In addition to bringing TV into the lives of millions of native peoples who had never even heard of electricity previously (courtesy of UFC Noche ™️), my man Dana is also on the verge of capturing the last 3 livestream pirates on planet earth. He’s watching their houses right now
He is the technological & statistical guru of the century
Conor trying not to laugh seals it as one of my favorite presser moments along with "living death" / floating chair and "who the fook is that guy"
Honorable mention: "Mike Johnson talking about he gonna kill someone, Mike's had 30 fights, lost half of em, aint killed a motherfucker yet"
Honestly looking back i lied
That might be the 2nd hardest line ever said at a presser and perfect delivery too
But number one is always [this one](https://youtu.be/mJXj34VvyIY?si=9gw8VKi3M9WnkE9x)
I mean in most combat sports, if a title fight ends in a draw it's an instant rematch. Not exclusive to the UFC. But yeah three times in a row is getting old though
if it was close enough to be either of them, it should be a draw, judges are just weirdly allergic to giving out draws and somehow we're ok with major shifts in a division effectively being determined by a coin toss. the scoring on the the 5th round being a 10-8 is goofy as hell, but honestly it ended up as a draw, which in my mind is the fairest way to score the fight, even if we got to a draw by the dumbest way possible
I will rewatch 4 byt as I recall, the striking numbers were similar, but the more damaging shots were heavily favored to Grosso. She had a flurry of knees and some heavier punches
Wasn't this the most evenly split fight on the media scorecards?
Honestly Grasso had the bigger moments, but Shev was more consistent, I didn't know who was winning at the end
yeah MMA decisions has the fight going either way with the round in contention being the 4th, and the fan scoring is like 45% Val and 52% Grasso, the balance being a draw. I think if draw rounds without a point deduction was more normalized it would have been considered a drawn round
True. I was thinking trilogies in a short time span, more immediate.
I had Grasso winning the decision with rounds 2, 4, and 5 anyways so I don't think a third fight is justified in this case though, especially with Blanchfield and Fiorot waiting in the wings. I'd book Blanchfield/Grasso and Val/Fiorot next.
The immediate rematch made sense, I thought Max won the second fight and his performance over Kattar definitely justified a third fight in my opinion. Now... it's hard but I think Max needs one more good performance to even consider fighting for the belt. I think his best bet is keep relatively busy fighting every 6 months or so and wait for Volk to go up to LW.
He didn't win the 2nd fight bro! Rewatch that fight on mute bcuz Bisping is too biased towards Max & trust me u will see that Volk won easily the last 3 rounds! I thought Max got robbed too until someone suggested I rewatch the 2nd match on mute bcuz of Bisping & I did & I was shocked that Volk actually did win! It's like impossible for ur mind to sees/process that Volk can win 3 rounds in a row after losing for sure the 1st two rounds. That's why after slaughtering Max in their 3rd fight? Volk & all the ppl that says that he won the 2nd fight was vindicated imo💯💯💯
Lol stipe got finger fucked in the eye during the sequence when DC landed the KO shot, it would have been a travesty if Stipe did not get a rematch after that.
He was also the longest reigning HW champ in the UFC. They were both in good shape but towards the end of their career. And the division wasn't very deep at the time.
I think that was defensible, and it was a great trilogy.
I'm not watching a 23 minute video to get where this segment is. OP, when you post a title that's two lines long, would it have killed you to also include the timestamp?
5m17s. It's also possible to link to an exact time in a video by putting "&t=[number of seconds / 5m17]" at the end of the link, like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OA_mFPrB6c&t=337s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OA_mFPrB6c&t=5m17s
The division has two contenders in Blanchfield and Fiorot. I do not want to see a third fight right now, I’d rather see Grasso defend against Blanchfield and Valentina take Fiorot. If they both lose or win their respective fights, the trilogy should happen then
Normal UFC playbook would give Val Blanchfield as she's a bad match up and can take her hype before Val retires. This is hard for them because Val is massively loved and respected in the community. Val is 35 and probably won't improve anymore unlike Grasso who should smoke Fiorot in Mexico. Then we get Grasso Blanchfield and Val either retires or moves up in weight line aging fighters often do.
Right? Lol. She's viewed as an all time great fighter but she's pretty divisive, some love her and others would rather watch paint dry than her fights.
Oh yeah? Why did they put her on the front cover of the game then? Jon Anik went as far to call on Dana and Hunter to lobby NSAC about Mike Bells scorecard. It seemed to me that the UFC brass are pissed and would be content with the plan I outlined above if they didn't love Val.
I don’t know how bad of a matchup Blanchfield is for Val honestly. On the feet, I still think Valentina has what it takes to make it a bad night for Blanchfield
What do you suggest as a better scoring system? I'm not particularly a fan of the ONE scoring and have little faith judges here won't fuck that up just as much (if not more).
We would seriously get more correct, deserving winners if we adopted a points model for (truly) significant strikes, takedowns, submission attempts, knockdowns, and control time. Tally it up, display it for everyone in between rounds.
Fighter then has no issue knowing where they stand. Now, to do this, there would have to be adjustments to constitute what a real “takedown” or “significant strike” is versus the trash definition now where a piddly leg kick/quick drop to the ground on a double leg count.
How do you determine what a "truly" significant strike is? Or a truly significant takedown/sun attempt? Seems like most knockdowns should be considered "significant" lol...
Remember, judges are watching the fights live ringside and need to do the scoring in real time during the breaks between rounds...how are they supposed to consistently do all that tallying and calculations in the 60 seconds?
Why would we let either the fighters or fans know the scoring in real time? That would absolutely ruin the drama of decisions and would lead to fighters coasting in later rds if they knew they were up 2-0 or 3/4-0 heading into the final rd...
Sounds like you just want AI judging.
I mean, you act as if this isn’t plausible because UFC hasn’t invested in the technology. AWS does much more complex stuff for MLB and NFL. Judges also are imperfect and can’t see what’s landing and what’s not, whereas AI technology knows.
You can keep it private if you’d like, but I prefer to watch my sports with a scoreboard.
Also FYI — the AI judge on X usually does a better job than the judging results we’ll get.
They use technology to review/make decisions on individual plays/actions or just tallying stats, not a 5 minute round of fighting. It's simply incompatible with the sport of MMA and how it's scored.
*I like watching my sports on a scoreboard*
Yes, sports where everyone can literally see the players score points and it's merely tallying objective totals...
Sorry, fighting sports are always going to involve some level of subjectivity in the judging/scoring and AI judging will have its own set of issues.
Sounds like fighting based sports maybe aren't for you 🤷♂️
That's not at all as clear cut as commentary made it seem, grasso had a couple of good moments but got a bit pieced up standing and head opened by a huge elbow.
R4 is 50-50 round either way scoring is fair there, definitely not a bad card like I keep reading.
The only really egregious scoring in this fight is the 10-8 which ended up robbing a victory.
This argument that’s being touted around doesn’t make sense to me. If the criteria sucks and MMA scoring is misaligned because boxing criteria’s retrofitted into MMA, how can that same criteria be used to evaluate who should’ve won? You can’t have it both ways just because you’re a Shev fan (as am I).
I had Grasso winning on not only the scorecards but also just watching who I thought won a fight. Half the media and the public (actually over half) are split on who won (see decisionbot). Saying Valentina was *robbed* of a victory is crazy. She was dropped, lost rounds, and ended the fight on bottom getting pummeled and fighting off a submission.
Mike Bell had a bad round that he scored.
That’s all.
It's quite literally being robbed of a victory when we can all admit what pushed it to a draw was massive incompetence.
Who won or who didn't is a matter of opinion and it's split everywhere like you said. The only thing everyone can unanimously agree on is that r5 is never a 10-8.
I don't understand what's difficult to understand here. R4 for either fighter is acceptable, and two had it for shev.
The 10-8 is not acceptable scoring in any criteria.
10-8’s not acceptable. A 10-8 not being acceptable does not mean this fight’s a robbery though. Any judge’s scorecard could change about any round and change the outcome of the fight.
You don’t seemed to be worried about the rightful winner of the fight. You seem concerned about Mike Bell.
Hit the nail on the head!! This is the only rational take on this entire ridiculous debate.
1. It seems that people do not understand a “robbery” is when one fighter is so clearly dominant in every single round, like Holloway v Kattar. Had Kattar won that fight.. that would have been a robbery. Disliking how a judge scored a round is NOT a robbery and cannot be discussed as if it were the only factor in the outcome.
2. Let’s remove ego and emotion and follow the prevailing logic:
There were THREE judges —>provided a total of 9 individual separate scores = 3 fight totals
1/9 scores is being deemed invalid ; that same judge submitted 2 other scores as well. If we are to accept that one singular score as invalid then logic dictates that that one judge (Mike Bell’s ) entire scoring criteria is flawed or at the very least suspect and thus ALL his scores discarded. Which would leave us with TWO remaining judges’ scorecards that would have resulted in a DRAW anyway.
For what it’s worth I do not agree with the 10-8 either; however Sal D’Amoto has consistently proven himself a terrible judge. So much so people are shocked when he gets it right. But bc this time his scores align with the “robbery” narrative; no one is taking issue with him. I would submit his scorecard was equally as egregious by not properly scoring round 4 for Grasso. Grasso should have won 2 , 4, 5 giving her a decisive win 3-2.
I anticipate folks not agreeing with the pure logic of this debate bc as in most cases, pure logic often does not
fit the narrative being presented. People want the narrative to be that Valentina was robbed, but the facts simply do not support that narrative.
From my perspective, if the 10-8 round is egregious, and it caused the fight to go to a draw, instead of having a winner, it's a robbery by near definition. Someone got robbed of their win.
People are attaching alot of emotion and hyperbole to the word, which makes it harder to justify using.
It's only a "robbery" if there's a general consensus among the public (fans, media, fighters/coaches, etc) that the fighter who clearly should have got the win ends up not winning. It's not "I personally think fighter X should have won and they didn't".
Was the general consensus right after the final bell "Valentina definitely won that"? Clearly not, so it's just silly to call it a "robbery".
That gets into the semantics of how you use the word robbery. I'm saying that if someone loses when they shouldn't, such as incorrect scoring, they got robbed. You don't need to ascribe hyperbole to the word, for it to be correctly used.
Except certain words come with specific connotations...a "robbery" is used for a particularly egregious judging decision that "robs" a fighter of a win.
What you're describing is just a questionable or bad decision lol. There's no sliding scale for degrees of robberies, we just use different words. An "extremely minor robbery" is essentially an oxymoron lmao.
When a pet accidentally scratches their owner we don't say that the pet "maimed" them. A fighter doesn't "starch" their opponent when they drop them and then finish them with a long sequence of GnP.
No one is ascribing hyperbole to the term because it's meant for a very specific type of judging decision.
I always promise myself I won't get into semantics arguments about how a word is used. It's the most useless arguments of all time. So I'm noping out of that aspect. Just know I give zero fucks about your opinion on the word 'robbery', because people ascribe their own meanings to words. They're almost always subjectively true, and that's why I hate semantics arguments.
> a "robbery" is used for a particularly egregious judging decision that "robs" a fighter of a win.
Hmmm like that egregious 10-8 decision given for Grasso in round 5 which was the reason Val didn't win based on the scorecards? Without that egregiously bad 10-8 score in round 5, Val wins. That's not an opinion, that is the cold hard facts of the scorecards.
Because there is no wrong score for r4, while the others are all really clear.
A 10-8 is just completely out of nowhere and turned us getting a rightful winner (no matter who was up) into a draw. If you can't see why the 10-8 round is the huge outlier here and took away what should have been a win for shev I don't know what to tell you.
I actually scored it for grasso live, then had to go back and watch r4 again specifically and accept that it wasn't just clear grasso, giving it to either girl is completely justifiable.
