Not here to start an argument, but how weird is it that judges who know nothing dictate history?

legkicktko

Only the Strong Survive
@Black
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
6,602
Reaction score
2,133
Think about this:

Yoel clearly lost first Whittaker fight in my opinion. That said, he clearly won the second in my eyes and then edged this fight with Costa.

Because 2 people in either case (people who are notorious for not knowing anything about MMA) decided he didn't, his legacy is completely different. Instead of defending a belt, he can easily become a journeyman who never touched gold, all due to two opinions. The fights played out how they played out, but 3 people got to decide the direction of either career. That is craziness when you think about it.

This is not just the case with Yoel, but in other fights as well. Take Gustaffson-Jones I. To be honest, I had Gustaffson edging it. So did the announcers. At minimum, it is a possibility he won 3 rounds. If the history books were written that way, him and Jones would be 1-1 and both careers would have played out way different.

The same goes for Frankie against Benson the second time (I had him losing the first). What would his career have been like if he won that decision? Would he have retired with the belt? (he was talking about it at the time).

These are just examples in title fights. I find it to be crazy that these knuckle heads decide the fate of people's careers. I don't agree with Rogan on everything, but I think he hit the nail on the head when he said we need 10 judges and not 3. It would be far less debatable that half of 10 people got it wrong. For now, we should just be thankful they only fuck up a percentage of the time. At least we don't have it as bad as boxing.
 
Judging in combat sports will always have a problem. Whether it is not understanding what is going on, possible corruption or not even paying attention it will always be something that will stick around unfortunately.
 
All you need to be an MMA judge is money to pay for the license. In my state it's $200 and once the check clears, you're in!
 
Well as you said though TS, he edged it out. Given that he barely won it in your eyes, can you be made if a judge who isn’t a Yoel fan like you saw it differently?
 
Judging can be improved but the fights Yoel lost were all close and far from robberies. Also he got the nod against Jacare and has missed weight in important fights including Whittaker 2. It is what it is. Looking forward to his next fight.
 
Well as you said though TS, he edged it out. Given that he barely won it in your eyes, can you be made if a judge who isn’t a Yoel fan like you saw it differently?
I'm fan of Costa as well. It doesn't have to be emotional. I am a big fan of Yoel and not a fan of Whittaker. Yoel lost the first Whittaker fight. I was disappointed before the decision was read.
 
Think about this:

Yoel clearly lost first Whittaker fight in my opinion. That said, he clearly won the second in my eyes and then edged this fight with Costa.

Because 2 people in either case (people who are notorious for not knowing anything about MMA) decided he didn't, his legacy is completely different. Instead of defending a belt, he can easily become a journeyman who never touched gold, all due to two opinions. The fights played out how they played out, but 3 people got to decide the direction of either career. That is craziness when you think about it.

This is not just the case with Yoel, but in other fights as well. Take Gustaffson-Jones I. To be honest, I had Gustaffson edging it. So did the announcers. At minimum, it is a possibility he won 3 rounds. If the history books were written that way, him and Jones would be 1-1 and both careers would have played out way different.

The same goes for Frankie against Benson the second time (I had him losing the first). What would his career have been like if he won that decision? Would he have retired with the belt? (he was talking about it at the time).

These are just examples in title fights. I find it to be crazy that these knuckle heads decide the fate of people's careers. I don't agree with Rogan on everything, but I think he hit the nail on the head when he said we need 10 judges and not 3. It would be far less debatable that half of 10 people got it wrong. For now, we should just be thankful they only fuck up a percentage of the time. At least we don't have it as bad as boxing.


8FtUYhj.jpg
 
Clearly isn't always clear even in the eyes of judges. Anything that involves a judge can be questioned. It's their view and interpretation off what has transpired. It's just a part of the human element no matter how well trained or skilled they are in what they do. Sure more judges the better but there will still be split decisions and at times wrong decisions as perceived by fans. Even to this day there is no consensus on the Jones/Gustaffson first fight. It was just one of those fights where its easily viewed either way depending on the individual. Same with the Costa/Romero fight we just saw. Judges were unanimous. Fans seemed to be split evenly. As is always said to avoid all of this don't let it go to the scorecard. Maybe the tech world will soon give us something that will replace human judging.
 
I made this thread weeks ago and here it applies again.

Edson-Felder 2 was an amazing fight overshadowed by autistic judges.

The most logical score respectfully speaking on a 10 point must system is 29-28 Edson.

The fact that ZERO of the three judges had that score is incredible. 30-27 in right direction? Fuck you.
 
Legacy doesn't really matter we're all gonna die and be forgotten.

people who actually watched the fights will know who actually won.

people who look up results on fight finder who act like smug cunts over a decision they know was bullshit but want to sound smart can go fuck themselves. they'll always exist.
 
If the butterfly effect is true then you can only imagine how big of a difference in your career will the fight outcome make.
 
Back
Top