Im really wondering about the integrity of the ufc

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Im really wondering about the integrity of the ufc
MoJoy
7/7/08 1:03:51PM
I dont want to get into the whole story of who should have won the Forrest Rampage fight. Personally I had it as a 47-47 draw. But what i want to get into is this. How in the world did 2 of the 3 judges score the first round to Forrest. And how did all the judge give the 3rd round to Forrest. 4th and 5th rounds where up in the air. But prior to you posting on this. I know you remember that first round, but also go watch the third round. Both are those rounds where 100% Rampages, without a doubt. Forrest did nothing in the third round, and Rampage rocked him more than once. Its getting to a point I might stop ordering these ppv's altogether. Especially in a title fight, what kind of judging is this? Crazy and not right.
jiujitsufreak74
7/7/08 1:09:15PM
how do you know what rounds Forrest and Rampage got? i'm not being a jerk, i am seriously asking because sometimes they reveal the scorecards after the fight (as they did with Kimbo) so i am wondering if you were able to see them. if not, then i am just going to say don't assume anything. maybe they gave the 2nd a 10-8 to Forrest. and as for the 1st being 100% Rampage, i don't agree. i thought the 1st round was pretty close and that the 4th and 5th were Rampage's easily. my point is, with such a close fight it is easy to to have differing opinions. not everything is carved in stone and there is a lot of gray area. it is all subjective and everyone has differing opinions and maybe what you use to make your judgments of who won a round is completely different from what the judges used. i personally thought Rampage won the fight, but i am not mad that the judges gave it to Forrest because in the round system with a close fight anything can happen.
grappler0000
7/7/08 1:11:59PM


Not to mention, don't you mean you're wondering about the integrity of the AC?
Vote4Fedro
7/7/08 1:17:57PM
I agree 100%. I am going to only debate the scoring on the first round, the others were way to close to even discuss. Two judges gave it to Forrest? That was closer to 10-8 Page than 10-9 for Forrest. This is the exact type of fight that deserves an immediate rematch. If UFC doesn't do that then I will say that they have major credibility issues.

nickcuc547
7/7/08 1:19:38PM
while i agree with the judging, i don't think it's anything deeper than poor judging.
MoJoy
7/7/08 1:19:46PM
On the front page of this site, their is a article that shows the scoring. Remember I am not talking about the decision. I am talking about scoring in certain rounds. Rampage easily won that first round against Forrest, are you kidding? He almost finished the fight right there, Forrest got rocked and was barely holding on. And the third round. Please watch it. You dont have to watch the whole fight, just watch that round. Every judge scored it for Forrest. Rampage dicated that entire round and rocked Forrest a few times, where Forrest did not muster anything on Rampage. How can you score those rounds for Forrest. If you do can you articulate how. I love both of these guys, so I am impartial. And in my mind, those two rounds where Rampage without a doubt. No brainer.
MoJoy
7/7/08 1:23:31PM
Listen to what I am saying. Do me a favor. Before you reply to this, watch the first and third rounds. And be impartial. If you actually believe Forrest won those rounds, intelligently articulate how. Cause I have Rampage winning it descively, those rounds. This stuff really bothers me, cause these guys put their heart and soul into it, their must be better judging, simply has to be more sensical.
jiujitsufreak74
7/7/08 1:25:28PM

Posted by MoJoy

On the front page of this site, their is a article that shows the scoring. Remember I am not talking about the decision. I am talking about scoring in certain rounds. Rampage easily won that first round against Forrest, are you kidding? He almost finished the fight right there, Forrest got rocked and was barely holding on. And the third round. Please watch it. You dont have to watch the whole fight, just watch that round. Every judge scored it for Forrest. Rampage dicated that entire round and rocked Forrest a few times, where Forrest did not muster anything on Rampage. How can you score those rounds for Forrest. If you do can you articulate how. I love both of these guys, so I am impartial. And in my mind, those two rounds where Rampage without a doubt. No brainer.



