I dont understand? Forrest/Rampage- Good decision or bad?

---

Posted by Aaronno9

Once again, Forrest wins and his win gets tarnished. I bet if Jackson had won the fight in the exact same way Forrest did, half the guys complaining about the decision would of said nothing.

---

I understand what you mean but I think thats because Jackson was the champ with a close fight like that was kinda sucky but fight matrix assured me that i wasn't crazy when I saw Jackson win or at least draw so I ain't worried about just glad I'm not crazy so I can move on

---

Posted by cmill21

---

Posted by Aaronno9

Once again, Forrest wins and his win gets tarnished. I bet if Jackson had won the fight in the exact same way Forrest did, half the guys complaining about the decision would of said nothing.

---

In all honesty though, I can deal with the decision, but the scoring is what has me right now.

---

yep. like i was saying when rounds are that close, you give the champion the benefit of the doubt. Rounds 3 and 5 were the closest. I don't see how round 1 goes to Forrest, a handful of jabs that landed and some nice leg kicks vs. some hard combinations that teetered a few times and a knockdown. Round 2 i could see being 10-8, It's justifiable considering position but the lack of damage would make me score it a dominant 10-9. 3 would be a very close 10-9 for rampage, possibly 10-10 or 9-9 (cant remember how it works). 4 was clearly for rampage, he cuts him and lands some of his best combos. 5 was the round that was closest Forrest takes the first half, rampage takes the second. I could see this going either way, after watching it with no sound i would honestly judge it even, but if you have to pick a winner go with the champion regardless of who it is.

Forrest Winning 4-1=??? Forrest Winning 3-2= possible, Draw= extremely possible, Rampage winning= very possible

---

Posted by Boo_Radley21

---

Posted by JBatch

Forrest is to Vegas what Bisping is to England. The guy who won't lose unless you beat him before the final horn. I really am in disbelief still, and how can you score the fight 49-46. I now really want to know what a fight looks like from ringside.

---

Did you watch the Tito Ortiz fight?

---

yeah Forrest lost that one too

---

Posted by ncordless

---

Posted by warglory

Wow, how anyone could even call this fight close is beyond me.

Round 1 - What did Jackson do in this round besides land a good shot? I tcould even be argued that Griffin wasn't even that hurt by it because after a brief gnp session that was quite ineffective, Griffin scrambled out very well and finished the round strong. This was a dominant round for Griffin imo. 10-9 Griffin

Round 2 - Griffin all the way, no debate here. 10-8 Griffin

Round 3 - Griffin was more aggressive, but Rampage landed better shots. I gave this one to Rampage. Very close though. 10-9 Rampage

Round 4 - Despite Griffin's sub attempts, probably did a bit more to grab this round. 10-9 Rampage

Round 5 - Rampage was much more tentative issuing flurries only in a counterstrike situation. Griffin controlled this round, and did to Rampage what he wanted. 10-9 Griffin

I am astonished that this fight is being debated 7 pages into this thread. This wasn't racism, this wasn't biased, it was Griffin fighting a great fight. Like someone said earlier, Henderson vs. Rampage was much much closer than this one.

---

I guess I see a near knockout and some cut causing GnP as definitely winning the round. The judges gave round 1 to Forrest... which is completely ridiculous. what did he do offensively in that round that wasn't trumped by Rampage? rounds 3 and 5 were debateable and could of gone either way, but round 1 was solidly for Rampage.

---

Dude, Forrest finished the round on the offense throwing some serious leather. The shot that put him on the mat was no where near a knockout blow, or Rampage would have smelled blood and finished it quite easily, that's what he does best. His GnP lasted what...30 seconds before Griffin scrambled out? This round would have been easily 10-8 Griffin had it not been from the shot and the little bit of GnP from Rampage.

---

Posted by Lord_Lenny

---

Posted by cmill21

---

Posted by Aaronno9

Once again, Forrest wins and his win gets tarnished. I bet if Jackson had won the fight in the exact same way Forrest did, half the guys complaining about the decision would of said nothing.

---

In all honesty though, I can deal with the decision, but the scoring is what has me right now.

---

yep. like i was saying when rounds are that close, you give the champion the benefit of the doubt. Rounds 3 and 5 were the closest. I don't see how round 1 goes to Forrest, a handful of jabs that landed and some nice leg kicks vs. some hard combinations that teetered a few times and a knockdown. Round 2 i could see being 10-8, It's justifiable considering position but the lack of damage would make me score it a dominant 10-9. 3 would be a very close 10-9 for rampage, possibly 10-10 or 9-9 (cant remember how it works). 4 was clearly for rampage, he cuts him and lands some of his best combos. 5 was the round that was closest Forrest takes the first half, rampage takes the second. I could see this going either way, after watching it with no sound i would honestly judge it even, but if you have to pick a winner go with the champion regardless of who it is.

Forrest Winning 4-1=??? Forrest Winning 3-2= possible, Draw= extremely possible, Rampage winning= very possible

---

A lot of people in this thread seem to support the notion of giving the champion the "benefit of the doubt", which is BS! I'd say the majority opinion around here is that Griffin won, even if it was close, so why should Rampage maintain his status as champion if he was defeated? Didn't this piss us off when PRIDE used to have non-championship fights? Because that's what this basically would boil down to as being. It's unfair to the challenger who has been training for what is likely the greatest fight of his life, to not get the title just because his win happened as a result of a judge's decision.

How many of you think that Griffin won, but the title should have stayed with Rampage? And if you believe this, doesn't this make Rampage a paper champ (regardless if he has defended it already)?

Well the fight I watched seemed like Rampage won it imo.

I gave him Rounds 1,3,5 and Forrest 2,4.

5 was really close coulda gone either way but I saw the fight either being 48-47 Rampage or 47-47 draw if you give Forrest a 10-8 which I didn't. He did dominate the round with position but the damage wasn't really enough for me to go 10-8.

I'm not upset with the decision I like Forrest and wanted him to win but not really sure if he did enough to take the title. Seemed like Rampage wasn't going after it though like I thought he would of leg jacked up or not.

Wow...that's all I can say....I am having Hagler vs Sugar Ray flash backs....I've watched this fight 3 times and there is no way Griffin took Rampages title....You have to take a Champs belt...Rampage Dropped him, cut him, slammed him on his head, threw punches with deadly intent....Forrest laying on top of Rampage for a whole round doesn't give him the fight nor a 2 point advantage. This was a sad day in MMA.

---

Posted by Lord_Lenny

---

Posted by Boo_Radley21

---

Posted by JBatch

Forrest is to Vegas what Bisping is to England. The guy who won't lose unless you beat him before the final horn. I really am in disbelief still, and how can you score the fight 49-46. I now really want to know what a fight looks like from ringside.

---

Did you watch the Tito Ortiz fight?

---

yeah Forrest lost that one too

---

That's exactly my point. Don't say he just gets decisions cause he's a fan favourite or he would have won that fight against Ortiz for sure.

---

Posted by beerman77

I had the fight a split decision for Rampage, with it being a good close fight. That being said I wanted Forrest to win, but I don't think he did. I see why they gave Forrest the belt though, it's more profitable for the UFC for the so called "fan favorite" to be champ. I think the crowd booing after the decision came down told the whole story. Sad to say it but the UFC is turning a dangerous corner to being similar to the WWE.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is illogical, and I will just guess you don't know how the judging is done. The UFC does not pick the. The athletic commission does. So the a UFC cannot give the belt to rampage.Also, Rampage may not be quite as popular with everyone in ( forest lives there now) vegas , but I would wager he is still one of the top 10 most popular fighters in al of MMA. As a matter of fact on this site alone, and the rankings are done by the members here, Forrest is # 6 to Pages # 4. Any and all charges of corruption , fight fixing, should NEVER be posted here, and are against our rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by NatedawgThaM

10-8 rounds are what screwed Rampage. How do you give Forrest TWO 10-8 rounds? That's some clear BS right there. And how did Rampage not win round 1? I know it was close but if I had to choose a winner I'd definitely have given it to Rampage.

I really disagree with the decision, at the most for Forrest it should have been a Draw. Since you could go 10-8 in the 2nd and give Forrest round 5. I really don't like the UFC judges, at times it really makes you think fights are rigged and judges are paid off especially with ridiculous scoring like that. Don't get me wrong, it was a really close fight. A great exciting fight. I just don't agree with Forrest being the winner. I give him all the respect and props in the world for making it close and putting on one hell of a fight, but I still don't think he won. But I congratulate him anyway.
Hopefully this does not screw up Rampage's UFC career since in Dana Whites dreamland, he clearly wants him out of the title picture and Liddell back in. And you can only have one in there which sucks too
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, no more corruption talk without absolute proof
Slo, eevryone was saying how page winning the belt from Chuck was great for the sport, becuase Page is so charismatic. Chuck is not, and mma's profile has continued to grow with Page as champ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by JBatch

Forrest is to Vegas what Bisping is to England. The guy who won't lose unless you beat him before the final horn. I really am in disbelief still, and how can you score the fight 49-46. I now really want to know what a fight looks like from ringside.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone bitter enough to actually make these baseless ,unproven , illogical claims needs to keep them away from here. Take a lesson from Rampage and Chuck when they lost the belt, and just gave credit to their opponent, without trying to tear down all they accomplished. I understand some of you are big Page fans, and i think the sites rankings support that a lot of us are, but these ridiculous accusations, which falsely target & tarnish all of MMA are weak and classless. Perhaps, I shouldn't have let this thread continue,and perhaps deleting/editing some 10 odd post in it , and letting it continue now are another. However, I am going to err on the side of thinking most of us here have some class, and leave it now. Try to keep this all in mind before you type, if you are thinking of crossing the line.

---

Posted by warglory

---

Posted by ncordless

---

Posted by warglory

Wow, how anyone could even call this fight close is beyond me.

Round 1 - What did Jackson do in this round besides land a good shot? I tcould even be argued that Griffin wasn't even that hurt by it because after a brief gnp session that was quite ineffective, Griffin scrambled out very well and finished the round strong. This was a dominant round for Griffin imo. 10-9 Griffin

Round 2 - Griffin all the way, no debate here. 10-8 Griffin

Round 3 - Griffin was more aggressive, but Rampage landed better shots. I gave this one to Rampage. Very close though. 10-9 Rampage

Round 4 - Despite Griffin's sub attempts, probably did a bit more to grab this round. 10-9 Rampage

Round 5 - Rampage was much more tentative issuing flurries only in a counterstrike situation. Griffin controlled this round, and did to Rampage what he wanted. 10-9 Griffin

I am astonished that this fight is being debated 7 pages into this thread. This wasn't racism, this wasn't biased, it was Griffin fighting a great fight. Like someone said earlier, Henderson vs. Rampage was much much closer than this one.

---

I guess I see a near knockout and some cut causing GnP as definitely winning the round. The judges gave round 1 to Forrest... which is completely ridiculous. what did he do offensively in that round that wasn't trumped by Rampage? rounds 3 and 5 were debateable and could of gone either way, but round 1 was solidly for Rampage.

---

Dude, Forrest finished the round on the offense throwing some serious leather. The shot that put him on the mat was no where near a knockout blow, or Rampage would have smelled blood and finished it quite easily, that's what he does best. His GnP lasted what...30 seconds before Griffin scrambled out? This round would have been easily 10-8 Griffin had it not been from the shot and the little bit of GnP from Rampage.

---

10-8!!! lol whatever man...and BTW Griffin didn't throw serious leather the entire fight. His leg kicks were outstanding and I can see how one could say that they won him the fight. But SERIOUS LEATHER!!? Griffin landed 16 punches to the head the entire fight.

---

Posted by hippysmacker

---

Posted by beerman77

I had the fight a split decision for Rampage, with it being a good close fight. That being said I wanted Forrest to win, but I don't think he did. I see why they gave Forrest the belt though, it's more profitable for the UFC for the so called "fan favorite" to be champ. I think the crowd booing after the decision came down told the whole story. Sad to say it but the UFC is turning a dangerous corner to being similar to the WWE.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is illogical, and I will just guess you don't know how the judging is done. The UFC does not pick the. The athletic commission does. So the a UFC cannot give the belt to rampage.Also, Rampage may not be quite as popular with everyone in ( forest lives there now) vegas , but I would wager he is still one of the top 10 most popular fighters in al of MMA. As a matter of fact on this site alone, and the rankings are done by the members here, Forrest is # 6 to Pages # 4. Any and all charges of corruption , fight fixing, should NEVER be posted here, and are against our rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-8 rounds are what screwed Rampage. How do you give Forrest TWO 10-8 rounds? That's some clear BS right there. And how did Rampage not win round 1? I know it was close but if I had to choose a winner I'd definitely have given it to Rampage.

I really disagree with the decision, at the most for Forrest it should have been a Draw. Since you could go 10-8 in the 2nd and give Forrest round 5. I really don't like the UFC judges, at times it really makes you think fights are rigged and judges are paid off especially with ridiculous scoring like that. Don't get me wrong, it was a really close fight. A great exciting fight. I just don't agree with Forrest being the winner. I give him all the respect and props in the world for making it close and putting on one hell of a fight, but I still don't think he won. But I congratulate him anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, no more corruption talk without absolute proof

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hopefully this does not screw up Rampage's UFC career since in Dana Whites dreamland, he clearly wants him out of the title picture and Liddell back in. And you can only have one in there which sucks too

Forrest is to Vegas what Bisping is to England. The guy who won't lose unless you beat him before the final horn. I really am in disbelief still, and how can you score the fight 49-46. I now really want to know what a fight looks like from ringside.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone bitter enough to actually make these baseless ,unproven , illogical claims needs to keep them away from here. Take a lesson from Rampage and Chuck when they lost the belt, and just gave credit to their opponent, without trying to tear down all they accomplished. I understand some of you are big Page fans, and i think the sites rankings support that a lot of us are, but these ridiculous accusations, which falsely target & tarnish all of MMA are weak and classless. Perhaps, I shouldn't have let this thread continue,and perhaps deleting/editing some 10 odd post in it , and letting it continue now are another. However, I am going to err on the side of thinking most of us here have some class, and leave it now. Try to keep this all in mind before you type, if you are thinking of crossing the line.

---

I agree with you that all the credit goes to Forrest for fighting a great fight... and any conspiracy theories are out of line. You can question the decision without making baseless accusations.

---

Posted by warglory

---

Posted by Lord_Lenny

---

Posted by cmill21

---

Posted by Aaronno9

Once again, Forrest wins and his win gets tarnished. I bet if Jackson had won the fight in the exact same way Forrest did, half the guys complaining about the decision would of said nothing.

---

In all honesty though, I can deal with the decision, but the scoring is what has me right now.

---

yep. like i was saying when rounds are that close, you give the champion the benefit of the doubt. Rounds 3 and 5 were the closest. I don't see how round 1 goes to Forrest, a handful of jabs that landed and some nice leg kicks vs. some hard combinations that teetered a few times and a knockdown. Round 2 i could see being 10-8, It's justifiable considering position but the lack of damage would make me score it a dominant 10-9. 3 would be a very close 10-9 for rampage, possibly 10-10 or 9-9 (cant remember how it works). 4 was clearly for rampage, he cuts him and lands some of his best combos. 5 was the round that was closest Forrest takes the first half, rampage takes the second. I could see this going either way, after watching it with no sound i would honestly judge it even, but if you have to pick a winner go with the champion regardless of who it is.

Forrest Winning 4-1=??? Forrest Winning 3-2= possible, Draw= extremely possible, Rampage winning= very possible

---

A lot of people in this thread seem to support the notion of giving the champion the "benefit of the doubt", which is BS! I'd say the majority opinion around here is that Griffin won, even if it was close, so why should Rampage maintain his status as champion if he was defeated? Didn't this piss us off when PRIDE used to have non-championship fights? Because that's what this basically would boil down to as being. It's unfair to the challenger who has been training for what is likely the greatest fight of his life, to not get the title just because his win happened as a result of a judge's decision.

How many of you think that Griffin won, but the title should have stayed with Rampage? And if you believe this, doesn't this make Rampage a paper champ (regardless if he has defended it already)?

---

If i thought Forrest won at all, why would i want Rampage to have the title? The thing is i think Rampage won at least three rounds, enough to tie or win slightly, not to lose. I'm not saying that the challenger has to dominate the round to take it, but he should clearly beat the champ. Otherwise if it's a tossup then the champ takes it, just like the tie goes to the runner in baseball. At best, Forrest matched Rampage in round 3 and matching isnt enough to take the title. That's all I'm saying

---

Posted by cmill21

---

Posted by Mastodon2

Once again I'm enormously disappointed to see another fight go the Judges, particularly because I don't like the UFC judging. People are talking about Rampage doing nothing, I think this picture is pretty interesting...

---

Lol that pic makes rampage's post fight interview seem kind of funny.

---

Bro, some people cut ,briuse, scar, and show more damage on their faces. If you look at Fisher/ Stout 2, in which Fisher landed about 3 to 1 in all & power shots, and then look at their faces after the fight you would think Stout won.

This pic sums up the fight perfectly...Rampage won the fight....but to be fair to Forrest and put this visionary into perspective you should show a pic of Forrest's face and a pic of Rampages thigh

regardless of what anyone agrees or disagrees with about the decision, the notion that a challenger should have to definitively defeat the champ is absurd, almost retarded. the ass backwards logic in that idea can be applied both ways. if you say the challenger should definitively beat the champ for his belt, shouldn't the champ have to definitively defend it as well. this logic sets up situations in which the actual outcome can contradict the title outcome. like in any competitive sport, you have close matches but if it isn't a draw and the challenger is the winner, no matter how close, then hes the new champ. end of story.


as far as forrest/rampage goes...rampage knew he lost and he admitted it. he even said he got his ass whooped. so i guess im having a hard time agreeing with the guys who think rampage won when rampage himself knew he didn't. the fight was close but i dont think it was split decision/draw material. i think were used to seeing definitive events in a fight that we can assign our agreement to a decision to, but i think this fight really boiled down to who was the more technical, more aggressive, and more controlling fighter. and that was forrest.

and can we please *for the love of god* drop this whole conspiracy theory garbage? the ufc lhw division is one of if not the most closely stacked in the game. you've got rampage who lost to shogun who lost to forrest who lost to jardine who lost to wandy who lost to chuck who lost to rampage who lost to wandy twice etc (get the picture). this is a division in which it is now impossible to dominate because of the even spread of talent in its top contenders. lets not act like its a huge surprise that rampage lost his belt on his second title defense, this isn't the mw division...

---

Posted by hippysmacker

---

Posted by cmill21

---

Posted by Mastodon2

Once again I'm enormously disappointed to see another fight go the Judges, particularly because I don't like the UFC judging. People are talking about Rampage doing nothing, I think this picture is pretty interesting...

---

Lol that pic makes rampage's post fight interview seem kind of funny.

---

Bro, some people cut ,briuse, scar, and show more damage on their faces. If you look at Fisher/ Stout 2, in which Fisher landed about 3 to 1 in all & power shots, and then look at their faces after the fight you would think Stout won.

---

exactly.its the ufc, not miss america. cuts/mouses/bruises don't determine the outcome of a fight, performance does.

---

Posted by hippysmacker

---

Posted by cmill21

---

Posted by Mastodon2

Once again I'm enormously disappointed to see another fight go the Judges, particularly because I don't like the UFC judging. People are talking about Rampage doing nothing, I think this picture is pretty interesting...

---

Lol that pic makes rampage's post fight interview seem kind of funny.

---

Bro, some people cut ,briuse, scar, and show more damage on their faces. If you look at Fisher/ Stout 2, in which Fisher landed about 3 to 1 in all & power shots, and then look at their faces after the fight you would think Stout won.

---

True Fedor and Cro Cop was another, but it does show that in the mostly stand up fight one person was hitting with enough force to do damage while the other was not.

I agree with Hippy 100% on this.

I think every one can agree it was a close fight and could have gone either way. I think Forrest won the fight and I picked Rampage to win. I understand some people wanted Rampage to win but that's not how the judges saw it go down. Some people agree with them some don't. But if anything that shows how close the fight was. I don't really understand why some people just cant give Forrest the credit he is due. Rampage didn't disagree with the decision and even gave Forrest his props so why cant some of you as fans do the same.

I know it's late, but I just watched the fight and thought I would chime in.

Here is how I scored the fight

1 - toss up (if Forrest won it, it was because of the leg kicks)
2 - Forrest 10-8 (but I could see how a judge might only give it 10-9)
3 - Rampage 10-9
4 - Rampage 10-9
5 - Forrest 10-9 (just barely)


So going by the first two judges that gave 48-46 to Forrest, they must have scored the first round to him. Now the third judge that scored 4 rounds to Forrest must have taken some mind altering drugs that night. There is no way he won 4 rounds. Also, Joe was smoking something too because there was no way Forrest was winning the fight as of round 4.

All in all, I not really impressed by Forrest and more so disappointed with Rampage.

---

Posted by BTizzle

Well the fight I watched seemed like Rampage won it imo.

I gave him Rounds 1,3,5 and Forrest 2,4.

5 was really close coulda gone either way but I saw the fight either being 48-47 Rampage or 47-47 draw if you give Forrest a 10-8 which I didn't. He did dominate the round with position but the damage wasn't really enough for me to go 10-8.

I'm not upset with the decision I like Forrest and wanted him to win but not really sure if he did enough to take the title. Seemed like Rampage wasn't going after it though like I thought he would of leg jacked up or not.

---

You need to watch that fight again, because round 5 wasn't even close to going to Rampage. Forrest out performed Rampage in every way during round 5.
The only rounds that could even remotely be considered in Rampages favor are 1 and 3.

---

Posted by cmill21

---

Posted by hippysmacker

---

Posted by cmill21

---

Posted by Mastodon2

Once again I'm enormously disappointed to see another fight go the Judges, particularly because I don't like the UFC judging. People are talking about Rampage doing nothing, I think this picture is pretty interesting...

---

Lol that pic makes rampage's post fight interview seem kind of funny.

---

Bro, some people cut ,briuse, scar, and show more damage on their faces. If you look at Fisher/ Stout 2, in which Fisher landed about 3 to 1 in all & power shots, and then look at their faces after the fight you would think Stout won.

---

True Fedor and Cro Cop was another, but it does show that in the mostly stand up fight one person was hitting with enough force to do damage while the other was not.

---

This has nothing to do with racism in anyway, but when you are discussing the appearance of damage on fighters faces, you have to consider their skin tone.
Obviously bruises are going to be alot harder to spot on Rampage. Forrest has very pale skin, so even the lightest bruise will show more noticeably.
Also everyones bruise tolerance is different. Griffen may have dished out just as much punishment to Rampages face, but Rampage may have higher bruise tolerance. You can't judge how well a fighter did based on post-fight facial appearance.

I thought it was gonna be a split but i ceartainly thought the right man won

---

Posted by telnights

I agree with Hippy 100% on this.

I think every one can agree it was a close fight and could have gone either way. I think Forrest won the fight and I picked Rampage to win. I understand some people wanted Rampage to win but that's not how the judges saw it go down. Some people agree with them some don't. But if anything that shows how close the fight was. I don't really understand why some people just cant give Forrest the credit he is due. Rampage didn't disagree with the decision and even gave Forrest his props so why cant some of you as fans do the same.

---

I think based on how the UFC currently has their scoring set up Forrest won the fight pretty clearly.

My personal belief is that Rampage won the fight, but that's my own fantasy scoring system that goes in my head.

