UFC's potential downfall..

[Wolf]

You could have picked a better example that Brock Lesnar, especially since he didn't win and no one is offering him a title shot. What about Werdun? He lost to Arlovski and is next in line for a title shot while Arklovski is sitting on the bench. Forest Griffen hadn't beat anyone notworthy until he beat a very crappy Shogun and now he not only gets to coach on the next TUF but gets a title shot at the end.

By the way, the judges don't work for UFC, they just don't know very much about fighting.

The fact is he BEAT Shogun, who by most was ranked #1 in the world at 205. Forrest requested that fight too. When a fighter requests to fight the best in the world and wins, he deserves to be repaid for it. He also, damn near, and in my (and many other people's opinions) did beat Tito. He was beating Jardine soundly until he made a sloppy mistake. He's looked nothing short of fantastic in EVERY other fight in the UFC. I can see the argument that there may be someone else that should get a title shot, but I don't think a sound argument can be made that he shouldn't get one.

[UpaLumpa]

Wolf is right. Forrest schooled Shogun, widely considered the top LHW in the world. Should he have to fight another top contender or face Jardine again? Perhaps, but the Shogun tooling instantly launches him to legitimate contender status. I'd like to see him fight Machida for the shot but TUF unfortunately takes precedence.

[ShrekBJJ]

Not in the US, but in the UK shows they do work for the UFC as there is no commission regulating those shows...the refs and judges are brought in and paid for by the UFC. It is completely UFC controlled (at least that is my understanding). And, IMO one of the clearest examples of F'd up decisions came in the England UFC with Matt Hamill's loss to Michael Bisping (the England hometown boy).

And, yes Cecil Peoples should never work MMA again.

That's a bit harsh on the UK judges.

Andy Roberts who judged that fight is a great competitor and I don't think for a second he'd do the job if he wasn't doing it as his own man. I don't believe he's above calling a fight the wrong way, especially a fight as tight as that one, but I think calling his integrity into question is harsh.

If I recall correclty the other two judges on that fight were flown over by the UFC from Nevada.


Back on topic.

I don't think the UFC are fixing fights but I am fed up with their agenda that is thrown at you throughout a PPV. The Tyson Griffin and Tibeau fight is a good example. I probably agree that it was a 30-27 victory for Griffin but the first two rounds were tight enough that you can see an argument, while if you listen to Rogan you would think he won them out of sight. Same with the first round between Lambert and Gouveia, Lambert landed a couple of hard shots but Gouveia landed more shots and looked dangerous with the omoplata though if you listened to Rogan it was almost a 10-8 to Lambert and Gouveia was lucky to get out the first.

Basically they use Rogan to push the fighters they want to use and too many people buy what he says.

[plakat]

maybe this is wat the GOD OF MMA, randy couture is trying to tell us all this while

[JohnnyCache]

Part of the problem with reffing MMA is its actually pretty damn difficult to apply a straight 10 point-must to three-range fighting. Clinching in boxing is a stalling tactic, in MMA it's an offensive tactic. In MMA, it can be worth it to eat scoring blows to work a sub. In MMA you have to decide - is a submission attempt scored over a brilliant escape? In boxing, a blow either misses or hits, in MMA you have to score situations where the attacker is in a dominant position and the defender is defending well - but the two are in constant, jockying contact ... MMA needs a new scoring system.

[The Question]

Part of the problem with reffing MMA is its actually pretty damn difficult to apply a straight 10 point-must to three-range fighting. Clinching in boxing is a stalling tactic, in MMA it's an offensive tactic. In MMA, it can be worth it to eat scoring blows to work a sub. In MMA you have to decide - is a submission attempt scored over a brilliant escape? In boxing, a blow either misses or hits, in MMA you have to score situations where the attacker is in a dominant position and the defender is defending well - but the two are in constant, jockying contact ... MMA needs a new scoring system.

You know, I don't see why the pride system is not implemented. I think attempting to finish the fight should be better rewarded than takedowns and bullshit lay and pray tactics.

I say bring back the Pride way of judging, minus the corruption, of course.

[Jadonblade]

That's a bit harsh on the UK judges.

Andy Roberts who judged that fight is a great competitor and I don't think for a second he'd do the job if he wasn't doing it as his own man. I don't believe he's above calling a fight the wrong way, especially a fight as tight as that one, but I think calling his integrity into question is harsh.

If I recall correclty the other two judges on that fight were flown over by the UFC from Nevada.


Back on topic.

I don't think the UFC are fixing fights but I am fed up with their agenda that is thrown at you throughout a PPV. The Tyson Griffin and Tibeau fight is a good example. I probably agree that it was a 30-27 victory for Griffin but the first two rounds were tight enough that you can see an argument, while if you listen to Rogan you would think he won them out of sight. Same with the first round between Lambert and Gouveia, Lambert landed a couple of hard shots but Gouveia landed more shots and looked dangerous with the omoplata though if you listened to Rogan it was almost a 10-8 to Lambert and Gouveia was lucky to get out the first.

Basically they use Rogan to push the fighters they want to use and too many people buy what he says.

Andy roberts was judging in the last UFC in newcastle as well, so they obviously think he does a good job. Andy is my BJJ intructer oddly enough so Im prone to be biased but he has done alot of reffing and judging for BJJ and assorted things in the UK, so I think he is trusted and I cant imagine him sacrificing that for mere nationalism.

[UpaLumpa]

The funny part about the Bisping judging is that the english guy scored it for Hamil and the american judges for Bisping. Also, if you rewatch the fight it becomes clear Hamil deserved the loss, though it was close.

[Roidie McDouchebag]

I think the most blatant offence in this regard is the fact that Chuck Liddell has never been called for thumbing/fingering.

[sambosteve]

That's a bit harsh on the UK judges.

Andy Roberts who judged that fight is a great competitor and I don't think for a second he'd do the job if he wasn't doing it as his own man. I don't believe he's above calling a fight the wrong way, especially a fight as tight as that one, but I think calling his integrity into question is harsh.

If I recall correclty the other two judges on that fight were flown over by the UFC from Nevada.


Back on topic.

I don't think the UFC are fixing fights but I am fed up with their agenda that is thrown at you throughout a PPV. The Tyson Griffin and Tibeau fight is a good example. I probably agree that it was a 30-27 victory for Griffin but the first two rounds were tight enough that you can see an argument, while if you listen to Rogan you would think he won them out of sight. Same with the first round between Lambert and Gouveia, Lambert landed a couple of hard shots but Gouveia landed more shots and looked dangerous with the omoplata though if you listened to Rogan it was almost a 10-8 to Lambert and Gouveia was lucky to get out the first.

Basically they use Rogan to push the fighters they want to use and too many people buy what he says.

Just to clarify guys, I did not mean to say anyone was fixing fights. I was just pointing out that not all UFC judging, etc is independently run by commissions like in the states. I am sure Roberts is a good man...that is not what I was pointing out. I am pointing out that, like mentioned, the UFC is entertainment and there is huge pressure to go this way or that way in scoring a fight. Generally, I don't have problems with the judging, but there have been occassions where the decisions are obviously wrong and in favor of the intended entertainment value. The Hamill v Bisping fight was an example of that.

In the end, I don't think it is a problem with the 10-point system. I think it is the fact that some judges don't know what they are watching...or lean a certain way in their understanding/valuing of technique (standing vs grappling). In the end, anytime a decision has to be made, there will be questions. There is never going to be an objective criteria...except a sub or KO.