• Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates, this is just a temporary look. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days and restore the site to its more familiar look, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Why did Marc Goddard stop but ...

Luffy

Blue Belt
@Blue
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
615
Reaction score
365
The referee of UFC is ofc light-years ahead of us (tho the difference to me is still bigger because most of you here understand more than me) in mma knowledge; the act of judging and determining when a fight is safe to continue, as well.

It's said his knowledge on MMA safety regulations, so much so has even has a committee for it of which he is the director, is rarely matched.

Still though, I didn't understand the reason he stopped the first Poatan vs Prochazka first fight yet only stopped Poatan vs Khalil when Khalil fell to the ground — and even still, he hesitated at first, Poatan looked at him and then he paused a little and determined the end of the fight.

Was Jiri under more safety risk than Khalil at any moment towards the final moments of both fights? Jiri had taken two hard right and left hooks that dropped him and many elbows and was falling. Khalil didn't show so much wobbliness, or fading, but had nasty cuts, being blind of one eye at the time (not permanently but temporarily ofc), had his nose broken, his face was covered in blood, Prochazka's face didn't get blood in his both fights against Poatan (nor Hill's either, nor Sean. Izzy's did get blood tho).

Idk tho... Was one safer than the other?
 
Because it was two different matches on two different days. I read it in DUH Magazine.
 
Duh funny
FLvaiD2XsAE-4q9.jpg
 
There's bias. Refs might have hidden preconceptions of how much a fighter can take and call the same scenarios for 2 different fighters. I'm sure when they see Walker gets on wobbly legs after taking a combo would give him less chances than if Jon Jones looked the same way. They can't say it out loud, but refs have to follow their gut and make the best call they can.
 
There's bias. Refs might have hidden preconceptions of how much a fighter can take and call the same scenarios for 2 different fighters. I'm sure when they see Walker gets on wobbly legs after taking a combo would give him less chances than if Jon Jones looked the same way. They can't say it out loud, but refs have to follow their gut and make the best call they can.
Yes, but if anything, wouldn't Marc Goddard have a bias towards Jiri Prochazka's resilience considering Jiri's insane recovery feats vs Reyes and Glover? He was the referee of Jiri vs Glover as well.
 
Yes, but if anything, wouldn't Marc Goddard have a bias towards Jiri Prochazka's resilience considering Jiri's insane recovery feats vs Reyes and Glover? He was the referee of Jiri vs Glover as well.
You dont have time to think about that. He saw Jiri look like he went limp and made a judgement call. I cant blame him for it at all. Jiri probably could have continued but it LOOKED fuckin bad and he was right there.
 
Goddard has weird calls, he called off the cedric doumbe fight in PFL awkwardly and he also told Usman to work against woodley even though Usman was being active in that fight. He's the most illogical ref I've seen
 
You dont have time to think about that. He saw Jiri look like he went limp and made a judgement call. I cant blame him for it at all. Jiri probably could have continued but it LOOKED fuckin bad and he was right there.
Yes, but why was that call taken on Jiri but not on Khalil? Do you think Marc Goddard didn't have much of a logical reasoning to see one fight as done and the other as still not done, and acted mainly instincts, like "damn, I will act, I won't act!!" ?
 
Yes, but why was that call taken on Jiri but not on Khalil? Do you think Marc Goddard didn't have much of a logical reasoning to see one fight as done and the other as still not done, and acted mainly instincts, like "damn, I will act, I won't act!!" ?
Because it was a different fight on a different day.

No one acts the same every time.
 
There's bias. Refs might have hidden preconceptions of how much a fighter can take and call the same scenarios for 2 different fighters. I'm sure when they see Walker gets on wobbly legs after taking a combo would give him less chances than if Jon Jones looked the same way. They can't say it out loud, but refs have to follow their gut and make the best call they can.
Yes, but if anything, wouldn't Marc Goddard have a bias towards Jiri Prochazka's resilience considering Jiri's insane recovery feats vs Reyes and Glover? He was the referee of Jiri vs Glover as well.
That's a good point, who knows if maybe besides bias for safety reasons refs could be playing favorites. Although Jiri has been a little chinny as much of a warrior he is.

It's hard to really know what is going through a refs head exactly, but I wouldn't be surprised they lean a certain way for any fighter they really follow. It would be interesting if someone spent time to analyze refs who ref the same fighter in different fights and make calls in a similar fashion.
 
What about Poatan vs Adesanya one as well? Would it seem earlier than Poatan vs Khalil as well or does it have a logical reasoning? Because if another weird call based on instincts, Poatan vs Adesanya and Poatan vs Jiri 1 were both higher stake fights in terms of who Poatan was fighting against...
 
