UFC judges

goo

This came up a lot during UFC 59, Joe Rogan was saying how they often don't mark for leg kicks and all sorts of stuff. I know they can't choose their own judges, they're sent from the gaming commision or whatever, but surely they could be arranged to have some sort of training to understand the sport better.

I know the Ortiz vs. Griffin match is a bit contentious, but either way it should've went there's no way it was a 30 - 27 match but that's what one of the judges called. There was another howler of a marking in another match but I forget which one it was.

Does anyone have any opinions on this or remember any examples of crap marking?

Dragan

There have been a few odd decision over the last few UFC's ( Riggs Vs Diaz was another one for me, i just thought Diaz outfought and outboxed him at the end of the day and i hate Diaz so something was up there for me to see it )

All in all though it is still a growing sport, and as it moves into places like California where the athletic commisions have never had to deal with it before it will happen more and more i suppose.

At the end of the day is really all is in the eye of the beholder.

FiannaGym.com

I think miraculously the judges usually get it right. I was ahppy enough with the Riggs DIaz fight and the Tito Griffen fight. I think they should just get eddie bravo to judge to be honest, he and I always concure haha

Peace

Tim_Murphy

I think one of the problems is that 10-9 scoring isn't well suited to MMA. It's fine for boxing but doesn't work that well in MMA IMO.

It would be better if they used a 10-8 score for a round where there was a clear advantage to one fighter (tito-griffin rd 1) and use a 10-9 score where the round was close but one fighter had a slight edge (tito-griffin rds 2 & 3).

RealJohn

They can do that though. In fact, they did if I recall correctly. Didn't Tito win by 29-27 on one of the cards? I'm guessing that was 10-8, 9-10, 10-9.

goo

Yeah, but 10-8 is normally only given for rounds where one person is shut out completely, but he's saying it should be for any clear win.

Valmont

Tim_Murphy wrote:

I think one of the problems is that 10-9 scoring isn't well suited to MMA. It's fine for boxing but doesn't work that well in MMA IMO.

It would be better if they used a 10-8 score for a round where there was a clear advantage to one fighter (tito-griffin rd 1) and use a 10-9 score where the round was close but one fighter had a slight edge (tito-griffin rds 2 & 3).

I agree. The 10 - 9 system breaks down in close fights, it doesn't really give much room either way in a close bout. eg. Tito - Griffen, Penn - GSP, and I think the UFC have to sort out the scoring system for takedowns once and for all.

Prangley vs. Horn. Prangley consistently took down Horn throughout the bout and successfully defended a few armbars and he got some combinations in standing up too. Somehow Horn won.

To show how ambiguous it all is

Penn vs. St.Pierre. GSP takedowns WON him the fight, he didn't even do anything once he was there.

So it seemed the judges scored takedowns for Penn vs. GSP but not Prangley vs. Horn. It is annoyances like this that keep 60% of decisions controversial.

I won't even start on that judge that scored it 30 - 27 for Tito. W T F!!!???

Roper

Don't know where the 30-27 came from but I still think the decision was fair enough. Forrest won rd.2 10-9, Tito rd1 10-8, and I had the last round as a draw with a slight edge to Tito so maybe 10-9 if I was pushed.

I think the 10-9 system is excellent for boxing which is 5 rds minimum, but it breaks down somewhat when you have to decide a tight 3 rounder. For the most part they get it right to be fair, but there have been some close calls where, as was pointed out above, they didn't seem to score leg kicks etc.

Give me a better one though, and you win the prize...

Dragan

I guess it's just easier to score a match in hindsight, i would not like to be responsible in scoring some matches at all.

For example, looking back at a match you can see how , in the long run, landing some stiff legs kicks to the leading leg was taking away from the oponents ability to jab and shoot, however while you were landing the leg kicks you were picking up some counter strikes to the face/head.

On one hand, you have one guy carrying out a long term game plan, detracting from his oponents ability to fight and maybe swinging the later rounds. Landing more shots and fighting clever should win the round.

However the guy landing the shots to the head is picking up points for landing what may appear to be better shots even though the are having no effect on the fighter being struck and will not hinder him later in the fight at all.

The is also the question of succesful take down versus defended take down. If simply taking some down should score you points, then surely stuffing the take down should do the same, yes no?