Could Machida/Shogun II have one sided Judging?

by Hendo_One-Shot on Oct 29, 2009 6:27 PM EDT Comment 8 comments

With comments still buzzing about the controversial decision at UFC 104 this past Saturday, one not so common concern has popped into my mind; Will the judging in the rematch be biased towards Shogun this time around?

It seems unlikely, but with it being made apparent that the judges for the rematch will be three completely different judges than those who were appointed this fight, It is starting to seem like this may lead to pressure being put on the judges to maybe value Shogun's offense more than they should. I doubt the judges pay any mind to the opinions of people online (except Cecil Peoples, if he counts.) but it would appear as if there is a lot of added pressure on the new judges not to undervalue Shogun's offense this time around. Although the spiteful side of me would love to see biased judging in favor of shogun, I would rather have shogun win with fair judging than to have another controversial decision, and yet another champion who arguably got the title gifted to them.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hmm

What I recall is Kizer stating that if Machida vs. Shogun II were in Nevada, that it would be a different ref and different judges. I wasn’t aware previously that refs/officials were shared between NSAC and CSAC?)

There is always the whole “holy shit Shogun is actually landing on Machida!” factor too… though that should be a non-issue this time around.

by Chortles on Oct 29, 2009 6:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

well it's more a matter of

all three of the officials being certified by both the NSAC and the CSAC. But I’m not really 100% sure of the matter.

by Hendo_One-Shot on Oct 29, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's like refs

Judges, like referees, apply to the athletic commissions of each state for a license to work in that area. With Nevada and California being next door to each other it’s no surprise that judges work between the two.

And yes – Keith Kizer did say that if the rematch happened in Nevada, the NSAC would ensure that there would be fresh judges for the bout, and perhaps a new ref as well.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the rematch will have a much more obvious winner, but if it’s a very similar, very close kind of fight, I think Shogun should absolutely get the benefit fo the doubt.

I watched the fight again today without sound and thought it was 4-1 in favor of Shogun.

by Razzel on Oct 29, 2009 7:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The judges do not care about popular opinion

They’ll render the verdict they see fit to on the night; if it goes to a decision then there’s always the chance – however slim – that something similar could happen again i.e. popular opinion being at odds with the scorecards.

That said, I see Machida and Rua both changing up their tactics to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Same fighters, different fight.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 7:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Judges almost always give the close rounds to the fan favorite and seeing that now shogun will be the fan favorite – he’ll win the close rounds. It’s as simple as that. Bisping got the close rounds against Hamill, Forrest against Rampage, Machida against Shogun (first fight).

People make decisions emotionally and then they use logic to justify it… and with the judging guidelines as subjective as they are it’s easy to justify pretty much any decision.

I got Shogun in the rematch simply because I think there will be close rounds again and this time since the fans will be behind him he’ll be the one awarded the decision.

by mmalogic on Oct 29, 2009 8:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs