This is all speculation. You don't know what caused the judges to score the rounds the way did in those fights.
the yana fight is a bad example because she actually did more damage in those 30 seconds than ketlen did the entire round.
getting dropped is a pretty big factor too and justifies giving the round imo
watch the rivera vs yan fight. free on youtube
rivera arguably won a majority of that fight. but he got dropped with a few seconds to go at the end of the 1st and 2nd.
By your logic, then even if one fighter clearly won a round, no one can ever ever assume how they actually won it because the judges don't explain their reasoning and it's all just speculation.
You can ASSUME all you want. You guys like to pretend you KNOW stuff that you can only assume or speculate about.
That whole "if you've watched enough fights..." stuff is a juvenile crap argument that doesn't explain WHY someone did something.
When things like that happen over and over again, and you see it happening over and over again, it becomes more than just some baseless assumption.
Like, I said, then by your logic you can't assume anything at all with any accuracy unless you have confirmation. Is that right?
2 judges gave Yana the third round over Ketlen in their recent fight in a round where Ketlen had over 4 mins of ground control. Can we not assume that those 2 judges gave he the round for getting on top, landing the only significant strikes and doing the most damage in the round? Or would that be just juvenile too?
In the first round Ketlen also had over 4 mins of control time. Regardless of the control, Yana outlanded her that round by over 60 strikes. One judge gave her that round. There isn't any other way she could have been scored that round other than from the strikes she landed in the clinch and in controlled positions on the ground, but I suppose that would be juvenile too unless we get the judge who gave Yana that round to confirm it?
You're basing all of this on how YOU'RE judging the fight. So your argument is flawed from the beginning.
No, I'm not. I never said anything about how I judged the fight.
I'm telling you what happened in those rounds and what the end results were given by the judges. I'm then literally giving you stats that prove the only way those judges could have possibly scored it the way they did.
I wish I could have scored it for Ketlen, as I had money on her. I knew there was a chance she could win, but I've watched enough WMMA in particular to know exactly why she wasn't going to before the result was announced.
Not necessarily in that example, but in general that's what you're doing.
You don't know what the judges are thinking. There's no argument for that.
Knowing what we know about how the scoring criteria is supposed to be followed and what we've both likely seen in thousands of other fights, you don't think in a situation like that that we can assume, with pretty much 100% accuracy, how the judges scored that round?
These judges have pretty much an awesome job, and still don't pay attention. They should fire some of them.Because I suspect the judges are too busy playing candy crush to actually watch the fights until they hear the 10 second timer...
Nope. I never assume because I'm an adult and I understand that I can't read minds.
Kinda like how the last meter in a race is most important. As long as you win that ur GoodIf a fighter is winning the first 4 minutes but loses the last minute, and in most cases, even the last 30 seconds, the latter is awarded the round by judges.
I don’t get how a last minute takedown can erase an entire 4 minutes of winning.
I guess we’ll be seeing a ton of it once they add those time clocks in the corners for the fighters.
![]()