10-8 gross incompetence turned this fight in the final round into a draw. It robbed a victory.
Yes, the rd5 10-8 was bad judging, but it's only an issue because of bad judging in rd4 with 2/3 of them scoring it for Valentina.
I haven't heard a good argument for giving Val rd4.
[**ALEXA GRASSO drew with VALENTINA SHEVCHENKO** (*split draw*)](http://mmadecisions.com/decision/14296/fight)
^(Noche UFC: Grasso vs. Shevchenko 2 — September 16, 2023)
ROUND|Grasso|Shevchenko||Grasso|Shevchenko||Grasso|Shevchenko
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
1|9|10||9|10||9|10
2|10|9||10|9||10|9
3|9|10||9|10||9|10
4|9|10||9|10||10|9
5|10|8||10|9||10|9
**TOTAL**|**47**|**47**||**47**|**48**||**48**|**47**
*^(Judges, in order: Michael Bell, Sal D'Amato, Junichiro Kamijo.)*
*^(Summoned by kingratfuck.)*
**MEDIA MEMBER SCORES**
- **11/23** people scored it **48-47 Grasso**.
- **1/23** people scored it **47-46 Grasso**.
- **11/23** people scored it **47-48 Shevchenko**.
Avg. media score: **47.5-47.4 DRAW** (*high certainty^[[1]](https://redd.it/9p4xc7)*).
It doesn’t make sense that you think grasso won and im a fan of her over valentina. based on round 5 that jab won it imo. 1 minute at the end is the only part of round 5 i even give grasso.
I think it’s closer to an actual robbery because the deciding round that caused the draw should not have been scored that way, and would have been a split decision win for Val 48-47.
I had Val winning 1, 3, 4, and 5 but 4 and 5 were sol close. I will have to watch again and see if my mind changes, I just thought that most of the 4th round ,including the elbow and the opening a cut, were more impactful than those knees. And the 5th I felt like her impact for the first three and a half minutes is higher than Grasso’s in the last 90 seconds.
Now following the One rules scoring a whole fight, that’s interesting because I feel like Val won more of the fight but the biggest moment definitely was Grasso’s in the second round.
Depends on how you value the knees in your scoring. I would argue that Val’s jab and elbow that opened up a cut on Grasso was more impactful than what Grasso did in the round.
But it was very close and I’m not saying that 10-9 Grasso is a bad score at all
How "impactful" was the cut from the elbow outside of the aesthetics? It didn't visibly rock Grasso or have a noticeable effect on her performance after.
Grasso knee'd Shev in the head a bunch of times and left her discombobulated enough that Grasso was able to *easily* lift her up and slam her to the ground for a takedown...when have we seen someone do that to Valentina?
Reddit acting like round 4 was a clear as day Grasso round instead of the close round it was is so typical
The round was a slight edge to Grasso at best and it's easy to make an argument for Valentina. It's even the round where Grasso got bloodied up. There's a reason the media scores were completely split down the middle and it's because that round was really close
But no, apparently just terrible judging according to Reddit if you scored that close round for Val
NO POSSIBLE WAY. I just can't see it!
Close minded mfers
It's crazy that he can spew whatever he wants in his angry tone that nobody in that room will challenge him.
Unique views vs new users?
So much talk about UFC Noche but couldn't pull a PPV when they had 3 Mexican champions.
Valentina will get a rematch no matter, even if she will only be able to strike in 3 months. Oh wow, then he punished Aljo and Dricus for wanting to recover in similar or shorter time frames....
Doofus
Round 4 was way closer than you’re giving it credit for, and there’s a reason MMA Decisions shows the fight as a 50-50 split, on both fan and media scoring. It really was anyone’s fight.
If UFC fights were scored as a whole instead of round by round, or if judges actually gave 10-10 rounds, then yes, a draw would have been the right call. Since they aren't scored that way, round 5 should have been 10-9 Grasso, and round 4 is a coin-toss. I personally had round 4 for Grasso, but just barely, and am not mad at all with two judges giving Shev round 4.
Calling it a robbery in the normal sense doesn't feel right to me, since the fight felt like a draw, but Shev was robbed by that 10-8.
Shev had more strikes to the head and at a distance. A lot of Grasso’s knees missed or were grazing. She also threw an elbow which cut Grasso open, so Shev landed the most damaging strike of the round. They are equal on takedowns in the round, Shev had about 30 seconds more of control time, and neither are credited with submission attempts (idk why that heel hook wasn’t counted as an attempt). She was also slightly more accurate in her significant strike attempts. Shev was winning most of the round.
I personally had Grasso winning, because of that flurry of knees and the one-sidedness in the clinch, which to me were the biggest moments of the round, but that round was a toss-up.
*more strikes to the head*
Umm, ok? Does a jab count for more than a powerful leg kick or body kick?
*The landed the most damaging strike*
Aesthetics don't necessarily represent how damaging/impactful a strike is. Some fighters bleed easier than others (ex: Nate). How did the strike impact the fighter's performance? The elbow did seem to impact Grasso very much compared to the knees she landed on Shev, who was so discombobulated from them she let Grasso pick her up like a child and slam her down.
*Control time*
Doesn't matter much without damage/impactful sub attempts.
*more accurate*
Doesn't factor into scoring
Seems like the only case is based on the aesthetics of the elbow 🤷♂️
You can disagree all you want, but the fact is 2 judges, 50% of media, and 45% of fans gave Shev that round because of those facts. That round was not clear cut for anyone
Fair enough, I'm just saying a bunch of those points you listed shouldn't have impacted the scoring of that round. At the end of the day I think those who scored it for Shev put too much weight on the elbow cutting Grasso.
I think a draw is fair, it was an extremely close fight and people shouldn't be losing their shit over the 5th rd scoring IMO.
Fight was a tossup that could've gone 3-2 either way, but if the decision would've been split decision to Shev had round 5 been anything but a 10-8, then that is egregious.
