UFC Judging has officially changed

[TheCalculator]

I've been wanting to write this a few events ago.

Based on the results of the last few events, the judging has officially changed (which is a VERY big deal for us when we're betting fights).

There's half a dozen fights that would of gone the other way a couple of years ago.

We all know that until recently, if you got a TD or 2, you would win the round. It was kind of ridiculous. We eventually accepted it as "the judging rules" and lived with it.

However -- it seems that the judges have expanded their definition of "winning rounds" passed just getting a TD in the last 30 seconds of a round.

Here's some examples:

TUF 17 finale:

Luke Barnatt

def.

Collin Hart

Collin got several takedowns. He definitely won the 1st round (although some judge gave all 3 rounds to Luke). He was grinding Luke against the cage in the 2nd and got takedowns. He did gas and lose the 3rd. 2 years ago, I think they would of given Collin the fight.

FUEL 9

Brad Pickett

def.

Mike Easton

Yes all 3 judges gave it to Pickett. BUT... 2 judges gave Pickett ALL 3 ROUNDS. Again, Mike had a few takedowns and would of probably won the rounds in the eyes of the judges a few years back.

UFC 158

George Roop

def.

Reuben Duran

Again, I was shocked at the judges scorecards (especially the 30-27). George was on his back for a lot of the fight.

Patrick Côté

def.

Bobby Voelker

This was arguably a Montreal - mob driven robbery.

The one fight that contradicts this argument from that night was Condit vs. Hendricks. Condit was the aggressor the whole fight, outstruck Johnny. But probably due to the VOLUME of takedowns lost.

Why does this matter?

Because now STRIKING is out-valuing TAKEDOWNS in the eyes of the judges.

Curious if you share the same opinion.

[Vaughany]

there are probably examples to prove otherwise. I cant be arsed to give you any other than maybe Uriah Hall fight other night,, but then some will argue that Gastrelum landed the bigger punches anyway

[MD]

there are probably examples to prove otherwise. I cant be arsed to give you any other than maybe Uriah Hall fight other night,, but then some will argue that Gastrelum landed the bigger punches anyway

Exactly. One major argument I've heard is that in the third round, Uriah was throwing punches off of his back and thus "doing more". He was missing, and Kelvin was dodging him and then throwing bombs.

[Wanna Bet On It?]

Nope. It's just getting more inconsistent. That's all.

You're cherrypicking a few examples and even they aren't very strong points... Pickett didn't win a UD. One judge gave it to Easton. That's just more inconsistency for you (like the Uriah/Kelvin SD)... Some splits are so bad that it's mindboggling the degree of profound incompetency or else the fix is in: Mills/Chipper & Pierce/Rocha (a judge had the audacity to say he didn't know which fighter was which afterwards, like he can't tell red & blue gloves apart).

Even when the guy on bottom wins, it's also an inconsistent split decision as the judges have different scoring criteria: Hendricks/Koscheck.

Condit vs Hendricks? Guida vs Hioki? There are plenty more counter examples. Bottom guys are still losing.

The sytem isn't changing. The system is just broken.

[FightFightFight]

I had pierce -3.5 there at nice plus money. Still angry.

[NunyaBidness]

I find it hard to believe that the entire judging community is changing its views unilaterally.

If you wanted to put in the work, the way to track this would be on a per judge basis.

[FightFightFight]

They take their orders from the same place.

[TheCalculator]

Yes -- we don't have enough "statistical validity" to make this a hard claim.

And it's not a black or white situation. It's more of a change in the shades of grey.

The point is, there's a TREND moving towards better judging. And there's a TREND that's moving towards valuing striking over just getting a couple of TDs and "stealing the rounds".

And Nunya is right. Knowing the judge by judge perspectives would be a BIG, BIG edge especially in live betting. Is there a place we can see who's judging a fight ahead of time?

[bogbat]

You aren't using anywhere near enough of a sample base to draw any correlations here. You have displayed absolutely no "statistical validity" to even suggest a soft claim, nevermind a hard claim or misleadingly "official[ly]" as you put it in your title.

From an empirical perspective I have noticed just as many bad decisions recently as ever. I suggest you PM a mod to have your user name changed.

[Thor4140]

Here is the common denominator. When guys are bet heavily like Hall and get taken down they lose the fight. Now if Kelvin was bet heavily his take downs wouldn't have meant shit. That is how the gambling system rolls folks. These judges one minute mysteriously count all taken downs and than the very next time they judge they forget to count takedowns. Never bet on a guy who everyone else likes if you think it has a great chance of going to a decision. Now someone like GSP they set the line so high so they keep away that big money on GSP. Just like they do with Jones or Silva. Kinda like Mayweather. They set the line so high nitwits go the other way hoping for a pray. If they set it low Mayweather will get beat most likely by an awful decision. I know most guys are to thickheaded to understand this type of thinking that is why Vegas wasn't built on winners. Please stop crying about "we need better judging" for goodness sakes. You will be saying that till the day you die. Just like in the NFL. All those bad flags for some strange reason always benefit the bookmakers. Maybe that should tell ya something.

[MD]

Here is the common denominator. When guys are bet heavily like Hall and get taken down they lose the fight. Now if Kelvin was bet heavily his take downs wouldn't have meant shit. That is how the gambling system rolls folks. These judges one minute mysteriously count all taken downs and than the very next time they judge they forget to count takedowns. Never bet on a guy who everyone else likes if you think it has a great chance of going to a decision. Now someone like GSP they set the line so high so they keep away that big money on GSP. Just like they do with Jones or Silva. Kinda like Mayweather. They set the line so high nitwits go the other way hoping for a pray. If they set it low Mayweather will get beat most likely by an awful decision. I know most guys are to thickheaded to understand this type of thinking that is why Vegas wasn't built on winners. Please stop crying about "we need better judging" for goodness sakes. You will be saying that till the day you die. Just like in the NFL. All those bad flags for some strange reason always benefit the bookmakers. Maybe that should tell ya something.

