Why does MMA judging always feel so wrong?

What you're saying is true in many cases, it makes sense in close decisions where both guys did comparable damage, comparable control, etc.

To me it doesn't ring true at all in this case because there's not much debate, everyone seems to be in agreement that Pantoja was the one who got his ass kicked, but Erceg is the one who lost because he lost that position and got held down for a few minutes.

If this was a school yard fight, if this was two bears or lions going at it in the wild, it would be very clear and obvious to everyone with IQ above room temperature that the lion who lost is the one with chunks of his face torn off, the kid who lost in the playground is the one that's bleeding all over the place and holding on for dear life and waiting for the teacher to break it up... it's actually not that subjective and we all know it instinctively.

I just don't understand why they insist with this nonsensical criteria where holding someone down while doing nothing for two minutes, beats absorbing blunt force trauma and getting your face sliced open??
It seems ur not accounting for rounds. Erceg did very well for 2 rounds. Pantoja did just barely enough to win 3. Makes Erceg look better overall, because he did more with less
 
Imagine if we're actually watching different fights. And that's just part of reality. Multiple different fights in different universes?

We're all watching a different fight, we're all living different lives in a multitude of universes in which every single fight and every single action plays out differently?

That would explain the bad judging.

I, personaly, blame God for making shit so complicated, not least when it comes to MMA.
Judges watch from cageside, not from the same screen that every other person in the world is watching from.

That would explain 'bad' judging too
 
I felt Ecreg was definitely the better striker but scoring the fight Pantoja won 3-2, I felt we wont 3 rounds clearly.
 
Judges watch from cageside, not from the same screen that every other person in the world is watching from.

That would explain 'bad' judging too

Same shit, different judges. It's just life, man.
 
I like BJ Penn's idea : no judges.

Only finishes count. No finishes, both fighters loose.

For championship fights, contender gets no automatic rematch. Previous champion fights the next contender to reconquer belt.
maybe good on paper, but i think it would end up with a lot of stalling and with the fighter losing just holding on to not get finish and be happy with a "draw"
 
I don't disagree with any of that, but I think you missed my point.

I'm telling you that I myself scored it for Pantoja knowing what the scoring criteria is, but it feels silly because I know that the guy who lost the decision actually won the fight and quite convincingly.

I'm not criticizing the decision, I'm criticizing the nonsensical criteria which makes it possible.

I feel like GSP vs. Hendricks is the perfect example of what you're saying. Yeah, GSP technically edged out 3 rounds, but we all saw Hendricks got the better of him that night.
 
very simple, because people pick and choose when to reward stalling or what they call "grappling" which usually makes a straight forward fight become super complicated when it shouldn't, a takedown is just that, a change from stand up to ground fighting, it should not be scored unless the fighter actually does something with it, like a close submission attempt, or good ground and pound, you have BJJ fighters that actually want to be taken down or even try to pull guard, so at that point it does not mean they are in a disadvantage, the fight just changed from stand up to grappling, its up to the fighter that made the change to then score points, and too many times simply laying on top, resting or stalling is rewarded as some monstrous dominating performance that almost instantly overrules anything that was done prior to that take down on the feet and it messes with judging and scoring.
 
Was hastily modeled clumsily after boxing to appease athletic commissions for sanctioning. 10 point round is limiting.
 
I like BJ Penn's idea : no judges.

Only finishes count. No finishes, both fighters loose.

For championship fights, contender gets no automatic rematch. Previous champion fights the next contender to reconquer belt.

No gloves dipped in glass?

Wtf bro?

We talking about fighting or not?
 
The judging feels wrong because a lot of you are retarded

There are some truly egregious decisions that have been scored, but I swear to fucking God a lot of you have no idea what the fuck you are watching

The fight was close. The right guy won. Pantoja dominated the grappling, and actually landed more strikes overall than Erceg. There were a few strikes that busted him up as he WALKED RIGHT THROUGH THEM AND INTO A TAKEDOWN. Every single strike that hurt Pantoja didn't hurt him enough to prevent him from absolutely having his way with Erceg on the mat, and if you really want to talk about "damage", and "it's a fight", picture that it happens outside of a bar. Steve gets mauled in a parking lot with no referees or time limits because he simply could not have remained on his feet to score a knockout
 
Imagine if we're actually watching different fights. And that's just part of reality. Multiple different fights in different universes?