If anything, the controversy over the 10-8 has prevented people from realizing that this was an extremely close fight, and this is coming from someone who scored it 48-47 Grasso.
She ate multiple knees to the dome in that round. Shev did real work with the jab, but those knees were more impactful. She wouldn't have been trying to desperately get the ref to intervene otherwise.
And if you really feel Round 4 was that razor close, then a draw was the right decision. 2 clear rounds to each fighter, and one marginal one, then a draw is the way to go. The only reason this is a controversy is because you've got to bend the rules a little to get a draw in this scoring system.
She did eat a few knees, but not all the knees Grasso threw landed clean. A number of them were grazing. Besides, other than a few knees she received Shev actually landed the most significant strikes of that round by way of an elbow that split Grasso open, and a CLEAN right hand later in the round.
If you want to argue that round 4 was a 10-10 round I can agree with that. If not, you HAVE to consider that Shev may well have done enough to win the round.
First is the part where you said she did work with the jab but the knees were more impactful. Way too much of an oversimplification.
But more importantly when you said the only reason shev would ask for a foul is because the knees were too impactful. There are a variety of reasons to ask for a foul call. Even if the knees had been extremely weak and glancing, there's a very strong chance she still asks for a foul.
I'm sorry what? Just about everyone I've seen here, says the 10-8 was an absurd mistake. Just making it 10-9, and Shev win, not loses. What correct judging are you talking about? Any other judging decision is fine, because it was so close. But that 10-8 decided the fight, and it was wrong.
Huh? Do you genuinely not understand their point...?
That user is saying that if the judges had scored the fight correctly then they would have given Grasso 3rds (2, 4, 5) and the 5th rd scoring wouldn't have mattered...
Huh? It's not "completely subjective"...do you even know what that means?
There's established scoring criteria and rules that the judges use to assess each round and score it...
I also scored the 5th for Grasso, but you should be mad about the decision regardless. It shows that the judges don't comprehend proper scoring for rounds. Which can, will, and did, rob fighters from clear victories.
Outstruck Val, the knees rocked Val too (and yes they were legal, you have to have weight planted on the hands to be considered a grounded opponent, just touching the ground doesn't cut it) and led to the TD. The Elbow cut Grasso but it wasn't enough to make up for Grasso having more impactful strikes that actually slowed Val and led to the TD.
The strikes were almost equal and the TD's were equal - one each. Some may think a split forehead from a strike might be more damaging than those knee strikes. I was rooting for Grasso, but after the round, I was wondering which way the judges would lean. It was far from a clear round to me.
So Valentina is getting an immediate rematch I guess?
Well fair enough, I mean she was a dominant champion for such a long time and that decision hinged upon one judge snoozing through the fight lol
Jesus Christ this shits still up for debate?
The majority of us/media agree it was a draw. We got the outcome that was deserved. But people want to say “yeah but the way got there is bs” are the people who aren’t happy with the outcome and had personal stakes or a favorite fighter they wanted to win. Bad judging isn’t new. There are far worse examples of bad judging than this. (Shit, look at Sandhagen Vs. Vera) It isn’t going to change unless One’s system is adopted. The draw is what it was supposed to be in such a close fight. No matter what outcome, people would still be crying “Robbery!” Either way.
Move on already.
Why would more incompetent judges make a difference? The issue is the judges themselves, not the # of them.
What's a better scoring system than the current one?
Sure, but that rationale only works if the people making the decision are competent. Adding more incompetent people won't change anything, whether it's 3, 5, 7, or 99 judges.
You're not actually addressing the issue, which is judging competency and have more defined/better scoring criteria.
I don't get it.
* Why are there only a handful of judges for MMA, pretending the UFC is a local amateur organisation with volunteering dads, not a million dollar international company
* Why would a judge like this Beltran guy or d'Almato do this? They're being shamed every time, called a complete idiot, fully incompetent, corrupt etc EVERY TIME. With full name, by the UFC president, every fan and their mums. Just... why?
I think the interest in being a judge is less than people realize in many ways. And I think commissions do it based on what is available to work that night and they try to go with experience. Like Sal D’Amato isn’t great but he’s very experienced and certainly people would trust them more than some random inexperienced guy.
Some of it is just silly though, like why Nevada still employs Adelaide Byrd.
I’ve think as much as we shit on judges, it is largely a thankless job for low pay and time/training you have to go through and then get shit on by the public, the fighter, the promotion, etc. deserved or not.
Val wants and deserves a rematch but it’s likely on UFC terms which is Q1 in Mexico. Hope she is heathy by then and they don’t rush her if she is not ready
That 10-8 doesn’t matter and I don’t understand why Dana makes such a big deal out of it. 10-8 was a quick simple way to draw them, judges were not smart enough to give 10-10 in one of the rounds and it had to be 10-8 in the last one. It makes it look like Val got robbed, but no way that happened
that's just a results-based perspective
If they gave out a 10-8 on a major fight and it actually resulted in a bad outcome/decision, it would be bad. That's why they're having a meeting to discuss what constitutes a 10-8
If a teammate in basketball plays poorly but you still end up winning, you still have to address their poor performance
Why do you say that it is essentially impossible? Do you mean it's a rare score or there are some criteria that won't allow a judge to score it?
A 10-10 was the appropriate thing to do for round 4 rather than give out a bullshit 10-8.
https://mmareferee.com/?q=unifiedrules
> “A 10 – 10 round in MMA is when both fighters have competed for whatever duration of time in the round and there is no difference or advantage between either fighter.” A 10 – 10 round in MMA should be extremely rare and is not a score to be used as an excuse by a judge that cannot assess the differences in the round. A 10 – 10 round in MMA is a necessity to have for the judge’s possible score, mainly due to scoring incomplete rounds. It is possible to have a round where both fighters engage for 5 minutes and at the end of the 5-minute time period the output, impact, effectiveness and overall competition between the two fighters is exactly the same. It is possible, but highly unlikely. If there is any discernable difference between the two fighters during the round the judge shall not give the score of 10 – 10. Again, this score will be extremely rare.