What about Poatan vs Adesanya one as well? Would it seem earlier than Poatan vs Khalil as well or does it have a logical reasoning? Because if another weird call based on instincts, Poatan vs Adesanya and Poatan vs Jiri 1 were both higher stake fights in terms of who Poatan was fighting against...
Oh that one was also a different fight on a different night.
 
There's bias. Refs might have hidden preconceptions of how much a fighter can take and call the same scenarios for 2 different fighters. I'm sure when they see Walker gets on wobbly legs after taking a combo would give him less chances than if Jon Jones looked the same way. They can't say it out loud, but refs have to follow their gut and make the best call they can.
That's a good point, who knows if maybe besides bias for safety reasons refs could be playing favorites. Although Jiri has been a little chinny as much of a warrior he is.

It's hard to really know what is going through a refs head exactly, but I wouldn't be surprised they lean a certain way for any fighter they really follow. It would be interesting if someone spent time to analyze refs who ref the same fighter in different fights and make calls in a similar fashion.
I also thought about this as a possibility (ofc, just speculation, not anything assertive at all). But just so I know we'd be thinking of the same speculation, would the " favoritism bias" be towards Jiri for, like, fearing for his safety, or would he be "playing favourite" for Khalil by giving him more chances? In which way, I'd say that Jiri being the favorite played one would make more sense as the referee may want them to take less damage over the small likelihood of hoping they can still win. Dunno tho.
 
So you are saying is that there isn't much consistency in stopping fights, it'll boil down to the day, the moment, the time... ?


" Referees probably have habits, but that doesn't mean they will make the same choices every time. Joe Rogan says "he's rocked" but it's clearly not always the case that the fighter is rocked. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes ppl are right and sometimes they are wrong" - Duh Magazine
 
I also thought about this as a possibility (ofc, just speculation, not anything assertive at all). But just so I know we'd be thinking of the same speculation, would the " favoritism bias" be towards Jiri for, like, fearing for his safety, or would he be "playing favourite" for Khalil by giving him more chances? In which way, I'd say that Jiri being the favorite played one would make more sense as the referee may want them to take less damage over the small likelihood of hoping they can still win. Dunno tho.
I bet even secretly when a ref is enjoying a fight they let both guys take more damage than usual. But I'm sure every call has their own reason. Maybe they were shocked by Khalil and impressed by how much of a fight he put up so let him go until the death. Also when a fight is one sided and ref is bored and the loser looks a little wobbly they may call it to get it over with. Their jobs are actually pretty tough, sometimes they may panic stop a fight prematurely, mistakes happen.
 
" Referees probably have habits, but that doesn't mean they will make the same choices every time. Joe Rogan says "he's rocked" but it's clearly not always the case that the fighter is rocked. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes ppl are right and sometimes they are wrong" - Duh Magazine
Joe Rogan is a lot different from Marc Goddard. Marc is not only closer to the action, he is trained and specialized to be a master on knowing when a fight is over and the fighter is under dangerous healthy issues if the fight is not stopped from when a fight is still up. He spent years in it with huge knowledge and heavy studying. Ofc, that doesn't mean every decision will be the exact same, but still, a pattern is way more likely to be consistently factored in than not. Like a doctor, the referees try to be as precise as possible, specially Marc who's regarded as a master on this field. There may be differences, and no mistakes, but big ones, like, big discrepancies, is very unlikely. Possible, but very unlikely, even more when it comes to worldly high regarded referees like Goddard... taking into account his available info background as an MMA fighter and MMA safety analyst heavy studies and trainings of others on it, which I've google'd some hours ago.

Marc when responding to criticisms over the Poatan vs Jiri I, said he was the one who also referee'd the Glover vs Jiri... And said that he had seen clear signs in Poatan vs Jiri of a fighter being incapable of continuing. Like, the non-stoppage leading to unnecessarily heavy damage in a match that was already lost, unlike in the Glover vs Jiri, in which he said to have seen clear traits showing the fight was still undecided, and that the healthy risks weren't as serious.
 
I bet even secretly when a ref is enjoying a fight they let both guys take more damage than usual. But I'm sure every call has their own reason. Maybe they were shocked by Khalil and impressed by how much of a fight he put up so let him go until the death. Also when a fight is one sided and ref is bored and the loser looks a little wobbly they may call it to get it over with. Their jobs are actually pretty tough, sometimes they may panic stop a fight prematurely, mistakes happen.
Would you say it's also likely to have a logical reasoning in the sense of mma safety, like, real signs that one was already out of safety boundaries?
 
Back
Top