We're all watching a different fight, we're all living different lives in a multitude of universes in which every single fight and every single action plays out differently?

That would explain the bad judging.

I, personaly, blame God for making shit so complicated, not least when it comes to MMA.

God didn't write the Unified Rules of MMA.

That was Big John and a bunch of dorks from athletics commissions who probably barely knew shit about boxing and knew even less about MMA.

The blame belongs with Big John and the Dorks
 
Any judging feels wrong. In each and every sport. Cuz judging is, what do they call it, subjective. It isn't right or wrong, it isn't in or out, it's ... maybe in, maybe out, maybe right or maybe wrong.

Ever watched a movie and you loved it, only to find out that some other people didn't love it, in fact they hated it?

That's what subjective is all about. Some people just don't get your perspective, they don't see what you do.

And vice versa. Which is latin for subjective.
I know all this, and agree 100%.

No matter how anybody looks at anything. Others will see whatever they saw.

How else can a 30-27, 30-27, 28-29 happen? I’d definitely prefer to think the judges are complete imbeciles, sometimes (not always).

As opposed to them being crooked.

Either way, it’s not ideal. And in a couple decades on these boards. I don’t recall anybody coming up with the perfect solution to the 10 point must boxing system.

And no matter what. As long as humans judge sporting contests. There will be fuck ups.
 
Every time I feel like MMA judging is the shits I go and watch a boxing event. Then I realise I'd rather have shaky judging than the outright corruption that permeates all of boxing from the smallest shows to the biggest PPVs.
 
Ok..

Well. What do you suggest?

Judge the fight as a whole?

(Like PrideFC)

Do you have a better system in mind?

What would solve the problem?

It was a fight with close rounds, where the guy who did more damage got out grappled and was numerically outscored in a few rounds.

How do you propose to fix that?
I would definitely prefer that they judge the fight as a whole, if they wanna give fighters a break every 5 minutes that's fine, but take the entire fight into account.

IF you're not gonna judge the fight as a whole, then YOU CAN'T just judge every round 10-9.

Yes I know they give a 10-8 once in a blue moon, but not nearly often enough.

For example the 5th round of Erceg vs Pantoja can be a 10-9, it was pretty even and he edged it out with some control on the ground.

But if that's a 10-9, then the round where Erceg clearly won and split his head open should be a 10-8 or a 10-7.

That adjustment alone would be a big step towards better decisions, if they're so obsessed with scoring it by round then they need to be more willing to give a 10-8, a 10-7 or even a 10-1 if it's warranted.

There have been rounds where fighter A is completely dominating fighter B, and it still gets scored a 10-9. Then in the following round fighter B comes back and wins a super close and uneventful round, again 10-9. So now it's technically 1-1 going into the final round, despite one guy doing a ton more... WHYYYYYY.

So yeah, very simple fix, 10-9's should be only for very close rounds, any round where a guy clearly beat the other should be 10-8 or less.
 
I feel like GSP vs. Hendricks is the perfect example of what you're saying. Yeah, GSP technically edged out 3 rounds, but we all saw Hendricks got the better of him that night.
Part of the problem is their obsession with scoring every round 10-9. You gotta damn near kill your opponent to get a 10-8.
 
It seems ur not accounting for rounds. Erceg did very well for 2 rounds. Pantoja did just barely enough to win 3. Makes Erceg look better overall, because he did more with less
Again as I mentioned above, a big part of the judging problem is that they feel compelled to score every round 10-9. That should only be if a round was very close, but anytime a guy clearly wins a round and inflicts more damage it should be 10-8 or less. That would fix a lot of problems and make for more exciting fights. A guy could be down 3 rounds to 1 going into the fifth, and he can have a big rally and still win it without getting the finish.
 
Erceg had lot of success due to Pantoja the flyweight Werdum running towards him chin in the air and swinning wildy. Also Steve used Black Beast style of just standing up. Funny fight overall. But a good watch for sure. Seemed like a really close fight so expect champ to retaining in his home country.
 
Steve looked huge compared to Pantoja. Guy threw it in the 5th round though.
The ten point must system has to go, but I don't think anyone has created a judging set that works much better outside of PRIDE.
 
Back
Top