It seems to me, that there is a horrific lack of consistency in how judges are scoring event to event. W/O getting into a big **** fight on who won what, how can this be fixed. I am pretty against open scoring, but it could at least let fighters know how and what the judges are going to award points for.
No different then any other combat sport.. Ppl will always questions the fight when 3 random people judging the outcome comes into play..
i'm not even talking about rule sets, just consistency one event you have a guy dance around (or lay and pray, or just lean on the cage) and lose 30-27...then next you will have that same thing but win 30-27 one time you will have one judge with 30-27 for one guy, and another judge with 30-27 for the other i know boxing has it's own issues too, but it isn't centralized...UFC has no excuses maybe open round 1 scoring in 3 rounders and 2 rounds in 5 rounders, so you at least know the judges intent
There is no difference in the allocation of judges between boxing and UFC. In both they are provided by the athletic commissions. To me I think judging in MMA is actually fairly consistent. It has its problems but you can usually predict where they're coming from. And the thing in fights such as Diaz/Condit the difference between winning and losing is so close that sometimes it will land on the smallest things. I had Diaz winning 1 and 2 and Condit winning 3 and 4 but I would struggle without rewatching to provide a specific justification for the differences in my score. I just felt that Condit picked up the pace in the those two rounds and was more effective than in the first two.
Exactly. People really need to stop making this mistake. I wouldn't say MMA judging is any more inconsistent than other sports. Every week the refs poor judgement will affect the outcome of a football match. I think people don't moan as much because they know they will play again. My issue in combat is that too often bad judgement never gets rectified post fight or via a rematch.
