"to be the champ you have to beat the champ" is a lie

straight rights should be worth 2 jabs, and 1 jab should be worth 1 jab. Therefore you won via 10 units of jabs. I welcome our AI overlords
If we're going by strike count then get rid of judges and use their strike counter. The judges don't have access to that info so right now it means nothing. If we aren't going to take into account the nuances of a fight then we should boil it down into a sterile math equation.
 
I agree with this, but sometimes find it extremely difficult in practice....like when someone misses weight. I go lookimg for rules that just aren't there.

Rule 24.2(a). No close rounds shall be awarded to the unprofessional fat ass who refused to cut the last 4 lbs.

All three judges score the contest 29-28 declaring the winner due to the invocation of “The Fat ass Clause”…
 
The champion should be a man or woman that decisively, unquestionably, won a title fight.

Sean Strickland won the title decisively against Izzy. He left no doubt. It was a schooling from beginning to end.

The champion deserves the benefit of the doubt, such as Jones has gotten numerous times in his career, or GSP against Hendricks, etc.

This is extremely sad and Strickland's life will change dramatically without the belt.
You don’t know what split decision means
 
YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM THE CHAMP - repeated from UFC 1 - to UFC NOW.

Except that last fight. It's about damage. Ignore the guy who won who looks like he took all the damage. It's the kicks now. And the wrestling attempts that opened up 0 ground game. You're just a racist Sean Strickland bigot fan. Ugh, I just don't even have any sort of clue why Sean Strickland even has fans.
 
This is even dumber than when people were saying that the belt shouldn't change hands on a DQ after Sterling won the first Yan fight.

Putting a bunch of restrictions on how a champ can lose a title is literally pro-wrestling logic.
Is it really?

Wwe has rules tailored to fit each story.

We can’t even get knees to a downed opponent
 
I think this mostly has to do with not liking a particular champ losing, which has many on these boards quite visibly upset.
 
Apples. Oranges.

Don't try too hard to be smart.

Completely different.

Winning by a number is factual.

Just like the numbers show Sean won big on strikes.
It IS the same thing. It's a win. What you're thinking of is a draw, where they already have an advantage because champs go home champs.

Champs who lose aren't champs. Imagine actually pitching that beating the champ doesn't make you champ
 
Last edited:
All three judges score the contest 29-28 declaring the winner due to the invocation of “The Fat ass Clause”…
Yes!! I could support the fat ass clause far easier than any Champion clause that gives them a scoring advantage.
 
I think this mostly has to do with not liking a particular champ losing, which has many on these boards quite visibly upset.
It was annoying but I get it, people are passionate about their boy/girl.

I also like Sean, the problem is, let's day UFC gives in, controversial but exciting, cool, badass, we got a rematch, huge hype and fireworks.

So wtf do you do if the "unthinkable" happens and Dricus lands a KO, what happens to Sean then, his career, his confidence would be nuked, the fandom he accumulated would cave, the company would look like genuine clowns. There's a hell of a lot of risk doing this people don't seem to consider.
 
I'll stop trying to be smart when you stop trying to be stupid.

That sports team point is from Teddy Atlas, specifically addressing mooks making your original "argument".
False equivalence. There would need to be three scores and two would need to be in favor of the winner.
 
The champion should be a man or woman that decisively, unquestionably, won a title fight.

Sean Strickland won the title decisively against Izzy. He left no doubt. It was a schooling from beginning to end.

The champion deserves the benefit of the doubt, such as Jones has gotten numerous times in his career, or GSP against Hendricks, etc.

This is extremely sad and Strickland's life will change dramatically without the belt.
So how would this work in regards to scoring? They score the fight and if it's a split for the challenger they deduct a couple points? Epically stupid.
 
I think this mostly has to do with not liking a particular champ losing, which has many on these boards quite visibly upset.
no.... really? ya dont say?


You might find this interesting, but NO ONE complained when Lawler beat Hendricks (even though he rightfully didnt)

You don't have to wonder why.
I agree with this, but sometimes find it extremely difficult in practice....like when someone misses weight. I go lookimg for rules that just aren't there.

Rule 24.2(a). No close rounds shall be awarded to the unprofessional fat ass who refused to cut the last 4 lbs
haha this is how the Whittaker vs romero 2 fight got scored for rob. He VERY obviously did not win (a draw at best) but yoel missing weight I think resulted in with people being okay with it.
 
YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM THE CHAMP - repeated from UFC 1 - to UFC NOW.

Except that last fight. It's about damage. Ignore the guy who won who looks like he took all the damage. It's the kicks now. And the wrestling attempts that opened up 0 ground game. You're just a racist Sean Strickland bigot fan. Ugh, I just don't even have any sort of clue why Sean Strickland even has fans.
"Three points of contact with the ground" has been repeated a shitload too, but that was never true. Just complete misnomer. Just like how Dom kept jizzing about damage despite that not being on any judges criteria.

Saturday was scored based on the old rules of striking/grappling/aggression/control as a whole.

These things are written down for everyone to read
 
"Three points of contact with the ground" has been repeated a shitload too, but that was never true. Just complete misnomer. Just like how Dom kept jizzing about damage despite that not being on any judges criteria.

Saturday was scored based on the old rules of striking/grappling/aggression/control as a whole.

These things are written down for everyone to read
Wait so damage isn't one of the judges criteria now? There's just massive inconsistency, massive interpretation of the rules, that happen all of the damn time. That one woman who always jumps in the arms of the commentators after she wins, she got a victory over a chinese lady, despite being taken down repeatedly, which led to actual ground fighting. *Repeat there's a problem in MMA/judging forever without ever doing anything about it. HERE. WE. GO.
 
Back
Top