I am new to MMA contests,

But what I have noticed is that some state commissions are using the same judges and refs for both boxing and MMA contests. I have seen boxing ref Armando Garcia also work MMA contests in Florida and I have seen several judges work both boxing and MMA contests in several state commissions.

What I was wondering with regards to the judging of MMA contests, for the fights that go to a decision, have most of the MMA decisions been fair? What big MMA contests have gone to the cards where a general consensus can be made that the loser was robbed? I am not sure if such information would indicate that MMA is producing fairer judging. Or is it that most MMA contests are ending in TKO stoppages or submissions anyway so there often is no need for the judges to render a decision?

Jack

I can't think of any main event questionable fights yet. A few non main, but then again there was no uproar about them since nobody knew who the hell they were anyway.

I haven't seen a questionable MAIN EVENT type matchup yet that was considered a "robbery" and created an uproar.

To be honest, most "main events" usually go one way and end the same way. Not like a boxing match where the guy can get his second wind and comeback late or some rds were so close to score so they could go either way.

A simple 5 minute boring a$$ round in MMA can be won simply by landing a big punch, getting a nice slam, or taking a guy to the mat and staying on him basically for the entire rd. (Knockdowns are nice also) for a guy to win a rd.

All it really takes is one of those things to happen and the other 4:50 can be completely boring for a guy to steal a rd.


All Title fights go 5 rds in the UFC. I can only speak for myself but....I am usually 100% correct by the end of rd 5 on who is going to win. the fight.

The judges play a role but to be honest most matches end in stoppages, tapouts...etc.

Jack, if you guys thought that the Vasquez/Marquez stoppage was quick, you need to watch Jackson/Liddell II. You will have no complaints about the Marquez stoppage after that. lol

I can only think of maybe 3 or 4 questionable decisions in MMA ...

And i have seen Plenty of Cards - Plenty


Judging seems to be a non-issue which is great for the sport

Even the questionable decisions were no where near robberies

Well i didnt think the stoppage was premature.

Lidell went down hard and was dazed, you can see him sitting on the canvas after the stoppage asking somone "what happened"?

The only thing letting that continue for was to see some get pounded a little more. Chuck wasnt coming back from that position

He was foolish putting himself into that position, just to deliver a body shot, and he got caught

Bisping/Hamill

Yea!

I gave Hamill every round. I couldn't hear his post fight comments, but I am sure he was pissed. They should rematch.

Jack

Bisping/Hamill >>>

huge contoversey

and they didnt even mention that it was a bad dec

One of the guys in my office said they were in the midst of changing the rules to fit more of wrestling score. The only thing I have against that is how are they going to score a guy landing shots from the bottom..

I think the only way a guy throwing shots from his back would win a percentage of the round was if his shots were landing cleanly and he made the other guy miss.

If they are both landing, its always the guy on top with the position and leverage to put the most power in the shots, and so he should win the round. Punches while on your back are usually fairly ineffective. They are mainly used as a distraction to hopefully make the guy on top make a mistake and lose the mount

Scoring MMA is more complicated than scoring boxing. Its stands to reason that eventually there is going to be a large pile of controversial decisions

As a percentage I think we see far fewer "bad" or "questionable" decisions in MMA than we do in boxing. Not sure why.

I agree. There are far fewer bad decisions at the moment. And i cant understand why either. MMA is far more complicated in terms of judging a round.... does that say something about the politics/corruption in boxing affecting judging, whereas MMA is relatively untainted at the moment?

My fear is that alot of boxing promoters are going to start dipping their wicks into MMA events without wearing a condom, and bring over the infection

I've never heard the official rules for scoring a MMA round. Unlike Ledderman on HBO shouting out his traditional scoring criteria before every fight, I don't believe I've heard the scoring criteria and I've been watching MMA for years. I'm pretty sure I get it though, as I usually score MMA fights and am right on point with the judges for the most part.

I think with MMA you almost have to consider the type of fighter you are watching. For example, if you have a guy known as a striker in there against a guy known for his ground game and submissions, if the fight stays standing up it would favor the first fighter and if it stays on the ground it would favor the second. So, if you had a completely uneventful round that was next to impossible to score, I guess you'd have to give it to the fighter that kept the fight in his comfort zone?

Also I remember in a recent PPV, maybe Liddel vs Jackson or something the commentators said something like "do you give more credit for the submission attempts or the defense of those submissions" during a fight where one of the fighters attempted (and the other defended) a good 6 or 7 submissions. IMO you give more credit to the guy attempting the submissions as he's trying to implement his strategy and make a fight. The other guy has no choice but to do his best to defend them or he gets stopped - to me that's a really easy scoring call that the commentators posed as being a difficult choice.

Just like in boxing, generally speaking the guy that wins a round in MMA is the guy that did more damage to the other and/or executed his game plan/imposed his style on the other more effectively.