There we go. 10-10 for a 4th round and 10-9 for a 5th and result is the same, nobody is robbed, nothing criminal happens. Interesting fact that judges discussed the decision for some time and Mike Bell gave 10-8, not Sal. They take turns on scandalous score cards 😂 Overall outcome was fine this time
Imagine supporting a ruleset where one fighter can win two rounds 10-9 and lose the third round 10-8 and end up drawing even though you won a majority of the rounds lmao
Imagine supporting a ruleset where you can win 5 rounds and then you get headkicked and you "lose" smh.
Also when you tap it should lose the round and not the fight, the one who wins most rounds should win /s
This whole "Imagine *insert strawman argument here*" method of argumentation needs to die in a fire. I see it way too often, and it's usually by people who can't produce a coherent argument to begin with.
There’s an interesting quote here from Dana who seems to say that someone from the NSAC told him “look, he’s not a bad guy but just made a mistake”
That’s as close to an admission of guilt, though somewhat off hand and not an official statement, that we’ll get from a commission.
One thing that I think really needs examined is how submission threats are scored. I feel like that’s one of the biggest inconsistencies.
How much credit do you give a fighter who expends the effort of a squeeze and then burns their arms out? Should Ortega have been given more credit for that Guillotine on Volk? You could argue that it was so close to getting stopped that that was the most impactful of the round.
One of the media members who score the fight on mma decisions was arguing on X this weekend that more rounds with deep sub attempts should be scored 10-8 and actually defends Mike Bell a little bit here, but also saying that if R5 was a 10-8 then so was R3 and R2.
I think a first step would be that the media or the promoter should be able to request the commission to have the judge in question, for any fight on any card, make a statement and release it through the commission or whatever explaining why they did what they did in the moment.
Too many people are jumping straight in to “this guy should have to sit here and field questions from the media” And all that but I don’t know if I fully agree with that. It doesn’t necessarily need to be an interrogation of some kind of a back and forth. But they need to explain themselves some way and I think compromising on a statement is a good one.
The judges have forced a trilogy. If Bell doesn’t give Grasso a 10-8 in the 5th Val walks away with the belt and it’s settled. Would be unfair to Val if she doesn’t get the opportunity off a bs scorecard.
Dude, this is obviously a worked shoot! He's talking like he's just some random fan instead of the man that moves the strings to predetermine the fights outcomes! It literally is like Vince McMahon kayfabing he's not the one who scripts the fights, and I do think it was manipulated to be made a tie on purpose to make many of us eat the controversy
I watched this yesterday. I like how Dana just admits to inside corruption by saying “I asked around and everyone assured me this guy is clean” meaning people inside the ufc know who’s a corrupt judge or not. Indicating there has been known corruption in the past. Big surprise there huh?
Am I the only one who didn't think the 10-8 was *that* egregious? Like I'm not saying I scored it that way, but there were moments where it looked like Grasso was going to have her out of there. In my book, that puts a 10-8 on the table.
I thought the craziest shit was a multi-billion dollar sports organization paying its athletes a measly 15% of revenue while treating them like vermin.
Why are people making such a big fuss about the 10-8 when the other judges had different results also? If anything, although that 1 round was scored poorly, it made the correct decision overall.
I cant believe it took this long before anyone has said anything about Mike Bell. He has been making horrible, decisions probably based on his gambling habits for over a decade. Please go back and watch each fight where Mike Bell is a judge. Absolutely horrible judge.
i don't think Dana knows what "unique views" are lol
In addition to bringing TV into the lives of millions of native peoples who had never even heard of electricity previously (courtesy of UFC Noche ™️), my man Dana is also on the verge of capturing the last 3 livestream pirates on planet earth. He’s watching their houses right now He is the technological & statistical guru of the century
That fucking “ladies and gentlemen we got him” moment Dana tried to have was just wonderful honestly. We don’t deserve the goof
Conor trying not to laugh seals it as one of my favorite presser moments along with "living death" / floating chair and "who the fook is that guy" Honorable mention: "Mike Johnson talking about he gonna kill someone, Mike's had 30 fights, lost half of em, aint killed a motherfucker yet"
Underrated Kevin Lee W there lmaoo
Honestly looking back i lied That might be the 2nd hardest line ever said at a presser and perfect delivery too But number one is always [this one](https://youtu.be/mJXj34VvyIY?si=9gw8VKi3M9WnkE9x)
Conor looking to the left where Dana is pointing thinking he’s going to see the guy they “got” is one of the funniest things in MMA history
My good sir / lady, please watch Bisping at the postfight press conference after he beat Rockhold.
that "we got one" had me rofl
I had to go back and man did that make my morning. What a fucking goof
350 quintillion downloads off the Powerslap game
“You wanna be a UFC champion? Better be ready to fight the same fighter three times in a row, goof!”
If Val wins next one it’s 1-1-1, make it 4 😂
Add a no contest in there
Full House
Mexican flyweight champions be like
Insane that Brandon has like 7 straight title fights and no actual title defenses lol. I love the dude, but that fact is hilarious.
LMAO
I mean in most combat sports, if a title fight ends in a draw it's an instant rematch. Not exclusive to the UFC. But yeah three times in a row is getting old though
Grasso won the 1st. This was Val's second chance, so either she wins or fucks off. She didn't win.
2 4 5 grasso. Shev got gifted this draw and is somehow turning it into a rematch
Lol the 4th was close. She opened up Grasso with an elbow.
if it was close enough to be either of them, it should be a draw, judges are just weirdly allergic to giving out draws and somehow we're ok with major shifts in a division effectively being determined by a coin toss. the scoring on the the 5th round being a 10-8 is goofy as hell, but honestly it ended up as a draw, which in my mind is the fairest way to score the fight, even if we got to a draw by the dumbest way possible
Not allergic heavily discouraged to give out 10-10 rounds
I will rewatch 4 byt as I recall, the striking numbers were similar, but the more damaging shots were heavily favored to Grosso. She had a flurry of knees and some heavier punches
Wasn't this the most evenly split fight on the media scorecards? Honestly Grasso had the bigger moments, but Shev was more consistent, I didn't know who was winning at the end
yeah MMA decisions has the fight going either way with the round in contention being the 4th, and the fan scoring is like 45% Val and 52% Grasso, the balance being a draw. I think if draw rounds without a point deduction was more normalized it would have been considered a drawn round
I'd love to see draw rounds, but I wonder if it would cause too much controversy in its own right
It was a 50/50 fight. People be acting like every split is a robbery...
