Why are so many controversial decisions unanimous?

Scheme

Scheme

Red Belt
@red
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
8,772
Reaction score
9,891
Now I'm not talking only about the Gus vs Jones fight, but it seems so many controversial decisions are unanimous (Gus-Jones, Davis-Machida, Shogun-Machida, etc). If a fight is that close you would think the odds would favor a split decision more.

Also a lot of split decision fights are clearly unanimous. Something is up with the judges I think.
 
Nothing wrong about it.
It could have gone three split round decs favoring JBJ (3 rounds for JBJ X 2 rounds for Gustaf) for all three judges perfectly ending in a UD for JBJ.
 
Everyone sees things differently and has their own opinions, so i mean you can't just think cause you thought someone won that everyone else does, so you kinda have to take that into perspective.. Or all fights are rigged. What ever works.
 
You are asking a leading question. Are they really unanimous? Can you provide a lentghy list of "robberies" where the judges agreed on the outcome?

Besides that, if you were to fix a fight by paying the judges, you wouldn't be guaranteed that your guy wins.

You brought up Shogun-Machida 1 as an example. Let's look at it. The judges only get to affect the outcome of the fight in the unlikely event of a decision.

At the time they fought, Shogun had been in 21 MMA-fights and finished 16 of them. That means if you fight Shogun, statistically there is a 76% chance he finishes you. In those 21 fights he had also been finished twice himself, meaning there is an 85.7% chance the fight does not go to the judges. Consider also that these 21 fights were all 3 round fights. In a 5-round fight against Machida it would be even less likely that the fight would go to the judges'.

With Lyoto Machida there was a 46.6% chance that he would finish you in 3-rounds.

This fight was scheduled for 5 rounds. It does not seem logical to invest money in this fight only by paying the judges to fix the fight. The odds of this fight going to the judges' scorecards at all were very low.
 
People don't know the different between a controversial and a close fight.

That's the problem.
 
BadJuJu707 said:
Everyone sees things differently and has their own opinions, so i mean you can't just think cause you thought someone won that everyone else does, so you kinda have to take that into perspective.. Or all fights are rigged. What ever works.
Click to expand...

I think what TS meant was that since the opinion polls on Sherdog etc show that the opinions of who won the fight swing both ways, the judges' scorecards should reflect that, and perhaps show that 2 out of 3 judges scored the fight in favor of the robber and 1 in favor of the robbed.
 
Because, perhaps to the trained eye, the fights you consider "controversial" simply aren't controversial at all?
 
Sometimes just because a decision is controversial, doesn't mean it is a bad decision.

Fight scoring is totally subjective and fans are often clouded by emotions and bias.
 
the real question is

why are so many unanimous decisions supposedly controversial?
 
Three judges is not a whole lot, and it's really not that strange that they score a close fight an unanimos decission. Had there been, say, 10 judges it probably wouldn't have been unanimos.
 
Again, the problem is Dana White and american audience, both hate draws. So it's a big pressure to judges to call out draws.
 
That begs the question. Had there been 5 judges and they went 48-47, 48-47, 49-46 Jones and 50-45 and 50-45 Gus, Jones would have still won with a split decision. Would people being saying the fight was more or less a robbery or controversy? At what point will people realize the judges do a better job then us, no matter how BS we find the decision (Frankie vs Benson)?

After watching the fight, people were certain that Gus outstruck Bones by a considerable amount, either because they saw it or the on-screen numbers said so. Now that the "official" numbers have been updated from rewatching it, it shows Bones outstruck Gus by a small amount in each round. Does this change people's perspectives? Some of the people who had the "Gus outstruck Bones and lost" mentality now refute the stats as BS or fixed. Seems like they will saw anything to ensure their viewpoint is correct.
 
An overwhelming number of people seem to think Jones won (although agree it was razor close), it's just the people who cannot separate emotions that cry foul.
 
EliteLurker said:
An overwhelming number of people seem to think Jones won (although agree it was razor close), it's just the people who cannot separate emotions that cry foul.
Click to expand...

This. The fight was close, but there was really nothing about it that should be controversial. Jones clearly won a close fight. End of story. The problem is that Jones is the most hated fighter on Sherdog, so when he finally had a competitive fight, everyone who desperately wanted him to lose latched on to the idea that he might.
 
Scheme said:
Now I'm not talking only about the Gus vs Jones fight, but it seems so many controversial decisions are unanimous (Gus-Jones, Davis-Machida, Shogun-Machida, etc). If a fight is that close you would think the odds would favor a split decision more.

Also a lot of split decision fights are clearly unanimous. Something is up with the judges I think.
Click to expand...

The UFC scores fights using the 10 point must system like boxing so even very close controversial fights can be unanimous in the judging especially if its easy to judge each individual round. It doesn't mean that the judges are crooked. Now if the judging was based on a free scoring system, then things would be different.
 
"It should have been a split decision" – Anyone who makes this comment should immediately be ignored on judging for the rest of their natural lives. Judges have no idea what the other judges are scoring or thinking. They are all independent. You can say that in a three-round fight it should have been 29-28, but even in the closest of fights, all three judges can be in agreement of who won and there is nothing wrong with the judging.

http://www.mmafighting.com/2013/9/22/4759124/fortunes-changed-for-five-at-ufc-165
 
BUTT-HURTNESS

UD aren't controversial. But the butt hurt fans make them that way because they're cry babies who can't accept the fact their fighter got beat (and unanimously beat by a panel of judges)
 
There shouldn't be anything even remotely controversial to ANYONE regarding the Gus Jones fight. It was a close fight where the only definitive rounds were won by Jones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,690
Messages
55,434,834
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top