Very Difficult to Score Fights

Going to start with an unheralded gem since Munoz is fighting this weekend: Nate Maness vs Johnny Munoz

The scorecards on mmadecisions speak for themselves: http://www.mmadecisions.com/decision/11180/Nathan-Maness-vs-Johnny-Munoz

Very underrated war that was buried on the prelims between two good prospects.
Wtf even happened there? Pettry from Sherdog scored it 29-26 Munoz even though he was deducted a point. Which means he gave him a 10-8 round. I don’t remember the fight but I’d have to watch it.
 
Wtf even happened there? Pettry from Sherdog scored it 29-26 Munoz even though he was deducted a point. Which means he gave him a 10-8 round. I don’t remember the fight but I’d have to watch it.
All 3 sherdog judges gave Munoz a 10-8 rd1.
 
The biggest robbery I’ve seen in a while was the Maverick fight last week. Sure it was a 29-28, so you could say it was close. But all three rounds had a very clear winner. And when every single media outlet agrees on the score, as well as 100% of the sane people that watched the fight. Then you know something was up. Embarrassing decision.
 
Machida vs. Shogun 1

If it wasn't for Joe Rogan having an on-air orgasm every time Shogun threw a leg kick, the fight would seem much more close

This was the most controversial decision on Sherdog for MONTHS until they had a rematch because everyone on here was a Pride fanboy at the time
 
Last night. Witt/Barberena. I have not looked at the official cards yet but I knew instantly what 28-28, 29-28, 29-27 meant.

1 judge gave a 10-8 Bam Bam
1 judge gave a 10-8 Witt
1 judge saw no dominant round
 
Dillashaw/Cruz is the closest fight of all time
 
Last night. Witt/Barberena. I have not looked at the official cards yet but I knew instantly what 28-28, 29-28, 29-27 meant.

1 judge gave a 10-8 Bam Bam
1 judge gave a 10-8 Witt
1 judge saw no dominant round
That wasn't a very tough fight to score. Rd1 and 2 were clearly Witt. Rd 3 was clear barberena.

Very shocked Mike Bell gave Witt a 10-8 round 2. Calling rd3 a 10-8 for Barberena or 10-9 is a tossup.

Was either a draw or Witt win.
 
Scoring is organized corruption because we don’t get to see the scores or shot count between rounds.

Another key factor is that we don’t have a proper definition of how “octagon control” and damage are judged.

What is more important, fight ending shots or control?.. and when is one prioritized over the other?!
 
That wasn't a very tough fight to score. Rd1 and 2 were clearly Witt. Rd 3 was clear barberena.

Very shocked Mike Bell gave Witt a 10-8 round 2. Calling rd3 a 10-8 for Barberena or 10-9 is a tossup.

Was either a draw or Witt win.
This is a good thread.
Not that I care who got the judges' nod, but I don't recall Witt landing a single strike the first round.
I also recall watching Roman Dolidze get a unanimous 30-27 win over Laureano Staropoli without landing any strikes or threatening any submissions.
I guess this begs the question, "Which is more difficult? Scoring rounds where neither fighter accomplished much? Or rounds where both fighters were successful?"
 
Judges shouldn't be so reticent to score 10-10 rounds

When the first round is super close, especially if neither fighter did much, do we want that round to decide the fight? because a lot of the time they'll split the next two rounds. A draw would be better than a random winner based on a lame Round One

Which is why I think half point scoring is needed. Those borderline rounds could be 10-9.5, and the debateable 10-8s could be 10-8.5
 
Scoring is organized corruption because we don’t get to see the scores or shot count between rounds.

Another key factor is that we don’t have a proper definition of how “octagon control” and damage are judged.

What is more important, fight ending shots or control?.. and when is one prioritized over the other?!
Actually, the scoring criteria is crystal clear in terms of whether "fight ending shots or control" is more important. Cage control isn't even considered in judging unless all the other criteria are tied. In other words, octagon control is merely a tie breaker. Most people, including commentators and fighters, don't seem to understand this.
 
Scoring should count up to something much higher than 10 and the judges should be forced to show their details on how they reached the score given based on significant strikes, take downs, submission attempts, grappling dominance, etc. This way it will be obvious if the judges don't judge the two fighters with the same scoring method.

In the current system it is too easy for them to be biased, not give a crap, or show their stupidity and get away with it.
 
Back
Top