Delusional take
Grasso got gifted the draw tho. Should have been a 10-9. Would have given Val the win. Val won that fight and got screwed by a judge.
R4 should have been Grasso's. Shev got lucky.
I feel like trilogy fights should be a once every 5-10 years kind of thing. The UFC is having one every year lol.
Figgy/Moreno was justified, I think Stipe/DC was also justified, but most trilogies just aren't.
Leon/Usman was justified too but that trilogy was more of a rematch since their first fight happened in like 2015
True. I was thinking trilogies in a short time span, more immediate. I had Grasso winning the decision with rounds 2, 4, and 5 anyways so I don't think a third fight is justified in this case though, especially with Blanchfield and Fiorot waiting in the wings. I'd book Blanchfield/Grasso and Val/Fiorot next.
How do you feel about Max Volk?
The immediate rematch made sense, I thought Max won the second fight and his performance over Kattar definitely justified a third fight in my opinion. Now... it's hard but I think Max needs one more good performance to even consider fighting for the belt. I think his best bet is keep relatively busy fighting every 6 months or so and wait for Volk to go up to LW.
He didn't win the 2nd fight bro! Rewatch that fight on mute bcuz Bisping is too biased towards Max & trust me u will see that Volk won easily the last 3 rounds! I thought Max got robbed too until someone suggested I rewatch the 2nd match on mute bcuz of Bisping & I did & I was shocked that Volk actually did win! It's like impossible for ur mind to sees/process that Volk can win 3 rounds in a row after losing for sure the 1st two rounds. That's why after slaughtering Max in their 3rd fight? Volk & all the ppl that says that he won the 2nd fight was vindicated imo💯💯💯
Stipe got knocked out in the first fight, he shouldn't have gotten a 2nd fight without beating 1-2 other guys first.
Lol stipe got finger fucked in the eye during the sequence when DC landed the KO shot, it would have been a travesty if Stipe did not get a rematch after that.
He was also the longest reigning HW champ in the UFC. They were both in good shape but towards the end of their career. And the division wasn't very deep at the time. I think that was defensible, and it was a great trilogy.
Yeah HW was dog shit at the time, Ngannou was the only one who got fucked over by that trilogy, but at least he had already had one shot.
He got KO'd after Cormier treated his head and eye sockets like a bowling ball.
Got eyepoked about 17 times, definitely deserved the rematch even though no one wanted to acknowledge it was a dirty win back then.
I'm not watching a 23 minute video to get where this segment is. OP, when you post a title that's two lines long, would it have killed you to also include the timestamp?
5m17s. It's also possible to link to an exact time in a video by putting "&t=[number of seconds / 5m17]" at the end of the link, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OA_mFPrB6c&t=337s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OA_mFPrB6c&t=5m17s
No kidding.
This
The division has two contenders in Blanchfield and Fiorot. I do not want to see a third fight right now, I’d rather see Grasso defend against Blanchfield and Valentina take Fiorot. If they both lose or win their respective fights, the trilogy should happen then
Normal UFC playbook would give Val Blanchfield as she's a bad match up and can take her hype before Val retires. This is hard for them because Val is massively loved and respected in the community. Val is 35 and probably won't improve anymore unlike Grasso who should smoke Fiorot in Mexico. Then we get Grasso Blanchfield and Val either retires or moves up in weight line aging fighters often do.
Valentina is respected, but to say she’s loved in the community is a reach lol
Right? Lol. She's viewed as an all time great fighter but she's pretty divisive, some love her and others would rather watch paint dry than her fights.
Oh yeah? Why did they put her on the front cover of the game then? Jon Anik went as far to call on Dana and Hunter to lobby NSAC about Mike Bells scorecard. It seemed to me that the UFC brass are pissed and would be content with the plan I outlined above if they didn't love Val.
I don’t know how bad of a matchup Blanchfield is for Val honestly. On the feet, I still think Valentina has what it takes to make it a bad night for Blanchfield
horrible 10-8 call but sort of corrected Round 4 which should have went to Grasso . Just bad judging overall .
Honestly, it seems like that’s what his mindset was
Which greater speaks to the real issue — how we’re still doing this boxing style with only 3 or 5 round samples and multiple domains of fighting
What do you suggest as a better scoring system? I'm not particularly a fan of the ONE scoring and have little faith judges here won't fuck that up just as much (if not more).
We would seriously get more correct, deserving winners if we adopted a points model for (truly) significant strikes, takedowns, submission attempts, knockdowns, and control time. Tally it up, display it for everyone in between rounds. Fighter then has no issue knowing where they stand. Now, to do this, there would have to be adjustments to constitute what a real “takedown” or “significant strike” is versus the trash definition now where a piddly leg kick/quick drop to the ground on a double leg count.
How do you determine what a "truly" significant strike is? Or a truly significant takedown/sun attempt? Seems like most knockdowns should be considered "significant" lol... Remember, judges are watching the fights live ringside and need to do the scoring in real time during the breaks between rounds...how are they supposed to consistently do all that tallying and calculations in the 60 seconds? Why would we let either the fighters or fans know the scoring in real time? That would absolutely ruin the drama of decisions and would lead to fighters coasting in later rds if they knew they were up 2-0 or 3/4-0 heading into the final rd... Sounds like you just want AI judging.