Saw this post coming a mile away.

Maybe you should learn to deal with the fact that you can't handicap fights properly, your fighters are losing, and thus your wagers are losing. Work on your handicapping ability instead of throwing out conspiracy theories.

When guys are bet heavily like Hall and get taken down they lose the fight. Now if Kelvin was bet heavily his take downs wouldn't have meant shit.

Hall opened at -300 and closed at -285. Must have been pounded! No wonder Kelvin's takedowns were scored so heavily.

[Thor4140]

No need to go on with u. Two separate threads can show you that i didn't bet Hall but if u still want to run with the lie i bet him so be it. If you think the line drop was an indication the money was on Kelvin than that says it all. Books love guys like u. Let me guess. You are one of those guys that think books want equal action on both sides lol? You ever see a line move the opposite way of the money u tool? Let me teach u why this happens even tho im pretty sure you are unreachable. They do this because they are taking a position. Not Sharp money. Not Public money. It is done because there is a huge clientele like your gullible ass that falls for this.

[sideloaded]

You aren't using anywhere near enough of a sample base to draw any correlations here. You have displayed absolutely no "statistical validity" to even suggest a soft claim, nevermind a hard claim or misleadingly "official[ly]" as you put it in your title.

From an empirical perspective I have noticed just as many bad decisions recently as ever. I suggest you PM a mod to have your user name changed.

I really like your last point. I argued with someone about that. Since 2001 and the unified rules came to be judging and reffing has actually got worse. Some people think because this shit is on FOX the ufc and mma is somehow on the nfl level now. Nope none of my friends care about mma and being on fox hasn't increased the level of professionalism at all.

[hobbesITD]

I know if I was going to bribe judges to fix a decision, I'd be sure to pick a fight where both guys have a combined finishing rate of ~85%.

[sideloaded]

I know if I was going to bribe judges to fix a decision, I'd be sure to pick a fight where both guys have a combined finishing rate of ~85%.

like your avatar. Would love to see sara vs cat in mma a rematch from amateur wrestling.

[Kermit]

People are acting like a heavy public favorite hasn't squeaked out controversial decisions before. I've seen this shit go both ways many many times.

[Kermit]

Here is the common denominator. When guys are bet heavily like Hall and get taken down they lose the fight. Now if Kelvin was bet heavily his take downs wouldn't have meant shit. That is how the gambling system rolls folks. These judges one minute mysteriously count all taken downs and than the very next time they judge they forget to count takedowns. Never bet on a guy who everyone else likes if you think it has a great chance of going to a decision. Now someone like GSP they set the line so high so they keep away that big money on GSP. Just like they do with Jones or Silva. Kinda like Mayweather. They set the line so high nitwits go the other way hoping for a pray. If they set it low Mayweather will get beat most likely by an awful decision. I know most guys are to thickheaded to understand this type of thinking that is why Vegas wasn't built on winners. Please stop crying about "we need better judging" for goodness sakes. You will be saying that till the day you die. Just like in the NFL. All those bad flags for some strange reason always benefit the bookmakers. Maybe that should tell ya something.

Have you ever seen an official UFC scorecard? I have yet to see one in UFC that had numbers scratched out or erased for a round and different numbers entered in.

[MD]

No need to go on with u. Two separate threads can show you that i didn't bet Hall but if u still want to run with the lie i bet him so be it. If you think the line drop was an indication the money was on Kelvin than that says it all. Books love guys like u. Let me guess. You are one of those guys that think books want equal action on both sides lol? You ever see a line move the opposite way of the money u tool? Let me teach u why this happens even tho im pretty sure you are unreachable. They do this because they are taking a position. Not Sharp money. Not Public money. It is done because there is a huge clientele like your gullible ass that falls for this.

So then how do you know that Hall was bet heavily?

Also, no, I do not believe that books always want equal action on both sides. I've stated that before on this forum.

[Sacrelicious]

I'll offer -300 odds that UFC judging "has not officially changed",

But I have no idea how to actually score that bet.

Ideas, anyone?

[Wanna Bet On It?]

Jordan Mein vs Tyrone Woodley is another example regarding how some judges are just interpreting the scoring criteria differently, which creates chaos for bettors.

One judge had it 30-27 Woodley.
Another judge had it 29-28 Woodley.
A third judge took a stand against L&P and gave it to Mein 29-28.

I'm all about rewarding work from the bottom greater than pure L&P but I'm even more about consistency. Judging inconsistency creates uncertainty in accurately capping fights which clouds EV analysis.

I pretty much avoid going heavy on any fight where there's a high probability for a close decision unless I'm on the side of the dog and I can hedge out in livebetting.

[NunyaBidness]

There is a whole lot of dumb in this thread.

[TheCalculator]

There is a whole lot of dumb in this thread.

A smart guy could easily call it epic stupidery.

[Wanna Bet On It?]

There is a whole lot of dumb in this thread.

Do you have any points of contention with what I stated?

As a cerebral hog analyst using advanced EV quantification, I figured you would concur.

[Grabaka]

Do you have any points of contention with what I stated?

As a cerebral hog analyst using advanced EV quantification, I figured you would concur.

He just stares at hogs. He aint doing no cerebral hog analysis.