View Single Post
11-22-2013, 06:59 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If Judges were consistent, GSP would have won the fight by bigger margin. How does he win rd 1 by 10-9 but then rd 3 or 5 by the same score? It makes no sense. If Rd 1 was a 1 point dominance over Hendricks, then surely round 5 is a 10-8 dominance.
Judges are inconsistent and very subjective. They don't even follow the NSAC's own criteria. If they did, Hendricks wins rd 1 because there's a lot more to it then just amount of strikes and submission attempts.
10-9 rounds are the norm. To score a 10-8 round you (generally) have to knock your opponent down. Yes, judges do occasionally hand out 10-8 rounds without a knockdown, but they are exceedingly rare. So the judges consistently scored their rounds 10-9, as is the standard practice. Round two is the one round that might have qualified as a 10-8 round, but because it was early in the match and JH failed to score a knock down none of the judges, not even the judge who gave the first round to JH, scored it as such. Once that is set as a standard it is difficult (in a five round match anyway) to score any other round 10-8 unless they meet that level of dominance.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Hate to tell you this, but efficiency and accuracy are part of the criteria. So yes, it's very important, and he was overly dominant in that category. And again, total disregard for impact, which is also criteria.
Absolutely. My point was not that they weren't criteria, but that they weren't the only criteria. Efficiency and accuracy and aggression and significant strikes all factor into it. As for impact, as I said JH's most "impactful" (is that even a word) strikes were those elbows that cut open GSP. But aside from cutting open a fighter who bleeds from the face at the drop of a hat, what result did the judges see? They didn't see the grimace on his face or the way his eyes glazed over after the second elbow. That's the advantage of television - we could see that. All they saw were some elbow strikes that GSP more or less ignored as he continued to try for a takedown.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
But here's where we are again, people are nitpicking one or two stats just to find a way to explain GSP's victor. But that's dishonest. It's like finding a reason why a mistake could be pass for a good decision, or an acceptable one. It's not right. A mistake is a mistake. That's it, that's all. Round 1 should have gone to Hendricks, there is no question about it. Anybody saying otherwise is either biased, or lacks knowledge of the sport.
So the judges supplied by the NSAC (the group that the UFC trusts to coordinate officials when they go international) lack knowledge of the sport?

Look, it's easy to say the judges were wrong in hindsight. It's easy to say it with the benefit of close-ups and instant replay and fight stats and commentary by Joe Rogan. The judges have none of this. They have their own eyes. JH did not own that round as he owned rounds two and four. It was close, and anyone saying otherwise is either biased, or lacks knowledge of the sport. And because it was close a slightly different perspective on things - and as I said no doubt the champion's advantage where judges tend to score closer rounds to the champion - meant in this case a fundamental change in the outcome of the match.

In a 12 round match a single round (with no knockdowns) counts for just over 8% of the final score. In a five round match it counts for 20%.

idk is offline   Reply With Quote