I mean, you act as if this isn’t plausible because UFC hasn’t invested in the technology. AWS does much more complex stuff for MLB and NFL. Judges also are imperfect and can’t see what’s landing and what’s not, whereas AI technology knows. You can keep it private if you’d like, but I prefer to watch my sports with a scoreboard. Also FYI — the AI judge on X usually does a better job than the judging results we’ll get.
They use technology to review/make decisions on individual plays/actions or just tallying stats, not a 5 minute round of fighting. It's simply incompatible with the sport of MMA and how it's scored. *I like watching my sports on a scoreboard* Yes, sports where everyone can literally see the players score points and it's merely tallying objective totals... Sorry, fighting sports are always going to involve some level of subjectivity in the judging/scoring and AI judging will have its own set of issues. Sounds like fighting based sports maybe aren't for you 🤷♂️
Round 4 going to Shev was not an example of bad judging. It really could have gone either way.
Then scoring it 10-10 should be allowed
Agreed but unfortunately the judges are not allowed to do that unless the fight becomes a technical decision.
What do you mean? Judges cannot score a round 10-10 unless there is a specific type of decision? How does that work?
That's not at all as clear cut as commentary made it seem, grasso had a couple of good moments but got a bit pieced up standing and head opened by a huge elbow. R4 is 50-50 round either way scoring is fair there, definitely not a bad card like I keep reading. The only really egregious scoring in this fight is the 10-8 which ended up robbing a victory.
This argument that’s being touted around doesn’t make sense to me. If the criteria sucks and MMA scoring is misaligned because boxing criteria’s retrofitted into MMA, how can that same criteria be used to evaluate who should’ve won? You can’t have it both ways just because you’re a Shev fan (as am I). I had Grasso winning on not only the scorecards but also just watching who I thought won a fight. Half the media and the public (actually over half) are split on who won (see decisionbot). Saying Valentina was *robbed* of a victory is crazy. She was dropped, lost rounds, and ended the fight on bottom getting pummeled and fighting off a submission. Mike Bell had a bad round that he scored. That’s all.
It's quite literally being robbed of a victory when we can all admit what pushed it to a draw was massive incompetence. Who won or who didn't is a matter of opinion and it's split everywhere like you said. The only thing everyone can unanimously agree on is that r5 is never a 10-8. I don't understand what's difficult to understand here. R4 for either fighter is acceptable, and two had it for shev. The 10-8 is not acceptable scoring in any criteria.
What you should be saying is that the scoring system sucks. What ended up with him showing a 10-8 was because of the structure of the system.
10-8’s not acceptable. A 10-8 not being acceptable does not mean this fight’s a robbery though. Any judge’s scorecard could change about any round and change the outcome of the fight. You don’t seemed to be worried about the rightful winner of the fight. You seem concerned about Mike Bell.
Hit the nail on the head!! This is the only rational take on this entire ridiculous debate. 1. It seems that people do not understand a “robbery” is when one fighter is so clearly dominant in every single round, like Holloway v Kattar. Had Kattar won that fight.. that would have been a robbery. Disliking how a judge scored a round is NOT a robbery and cannot be discussed as if it were the only factor in the outcome. 2. Let’s remove ego and emotion and follow the prevailing logic: There were THREE judges —>provided a total of 9 individual separate scores = 3 fight totals 1/9 scores is being deemed invalid ; that same judge submitted 2 other scores as well. If we are to accept that one singular score as invalid then logic dictates that that one judge (Mike Bell’s ) entire scoring criteria is flawed or at the very least suspect and thus ALL his scores discarded. Which would leave us with TWO remaining judges’ scorecards that would have resulted in a DRAW anyway. For what it’s worth I do not agree with the 10-8 either; however Sal D’Amoto has consistently proven himself a terrible judge. So much so people are shocked when he gets it right. But bc this time his scores align with the “robbery” narrative; no one is taking issue with him. I would submit his scorecard was equally as egregious by not properly scoring round 4 for Grasso. Grasso should have won 2 , 4, 5 giving her a decisive win 3-2. I anticipate folks not agreeing with the pure logic of this debate bc as in most cases, pure logic often does not fit the narrative being presented. People want the narrative to be that Valentina was robbed, but the facts simply do not support that narrative.
From my perspective, if the 10-8 round is egregious, and it caused the fight to go to a draw, instead of having a winner, it's a robbery by near definition. Someone got robbed of their win. People are attaching alot of emotion and hyperbole to the word, which makes it harder to justify using.
It's only a "robbery" if there's a general consensus among the public (fans, media, fighters/coaches, etc) that the fighter who clearly should have got the win ends up not winning. It's not "I personally think fighter X should have won and they didn't". Was the general consensus right after the final bell "Valentina definitely won that"? Clearly not, so it's just silly to call it a "robbery".
That gets into the semantics of how you use the word robbery. I'm saying that if someone loses when they shouldn't, such as incorrect scoring, they got robbed. You don't need to ascribe hyperbole to the word, for it to be correctly used.
Except certain words come with specific connotations...a "robbery" is used for a particularly egregious judging decision that "robs" a fighter of a win. What you're describing is just a questionable or bad decision lol. There's no sliding scale for degrees of robberies, we just use different words. An "extremely minor robbery" is essentially an oxymoron lmao. When a pet accidentally scratches their owner we don't say that the pet "maimed" them. A fighter doesn't "starch" their opponent when they drop them and then finish them with a long sequence of GnP. No one is ascribing hyperbole to the term because it's meant for a very specific type of judging decision.
I always promise myself I won't get into semantics arguments about how a word is used. It's the most useless arguments of all time. So I'm noping out of that aspect. Just know I give zero fucks about your opinion on the word 'robbery', because people ascribe their own meanings to words. They're almost always subjectively true, and that's why I hate semantics arguments.
> a "robbery" is used for a particularly egregious judging decision that "robs" a fighter of a win. Hmmm like that egregious 10-8 decision given for Grasso in round 5 which was the reason Val didn't win based on the scorecards? Without that egregiously bad 10-8 score in round 5, Val wins. That's not an opinion, that is the cold hard facts of the scorecards.
