

your example, that a ref mentioned something (but took no actual action) after before not mentioning something (and also taking no action) to the other is pretty bad. here's another.

UFC 70. 4 fairly lackluster, long bouts, totaling almost an hour of fighting and an hour and a half in between bouts. the crowd was getting restless. lots of takedowns and holddowns, and wall and stall.

and that 2.5 hours was just for the 5 main event fights; some had been there for 11 bouts / 6 hours.

so by the time it got to the main event, there was a quick-ish standup, after a takedown and not much going on in, oh, 20 seconds or so.

FACT: no one disputes it was a quick takedown. so let's not bother debating that.

but here are some other questions to think about: did the ref "favor" the guy on the ground in the main event? or was he taking the context of the crowd and the previous fights into account? if the latter, should he have? and even if he shouldn't have, is it at least understandable? or as a fan on the interwebs do we just get to go straight to "omfg, ref was obviously bought off!"

my opinion: refs generally are trying to do their best, and sometimes they don't do as well as we'd hope, but 99% of the time (always an exception to the rule) that isn't due to favoritism.

here's another one: several refs have admitted that, knowing a certain fighter, he might let a fight go on longer than if another fighter had been in that position. enough have discussed it that it's a known & accepted thing. one famous example is Nog v Herring (III i think, their UFC fight not Pride fights), but there are probably 20 others i forget about.

so, is that "fair"? i say yes. i have little doubt we can easily find 1000 sherdoggers who disagree with me, and wish these things were more like NFL rules instead of subjective and second-by-second.

 

[91 seconds]

If I had to chose one it'd be Herb giving Fertittas preferential treatment. Does that count?

 

[linvillegorge]

Fighters known for their durability seem to get a little longer to fight through a bad spot, which honestly, I think is fair.

I think Big John would've stopped a lot of fights had a guy dropped like a sack of potatoes like when Paul Daley dropped Nick Diaz. He looked OUT, but he recovered instantly.

For those who don't remember:

 

[DaRealMVP]

Yes.

 

[Francis Rossi]

Mazzagatti prefers that everyone die.

Japanese orgs would love him. Dat "fighting spirit" shown by lightweights taking on heavyweights.

 

[jeff7b9]

Fighters known for their durability seem to get a little longer to fight through a bad spot, which honestly, I think is fair.

I think Big John would've stopped a lot of fights had a guy dropped like a sack of potatoes like when Paul Daley dropped Nick Diaz. He looked OUT, but he recovered instantly.

For those who don't remember:

Personally I think it has less to do with "durability" and everything to do with star power.

Nick was pretty much the biggest star in SF, at the very least one of them. He went down like he was knocked the fuck out, McCarthy has definitely stopped fights for much less, in fact I do not think that Daley was convincingly more "out" than Nick in that clip where he is laying flat on his face.


It seems to me that calls tend to favor the stars

Ronda knocks McMann down for a Split second - fight over

Conor knocks Mendes down - fight over (the Poirier stoppage was also pretty quick)

Brock gets pummeled by Carwin, fight continues

 

[Pierced7681]

Watch any randy couture fight and you'll have your answer.

The refs give certain fighters more leeway when it comes to stoppages.