UFC Judges after Sherk vs Dunham

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » UFC Judges after Sherk vs Dunham
POLL: What is your opinion on the judges?
They know what they are doing 15% (7)
They should get released 19% (9)
Bunch of re$%6ds ! 66% (31)
duniek
9/25/10 11:16:44PM
I am so upset after this fight I don't have enough bad words to describe what I think about those people end the quality of their work !!!
Are You with me on this?
jae_1833
9/25/10 11:59:45PM
It's about par for the course really....I personally judge on a hybrid of American and Japanease criteria....by round, but with "closest to ending the fight" , also control and effective striking...using my system Dunham would have stolen the 2nd round....but using a strict American system, he did not. Sherk controlled over half of the round with his wrestling, Sherk also definately won round one IMO...3rd was Dunham obviously.
Chael_Sonnen
9/26/10 1:00:43AM
Dunham won that fight.
ncordless
9/26/10 1:03:13AM
Round 2 was close enough that I can't complain too much, but there is no reason under the Unified rules or any other that Dunham shouldn't have won round 2.
Chael_Sonnen
9/26/10 1:04:48AM

Posted by duniek

I am so upset after this fight I don't have enough bad words to describe what I think about those people end the quality of their work !!!
Are You with me on this?



TOTALLY AGREE!!! Baaad decision!!!!!!!
prozacnation1978
9/26/10 1:40:46AM
The takedowns and cut did it
Aether
9/26/10 1:55:57AM
I thought Dunham won the second and third pretty decisively. The second was closer, but I still think Dunham was controlling the majority of the round, and doing far more damage during his time in control than Bader was in his.

This is why I don't purchase UFC events.
tmas
9/26/10 2:00:02AM

Posted by Aether

I thought Dunham won the second and third pretty decisively. The second was closer, but I still think Dunham was controlling the majority of the round, and doing far more damage during his time in control than Bader was in his.

This is why I don't purchase UFC events.



its not the UFC's fault its the judges/commission.....



really bad dec

Dunham won 2nd round fairly close but i thought he won
3rd round he won easy.

i had it 29-28 Dunham easy dec imo...
Aether
9/26/10 2:03:39AM

Posted by tmas


Posted by Aether

I thought Dunham won the second and third pretty decisively. The second was closer, but I still think Dunham was controlling the majority of the round, and doing far more damage during his time in control than Bader was in his.

This is why I don't purchase UFC events.



its not the UFC's fault its the judges/commission.....



really bad dec

Dunham won 2nd round fairly close but i thought he won
3rd round he won easy.

i had it 29-28 Dunham easy dec imo...



Yeah, I understand that, but the UFC also has the power to lead the way for all of the other organizations by doing something other than shrugging and saying "don't leave it in the hands of the judges."
Jackelope
9/26/10 4:03:34AM
Dunham got jobbed and that's really all there is to it. Just another chapter in the book of fails written by MMA judges
1daveufc
9/26/10 4:29:32AM
I think sherk won the fight he won the first and it was the take downs and control that won him the second.Dunham won the third but lost a really close fight but once again the fighters shud not leave it in the hands of the judges.
BustedKnuckle
9/26/10 9:18:36AM
The cut and all the blood sways the judges a lot IMO. If not for the cut I think Dunham gets the nod.
kaduey
9/26/10 10:19:46AM

Posted by Aether

I thought Dunham won the second and third pretty decisively. The second was closer, but I still think Dunham was controlling the majority of the round, and doing far more damage during his time in control than Bader was in his.

This is why I don't purchase UFC events.



The last part of your comment is pure ignorance. Everytime someone has an issue with negative outcomes in North American mma (eg. steroids, referees, judging), the UFC and/or Dana is to blame. This is out of the UFC's hands so find another reason to not pay for the best mma promotion out there.
Aether
9/26/10 11:22:23AM

Posted by kaduey


Posted by Aether

I thought Dunham won the second and third pretty decisively. The second was closer, but I still think Dunham was controlling the majority of the round, and doing far more damage during his time in control than Bader was in his.

