"to be the champ you have to beat the champ" is a lie

[melvinj0]

Even if you think Strickland won, using that fight as an example of bad judging is dumb. The stats were very close striking wise and then DDP had 6 takes down on top of that. It was a super close back in forth fight.

Personally I had Driscus winning but had they given it to Sean I would have understood as it was super close.

Bad judging is stuff like

Leonard Garcia Vs Nam Phan
Paddy Pimblett Vs Jared Gordon
Michael Bisping Vs Matt Hamill
Johnny Hendricks Vs GSP

This was just a case of lots of people really liking Sean Strickland and wanting him to win, and since he didn’t get dominated or finished they have a hard time accepting that he didn’t win the fight.

 

[TonyRolo]

Don’t leave it in the hands of the fucking judges you goof

That is exactly what I said "it is Strickland's fault for letting it be that close"

go back and read what i said and then come back

 

[TonyRolo]

Even if you think Strickland won, using that fight as an example of bad judging is dumb. The stats were very close striking wise and then DDP had 6 takes down on top of that. It was a super close back in forth fight.

Personally I had Driscus winning but had they given it to Sean I would have understood as it was super close.

Bad judging is stuff like

Leonard Garcia Vs Korean Zombie
Paddy Pimblett Vs Jared Gordon
Michael Bisping Vs Matt Hamill
Johnny Hendricks Vs GSP

This was just a case of lots of people really liking Sean Strickland and wanting him to win, and since he didn’t get dominated or finished they have a hard time accepting that he didn’t win the fight.

You miss the point; I explicitly said it could go either way! But in many fights where it could of gone either way he says the judging doesnt matter the challenger has to win decisevly or they will favor the champion. but that is not what happened here

 

[melvinj0]

You miss the point; I explicitly said it could go either way! But in many fights where it could of gone either way he says the judging doesnt matter the challenger has to win decisevly or they will favor the champion. but that is not what happened here

I mean it really doesn’t matter what he says at the end of the day, it’s not gonna change anything.

 

[sonhow]

I suppose the judges have strict rules for judging. Otherwise, it would just depend on the judge's opinion.

Unfoetunately it still depends on their opinnion, rules or not.

 

[RonDante]

Dana after gsp Hendricks was enraged, after jones reyes he says “I had it 3-2 but it doesn’t matter” so his opinion changes depending on who he wanted to win

to be the champ you have to beat the champ, isn’t that from the wwe or something? We’re using fake sport rules here?

why isn’t it “to be the champ, you have to prove you’re the Champ” and so every close round goes to the challenger, becuase the supposed best guy didn’t separate himself from the rest of the pack?

 

[World eater]

I am not saying he should take accountability for the judges. He should take accountability for what he said in previous fights and stay consistent but he changes the narrative

Fair. But you changed the thread title to which I was referring. Smart move, btw.

 

[Rationality]

Maybe The Champ should've dominated like The Champ you keep saying he is.
Also comparisons to Jon Jones? Are you sober right now?

 

[Simian Raticus]

The "gotta beat the champ" thing has always been silly, and if judges are actually affected by such notions then they're incompetent.

It should be be an even playing field, and it shouldn't be that hard to judge without bias in favour of either fighter.

 

[OldBoy91]

It's amazing people post here for years and say things that are this dumb.

That and "you aren't really the champion until you have defended it at least once" are some of the most stupid things I've heard in MMA and yet some of the most prevalent among the fanbase.

It's even more ridiculous because I'm fairly sure both statements come straight from pro wrestling which is not a sport.

 

[Van Daz]

UFC always changes the goalpost. Strickland vs DDP Dana Pink is regretful that Strickland lost but ultimately says thats the way it is. Then in Jones vs Reyes, Islam vs Volk 1, Max vs Volk 2, or many more the general consensus is that you have to be the champion u have to beat the champion. So when all you claim is that it is a debatable fight this is actually hypocritical because you also claimed that you can't leave it to be debatable in the eyes of the judges if you're the challenger.

So while Dana claiming he personally had Strickland winning and thinks the judges are wrong is just his way of dodging accountability from his previous comments. And basically none of the reporters want to ask him about it. If I am wrong tag their name and the youtube video and lets see danas response to it all.

Even though I personally scored the fight for Strickland I agree that at least 2 of the rounds are debatable so it is ultimately Strickland's fault for letting it be that close

Dana knows him saying to be the champ u have to beat the champ argument holds no weight. because if it is obvious to the judges you won according to the rules then you literally BEAT the champion. It is literally saying we are RIGGING the sport so that OUR GUY WINS NO MATTER WHAT unless it is so obvious because we dont want to get caught

Obviously the UFC is popular in Russia so they favor their Russian fighters. They get favorable matchups and quick routes to the title. And aren't put on as much pressure to constantly defend the belt as other guys are. DDP won right after Joshua vs Ngannou, possibly the highest profile fight in the history of African history considering they are both African, tapping into a new market. So just in time the UFC gets South African fans on their side before they go to boxing. Ultimately a lot of people will end up watching both but South Africa is a growing country and so is all of Africa at the moment. He is going to be getting a lot of PPV fans from Izzy vs DDP fight which now lines up perfect.

 

[checktheknuckles]

Dana is a POS. Who would have thought?

 

[herpd807]

how the hell do people still think that the UFC has any control over the judges scoring?

 

[RonDante]

That and "you aren't really the champion until you have defended it at least once" are some of the most stupid things I've heard in MMA and yet some of the most prevalent among the fanbase.

It's even more ridiculous because I'm fairly sure both statements come straight from pro wrestling which is not a sport.

I don’t know why but I always assumed the you need to defend came from Matt hughes poking fun at GSP for losing to Matt serra

am i just stupid?

 

[OldBoy91]

I don’t know why but I always assumed the you need to defend came from Matt hughes poking fun at GSP for losing to Matt serra

am i just stupid?

You might be right.

 

[JamM]

Unfoetunately it still depends on their opinnion, rules or not.

Hmmm, judges can and will take advantage of that.

 

[loisestrad]

Hmmm, judges can and will take advantage of that.

Why would they?

 

[JamM]

how the hell do people still think that the UFC has any control over the judges scoring?

Yeah, I still think so, but I'm starting to doubt it.

 

[JamM]

Why would they?

Money?

 

[loisestrad]

Money?

Money how? As in judges are getting paid to rig a fight? Who are they being paid by?The UFC?