Should judges have to score a close fight twice?

[Break Brick]

It's tough either way because a draw as fitting as it is is very unsatisfying and ties up the division (see LW a few years back).

Even though this fight was close (even controversial in some eyes), because there was a decided winner, Dana and friends have options in what to do for both fighters next matches. If it was a draw, the matchmaker's hands are tied.

Judging will always be subjective and I'm ok with that. I just want the criteria to be as transparent as possible, good judges to be instated and judges to be reviewed and held responsible. I'm ok with close fights going either way as opposed to a draw.

Again a perfectly fair argument. I guess in this sense it makes more "business sense" for the decision to go one way or the other as it leaves more viable options for future fights. I suppose I'm looking at it in terms of what should read on the record as opposed to how it effects the potential future match-making. (Though it inevitably would)

I definitely agree that judging is subjective and perhaps inquiry into poor scoring (individually) would be a good way of holding judges (or whoever appointed them) accountable

 

[fluffball]

I prefer Liddell's suggestion of making judges sit down and explain why they score rounds the way they do. I'd love to see the judges at the post-fight press conferences to hold them accountable.

Edit: Someone post that GIF of judge Cecil Peoples getting hit with a falling fighter because he was not even close to watching the fight.

 

[Break Brick]

I prefer Liddell's suggestion of making judges sit down and explain why they score rounds the way they do. I'd love to see the judges at the post-fight press conferences to hold them accountable.

Lol, that would be hilarious as well as eye opening. Can you imagine the levels of instigating Ariel would achieve in this type of scenario? Untold

 

[hto63]

If you're so pissed about MMA judging why don't you become a Judge since you're obviously Judge Dredd of MMA knowledge and know exactly how to score close fights????? It's not like you have to be Dana White's cousin to become a MMA judge

Judges are a nonfactor. The rules are decided way up the food chain and one man will not change it.

Do you really believe the UFC is not lobbying hard to improve the rules?

And it's not just the point scoring either, there has to be consistency with the judges and the refs, it's stupid there is even variation in how highly a takedown is scored for example.
Big John had an awesome segment on the MMA hour and talked about that quite a bit, I mean even the refs hate how inconsistent the judges are!

there's a lot of other stuff that needs improving as well, werid rules about illegal elbows, easily abused grounded opponent rules, etc.

clearly you forgot about Fitch vs Penn. It happens in MMA, but just because it didn't happen to Gus doesn't mean the judging was bad.

Again, I am not talking about Gus vs Jones. The fight was scored properly in my opinion but the supposed controversy some people try to create is based on the flawed scoring process when it was really just a close fight overall...

 

[Free_MMAson]

Judges secretly like the negative attention since they know when they score a fight correctly no one cares who they are

 

[Break Brick]

Judges secretly like the negative attention since they know when they score a fight correctly no one cares who they are

haha! Holds weight, otherwise Cecil Peoples wouldn't be the unsinkable legend he is today. The superstar of the judging world

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

I'd be pissed if I had to wait half an hour just to find out Leonard Garcia won a split decision.

 

[Break Brick]

I'd be pissed if I had to wait half an hour just to find out Leonard Garcia won a split decision.

Lol. Wel played sir

 

[MCS]

The pro's do outweigh the con's from a spectator's standpoint, but in reality not being able to celebrate a belt holder after being in "fight watch mode" fucks up the event. Promotions wouldn't agree with it. It would create some nice (or not so nice) anticipation for fans who are not attending.

 

[Jonny Ninja]

because it can lead to one fighter winning 2 even and uneventful rounds that could essentially be draws just as well, then his opponent totally dominates the 3rd round just short of a 10-8 score, maybe even on his way to a stoppage when the bell rings and he will lose the fight... that's not right.

especially the way takedowns that lead to absolutely nothing whatsoever get overrated by many judges. Takedowns like both Gus and Jones had, completely irrelevant but probably the biggest factor in who won round 1 and 5...



at least judges should be able to put more emphasis on the last round if one fighter finishes strong or comes close to a stoppage.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said that but I dont think judging the fight as a whole will work or be accurate. Its not the answer and I feel would only work if there were no rounds.

Fighters (wrestlers) getting a late takedown and holding position until the end of the round should not be scored in the fighters favour, it is encouraging inactivity in a fight and in reality should count for fck all! Its ruining the sport imo.

I personally think that there should be more 10-8s and more drawn rounds. If 2 guys have cancelled each other out or more specifically done nothing on the feet then grabs a late td, score it a draw; no fighter has deserved to win the round. If the fight is drawn at the end of 3, give em an extra round. If neither fighter tries to win the final round score the fight a draw, there shouldn't be a winner if no one really deserved to win the fight nd it won't look particully good for either fighter. I beleive this would lead to more fighters looking to fight and finish. The scoring system, as it is, is completely inadequate and is encouraging fighters to control to win fights rather than fight. its good for boxing, but for 3 round fights and lots of different fighting styles being used it's shite!

 

[Lethal_Striker]

There would be way too much wiggle room on what qualifies as a close fight. Are we going to have to double review every single 29-28 fight even if a guy clearly won 2 rounds and the other guy clearly won the other round?

What if a title fight had to be double reviewed when there was only 15 minutes left on the PPV broadcast? Thanks for paying your money for the PPV now wait till the PPV ends and check on UFC.com to see who really won the fight?

 

[Break Brick]

There would be way too much wiggle room on what qualifies as a close fight. Are we going to have to double review every single 29-28 fight even if a guy clearly won 2 rounds and the other guy clearly won the other round?

What if a title fight had to be double reviewed when there was only 15 minutes left on the PPV broadcast? Thanks for paying your money for the PPV now wait till the PPV ends and check on UFC.com to see who really won the fight?

I did consider these. In regards to too many fights getting double reviewed I guess there would need to be strict criteria for the call to be made, or a unanimous vote from the 2nd panel to review? Perhaps only have it implemented fot title fights? I'm just spitballing here.

In regards to the issue of PPV time running out I definitely see that as an issue, as would fans live waiting 25 minutes for review to find out whose a winner. It's got cons for sure, ultimately it's whether you want to sacrifice polished format for more accurate decisions.

 

[DarthChen731]

sure. Let's make the fighters wait an additional 25 minutes after their fight to find out if they won. I'm sure all the fans would love that.

Indeed lol, they should've put a couch in the ring so Jones and Gus could kick back, munch some donuts, and wait to hear to won.

 

[BuffaloEmperor]

i understand TS, point but there has to be another way to get better decisions. drunken fans sitting around for 25 minutes might cuz fights in the crowd or some crazy shit maybe if judges could watch the fight not ringside and watch it in a booth away from crowd noise and drunken fools it would be better. idk.
i agree in a sense though that watching a fight one time can be hard to make a good decision.

 

[JD Harmeyer]

Judges are a nonfactor. The rules are decided way up the food chain and one man will not change it.

Do you really believe the UFC is not lobbying hard to improve the rules?

And it's not just the point scoring either, there has to be consistency with the judges and the refs, it's stupid there is even variation in how highly a takedown is scored for example.
Big John had an awesome segment on the MMA hour and talked about that quite a bit, I mean even the refs hate how inconsistent the judges are!

there's a lot of other stuff that needs improving as well, werid rules about illegal elbows, easily abused grounded opponent rules, etc.

Again, I am not talking about Gus vs Jones. The fight was scored properly in my opinion but the supposed controversy some people try to create is based on the flawed scoring process when it was really just a close fight overall...

The rules are clearly laid out for the judges. It's up to the judges to determine how they score the fight. Some judges favor take downs and control, other judges favor a fighter throwing air punches and running from the fight. I never have a problem with a judges score card and how they judge the fight, it's up to the fighter to win the fight. No matter what judging system is used, they're always be close fights that go the distance were people won't agree with the decision. Maybe I'm in the minority but judging the fight round by round on a 10 point system is fine. Changing the judging criteria will only confuse the judges more and cause even more problems IMO. I compare it to being a NBA fan and being sick of seeing easy scored point via Dunks, so hey lets raise the rim to 14 feet...