well i would also like to point out another factor in the judging. watching an event ringside and watching an event from PPV gives you different angles and different perspectives. this was brought up as a valid point for the Hamil vs Bisping fight. again, i am going to say that it is all subjective because in my opinion, Forrest was winning up until Rampage dropped him. now, imo, i gave that round to Rampage, but, maybe on their scorecard Forrest was winning most of the exchanges and that he was up by so much that the drop still didn't make Rampage win the first round. also, maybe the judges were scoring heavily on Forrest's leg kicks since they were doing a lot of damage and making Rampage buckle and limp. the point is, we never know what the criteria is for each judge in scoring a round since it is all personal opinion. you seem to feel very strongly about how you thought the rounds went, but i bet the judges feel strongly about the way they scored the fight.
MoJoy
7/7/08 1:29:12PM
Your saying maybe the judges thought Forrest was so far ahead in first round, that after Rampage almost knocked him out, he did enough to still win. The problem with that is he was not far ahead up until that juncture in the first round. It was close until that part, then Rampage knocked him down, and punished him. So to me, no way in hell Forrest should have won that round. Cuase even before that happened it was anybodys round. After that, it was Rampage's. And I dont care where anybody is sitting, Hamill Bisbing was a travesty. Come on man, your smart. Your telling me you believe that bullshit excuse the judge gave. Its cause the fight was in the uk and they want to milk Bisbing. Call a spade a spade.
cowcatcher
7/7/08 1:34:05PM
forrest was winning rd 1 until he got dropped, his leg kicks and punches were landing while rampage was basically feeling him out. i cant see any way that you could call it 10-8 for rampage based on a knockdown because he was clearly not winning until that point, but to score that round for forrest after he was dropped and seemingly hurt makes no sense to me. it was pretty clearly 10-9 page in my eyes, i just cant see scoring the round any other way. to me the fight was 47-47, but after thinking long and hard about it, it was the only fight with any major back and forth action of the night and i was pretty damned entertained by it, and seeing that im just a fan and not a judge or one of the fighters cornermen im just happy i was entertained.
jiujitsufreak74
7/7/08 1:35:11PM

Posted by MoJoy

Your saying maybe the judges thought Forrest was so far ahead in first round, that after Rampage almost knocked him out, he did enough to still win. The problem with that is he was not far ahead up until that juncture in the first round. It was close until that part, then Rampage knocked him down, and punished him. So to me, no way in hell Forrest should have won that round. Cuase even before that happened it was anybodys round. After that, it was Rampage's. And I dont care where anybody is sitting, Hamill Bisbing was a travesty. Come on man, your smart. Your telling me you believe that bullshit excuse the judge gave. Its cause the fight was in the uk and they want to milk Bisbing. Call a spade a spade.



let me explain, i am not saying i agree with them but rather i am trying to show some examples that would rationalize how they scored the rounds without saying it was poor judging integrity. and don't underestimate how different a fight looks from a judges position and for where we watch on PPV. i am one of the first people who will say that the Bisping decision was a joke and that it was a horrible decision, but i don't think it was because he was British. the reason i don't is because the two American judges were the ones who scored it for him while the British judge scored it for Hamill. and again, i agree that Rampage won the first, but the rounds after that were too close and too subjective. i really think that the damage Forrest was doing with his leg kicks played heavily in the judges' minds and most likely swayed them round to round.

all i am trying to do is to show you different situations that might explain why the judges scored the way they did and that there are a lot of variables that explain it better than corrupt judges or a lack of integrity.
grappler0000
7/7/08 1:37:43PM

Posted by MoJoy

Your saying maybe the judges thought Forrest was so far ahead in first round, that after Rampage almost knocked him out, he did enough to still win. The problem with that is he was not far ahead up until that juncture in the first round. It was close until that part, then Rampage knocked him down, and punished him. So to me, no way in hell Forrest should have won that round. Cuase even before that happened it was anybodys round. After that, it was Rampage's. And I dont care where anybody is sitting, Hamill Bisbing was a travesty. Come on man, your smart. Your telling me you believe that bullshit excuse the judge gave. Its cause the fight was in the uk and they want to milk Bisbing. Call a spade a spade.



I agree with JJFreak...Forrest had the first round until the knockdown. Whether it was enough to give it to Rampage is questionable. I think it was, but I can see the other side of the argument. As for Forrest almost being KO'd, I think that may be a bit of a stretch...he was knocked down, as many fighters are all the time. He coherently pulled guard immediately and didn't look to be out of it.
TWITA
7/7/08 1:39:10PM
I believe that Rampage won the first round 10-9. I also believe that Forrest dominated the second round enough to get a 10-8. The remaining 3 rounds were SO close that they really could have gone either way - but based on scoring, 1 judge had Forrest winning all 3 of those. I work with an amateur MMA ref and he thought that based on Forrest's aggression and a couple takedowns in rounds 4,5 and 6 that he would have given him those rounds as well.
MoJoy
7/7/08 1:51:07PM
Once again watch the 3rd round. If you think Forrest won that round, explain where and how.
MoJoy
7/7/08 1:53:05PM

Posted by jiujitsufreak74


Posted by MoJoy

Your saying maybe the judges thought Forrest was so far ahead in first round, that after Rampage almost knocked him out, he did enough to still win. The problem with that is he was not far ahead up until that juncture in the first round. It was close until that part, then Rampage knocked him down, and punished him. So to me, no way in hell Forrest should have won that round. Cuase even before that happened it was anybodys round. After that, it was Rampage's. And I dont care where anybody is sitting, Hamill Bisbing was a travesty. Come on man, your smart. Your telling me you believe that bullshit excuse the judge gave. Its cause the fight was in the uk and they want to milk Bisbing. Call a spade a spade.



let me explain, i am not saying i agree with them but rather i am trying to show some examples that would rationalize how they scored the rounds without saying it was poor judging integrity. and don't underestimate how different a fight looks from a judges position and for where we watch on PPV. i am one of the first people who will say that the Bisping decision was a joke and that it was a horrible decision, but i don't think it was because he was British. the reason i don't is because the two American judges were the ones who scored it for him while the British judge scored it for Hamill. and again, i agree that Rampage won the first, but the rounds after that were too close and too subjective. i really think that the damage Forrest was doing with his leg kicks played heavily in the judges' minds and most likely swayed them round to round.

all i am trying to do is to show you different situations that might explain why the judges scored the way they did and that there are a lot of variables that explain it better than corrupt judges or a lack of integrity.



