Houston, We Have a Problem ... Rogan and Cruz Say The System MUST Change

[loisestrad]

As many have agreed the biggest culprit is the system for allowing these situations to arise seemingly every single event

There's no other way to do it. There's literally no way to not have a close fight be called a robbery. What's supposed to be done? Unlimited rounds, until someone gets finished? Impossible. Going by stats? Which stats?

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

There's no other way to do it. There's literally no way to not have a close fight be called a robbery. What's supposed to be done? Unlimited rounds, until someone gets finished? Impossible. Going by stats? Which stats?

Yeah, I get what your saying and that’s exactly why it hasn’t been changed. There was some white belt troll trotting around last night claiming a takedown is worth 20 punches, which is hilarious, but brings up a good point or how do you evaluate output fairly. As you’ve said there’s no good way to do it.

 

[TheAmericanGazelle]

What's missing in a poll is the rounds being close. What's also missing is people leaning more towards Jones losing, cuz you're always more inclined to state your voice if you're pissed off.

I'm not saying Jones didn't lose those rounds. They were close. I'm saying it's not a reason for a judge to be called incompetent that he had Jones winning both, and not just one of them.

They weren't *that* close.

Like I said, judges earn their keep by correctly judging in cases where rounds are close. This was probably a tier down from "very close". At least one of the rounds (I forget which, either R2 or R3).

Reyes fairly clearly won at least two of the first three rounds. Jones fairly clearly won the last two. On another site, I actually scored one of the contested rounds for Jones, giving him a 3-2 win. The win is fine, but a 4-1 spread definitely is not, and it has nothing to do with people incorrectly "scoring a fight as a whole and linking it to a 4-1 spread"...it has to do with Reyes clearly winning two discrete rounds.

The statistics bear it out (significant strikes in rounds with no effective grappling). The (reasonably informed) masses bear it out. From what I've seen, the overwhelming majority of MMA outlets bear it out.

Going wildly against the masses for two consecutive rounds (and the probability therein) is suspect.

 

[SKYNET]

All this nonsense just reminds me how much I appreciate the fighters who actively tried and succeeded in finishing their opponents in 2019

Thank you to all those great warriors for not letting the outcomes be decided by those incompetent judges in 2019

 

[loisestrad]

I actually scored one of the contested rounds for Jones, giving him a 3-2 win. The win is fine, but a 4-1 spread definitely is not,

It actually is, as two rounds are contested. I don't see how it's even debatable.

 

[TheAmericanGazelle]

It actually is, as two rounds are contested. I don't see how it's even debatable.

It's contested because they made mistakes. Not because of what happened in the cage.

Someone saying two plus two equals five and someone saying two plus two equals four makes the issue "contested". But it's contested because one party has made a mistake, not because the objective reality is confusing or muddled.

Reyes absolutely and unequivocally won two rounds.

 

[loisestrad]

It's contested because they made mistakes. Not because of what happened in the cage.

Someone saying two plus two equals five and someone saying two plus two equals four makes the issue "contested". But it's contested because one party has made a mistake, not because the objective reality is confusing or muddled.

Reyes absolutely and unequivocally won two rounds.

It's just that this isn't math. This is literally one saying 2 plus 2 equals 4, and one of the 2's are less than the other.

 

[TheAmericanGazelle]

It's just that this isn't math. This is literally one saying 2 plus 2 equals 4, and one of the 2's are less than the other.

I'm saying people sometimes make mistakes. There is always going to be a subjective element in judging, but when you are going wildly against the grain two times in a row (the 4-1 judge), it's reflective of something.

Like I said in the other thread, if you hold the probabilities of 10 and 20 percent constant and consider the two rounds independent events (as they should be), the odds of giving both rounds to Jones is about two percent.

That's weird.

And when you look at the significant strikes and see a clear advantage in both rounds for Reyes...you understand we aren't working on the absolute edges of closeness. Reyes had an 11 and 7 strike advantage. Not 1 and 1. Or 2 and 1 or something along those lines.