Discussion in 'So You Wanna Be A Fighter Discussion' started by shonuf, May 21, 2014.
Ian won all three rounds, and there shouldn't have even been a third round.
ahhh you're right. thanks for clearing that up. Well that's a clear flaw in a sudden victory round where it's a tie round.
Also they can't just go ahead and say, well let's look at the fight as a whole, who do you think won. Then the judges say Zapata. What's wierd is I bet Stevens won more points if you added up all the judges score cards. For all three rounds. With the one 10-8 in the 3rd, he must have, mathmatically, with no 10-8's in round one or two. If you want to "score" the fight as a whole that's how you should do it imo. If you want to start judging fights as a whole, get rid of the scorecards, or go with PrideFC rules.
So basically for me the judges just showed the world their asses.
It was a joke. Dana wants it to be a kickboxing match.
Strikers need help winning fights, from refs, rounds, rules. Grapplers don't. And to be a champion, you need both, but, mostly a grappling background. Its why we don't have many elite fighters who are primarily just strikers. All the best have elite jiujitsu or wrestling, or both.
But, give it 5 years. Dana will turn it into K1 with takedowns, and a "mat clock" where if the fight goes to the ground, you have 10 seconds to finish, or you stand up.
I still don't get how the decision was scored.
Zapata didn't win the fight if you go by standard MMA scoring. But at least he tried, so I wasn't unhappy that he got the decision.
If your coach is advising you to run out of the building so the judges can't reverse their decision, there's a good chance you really didn't just win that fight
Absolutely disgusting. Just makes me sick for Ian. I hope he gets a UFC fight regardless.
Ian won all three rounds. There shouldn't have been a third round. As for Dana's damage argument, the damage on Ian was pretty much the cuts on his head.
I think the point deduction was fair. Zapata was given an insane amount of warnings about numerous fouls, including the 12-6 elbows.
Some pretty horrific judging. Seemed obvious Stephens won. And Dana being completely idiot again this episode.
people who think stephens clearly won all 3 rounds are retarded.
it was a close fight, depending on what you value more -- positional dominance or damage.
realistically, all 3 rounds could have gone either way. stephens had no near submissions or good strikes.
Haven't watched the rest of this TUF season, but after seeing a lot of comments on a possible change in judging, I watched this episode.
Based on prior fights I'd have expected Stephens to get the judges' decision based on positional dominance and threatening with the rear naked choke.
I actually like that they gave one round to Zapata, presumably for the elbows which managed to cut him and the strikes which marked his face.
I'm not sure how you could give at least one of those rounds to Stephens and not give him the third round though, where he was more dominant and landed some strikes at the end. I wasn't aware of the method for avoiding draws (judges just pick an overall winner) either, and it seems flawed.
Still, if the judging of strikes over positional dominance is a trend (haven't seen it like this since Bas Rutten defeated Kevin Randleman), I like it.
If all three rounds could have gone either way why would someone that scored it for Ian Stephens be "retarded"? You are the retard.
The damage Zapata inflicted is overstated and it's not Pride.
Zapata getting credit for blood drawn via illegal strikes that got him a clear warning.
I would have gone to a 4th round. :icon_chee
Hahaha, we actually LOL'ed for real at that
yeah was total BS
Dana kept screaming that there was no way he could win with the point deduction so everyone jumped on board with that. It's because he, along with pretty much everyone else, didn't understand what happens when a fight ends like that. We all figured that the best he could get would be 9-9, which made people think there's no way he could win.
It's odd/funny to see so many people suddenly defending a blanket when they would give so much shit to blankets, who were actually much more active than Stephens, in past fights.
the best part of the episode was Mazzagati announcing the winner and saying "IAN ZAPATA!" and Zapata has to correct him.
Then Mazzagati says "wait let me do that agian"
hahahah, what a guy
I hate blanket fights as much as the next fan. The issue is that most of the damage was done from illegal strikes. Be it 12-6 or the fact he consistently struck in the back of the head. This was honestly one of the worst case of judging I have ever seen followed by a complete wtf moment. I hate the fact that superior wrestlers can just dominate with ground control and win, but by the judging criteria that is simply the case. The legal strikes that Zapata landed were in no way near enough to give him the nod over 12 or so minutes of one fighter controlling the fight not to mention the fact that Stephens was attempting submissions, granted they weren't very good or close to ending the fight. I am just flat out confused as to how 2 judges gave round 3 to Zapata, just flat out makes no sense. There has long been the opinion that judging in MMA is screwed up and something needs to be done, I think this is just another blatent example of that fact.
Separate names with a comma.