UFC Fights Going to Decision

[Wiszard]

This subject can and will be debated for a long time BUT....sometimes I don't know what the judges see that I don't. Yushin Okami may have beat Nate Marquardt. Until I watch it again, its up in the air to me. But, when I heard the first judges score of 30-27 I pooped myself. Nate did not lose all three rounds. And if it was a TUF fight, I'd have made them fight another round because I saw it as such a close fight.

Another one was the Bisping/Matt Hamill fight from a year and a half ago. Bisping was given the third round when I thought Hamill clearly won the round. At that point, if I'm not mistaken, Bisping was undefeated. That surely was his first loss in my opinion. I know it should never go to the judges but when it does, sometimes they really jack it up. Just my two cents....

Steve
"Get that corn out of my face"

 

[troutsniffer]

I thought the Okami fight was boring. I too find it hard to give all 3 rounds to Okami.

 

[Roy]

I thought both fighters were way too cautious and thought for sure that Marquardt won the second round, but I did re-watch it and you can make an argument for Okami in that round on damage from strikes alone. Marquardt took him down, but Okami did some damage from strikes and really dominated the center of the octagon, one of the takedowns you could actually say he "pulled guard" and allowed Nate to take him down. The problem is that Nate didn't do anything with it. Too conservative, should have let loose.

That's the way fighting is - when it comes to judgements, it is really an opinion. To this day I will still argue until I am blue in the face that De La Hoya beat Felix Trinidad but the judges didn't see it that way. He chose to be conservative in the late rounds and it appeared that Trinidad was doing much more damage than he actually did. Oscar should have finished him.

Never let it go to the judges.

UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)

 

[B_BOP_A_LU_LU]

Remember Wisz!

You're a T&A Judge!

Not a UFC Joker!

God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!

I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!

 

[Foreman4x4]

Good thing UFC 122 was free! WAFJ! I'll never pay for another as the last few cards have been absolutely terrible!

 

[Wiszard]

B-BOP....yes, I am!

Foreman- You gonna pay to see Penn-Hughes? That may be a classic....both at the top of their game. HaHa. I'm waiting for Kimo to make an apprearance on UFC125 against Gary Goodridge! LMAO!

Steve
"Get that corn out of my face"

 

[Foreman4x4]

They need to make it winner takes all, loser goes home. Then maybe them SOB's would act like they really want to be there!

 

[bayside]

I think their pay should be based on the fight they put on. If they're agressive and push the action, then they can make everything their contract proposes, but if they run, or don't engage, then their pay should be taken away. One thing I've never understood is it seems almost always that it's the most aggressive fighter that wins, and success comes from being aggressive. The only exception I think is Machida. He's a total counter fighter, which is fine, I guess it works for him.

 

[Wiszard]

Look what happened to Kaleb Starnes, an up and coming fighter who fought Nate Quarry I think it was. The guy ran the whole time to the point that Nate imitated him by simulating a "jog" in the octagon. Starnes was told he'd never fight in the UFC again and gave him the boot.

I agree that their performance should dictate their pay. Although, Jon Jones dominated Matt Hamill and ended up losing by DQ for using illegal strikes. Does Matt Hamill not get paid even though he was dominated and still got the win? Do you take some of Jones' pay even though he was the much better fighter but still used illegal strikes? Tough deal there and there will not be a perfect system for that. I like the idea though.

Steve
"Get that corn out of my face"

 

[bayside]

Hamill showed up to fight, so he definately should lose any pay. It would be hard for the UFC to figure out a perfect system because some people think the ground game is very boring, and might think that fighters shouldn't deserve to get paid unless they bang. A perfect example is Jon Fitch. He totally dominates people on the ground, gets good takedowns, controls his opponent on the ground the whole fight, but delivers very little punishment. Would a guy like that get fined? He works for takedowns, and controls people on the ground. It would be a very hard decision to make. Maybe like 30% of their pay was up for "performance bonus" and this would be voted on my 50% fans, and 50% other fighters. I'll get Dana on the phone and let him know my idea.