News Ngannou speaks out against incompetent judges

Pay all fighters show/win money regardless of result and transition to a stoppage incentives model.
 
No. The second round can not be reasonably scored for Barber. It was a robbery, and I don't throw that word around.

The main event was debatable. I scored it for 48-47 Sandhagen(2,4,5), but the third and fourth were so close that it's no robbery.

Miranda Maverick won two of three rounds, and the judges got it wrong.
You scored Sandhagen like most mma media outlets that are recorded. 6 out of 20+ Scored for TJ
 
the real answer is, have former fighters become judges and stop with this nonsense of random
assholes being judges.

also i like what Ngannou is doing. he's doing something no other champ is/was doing besides GSP when he asked for testing. he's fighting for a cause that isn't just about himself. Ngannou rarely ever goes to decision so he never gets the shit end of the stick on decisions, but he spoke out about it anyway.
 
The problem with most of these judges is that they haven't fought themselves nor have they trained MMA. As far as I know they're basically some dudes shoven forward by the commission to judge fights but their main expertise is boxing/kickboxing. MMA's little intricacies are sometimes lost on them.
 
Open scoring.

Also put up a finish bonus that decreases with each round.
This has always been the answer. You see that you're down, it's up to you to try and finish. No surprises in the end.
 
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.
"Damage" is a gray area because in a lot of cases, especially the fight you're talking about, 1 strike opened that cut.... anything that landed on TJ after just made it bleed again. If you focus on a cut that's going to open every time a strike is landed on it, you're going to continuiously think a guy is taking big damage, when he really isn't.

It's not like Cory murdered TJ. They both did damage to each other. Cory most likely did more but TJ did damage too and had all the other aspects in his favor.

The fight between Cory and TJ is not a robbery. A fight like Condit vs Lawler is an actual robbery, where Lawler was clearly outstruck badly in nearly every round yet somehow won and there was no grappling in their fight. Condit legitimately did not lose more than 2 rounds and I don't think he lost any except maybe, maybe the 5th round, yet lost the fight....
 
Honestly that's just sad IMO. Should be taking notes then if you're attention span is that bad.
It’s not about a bad attention span, it’s just the way the human brain works. It’s a known phenomenon

Kind of like how people can steal a round with a nice flurry in the last minute or so I guess.
 
Fire all the current judges and start over.

Eliminate politics from the hiring of new judges.

Eliminate the 10 point must system-this isn't anything like boxing.

...of course none of this will happen, because the UFC is happy with the way things are now.

1. Impossible, and it has nothing to do with the UFC.
2. Impossible, and it had nothing to do with the UFC.
3. Difficult, but the UFC doesn't want it.

When it comes to incompetent judging, the UFC is not the villain. Hiring and firing judges isn't a UFC issue, nor are the politics involved in hiring and firing judges UFC politics. Same for Bellator.

But yeah, the UFC seems like they love the 10pt must.
 
Last edited:
So the argument for TJ winning is that he controlled the ring by getting blasted in the face all fight with little offensive of his own? Or was it the pillow footed leg kicks? Lol. Sandhagen looking at TJ like Hendricks was looking at GSP.
 
First off, rewatch these fights. The maverick and Barber fight was far from the worst decision ive seen. Round one granted was for sure maverick. After that its anybodys guess who won that fight. I saw it going either way. For the Dillashaw/Sandhaggen fight, the judges scored it how I saw it. Granted TJ got lit up and cut that second round. Other than that he did more. Sure he didnt show as much damage but without that cut, TJ would have been in the same boat. TJ pressed the action 95% of the fight and had Sandhagen in more comprisable positions. I dont think these decisions were clear cut robberies, ive seen much worse from the judges.

My advice for most fans is not to rewatch the Maverick-Barber fight. The fight was every bit as bad as the decision. That said, this comment is pretty far off as regards that fight. There's no competent way to score that fight any way other than 29-28 Maverick. It was clear cut and a good litmus test for who is/isn't good at judging fights.
 
No. The second round can not be reasonably scored for Barber. It was a robbery, and I don't throw that word around.

The main event was debatable. I scored it 48-47 Sandhagen(2,4,5), but the third and fourth were so close that it's no robbery.

Miranda Maverick won two of three rounds, and the judges got it wrong.


I scored it 2,4, and 5 for Sandhagen too. But I didn't see it as a robbery either. You are spot on about the Barber travesty.
 
I remember reading that most MMA judges are retired boxing judges just working a part-time gig. People's careers are in the hands of pensioners who couldn't give two shits about MMA and are there because they paid the license fee (which in South Dakota is $80 <Lmaoo>).
 
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.
I agree, 10 point must system isn't good for MMA.
 
5 judges would help instead of 3.
5 corrupt dumb-dumbs instead of 3 does not help at all. As long as you put humans in charge, you will always get mistakes, dishonesty and inconsistencies.
What you want is AI type of technology to measure pressure, damage, all that jazz to determine the dominant fighter based on the algorithm received.
 
I don't think finish bonuses that decrease with each round make a ton of sense. why risk a finish in round 5 for significantly less reward? I don't see the benefit of that change



Maybe both. I don't think it would hurt except maybe injecting a bunch of new judges...which could be good or bad
Because if you don't finish him in round 5 you get no bonus
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,851
Messages
55,312,134
Members
174,734
Latest member
Bob Gnuheart
Back
Top