This is why I don't purchase UFC events.



The last part of your comment is pure ignorance. Everytime someone has an issue with negative outcomes in North American mma (eg. steroids, referees, judging), the UFC and/or Dana is to blame. This is out of the UFC's hands so find another reason to not pay for the best mma promotion out there.



I already responded to this.
Cdellorso
9/26/10 11:25:03AM
I was so numb to the questionable judging that I was Totally " MEH" to

1. Guillard over Stephens- Effective striking- Stephens- Landed better haerder more effective strikes-
Ring control? well Stephens couldnt Control Melvin baking away 97% of the time-
he did explode forward some but those punches.. IF they landed were very soft by no reaction or physichal damage - Agression - stephens clearly


2. Bader NOG- I thought the outcome was fine but one judge had bader winning all 3 rounds?

3 Sherk Dunham - well losts of post already - it was a close foght but really dunham won the 1st part of rd 1 then the cut and take/down control clearly Sherk- i gave a close 2 to dunham and 3 was ALL dunham- Usually the rd 3 winner in a close fight wins the fight.

I dont know what can be done but I wish scoring was a bit more clear

BeeR
9/26/10 12:10:19PM
sherk controlled the first.

the second was close but here is where I think the judges f*cked up, sherk pinned dunham against the fence and did NOTHING for minutes, Dunham defended the takedowns and landed countless elbows while sherk ate the elbows and pressed his weight, i think the judges saw this as "control?", whatever, Dunham easily won the second half, and with the striking and takedown defense, should have had the first half aswell.

Third was all Dunham.



all fights should be 5 rounds.
kaduey
9/26/10 1:19:26PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by kaduey


Posted by Aether

I thought Dunham won the second and third pretty decisively. The second was closer, but I still think Dunham was controlling the majority of the round, and doing far more damage during his time in control than Bader was in his.

This is why I don't purchase UFC events.



The last part of your comment is pure ignorance. Everytime someone has an issue with negative outcomes in North American mma (eg. steroids, referees, judging), the UFC and/or Dana is to blame. This is out of the UFC's hands so find another reason to not pay for the best mma promotion out there.



I already responded to this.



That response really cleared things up. Thanks!
jiujitsufreak74
9/26/10 1:30:27PM
i have been saying this for years now. i am almost tempted to bring back up the thread about SDs. this is getting out of hand now; i mean there were 3 SD's last night alone. I had it 29-28 Dunahm, and it really sucks to see him lose a fight that many think he should have won. hopefully Dana treats him as if he didn't lose and gives him another tough fight....the kid is for real and i can't wait to see him fight again.
aristipe
9/26/10 2:28:55PM
Believe it or not, I actually have a problem with the attitude of the crowd. You may disagree with the Sean Sherk decision, but Sherk fought very hard and deserves respect just like Dunham, not boos. The crowd shouldn`t boo a fighter just because they disagree with the decision. Am I alone thinking that?
postman
9/26/10 2:57:15PM
I personally think 3 rd fights need to be pushed to 5 rds. You would get alot more finishes and proper winners.
mrsmiley
9/26/10 3:18:39PM
I can't help but to reminence back to Cecil Peoples after Shogun/Machida 1.
He said "It's not my fault you people lost your damn money".

Seeing as how I have never bet real money on a fight,that had no sway in my disapprovale of Machida getting the decision. Which only begs me to ask the question, how many of these fights do the judges potentially have money on?

