Is the UFC rigged?
Sal
Rampage definately won the first round. Griffin definately won the
2nd, maybe even a 10-8 round, but the judges were insane to give
rounds 3-5 to Griffin. There's no way he won all 3. Jackson connected
with by far the hardest blows in round 3-5. If it was a non
championship fight, then perhaps you could have given Forrest a 48 to
47 victory by the skin of the teeth. That being said, in to beat the
defending champ, the challenger has to have a decisive victory.
Forrest was not fighting to win in rounds 3-5, he was fighting to not
get caught and he didn't deserve to win.
I had the fight 48 to 47 for Rampage and that was after giving Forrest
a 10-8 round for round 2.
jcrud
draw. I would have given the fight to Jackson though.
Marcello
"Sal" <jackwh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df5e4a9e-f3c1-463d...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The judges don't work for the UFC.
Bill Ricardi
> I mean those judges must have been blind to have those scorecards.
> Rampage definately won the first round. Griffin definately won the
> 2nd, maybe even a 10-8 round, but the judges were insane to give
> rounds 3-5 to Griffin. There's no way he won all 3.
Which is exactly how two of the judges saw it. Only the third said he
won 3,4, and 5.
> That being said, in to beat the
> defending champ, the challenger has to have a decisive victory.
Only if the judges are prejudice. If they're doing their job, any win
is a win.
> I had the fight 48 to 47 for Rampage and that was after giving Forrest
> a 10-8 round for round 2.
Then you've scored the fight illegally.
You can't have a total of 95 points for a 5 round fight if you only
gave out 18 points in round 2. There were no point deductions. This is
TEN POINT MUST scoring, with the round winner getting 10, and the
loser getting 9 or less. 19 + 19 + 19 +19 + 18 = 94, which means if
you gave a 2 point round to someone, it would either be a tie if
Rampage won 3 rounds, or Griffin wins by 2 points if he won 3 rounds.
Before questioning if the UFC is rigged, you should probably review 10
point must scoring systems.
decal...@comcast.net
please.
first of all, NOWHERE in any rule book does it state you have to beat
a champ decisively. thats a myth that has grown over the years in
boxing.
next, rampage admitted defeat. that right there should put an end to
your bs post.
The Sanity Cruzer
news:30d6d4d4-60b1-4cb3...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Are you telling me that there are no even rounds (10-10) in the UFC? The
10-point must system is usually: 10 points for the winnner of a round and 9
or less for the loser of the round, with an even round being scored10-10.
1st Round 10-9 Rampage
2nd Round 8-10 Griffin
3rd Round 10-9 Rampage
4th Round 10-10 Even round
5th Round 10-9 Rampage
48 pts. Rampage
47 pts. Griffin
Unless even rounds are "illegal", that is how the fight might have been
scored to come up with a 48-47 score.
> Before questioning if the UFC is rigged, you should probably review 10
> point must scoring systems.
Okay, I'll do that. ;->
Bill Ricardi
wrote:
> Are you telling me that there are no even rounds (10-10) in the UFC?
Have you ever seen a 10-10 scorecard in the UFC? :)
Bill Ricardi
wrote:
> 1st Round 10-9 Rampage
> 2nd Round 8-10 Griffin
> 3rd Round 10-9 Rampage
> 4th Round 10-10 Even round
> 5th Round 10-9 Rampage
>
> 48 pts. Rampage
> 47 pts. Griffin
>
> Unless even rounds are "illegal", that is how the fight might have been
> scored to come up with a 48-47 score.
Its possible that when stating the rules, they leave out mentioning
the tie, but actually use it. I've never seen it used, and I've never
seen anything in the rules saying that they use it. But I don't have a
full set of bylaws in front of me. Might want to write to Joe over at
the UFC, he'd know.
The Sanity Cruzer
Joe who?
(to fend off the almost inevitable; not Joe Mama)
u...@invalid.net
in article <D_fck.17831$%q.6...@newsfe24.lga>,
"Marcello" <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
Or so they would have us believe.
u...@invalid.net
in article
<bd5f874b-7569-49a9...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
decal...@comcast.net wrote:
Not really. Him admitting defeat, after a fight like that,
makes it seem rigged.
Anthony Williams
winner of the round) MUST be given a 10 for every round he wins and the
other fighter a 9 or less That is what a 10 point must system means in
boxing (so I thought) but then again in boxing the first round would
have automatically been scored a 10-8 for Rampage since he knocked Gump
down.
Anthony Williams
The Sanity Cruzer
news:YFwck.4506$np7....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
> I thought a 10 point must system was just that. One of the fighters (the
> winner of the round) MUST be given a 10 for every round he wins and the
> other fighter a 9 or less That is what a 10 point must system means in
> boxing (so I thought)
Close, but no cigar.
The winner of a round in the 10-pt. must system gets 10 pts. The loser
(emphasis on "loser") gets 9 or less. An even round is scored 10-10. The
10-pt. must system only requires that *at least* one fighter receives 10
points for the round, which can be thereafter reduced by any penalized
point(s).
> but then again in boxing the first round would have automatically been
> scored a 10-8 for Rampage since he knocked Gump down.
Likely, but not necessarily. I've seen rounds in which a fighter was
clearly dominated except for a flash knockdown. In the above cases, I've
seen where a judge (or judges) has (have) scored the round as a 10-9 round
for the fighter who scored the knockdown.
Sal
I didn't say I thought it was a 10-8 round, I just see how some people
may think round 2 was a 10-8 round.
I thought it was a 10-9 round. The leg kicks were effective, but
Forrest didn't do any other major damage even from the mount. There
simply weren't enough bone crushing blows for it to be a 10-8 round.
Anthony Williams
> "Anthony Williams" <Truth...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:YFwck.4506$np7....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
>> I thought a 10 point must system was just that. One of the fighters
>> (the winner of the round) MUST be given a 10 for every round he wins
>> and the other fighter a 9 or less That is what a 10 point must system
>> means in boxing (so I thought)
>
> Close, but no cigar.
> The winner of a round in the 10-pt. must system gets 10 pts. The
> loser (emphasis on "loser") gets 9 or less. An even round is scored
> 10-10. The 10-pt. must system only requires that *at least* one
> fighter receives 10 points for the round, which can be thereafter
> reduced by any penalized point(s).
a 10-10 round. I've seen plenty of rounds here lately that I couldn't
score (is that funny or what).
>
>> but then again in boxing the first round would have automatically
>> been scored a 10-8 for Rampage since he knocked Gump down.
>
> Likely, but not necessarily. I've seen rounds in which a fighter was
> clearly dominated except for a flash knockdown. In the above cases,
> I've seen where a judge (or judges) has (have) scored the round as a
> 10-9 round for the fighter who scored the knockdown.
was knocked down (even though he was mostly dominating) automatically
loses the round? That sounds about right. I am not running on all
cylinders today or something.
The Sanity Cruzer
> The Sanity Cruzer wrote:
>> Likely, but not necessarily. I've seen rounds in which a fighter was
>> clearly dominated except for a flash knockdown. In the above cases, I've
>> seen where a judge (or judges) has (have) scored the round as a 10-9
>> round for the fighter who scored the knockdown.
> So in boxing, in that particular instance you mention, the fighter who was
> knocked down (even though he was mostly dominating) automatically loses
> the round? That sounds about right. I am not running on all cylinders
> today or something.
While it is almost certain, it is not "automatic" that a fighter who is
knocked down will lose the round. If you're a boxing fan, you know that
with the judges, nothing is "automatic". That said, I do not recall a
fighter who was knocked down and won the round (unless he also knocked down
his opponent in that particular round).
Ron
> I had the fight 48 to 47 for Rampage and that was after giving Forrest
> a 10-8 round for round 2.
That is why you aren't a judge.
Ron
wrote:
> "Bill Ricardi" <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Rogan?
Bill Ricardi
wrote:
> Joe who?
>
> (to fend off the almost inevitable; not Joe Mama)
Joe Silva. He's the match maker, but he has an encyclopedic knowledge
of the strangest things. :)
fvwerhrjjqeh
>
> I agree. I too gave Griffin 10-8 in round two but had it ending in a
> draw. I would have given the fight to Jackson though.
I noticed your choice of word there. You'd have 'given' it to him? I
watched the fight the same as you guys- yes I agree the the judges
cards may have been off. But if someone watched that fight with no
bias whatsoever and was being totally honest- there is no doubt- none
at all who the victor was. That is all that matters- it doesn't matter
what the cards say, just use common sense- it isn't rocket science. If
someone watched that fight and said Quinton won I would never believe
anything that person said again about any other decisions. Just be
honest is all I'm saying. <rolling my eyes>
Bill Ricardi
Some of the must systems around the world are just like that, yeah.
And I though the UFC was using that variant. But I can't find the
actual bylaw written down anywhere, so perhaps they're using a system
that could award a 10-10 for a tie round. It would be crazily rare of
course, which explains why Ive never seen it. Then again, if there are
no tie rounds without penalties, that also explains it. :)