This has been somewhat true for boxing and other contact sports for a long while that if a fighter who is a heavy favorite(Fan favorite, Vegas Favorite, hometown favorite) is somewhat behind in early rounds comes out and has a decent final round the decision often goes to them. It really is a shame that this type of thing goes on, but I have lost count of how many fights seem to follow this script over the years in all contact sports. As a fan would it be refreshing if UFC would just come out and admit this? Just say hey even if you are losing the fight by a decent margin and you have a good final showing you win? It would certainly be more accurate to what occurs very often in the fighting world. Or should the fight world continue to labor under the delusions that all rounds are weighted equally?
2007-09-08 16:33:50 · 9 answers · asked by Bobby the Brain 4 in Sports ➔ Martial Arts
It certainly would make a clear distinction between itself and other contact sports. Win in the end or go home.
2007-09-08 16:37:19 · update #1
Well to be fair though, Jackson did win his fight although not in dominating fashion. The Bisping fight was just attrocious and reeks just as bad as anything Don Kind ever had his hands in. You could argue I guess that Henderson was kind of a transition opponent for Jackson, it certainly didn't have as much build to it as Jacksons emotional win over the Iceman. If one were to accuse UFC of being less than honest in a fixed pro wrestling sense(which I am not *yet*) you could make comparrisons between Henderson vs Jackson as a title bout for a wrestling ppv in may in contrast to Lidell vs Jackson being the main event of wrestlemania. It is almost like you know you are going to get the big slugfest or a shocking outcome on the big show as opposed to the filler, which is kind of what this fight almost amounted to.
2007-09-08 17:24:44 · update #2
Here's the deal with the final round... if someone wins it in enormous fashion.... it doesnt truley say they would ultimately win the fight if it were prolonged... they may actually gas the next round... honestly I'd like to see fights go until the end (when one fighter stops) it would solve all the scoring problems... but I realize saftey is the most important thing... In boxing when they went from 15 to 12 rounds it kinda ruined it..... Floyd Maywether Jr would have a real fight on his hands the last three rounds when he was tired from playing defense the first 12.... I better stop before I write a book, but maybe they should jus say if you dont win all 3 rounds it is a draw... or 4 out of 5 for a title fight... Oh and have non biased Judges
2007-09-08 18:10:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UFC should definitely make it a rule if the "governing bodies" aren't going to put an end to the unjust outcomes of these type of fights (Bisping vs Hamill". Matt won that fight clearly. Bisping put on a good show for half a round. I feel cheated and disappointed as a UFC fan when winners of fights are determined by advertising dollars. Bisping, in my opinion, is the opening up of English fans. A champion to really root for. Matt, just a good story buried under Liddell, Couture, Hughes, Franklin, Forrest, Jardine and on....and on.... Maybe if some fans come out and say it something might change. Hopefully , or I know one fan that will just let the sport die like boxing.
2007-09-08 17:38:15 · answer #2 · answered by twatson_03 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its true, why expend energy in the first 2 or 4 rounds in MMA if the judges are only going to remember the final round. They should just come out and say that the final round is more important in a 3 round fight and the final 2 in a 5 round fight. UFC now has total control of the MMA world so they can do what they want, all I know is they were not going to let Bisping lose, or Jackson.
2007-09-08 17:02:46 · answer #3 · answered by sawxwoodsy1980 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They can not say that because it is not supposed to be true. If they are scoring by rounds then technically the last round has the same value as any other. This is why they need to scrap round scoring and judge the fight as a whole. I thought the Rampage vs. henderson was an excellent fight. Youo have to consider that these guys have basically the same fighting style as in they are both wrestlers/boxers, they were so evely matched and that is why you saw the fight you did. If they fought again in a month it would probably turn out the exact same way. Also I would like to see a 10 minute round somewhere.
2007-09-08 20:29:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to disagree with you. I am a certified kickboxing and Muai Tai judge and I have also judged some MMA. The rounds are scored individually; ten points to the winner-nine points or less going to the loser depending on how much he was dominated. Hammill won the first two rounds giving him twenty points and even if he lost the third round by a point or two that's still twenty eight to twenty eight and a draw. I seriously don't think the last round was a ten-eight round either. Do the math.
2007-09-09 03:19:24 · answer #5 · answered by samuraiwarrior_98 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question.
I agree with you 100%.
It is painfully obvious that a solid final round wins.
This is especially true of the Matt Hamill and Mike Bisping fight tonight.
Certainly supports your theory.
2007-09-08 16:39:57 · answer #6 · answered by jakal3932 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check it out, in a REAL fight, the one who was kicking *** at the very end is usually deemed the WINNER. The last round is a HUGE factor in the outcome of the fight, and it should remain that way IMO.
2007-09-08 17:53:03 · answer #7 · answered by Joe Mama 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pink Floyd Zeppelin
2016-04-03 22:06:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont think so. It would lead to sandbagging and waiting around and only the final round would matter. Might as well make it a 10 minute long one round fight.
2007-09-08 16:41:29 · answer #9 · answered by Big Crash 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