"The fight could have gone either way," White said. "(But) 30-27? I mean that's crazy."
White was referring to the official scorecard of judge Lester Griffin, who awarded Forrest all three rounds of the fight, resulting in the 30-27 total.
"The 30-27 score is outrageous," White said. "It's insane."
White considered the opening frame of the fight the closest of the the three rounds. Griffin landed the better shots on the feet and fended off two takedown attempts, while Ortiz scored an early takedown and landed a few blows before his opponent escaped to the feet.
"It was a close first round," White said. "The first round was tough to score. As soon as that fight was over, all of us that were sitting down were like, 'That was a tough round to score.'"
If Zuffa can't lead the campaign for judging reform than who can?! They are the strongest collective voice in the sport and you can't tell me that they don't have influence on athletic comissions, that would be ignorance to say the least.
I think a big part of the problem is the fact that Dana and company have a bizarre love for sloppy kickboxing and encourage "entertaining" fights. Fighters with that style of game seem to curry favor from the majority of judges in today's sport. I'm not certain that at their core Zuffa doesn't feel that a serious reform of the judging structure wouldn't lead to a less "entertaining" product.
Believe me, if they wanted reform they could make a serious push in the right direction.
_______________________________________ And as El Guapo always says- "God speed, and party on. Whoap!"
If Zuffa can't lead the campaign for judging reform than who can?! They are the strongest collective voice in the sport and you can't tell me that they don't have influence on athletic comissions, that would be ignorance to say the least.
I think a big part of the problem is the fact that Dana and company have a bizarre love for sloppy kickboxing and encourage "entertaining" fights. Fighters with that style of game seem to curry favor from the majority of judges in today's sport. I'm not certain that at their core Zuffa doesn't feel that a serious reform of the judging structure wouldn't lead to a less "entertaining" product.
Believe me, if they wanted reform they could make a serious push in the right direction.
Can you imagine the public outcry and claims that the UFC influences judging? In my opinion, whether or not they can isn't the question...it's whether or not they should and/or want to.
Last edited 11/23/09 8:39AM by emfleek Edit note/reason: n/a
30-27 isnt the worst call ive seen by a hell of a long way. I was pretty torn on who to give it to myself. If Forrest had of got the sweep 30 seconds earlier it would of been alot easier to give him the round though.
That's a start, but he's only the Executive Director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission. If you're going to e-mail/call him, you need to do the same for all of the other commissions.
Kizer told Cagewriter on Thursday that there are no issues (4:05 mark):
"These fights are very well-matched. It's incredible. Plus you only have three or five rounds at most so there's not a lot of room for variance. So you have one close round, that could make a big difference."
Kizer said there's always going to be issues where the outcome of a sport is subjective. He's pleased with ongoing effort by the judges to improve their knowledge and said competitive, close fights are a good thing for the sport.
Kizer told Cagewriter on Thursday that there are no issues (4:05 mark):
"These fights are very well-matched. It's incredible. Plus you only have three or five rounds at most so there's not a lot of room for variance. So you have one close round, that could make a big difference."
Kizer said there's always going to be issues where the outcome of a sport is subjective. He's pleased with ongoing effort by the judges to improve their knowledge and said competitive, close fights are a good thing for the sport.
Then change the times of rds and bout length you don't have to have odd numbers either.
For Dana to say that the fight could have gone either way was completely outrageous! Forrest clearly won the fight 29-28. The first round I felt went to Forrest. One takedown by Tito, and Forrest got up farely quickly, and landed some really good strikes, controlled the pace of the action. Round 2 was close, Tito got some good takedowns and did some damage, but Forrest also damaged him on the feet and swept him from his back as well. Round 3 clearly went to Forrest, Tito hardly threw any punches, and Forrest battered him. That was one of the most one sided rounds Ive ever seen in combat sports alone. Forrest was just teeing off with a predictable rhythm that Tito couldnt seem to figure out...Forrest knew he was gassed. Had this been a title fight, Forrest would have finished him in the fourth.
Forrest clearly won. I watched this fight from a non biased point of view. I didnt care who won but an uneducated person who has never seen an mma bout before would clearly say Forrest won.
The judging system needs to overhauled. Its not just the judges. Effective Striking, Grappling, Aggression, and Octagon control doesn't seem to be doing it. The judges are uneducated but it goes beyond that. I think that the Pride system was great and I almost never disagreed with their decisions.
If they don't want to go that route and prefer a point system I would like to see a 20 point round system. It makes it easier to account for close rounds. Rounds that 'could have gone either way' would be scored 20-19. Rounds that were more dominant could be 20-18. And especially dominant rounds (10-8 in the current system) would be 20-17 or 20-16. This has a couple of implications.
First of all, fights where one guy dominates one round and the other edges out two close ones could be draws or wins for the first fighter. Take GSP vs BJ Penn the first time. I would score that first round 20-18 or 20-17 for Penn. The second two would both be 20-19 for GSP. This would make the fight 58 to 58 for a draw or 58 to 57 for a Penn decision.
I for one am not opposed to seeing draws. Its better than a fighter getting a decision he doesn't deserve.
Also, Judges have more room to award fighters for dominance. A boring lay and pray style might only yield a 20-19 round. More exciting game plans and attempts to finish would be awarded accordingly. This encourages entertaining fights.
I'm going to go even further and say that it would help illegal blows affect the fight less. If you get a point deducted for grabbing the fence it wouldn't automatically change the course of the fight. It would still be a deterrent for breaking the rules though because it could make a difference in close fights and, again, it would give officials (refs) more breathing room because deducting multiple points wouldn't be as big of a deal.
The judging system needs to overhauled. Its not just the judges. Effective Striking, Grappling, Aggression, and Octagon control doesn't seem to be doing it. The judges are uneducated but it goes beyond that. I think that the Pride system was great and I almost never disagreed with their decisions.
If they don't want to go that route and prefer a point system I would like to see a 20 point round system. It makes it easier to account for close rounds. Rounds that 'could have gone either way' would be scored 20-19. Rounds that were more dominant could be 20-18. And especially dominant rounds (10-8 in the current system) would be 20-17 or 20-16. This has a couple of implications.
First of all, fights where one guy dominates one round and the other edges out two close ones could be draws or wins for the first fighter. Take GSP vs BJ Penn the first time. I would score that first round 20-18 or 20-17 for Penn. The second two would both be 20-19 for GSP. This would make the fight 58 to 58 for a draw or 58 to 57 for a Penn decision.
I for one am not opposed to seeing draws. Its better than a fighter getting a decision he doesn't deserve.
Also, Judges have more room to award fighters for dominance. A boring lay and pray style might only yield a 20-19 round. More exciting game plans and attempts to finish would be awarded accordingly. This encourages entertaining fights.
I'm going to go even further and say that it would help illegal blows affect the fight less. If you get a point deducted for grabbing the fence it wouldn't automatically change the course of the fight. It would still be a deterrent for breaking the rules though because it could make a difference in close fights and, again, it would give officials (refs) more breathing room because deducting multiple points wouldn't be as big of a deal.
You make some good points and I wouldn't mind a 20 point system or draws but I think there needs to be a re-education of the judges. Maybe even a better explanation of how to score takedowns, ring control and submission attempts to name a few. Otherwise, the same problems could pop up again.
I think the judges now, for some reason don't like scoring fights a draw. I haven't seen the Uno/Camoes fight but from what I hear, that fight was a poster child of what a draw should be.
_______________________________________ Billy Madison-
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the playground is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no props, and may God have mercy on your soul.
