Why do judges need to pick a winner immediately after the fight?

[Corrado Soprano]

MMA is relatively new but some of the rules and rituals are borrowed from other combat sports. I feel like one of the worst aspects of MMA is ‘robberies’ or ‘bad judging.’ I think judges shouldn’t be expected to make a decision immediately after a fight. I believe a judge should have the opportunity to watch/score a fight live then go back and re-watch it and come to a decision a day or two or even a week later. It would help rid the sport of bad decisions and give the fans something to look forward to. Or every fight should be a draw unless a stoppage occurs.

 

[Thepostersuperb]

If there isn’t a finish we go to slap fight decider

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

MMA is relatively new but some of the rules and rituals are borrowed from other combat sports. I feel like one of the worst aspects of MMA is ‘robberies’ or ‘bad judging.’ I think judges shouldn’t be expected to make a decision immediately after a fight. I believe a judge should have the opportunity to watch/score a fight live then go back and re-watch it and come to a decision a day or two or even a week later. It would help rid the sport of bad decisions and give the fans something to look forward to. Or every fight should be a draw unless a stoppage occurs.

Agreed, we definitely need another 15 to 25 minutes of commercials in between fights to wait for the judges to rewatch the fight and score it

 

[rear naked ankle pick]

They should read winners at the next event

 

[Captain Herb]

The judges should have to fight each other and the last one standing gets to use his score for the fight

 

[Corrado Soprano]

Agreed, we definitely need another 15 to 25 minutes of commercials in between fights to wait for the judges to rewatch the fight and score it

I wouldn’t mind the fight being immediately shown again while the judges render a decision.

I also think we could do away with judges and the winner of the fight is whoever lands more strikes. A takedown equals 5 strikes.

 

[infinite666]

If there isn’t a finish we go to slap fight decider

how would wrestlers win then?

 

[Thepostersuperb]

how would wrestlers win then?

Dedicated slap coaching.

 

[Ozze]

Because we, the fans, want the result now, not two days later.

 

[Thepostersuperb]

Or Maby they get the choice
1) free open hand slap
2) get 30 seconds to submit blindfolded opponent

 

[Thepostersuperb]

They should read winners at the next event

Horrible idea

 

[IDL]

During that time, the judges could be pressured by a myriad of influences (social pressure,financial, whatever) so I don't think it would eliminate bad outcomes. It's possible it could make them worse.

Also i'm not sure how that would work with sports betting.

As for viewer experience, it would suck if the results of a fight wouldn't be available until some later date.

 

[leatherf4ce]

They should just book Tito vs Dana. Steve Mazzagatti, Stitch, and Oscar De La Hoya can be the judges.

 

[koquerelle]

legit lol
What a stupid idea. Absolutely terrible.

 

[Can’t Handle My Riddum]

This is maybe the worst idea I’ve ever seen about MMA. No offence. I’m not even sure you’re being serious.

The issue is a scoring system adopted from boxing where fights are usually at least 8 rounds thus minimizing the impact of close rounds.

10-9 must creates bad decisions over 3 round fights.

 

[JosephTessaro]

MMA is relatively new but some of the rules and rituals are borrowed from other combat sports. I feel like one of the worst aspects of MMA is ‘robberies’ or ‘bad judging.’ I think judges shouldn’t be expected to make a decision immediately after a fight. I believe a judge should have the opportunity to watch/score a fight live then go back and re-watch it and come to a decision a day or two or even a week later. It would help rid the sport of bad decisions and give the fans something to look forward to. Or every fight should be a draw unless a stoppage occurs.

We should also be able to watch PPV's without paying, then after we watch the card determine whether or not we should have to pay based on how good the card was.

 

[humdizzle]

so are we going to have bruce buffer reading results like maury ?

 

[jitzmonkey]

No matter how much of a cheeky git you (your account is one of the handful that I recognize when it comes up) typically are, there may be logic to your argument.
Unfortunately, any re-assessment of the score at a later time/date would open the sport up to corrupting influences.

For however long I choose to post on this site, I always argue that there's no reason that a toss up round should be scored like a clear cut round.
Subsequently, I don't believe that clear cut round should = a dominant round.
Rounds with near finishes (especially if real damage is done) should be scored even more lopsided. --> I don't have it broken down to an exact science. I'm not a trainspotter.

If the distinctions are clearly defined, then judges can more easily be held accountable for how they score fights; especially when there's a lack of consistency on the scorecards.

Too many poorly scored fights would preclude them from working and potentially screwing fighters out of 1/2 of their purses.

Eventually the cream rises to the top; just like the fighters.

 

[jitzmonkey]

so are we going to have bruce buffer reading results like maury ?

The results say "You are not the winner"?


That would be so amazingly F'd up!

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Everyone who orders the PPV should get a scorecard. They should tabulate the scores by hand throughout the night. At around 5-6 am one of the fighters should come out and give a concession speech.