I see what your saying and I respect it. But I cannot think of any angle you could watch the Hammill Bisbing fight and not score it right. And I cannot see how in an even round, one fighter takes over and almost wins right there, how you can score it for the other guy. And round 3 was all Rampage it was not close.
jiujitsufreak74
7/7/08 1:54:33PM

Posted by MoJoy

Once again watch the 3rd round. If you think Forrest won that round, explain where and how.



imo, i thought Rampage won round 3 and in a pretty obvious fashion. but again, maybe it was the leg kicks, aggression, octagon control and pace that led the judges to score it for Griffin.
MoJoy
7/7/08 1:57:49PM
My friend your giving way too much dap to these judges. They did a horrible job.
grappler0000
7/7/08 2:21:07PM

Posted by MoJoy

My friend your giving way too much dap to these judges. They did a horrible job.



It was closer than you're giving credit. MMA Weekly and one of the Sherdog PbP writers gave round 3 to Griffin as well. In fact, most of the rounds were close...which is why nobody can agree on who took which rounds.
Vote4Fedro
7/7/08 2:30:22PM
I think after Page was clearly hurt by the leg kicks in the second he had no hope to win a decision. All Forrest had to do was poke that kick out there 6-7 times a round to cruise to victory. The perception that any attack to the leg of Page hurt him, regardless of whether Forrest actually was throwing hard enough to do damage.

MoJoy
7/7/08 2:33:42PM
I dont care about the judjes or mma weekly etc....You personally. Round 1 and Round 3. If you feel Forrest won explain why. Round 1 was obvious with him almost taking out Forrest right there. Round 3, any shot of any significance was made by Rampage. What did Forrest do in that round. Please explain. I understand all the judges gave that round to Forrest, But it was a robbery.
grappler0000
7/7/08 3:08:35PM

Posted by MoJoy

I dont care about the judjes or mma weekly etc....You personally. Round 1 and Round 3. If you feel Forrest won explain why. Round 1 was obvious with him almost taking out Forrest right there. Round 3, any shot of any significance was made by Rampage. What did Forrest do in that round. Please explain. I understand all the judges gave that round to Forrest, But it was a robbery.



I never claimed I thought he won either round. I actually scored the fight a Draw, but can see where some of the rounds could be given to either fighter, which is why I don't complain about the decision. Robbery is a very strong word for such a close fight. The fact that there is such mixed reactions to the winner of the rounds tells you how close it was. The difference is I'm willing to accept other peoples' opinions.
fonduktoe
7/7/08 3:15:19PM
the judging system in mma sucks and needs to be overhauled
fighters use the mantra of "don't let it get to the judges score cards" for a reason-
it's the only way for the loser to win a fight, which should never happen
jiujitsufreak74
7/7/08 3:17:45PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by MoJoy

I dont care about the judjes or mma weekly etc....You personally. Round 1 and Round 3. If you feel Forrest won explain why. Round 1 was obvious with him almost taking out Forrest right there. Round 3, any shot of any significance was made by Rampage. What did Forrest do in that round. Please explain. I understand all the judges gave that round to Forrest, But it was a robbery.



I never claimed I thought he won either round. I actually scored the fight a Draw, but can see where some of the rounds could be given to either fighter, which is why I don't complain about the decision. Robbery is a very strong word for such a close fight. The fact that there is such mixed reactions to the winner of the rounds tells you how close it was. The difference is I'm willing to accept other peoples' opinions.



that is what i am saying as well
MoJoy
7/7/08 3:23:01PM
read my post from the beginning. My aim here is at the scoring. Not the decision. I also felt it was a draw. I am talking about round1 and round 3. Its not about the fighters or the outcome. Its about how stupid the judging is. To me its terrible.
JimiMak
7/7/08 3:27:24PM
You guys do realize the judging is not the UFC's. It's the atletic commission. This has nothing to do w/ integrity of UFC.

And a razor thin decision can never be called a robbery.
Evilwig
7/7/08 4:18:59PM
Like JimiMak said, the judges are train and choose by the AC, the UFC itself has nothing to do with them. For all we know those three judges could score this like a boxing match rather than an mma fight.

In fact, to improve the situation, the UFC should be able to train and pick their own judges. Anyway, most of the time a decision in "bigger" will never please anyone, too many emotions involve.
Franklinfan47
7/7/08 5:30:05PM
Are you new here? The judges have been this stupid for a while now.
Related Topics