Old school judging robberies.

[L0ki]

Penn vs. Serra should've 100 been a win for Matt.

Nunes Val II.

 

[DagOban**]

sorry, but


A robbery is when many (the majority) thinks the result is wrong.
And whether YOU specifically agree or not it is not in the discussion.
Those were considered robbery by many, and the fact you feel the need to justify some just shows they are still, in fact, robberies.

Those "robberies" you mentioned are very questionable and still hotly debated today.

So no. There is no majority here.

 

[Shaddows]

Those "robberies" you mentioned are very questionable and still hotly debated today.

So no. There is no majority here.

Unfortunately for you, the majority disagrees with you

 

[nonoob]

I believe that's what we call an in-house robbery as it was in bispings backyard of England
We all know Hamill won that fight

Was with Mark that whole night, he told me he never heard that.

 

[filthynumber1]

It's not a robbery if it's an extremely close fight, but regardless, Randy won on points as he should've. Round 1 was 10-8 Couture easy, Round 2 was 10-8 Rizzo easy with Randy gassed, Rounds 3 and 4 both 10-9 for Couture as he got a second wind and put Rizzo down again, and Round 5 10-9 Rizzo as Randy started fading again but no real damage inflicted by the always-too-passive Rizzo. That's 47-46 Couture, as it should've been. Even if you wanted to give Rizzo a 10-8 for Round 5, which I don't think he earned, it still wouldn't give him the victory, but a draw at best. No way he won that fight. He could've won it had he gone for the kill in Round 2 or again in Round 5, but he was way too passive and it cost him on the cards. On the big stage, Rizzo had no killer instinct and he'd either freeze and do nothing (like he did against Randleman and Randy the second time) or coast instead of stepping on the gas (like he did against Coleman at UFC 18 and against Randy here). He was wrongly given a decision he didn't earn over Coleman at UFC 18, even though Coleman scored TDs and landed GNP and even a couple of surprise punches on the feet, while Rizzo did very little offensively. The first fight against Randy was much the same, he had him right where he wanted him but he let him survive to the cards, except this time he didn't get gifted the decision. Rizzo had no one to blame for losing that fight but himself.



The standard round system wasn't in place at UFC 20, so neither your description of the number of rounds Raldmena controlled nor your made up scorecard make sense. In keeping with the theme, though, this is another instance of a fight being one fighter's to lose and they lost it. Randleman busted Bas up early, but he literally stopped all offense and let Bas back into the fight, and it cost him. Added to which, the old UFC scoring was more like the PRIDE scoring, emphasizing effort to finish the fight and assessing things cumulatively rather than round by round with the 10-point-must system. The judges saw Bas trying to KO Randleman every second of the fight, including relentlessly attacking him even off his back, while Randleman was just laying on top of him taking elbows to the dome. It was a bizarrely abortive performance from Randleman (Bas always said that he thought the body kick he landed on Randleman hurt him and scared him, thus making him go completely on the defensive) and a gutsy performance from Bas. I'm not mad at the gutsy combatant getting rewarded while the passive lay-and-prayer suffers for not actively trying to win.

I may need to go rewatch those fights. I do remember Randy winning the first round and not much more. Even when the judges decision was announced the look on Randy's face was shock. Even Randy kmew he lost that fight. So I'm definitely going to disagree with you on that. Randy was saved by the bell in that fight, he had nothing left

And yes that scoring did not exist at that time. I was just stating in today's scoring how I would score that fight. Hard to win a fight when your on your back the whole fight. Unless your a submission wizard. Which bas definitely was not,. Your right in that randleman was definitely was doing lots of lay n pray but can you blame him?? Bas was a savage on the feet. Kevin was on top of him the vast majority of that fight.

 

[Bullitt68]

Penn vs. Serra should've 100 been a win for Matt.

Good call. That fight was a lot like Serra's fight against Lytle at the TUF 4 finale. Serra was constantly initiating offense, and while his opponents were able to stop his TDs, they didn't actually do anything but defend, and so Serra should've won in both cases simply for being the only one on the offensive. But they gave it to Penn and that's a shame for Serra, not only because he lost out on a title shot, but also because we lost out on what could've been an epic grappling war between him and Uno.

I may need to go rewatch those fights. I do remember Randy winning the first round and not much more. Even when the judges decision was announced the look on Randy's face was shock. Even Randy kmew he lost that fight. So I'm definitely going to disagree with you on that. Randy was saved by the bell in that fight, he had nothing left

Randy was no more saved by the bell in Round 2 than Rizzo was in Round 1. And Round 5 is also clearly a Rizzo round, though some people think it should've been a 10-8, which I disagree with as Randy was just tired, he wasn't actually getting beat up like he was in Round 2. It really comes down to how you score Rounds 3 and 4. To my eyes, they're both clear Randy rounds because Rizzo stepped off the gas and offered little offense whereas Randy with his second wind continued pressing and scored more TDs. And pedantic nerd that I am, it's because these are such hotly contested and debated rounds that it shouldn't be considered a robbery. It was a razor close, back-and-forth fight, not a one-sided affair that went to the wrong combatant.

Also, Randy explained his reaction to the decision at UFC 31 in his pre-fight interview at UFC 34. He thought he won the fight, but he was worried that he'd lose on the cards, and when he heard the decision he was surprised not because he thought he lost but because he was worried that the judges would disagree with him. That's the reason he was so excited for the immediate rematch: Not because he thought that he lost the first time and wanted revenge, but because he thought he won and he wanted to prove his superiority. And based on the way that he fought and won in the rematch, outstriking Rizzo on the feet and mauling him on the ground with a bloody GNP finish in Round 3, there were no doubts left about who was the better fighter.

And yes that scoring did not exist at that time. I was just stating in today's scoring how I would score that fight.

That's the problem and the source of confusion. You can't judge fights from the past by present criteria. Fights back then were scored differently. Had they broken the fight up in five 5-minute rounds with a 10-point-must scoring system, Randleman would've won. But they didn't, so he didn't.

Hard to win a fight when your on your back the whole fight. Unless your a submission wizard. Which bas definitely was not,.

Have you never seen Bas fight in Pancrase? He actually was a submission wizard, one who even invented his own submission before the twister or the Von Flue



Again, though, this speaks to Randleman's failure to secure what should've been the easiest victory in the world. All he needed to do was keep punching Bas. But he didn't. He stopped fighting, and so he lost the fight.

Your right in that randleman was definitely was doing lots of lay n pray but can you blame him?

Yes, I can. He had Bas dead to rights but he let him off the hook, which is why he lost. What is true regardless of era or org, and what will always be true as long as MMA exists: Never leave it to the judges. For better or worse, you don't hand your fate to someone else to decide. Randleman had Bas like a character in Mortal Kombat being told "Finish Him!" but he didn't finish him.

 

[filthynumber1]

Yeah, I just think it was mostly a case of Hendricks looking scary and GSP wearing damage easily.
Either way, doesn't change much. Neither guy had much of a career after.

They both won world titles after so not sure what you're talking about

 

[Skarsgard]

They both won world titles after so not sure what you're talking about

Hendricks had a couple okay showings before falling off as hard as we've seen anyone drop and GSP pretty much retired. Just a little dumb with my wording.