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."