Diaz on MMA judging

by Luke Thomas on Apr 26, 2007 5:56 PM EDT in News Comment 4 comments

Nick Diaz - a master of subtlety - remains mysterious and non-committal regarding the competence of MMA judges. Notable quote:

Then you got these judges out there that don't f*cking know their @ss. They don't know what the f*ck they are talking about. It's like I shouldn't even be asked these questions. You should just go right away and say what the f*ck is up with these judges. Where do they come from and where did they learn about Jiu Jitsu or anything about wrestling? I'm not trying to say they don't know about boxing skills. They might know about that, they might not. I don't even know who the f*ck they got up there, but they don't know their @ss dude and your not gonna have any MMA guys that know something about fighting up there doing the judging because they would have had to have known something from somewhere in which case would have made them affiliated in some sort of way and that makes whatever they judge or score all bullsh!t. It's why things are the way they are. Because this sport is a brand new sport and it's all about background and the ripple effects of where they come from. Like what the hell do you know and these guys don't know sh!t.

0 recs | Comment 4 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Judges

I think for the most part the judges get it right, but then again that's why there are three of them. I've seen some Split Decisions that should have been unanimous in my opionion. I believe the Evans/Bonnar fight was ruled a Split Decision and I'm sure there are others. I've even heard Rogan question the judges in some fights.

This isn't the first time Diaz has complained about judging. He's lost some fights due to takedowns, that he says did no damage to him but are scored against him, i.e. Parisyan, Sanchez, Riggs, and Sherk. Point taken, but know he knows how the judges score, so he should adjust.

I think the judges get it right for the most part, the so-called controversial fights last year such as Ortiz/Griffin and Bonnar/Jardine I thought were correct decisions. I did question the Kongo/Silva decision at UFC 70, although I haven't heard any mention of it since then, so maybe it was just me or maybe it was just a downright snoozefest.

by Nate414 on Apr 27, 2007 11:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the Kongo/Silva decision was right.

The Bonnar/Jardine decision was retarded and I dislike Ortiz too much to be impartial enough to decide what I think of that decision.

by Richard Wade on Apr 27, 2007 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How I Saw It

I'm not a Tito fan either but I thought he was getting the better of the striking in the third and the takedown sealed it for him. I think he'll probably beat Rashad, I'm just hoping Rashad proves me wrong.

The reason I thought the Bonnar/Jardine fight was fair was because it was a round apiece going into the third. Bonnar did drop Jardine and controlled most of the round. A last minute flurry by Jardine wasn't enough to override the punch that dropped Jardine in the 3rd. Which is how I saw the decision.

by Nate414 on Apr 27, 2007 3:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts...

Bonnar won that fight, it was close but as Nate said I had it a round a piece after 2 and Bonnar winning the 3rd.

Tito won the fight with Griffin fight pretty clearly in my mind and I am not really a huge Tito fan. It is rare that I ever have a huge problem with judging, the one that bothered me the most in recent memory was Serra's TUF win, but hey...he went on to win the title, so at least some good came of it.

by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 28, 2007 12:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs