Jump to content

worst judging decisions ever


rookie189

Recommended Posts

You forgot Dunham vs Sherk

 

That wasn't a bad decision.

 

1 round went to Sherk, 1 round went to Dunham, and the other round could have gone either way, even though it was mostly Dunham, it wasn't that bad of a decision.

 

I'm so ****ing tired of people *****ing about that fight. It wasn't that bad of a decision, get over it. Everyone's opinion has been clearly biased to Dunham, "Dunham wonned the fite becuz i liek striken moar ten wrasslin', hear iz a websight link that proved thet dunham hit moar punch then Sherk" STFU. I wouldn't care as much if it wasn't so damn biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanderlei Silva vs Rampage Jackson 3

 

Wandy was obviously still ok:

 

UFC%2B92%2BRampage%2BJackson%2Bvs%2BWanderlei%2BSilva.jpg

 

He was trying to get up but the ref stopped it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL JK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frausto Vs Fujii

 

I have to agree that was the worst decision I've ever seen.

 

Frausto literally did nothing but back up and get hit in the face the whole time, and she won. I think she had like 2 rounds where she mounted a decent offense, but I would probably not have given her more than 1 round at the most, from memory, it has been like 7 months since I have seen the fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion on the mentioned fights..

 

hamill v bisping - 29-28 Hamill (been a LONG time since I've seen it' date=' though)

Penn v Edgar 1 [b']48-47 Edgar[/b]

bisping v rashad 29-28 Evans

phan v garcia (Have yet to see this fight. Feel free to punch me.)

k zombie v garcia 29-28 Jung

brillz v nog 29-28 Nogueira

griffin v lentz (Haven't watched it)

jardine v bonnar 29-28 Bonnar (Only seen it once)

ortiz v griffen 1 29-28 Griffin

machida v shogun 1 48-47 Machida

 

did i miss any?

 

And the others..

 

Sherk vs Dunham 29-28 Sherk

Shields vs Kampmann 29-28 Kampmann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh.

I wouldn't say it was a 'bad' decision.

There's definitely an argument for Rampage winning.

 

I definitely wasn't surprised when I heard the decision. Were you?

Bloody oath i was suprised... + the look on Quinton's face made. He didnt even think he won.

Lyoto vs Quinton wasn't that bad' date=' at least their explanation made sense.[/quote']

 

Well IMO i thought Lyoto won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloody oath i was suprised... + the look on Quinton's face made. He didnt even think he won.

 

True, but Rampage is pretty old-school.

If he feels he got beat up, which he did, then he feels he lost the fight.

 

I had it 29-28 Lyoto, but I wasn't surprised at all that Rampage got the nod.

 

In all honesty, I was more surprised when Machida beat Rua.

Even though I had the fight 48-47 Machida, Rogun's biased commentary, the crowd, and the momentum shift that happened after the 3rd round, all gave me the distinct impression that Rua was going to become the new champion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True' date=' but Rampage is pretty old-school.

If he feels he got beat up, which he did, then he feels he lost the fight.

 

I had it 29-28 Lyoto, but I wasn't surprised at all that Rampage got the nod.

 

In all honesty, I was more surprised when Machida beat Rua.

Even though I had the fight 48-47 Machida, Rogun's biased commentary, the crowd, and the momentum shift that happened after the 3rd round, all gave me the distinct impression that Rua was going to become the new champion.[/quote']

 

I still believe Lyoto won that fight & your dead right.... Rogan was biased as.... He is always towards certain fighters... EG- BJ & Randy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i actually thought sherk won that' date=' very close but just because of td's and today's scoring. [b']Dunham clearly did more damage [/b]so in pride rules, he would have won.

 

I dunno about that, Dunham had a massive gash on his head, and i thought sherk won aswell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be one of the only ones.

Although I can see how he won.

Hamill didn't do a damn thing with his takedowns.

 

First look Hamil won then you look again and then you think hmmmm

 

then you go further into it and you think yeah right call

 

it was all based on Bisping being busier on the ground rotating for subs and what not i mean thats the way its meant to be judged sure the takedowns come into affect but as you said hammil held on really but Bisping was waaay busier from the bottom.

 

The you read what the judges saw it then you're like right BIsping did deserve the win. People are far too wrapped up in hate for Bisping they fail to take anything what he did in the fight into account.

 

People are always saying it should be what you do with the takedowns is what matters and if the guy on the bottom is busier then hell yes he should work on TDD but still if the guy on top has nothing where as the guy on bottom is doing all the work for sub attempts and sweeps then hell yes they deserve the win.

 

I mean that is one of the best cases of Judging i have seen in the pst few years in which alot of people think is outragous.

 

That is why the Stun Gun Diaz fight should have been a win for Diaz that is the judging the "fans" want. yet whenever it comes into play for someone they dont like the other fighter got robbed stupid imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. If a fighter catches his opponents leg during a kick and kicks the other leg out' date=' is that a takedown or a knock down. If it's a knockdown, then Hamill had 2.[/quote']

 

I don't really consider it much of anything.

It's just a trip.

It's what he does once his opponent is down that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First look Hamil won then you look again and then you think hmmmm

 

then you go further into it and you think yeah right call

 

it was all based on Bisping being busier on the ground rotating for subs and what not i mean thats the way its meant to be judged sure the takedowns come into affect but as you said hammil held on really but Bisping was waaay busier from the bottom.

 

The you read what the judges saw it then you're like right BIsping did deserve the win. People are far too wrapped up in hate for Bisping they fail to take anything what he did in the fight into account.

 

People are always saying it should be what you do with the takedowns is what matters and if the guy on the bottom is busier then hell yes he should work on TDD but still if the guy on top has nothing where as the guy on bottom is doing all the work for sub attempts and sweeps then hell yes they deserve the win.

 

I mean that is one of the best cases of Judging i have seen in the pst few years in which alot of people think is outragous.

 

That is why the Stun Gun Diaz fight should have been a win for Diaz that is the judging the "fans" want. yet whenever it comes into play for someone they dont like the other fighter got robbed stupid imo.

 

I' date=' too, thought Diaz should have won that fight. [b']29-28 Diaz[/b]

 

I was also kind of leaning towards Nogueira in his fight against Bader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We the jury find all 3 defendants not guilty in the Mississippi church bombings and the death of 2 small black girls"...

"We the jury find all 4 defendants not guilty in the beating of Rodney King"...

"We the jury find James Orenthal Simpson not guilty of all charges"....

 

*****ing about decisions in MMA matches seems pretty irrelevant and inconsequential now doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We the jury find all 3 defendants not guilty in the Mississippi church bombings and the death of 2 small black girls"...

"We the jury find all 4 defendants not guilty in the beating of Rodney King"...

"We the jury find James Orenthal Simpson not guilty of all charges"....

 

*****ing about decisions in MMA matches seems pretty irrelevant and inconsequential now doesn't it?

 

Josh, I respect you. I think you're a great member of this community.

But if you need to vent, do you think you could do it in some other way?

 

If this really makes you feel better, then by all means, have at 'er. But it's quite a downer reading about things like that when we're having a decent discussion about MMA.

These types of threads are hard to come by these days.

 

Sorry if any of that upsets you, as I mean no disrespect towards you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah you are right, I was venting inappropriately and I apologize.

 

Honestly I didn't even read the thread, I saw the title and figured it was full of the same old 12 year old mindless complaining these threads usually end up as.

 

I'ts been a ****** few weeks and I let it get the better of me, again I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah you are right' date=' I was venting inappropriately and I apologize.

 

Honestly I didn't even read the thread, I saw the title and figured it was full of the same old 12 year old mindless complaining these threads usually end up as.

 

I'ts been a ****** few weeks and I let it get the better of me, again I apologize.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I saw the post where you touched on what was going on.

I hope things get better for ya.

Care to share your opinions on these fights? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...