I know that lurks on the edge of conspiracy and most seem to come down to individual interpertations of how rounds should be scored but sometimes I really wonder.
jae_1833
9/26/10 5:23:00PM
That would be a violation of several of the national and state(s) gaming and gambling laws....not to mention commision rules on athletic officials and judges. I just think they don't care what others think of their judging because they are so harshly criticized and so often. Deservingly so....they are in a very toughly watched sport and there is a general feel that they don't understand the sport they are judging, and the game is ever evolving....this is why again I think that some of the ex-fighters should be able to judge fights. They are professionally trained and have competed so they understand a lot that judges do not. There would have to be a lot of care taken to ensure that there is no biased decisions being made as well....but let me put it this way, If Randy Couture, Bas Rutten, and Don Frye all agreed that fighter x lost a fight then most likely the fans would be seeing it that way as well.
mrsmiley
9/26/10 7:47:10PM

Posted by jae_1833

That would be a violation of several of the national and state(s) gaming and gambling laws....not to mention commision rules on athletic officials and judges. I just think they don't care what others think of their judging because they are so harshly criticized and so often. Deservingly so....they are in a very toughly watched sport and there is a general feel that they don't understand the sport they are judging, and the game is ever evolving....this is why again I think that some of the ex-fighters should be able to judge fights. They are professionally trained and have competed so they understand a lot that judges do not. There would have to be a lot of care taken to ensure that there is no biased decisions being made as well....but let me put it this way, If Randy Couture, Bas Rutten, and Don Frye all agreed that fighter x lost a fight then most likely the fans would be seeing it that way as well.



No doubt Jae.

Though I don't think violation of law would keep them from having a distant friend place a bet for them.
Aether
9/26/10 10:54:14PM

Posted by kaduey


Posted by Aether


Posted by kaduey


Posted by Aether

I thought Dunham won the second and third pretty decisively. The second was closer, but I still think Dunham was controlling the majority of the round, and doing far more damage during his time in control than Bader was in his.

This is why I don't purchase UFC events.



The last part of your comment is pure ignorance. Everytime someone has an issue with negative outcomes in North American mma (eg. steroids, referees, judging), the UFC and/or Dana is to blame. This is out of the UFC's hands so find another reason to not pay for the best mma promotion out there.



I already responded to this.



That response really cleared things up. Thanks!



I'm assuming that's sarcasm, but I responded to someone making the same counter-argument as you 2 posts below my initial post.

My point is that the UFC is the premiere MMA organization on earth. If they sit back and do absolutely nothing (aside from cashing in on rematches spawned as a result of bad judging) then who CAN do something about the problem? A regulatory body needs to be overthrown or challenged if it fails to do its job properly.

The UFC needs to lead the charge here, even if it seems like a conflict of interest, because they're really the people with the power to start some kind of change with respect to the problems with officiating and judging. Something needs to be done, it's been a long time now that the judges have been making errors on 2-3 fights per card on average. The commission seems to believe that they're doing their job perfectly and Dana never does anything but confirm that they do a piss poor job and then say "nothing I can do, don't leave it in the hands of the judges" as if "leaving it in the hands of the judges" is a conscious decision that fighters are making. It's not realistic to expect any fighter to be able to finish talent of UFC calibre on a regular basis.
bjj1605
9/26/10 11:27:24PM

Posted by Cdellorso

I was so numb to the questionable judging that I was Totally " MEH" to

1. Guillard over Stephens- Effective striking- Stephens- Landed better haerder more effective strikes-
Ring control? well Stephens couldnt Control Melvin baking away 97% of the time-
he did explode forward some but those punches.. IF they landed were very soft by no reaction or physichal damage - Agression - stephens clearly


2. Bader NOG- I thought the outcome was fine but one judge had bader winning all 3 rounds?

3 Sherk Dunham - well losts of post already - it was a close foght but really dunham won the 1st part of rd 1 then the cut and take/down control clearly Sherk- i gave a close 2 to dunham and 3 was ALL dunham- Usually the rd 3 winner in a close fight wins the fight.

I dont know what can be done but I wish scoring was a bit more clear




I don't know where you're coming from with Guillard vs Stephens. That was an obvious decision for Guillard. But I agree that the judging was off in the other two fights you mentioned. Even if you had Bader winning the fight there is no way in hell he won all three rounds. Sherk Dunham was just really inexcusable. There is no judging system in the world that justifies Sherk winning that fight, except for maybe one written by his mother "Sean always wins."

Believe it or not, I actually have a problem with the attitude of the crowd. You may disagree with the Sean Sherk decision, but Sherk fought very hard and deserves respect just like Dunham, not boos. The crowd shouldn`t boo a fighter just because they disagree with the decision. Am I alone thinking that?


I do get where you're coming from but you also have to realize that booing is the only way the fans have to show there displeasure with the decision at that moment. It's not Sean's fault but at the end of the day he benefited from a robbery. The judging in MMA has been an ongoing problem and it seems that as the fighters get more skilled and the fights harder to judge, the problem is getting worse.

I think the starting point should be firing all current judges and hiring former fighters and trainers. Then start working on the rules. We've talked about what rule changes need to be made enough on this forum.


I'm assuming that's sarcasm, but I responded to someone making the same counter-argument as you 2 posts below my initial post. My point is that the UFC is the premiere MMA organization on earth. If they sit back and do absolutely nothing (aside from cashing in on rematches spawned as a result of bad judging) then who CAN do something about the problem? A regulatory body needs to be overthrown or challenged if it fails to do its job properly. The UFC needs to lead the charge here, even if it seems like a conflict of interest, because they're really the people with the power to start some kind of change with respect to the problems with officiating and judging. Something needs to be done, it's been a long time now that the judges have been making errors on 2-3 fights per card on average. The commission seems to believe that they're doing their job perfectly and Dana never does anything but confirm that they do a piss poor job and then say "nothing I can do, don't leave it in the hands of the judges" as if "leaving it in the hands of the judges" is a conscious decision that fighters are making. It's not realistic to expect any fighter to be able to finish talent of UFC calibre on a regular basis.


I couldn't agree more. It's really getting out of control. It's starting to hurt their product and make the fights less enjoyable. When you see a guy you like win a fight and then the judges announce he lost, it really pisses you off. I can only imagine how mad I'd be if I bet money on it. I won't stop watching but something does need to be done.

The UFC needs to take a stand and say "Listen, these guys aren't doing their jobs. It's such a consistent thing that you can't just say 'it's a tough job' or 'it comes down to subjectivity.' Fire these bums and get someone who knows what they're doing."
Pookie
9/27/10 3:06:03AM
Just watched Sherk v. Dunham and Bader v. Nog. I disagree with both decisions.
Aether
9/27/10 3:17:29AM

Posted by Pookie

Just watched Sherk v. Dunham and Bader v. Nog. I disagree with both decisions.



I do too. I thought that Nog took the second and third. Although the second was really close, so I don't think giving Bader the decision was a horrible call, but 30-27 was definitely wrong.
Pookie
9/27/10 3:34:10AM

Posted by Aether


Posted by Pookie

Just watched Sherk v. Dunham and Bader v. Nog. I disagree with both decisions.



I do too. I thought that Nog took the second and third. Although the second was really close, so I don't think giving Bader the decision was a horrible call, but 30-27 was definitely wrong.



Watched them without sound and i must say, i dont think the second round was a close round at all.
lohmann
9/27/10 4:30:51AM
Cecil Peoples and Glenn Trowbridge are ridiculous. Everybody knows this.

Props to Kevin Caldwell for being the best judge of the night by scoring both the Stephens/Guillard and Dunham/Sherk fights correctly.
bjj1605
9/27/10 11:41:15AM

Posted by Pookie

Just watched Sherk v. Dunham and Bader v. Nog. I disagree with both decisions.



They were both bad decisions but I don't think Bader v. Nog was horrible. I can at least see where they're coming from, I guess. I scored the fight for Nog even though I picked Bader to win.
Related Topics