Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by Dreyga2000, Jul 26, 2021.
5 judges would help instead of 3.
Also put up a finish bonus that decreases with each round.
I've been saying this for a while. It's not a solution but it would reduce the chance of a bad decision.
How would open scoring help a robbery like Barber x Maverick? I like open scoring, but it doesn't help to solve the issue.
With robbery's, the athletic commision simply has to overule the scores and suspend judges.
Nah more shitty cooks in the kitchen = crash, we just need more COMPETENCY. Some calls are so fucking obvious to us, and they still get it wrong and it's their fucking job.
That's accurate imo. Statistically, the more judges, the higher the chance of a correct decision. So, why not 5 over 3
So in a fight what comes priority? Damage or cage/ring control?
Because by answering that question, an answer to who really won the fight between TJ and Sandhagen also comes forth into the spotlight.
This would only work assuming the judges weren't defective. If they can handle the training aspect first, then it would be a better idea.
That's incorrect. Judges don't work as a team.If you let 5 average cooks cook a meal, chances that 1 nails it are statistically bigger than with 3 cooks.
A few other Orgs already operate with 5 judges as well. Don't ask for specifics as I watch far too many orgs to recall. I do know it has been mentioned in broadcasts.
I work with the idea judges are competent, but make mistakes. If you feel judges are totally incompetent, more judges doesn't do much
Ok fair that they don't work as a team, but bringing in two more idiots doesn't help. They need to train these judges properly and get rid of dumbasses like Sal D'Amato.
It's certainly the easiest way to immediately reduce bad decisions.
What we really need is accountability for bad judging. If a judge submits a scorecard like 29-28 Barber, there has to be some sort of review of that judge. Right now there are zero consequences for incompetence.
You get fired for fucking up over and over again at most jobs. Let's make judging one of those jobs.
Judge the fight as a whole. 10 point must system should have staying in boxing. Pride had the right idea. Let the judges write a summary to explain how they got to their decision to limit corruption and to prove they know what to look for when scoring a fight.
Rules clearly states damage is the priority
This causes too much recency bias. Expecting judges to remember the details of a 15 or 25 min fight is asking for disaster.
both. the problem is, Sandhagen only clearly did the most damage in rd 2. the rest of the fight is pretty even, so therefore TJ's extra clinching and control win him the fight. this is coming from someone who wanted Sandhagen to kick him into the dirt.
Separate names with a comma.