No one can deny with the UFC's scoring criteria that Forrest won the fight. He had control of the Octagon, and he effectively grappled the hell out of Rampage in rd 2. So, I agree... hats off to Forrest for his victory.

I'd much rather be Rampage's body after that fight than Forrest's, though.

---

Posted by DevonFoxy

---

Posted by Pookie

I dont agree with the decision(or the Cote one) but i do understnad the judges dont get to see the fight from the angle we do.

Rampage clearly landed the harder shots, and landed more of them. but... as someone pointed out when you leave it in the judges hands... shit happens.
Rampage was a great sport about it though... The only bright side here is now Wandy v. Rampage 3 is perfectly justifyable.

---

This sums it up for me. I mean I understand why Forrest won but on the current system I think Rampage should have won. Same with the Cote fight as Ricardo jabbed the crap out of Cote in the last round and took him down def. think Big Dog won that last round.

This takes me to my real point in which the judging was bias say what you want but the judges were completely bias and I think it had to do with the crowd. My solution to this would be i know its gonna sound crazy but Separate the judges from the crowd. Keep them in their own little box with monitors so they can see what we see and have all the angles. This would take down the fans reaction which can be very deceptive like they were in this fight.

I also think personally that the UFC should have 4 refs working a show a night. Have one ref reffing the match and the other three should be judging. This gets rid of the judges that seem to not no about what the ten point must system requires. The ref system of judging I think would be much more effective, something needs to be done and I think this is just one (rather bad) idea to fix it,

---

You cant say for sure that the crowd influenced the judges scoring, and if it did, they shouldn't be judges in the first place, so i dont think separating them would do much of anything. Thats just my opinion tho

All i can say is that NONE of us are MMA judges. We can pretend all we want that we know how to effectively score a fight but in all honesty, we cant. I'm pretty sure these judges aren't random guys, they have experience and are a lot better suited to call a fight than we are. Yeah, sometimes they mess up, but if we were in their position wed mess up a lot more. Just look at this thread, there are 100 different posts and about 30 different takes on how the fight should have been scored. All im saying is that scoring a fight isn't as easy as it sounds. Maybe they just need a better scoring system, one that takes submissions, submission attempts, damage, take downs, kicks, etc. into consideration. It doesn't make sense to use a scoring system that is used primarily for boxing, a sport that only uses punching.

I have no problem with forrest winning just that it was a ud. I feel bad for rampage it must suck to have lost the title in such a close fight.

Ha. I really don't think there was any racism involved. But at the very least it should have been a split decision.

I don't see how people think that Rampage won the fight i think it was a Good decision and Forrest killed him with the leg kicks and aslo the second round was a 10-8 beat him on the ground i think Forrest won

---

Posted by Boo_Radley21

---

Posted by JBatch

Forrest is to Vegas what Bisping is to England. The guy who won't lose unless you beat him before the final horn. I really am in disbelief still, and how can you score the fight 49-46. I now really want to know what a fight looks like from ringside.

---

Did you watch the Tito Ortiz fight?

---

I did that was another tough decision. But at the time Tito was a huge fan favourite, and the UFC had plans for him. Now Forrest is the big draw had his fight with Tito just happened the same way Forrest would win.


I actually a huge Forrest fan and have never been completely sold on Page, I just didn't think enough was done to warrant any Champion losing his belt. Forrest is one tough SOB and that what won him that fight. He used his size well and had Rampage limping.

Sorry if I offend anyone but these are just my opinions and could be totally baseless, just opinions.

I dont think the belt should have anything to do with it. I've heard people say it was very close, but Rampage shouldn't lose his belt because Forrest didn't win in convincing fashion.

So does that mean if it was not a title fight, the decision declaring Forrest the winner would be acceptable?

I think that is the exact opposite of how it should be. If you want to be called the champ, you better leave absolutely no doubt that you won that fight, otherwise you are just lucky, and are just posing as champ, and are not the true champ.

Well....I for one would feel like a disgrace if I were the champ, and someone came up to me after the fight, and said "That was a close fight. Good thing you are the champ, otherwise the decision may have gone the other way."