Yet, I have come across a few people who commented in my comment section saying it was "avdism" that resulted in Matt to lose the fight. Balderdash I say! I wouldn't waste my time discussing that. Just isn't worthy to get into that kind of hokey conspiracy theory. I believe it has more to do with favoritism to a hometown fighter than anything else than thinking along the line that Bisping was losing to a deaf fighter. Also, the judges were using a point system similar to that of a boxing system to rate hitting points given to fighters. Though not overly familiar but I have read a few articles that mentioned this and the fact that Dana White want a better scoring system that would better reflect the MMA fights and not just purely boxing. But this current scoring system simply has to be overhauled. Dana White is determined to do that in order to better reflect the MMA style of fighting. But one guy, from Fox Sports, doesn't think so and thinks the current scoring system is fine the way it is despite it's flaws (an understatement considering on what just has happened).
The 10-point must system was put in place by the New Jersey Athletic Control Board in 2000 and has become the standard for virtually every MMA promotion in the country. When New Jersey, and later Nevada, chose to regulate the sport, it saved it from near extinction in the process. But the system put in place is kind of like the Electoral College when it comes to presidential elections. It's probably not the best system.
Sometimes the guy who gets the most votes loses.
But most of the time it works fine.
The original UFC judging system from late 1995-2000 was simple. If a fight went the time limit, the judge wrote the name of the person they thought won the fight on a piece of paper. Anyone can watch a fight and decide for themselves who wins. But sometimes when you put numbers into the equation, they don't add up.
In a three-round fight, usually this happens when one guy wins a round dominantly, and the other two rounds are hard to pick. The guy who won the dominant round should win the fight, but a close round can go either way. A guy could have won the fight in the old method, but still lose on the cards 29-28 if judges gave the two close rounds to the opponent. That's largely what happened here.
In fact, Dave Meltzer said that Hamill was lucky he didn't win only because he was on Bisping's hometown turf.
People who complain Hamill got robbed have by this point missed the much larger point. Fighting is about making stars, and stars are not made on won-loss records. Hamill became a bigger star in losing, because of the post-fight sympathy factor, than he would have had he gotten the decision. And based on the skill levels both men showed in he fight, it's questionable how either man would do against the top light heavyweights. But against each other, a rematch would give both men another high profile fight that there would be great interest in.Never mind the fact that it was thousands of British fans who booed at Bisping after the win believing it was Hamill who won the fight. But one MMA fan probably came up with one really good answer as to why British MMA fans at the arena booed at Bisping after the fight using the fight song theory.
Bisping, who may be 15-0 with only one match going to a decision, had his stock drop even though he got the decision. So, in the big picture, Bisping was a little lucky the judging went his way, and Hamill was very lucky it didn't.
Bisping comes out to "London's Calling" but he's from Liverpool, no wonder he was booed [after the fight] in London. That's like the Red Sox playing "New York, New York."And , lastly, never mind the fact that it was Bisping himself who said that it was Matt Hamill who actually won all three rounds in his personal website. I'm sure Dave Meltzer missed that one completely already.
Yes, Dave, this current scoring system simply needs to be overhauled to fit the MMA style of fighting and not boxing.
No comments:
Post a Comment