The UFC don't have **** to do with the judges. The biggest outside factor that influenced them was the crowd cheering for Sonnen the American fighter. If that fight was in England with the same judges and a full house yelling for Bisping and cheering every time he landed a jab, then Bisping almost certainly gets the decision. Close fights almost always go to the fighter with a clear advantage in crowd support. :hat
Not always because the ufc scoring counts worthless takedowns fairly highly, everything should be about being effective and trying to win.finish fights imo.
Well if that's the case, then advantage Sonnen, because at one point in the third he had Bisping's back for sure and double hooks in IIRC, (single hook at least) and he was looking for the choke. That was the most danger that either man seemed to be in at any point. Bisping didn't appear to have Chael in imminent danger of being knocked out or submitted at any point. Also, in the first round Bisping spent some time flat on his back, defending himself with Chael on his feet standing over him looking to punch him in the face. That's a powerful impression of achieving dominant positioning in the minds of the judges. :hat
yeah, i don't see it as a robbery (well the 30-27 is ******ed), just disappointed with the decision..kinda...at least i get to see silva wreck sonnen now
Looking to punch and punching are not the same thing, i have watched ufc since it started and there have been alot of laughable decision due to ineefective takedowns..
UFC Scoring??? What does this mean? They don't choose the judges. Dana scored the fight for Bisping?!
And how is a takedown worthless? Last I checked, getting dropped on your head is a good indication of a person being dominated.
So taking someone down and them getting back up or you not doing anything when they go down is being dominated :rofl
So what? I've been watching boxing since Tyson lost to Douglas and I've lost count of the amount of bull**** decisions I've seen. Dozens of them FAR worse than this fight, and boxing is WAY easier to judge than MMA. Every second that Bisping is on his back trying not to get punched and Sonnen is on his feet standing over him, Bisping is losing the round big, regardless of how effective Sonnen's punching is. Other than that, Bisping landed no flush combinations. He didn't drop Chael or clearly wobble him. And on top of that, the crowd loudly cheered every strike that Chael landed, and was quiet when Bisping landed equivalent strikes. I think the 30-27 scorecard is bull**** too, but I strongly doubt that has anything to do with Sonnen-Silva. I think that has a LOT more to do with USA-England, not with regards to personal nationalism on the judges' part, but purely because of the energy from the large American crowd in the American arena. :hat
Its is national bias and the way ufc scores and ref's fights its not consistent. Did you watch ufc 142 when they were standing belfort and johnson up at every opportunity, one because it makes a betetr fight and two becuae it was in brazil. All i want is consistent scoring and referring so people know what to expect, i know its a problem in alot of sports but i don;t see why its so hard to have a fair effective set of rules and judgements.
Why did they get taken down? Is knocking someone down in any other fashion meaningless if they get back up? Why does a fighter have to ragdoll someone and beat on them for points? Isn't ragdolling a lesser man enough? Please clarify your scoring standards. As of right now, this is what you're implying. Dropping person on his head, Knockdowns < Getting dropped on your head, getting knocked down, but getting up
In reality if you take someone down and they get back up or you only half get them down its not effective as a takedown is in effect a move to take someone to the ground to then use your ground game to win a fight. If you cannot impose yourself on the person once on the ground either by strike or sub atempt it should be stood back up again.