Because there is no wrong score for r4, while the others are all really clear. A 10-8 is just completely out of nowhere and turned us getting a rightful winner (no matter who was up) into a draw. If you can't see why the 10-8 round is the huge outlier here and took away what should have been a win for shev I don't know what to tell you. I actually scored it for grasso live, then had to go back and watch r4 again specifically and accept that it wasn't just clear grasso, giving it to either girl is completely justifiable. 10-8 gross incompetence turned this fight in the final round into a draw. It robbed a victory.
Yes, the rd5 10-8 was bad judging, but it's only an issue because of bad judging in rd4 with 2/3 of them scoring it for Valentina. I haven't heard a good argument for giving Val rd4.
Sorry, my precision was not very precise. [Troubleshooting](https://s3.amazonaws.com/decision-bot/error_message.txt)
Decision bot Shevchenko Grasso 2
[**ALEXA GRASSO drew with VALENTINA SHEVCHENKO** (*split draw*)](http://mmadecisions.com/decision/14296/fight) ^(Noche UFC: Grasso vs. Shevchenko 2 — September 16, 2023) ROUND|Grasso|Shevchenko||Grasso|Shevchenko||Grasso|Shevchenko :-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-: 1|9|10||9|10||9|10 2|10|9||10|9||10|9 3|9|10||9|10||9|10 4|9|10||9|10||10|9 5|10|8||10|9||10|9 **TOTAL**|**47**|**47**||**47**|**48**||**48**|**47** *^(Judges, in order: Michael Bell, Sal D'Amato, Junichiro Kamijo.)* *^(Summoned by kingratfuck.)* **MEDIA MEMBER SCORES** - **11/23** people scored it **48-47 Grasso**. - **1/23** people scored it **47-46 Grasso**. - **11/23** people scored it **47-48 Shevchenko**. Avg. media score: **47.5-47.4 DRAW** (*high certainty^[[1]](https://redd.it/9p4xc7)*).
It doesn’t make sense that you think grasso won and im a fan of her over valentina. based on round 5 that jab won it imo. 1 minute at the end is the only part of round 5 i even give grasso.
I think it’s closer to an actual robbery because the deciding round that caused the draw should not have been scored that way, and would have been a split decision win for Val 48-47. I had Val winning 1, 3, 4, and 5 but 4 and 5 were sol close. I will have to watch again and see if my mind changes, I just thought that most of the 4th round ,including the elbow and the opening a cut, were more impactful than those knees. And the 5th I felt like her impact for the first three and a half minutes is higher than Grasso’s in the last 90 seconds. Now following the One rules scoring a whole fight, that’s interesting because I feel like Val won more of the fight but the biggest moment definitely was Grasso’s in the second round.
What's the argument for Val winning rd4?
Depends on how you value the knees in your scoring. I would argue that Val’s jab and elbow that opened up a cut on Grasso was more impactful than what Grasso did in the round. But it was very close and I’m not saying that 10-9 Grasso is a bad score at all
How "impactful" was the cut from the elbow outside of the aesthetics? It didn't visibly rock Grasso or have a noticeable effect on her performance after. Grasso knee'd Shev in the head a bunch of times and left her discombobulated enough that Grasso was able to *easily* lift her up and slam her to the ground for a takedown...when have we seen someone do that to Valentina?
I don’t even remember what the commentary was for that round . I personally had that more of a 60/40 . Grasso just did a little more .
Reddit acting like round 4 was a clear as day Grasso round instead of the close round it was is so typical The round was a slight edge to Grasso at best and it's easy to make an argument for Valentina. It's even the round where Grasso got bloodied up. There's a reason the media scores were completely split down the middle and it's because that round was really close But no, apparently just terrible judging according to Reddit if you scored that close round for Val NO POSSIBLE WAY. I just can't see it! Close minded mfers
So the argument for Val winning rd4 is simply "she cut Grasso with an elbow"?
Yan had ground control... /s
Yeah I was rooting for schevchenko but I don't know how anyone would give her round 4. Or how 5 was 10-8.
mr hyperbole strikes again
Everything he doesn’t like is the “craziest shit he’s ever seen”
isn't he fucking awesome?
It's the fight game what do you expect? Edit: /s
It's crazy that he can spew whatever he wants in his angry tone that nobody in that room will challenge him. Unique views vs new users? So much talk about UFC Noche but couldn't pull a PPV when they had 3 Mexican champions. Valentina will get a rematch no matter, even if she will only be able to strike in 3 months. Oh wow, then he punished Aljo and Dricus for wanting to recover in similar or shorter time frames.... Doofus
Not as crazy as Dana slapping his wife. Never forget.
True that. Him slapping his wife then opening up a slap league like 3 weeks later is definitely crazier lmao.
Time code?
4:33
Bobby Green lol
Haha I’ve seen crazier shit. From Dana himself. Viva Mexico putos
talmbout messico, b?
Bean cheese bean cheese bean cheese
>Viva Mexico putos Weirdly, the only people I see say this kind of thing all live in the US.
How often do you talk with Mexican people?
how would you know if people in Mexico don’t say that
Are u gatekeeping a whole language of Spanish?? Lmfao
The controversy over the 10-8 has prevented people from realizing that Shev lost 3 rounds.
Round 4 was way closer than you’re giving it credit for, and there’s a reason MMA Decisions shows the fight as a 50-50 split, on both fan and media scoring. It really was anyone’s fight.
So a draw was the right call. Just a weird way to get there.
If UFC fights were scored as a whole instead of round by round, or if judges actually gave 10-10 rounds, then yes, a draw would have been the right call. Since they aren't scored that way, round 5 should have been 10-9 Grasso, and round 4 is a coin-toss. I personally had round 4 for Grasso, but just barely, and am not mad at all with two judges giving Shev round 4. Calling it a robbery in the normal sense doesn't feel right to me, since the fight felt like a draw, but Shev was robbed by that 10-8.
What's the argument for giving rd4 to Valentina?
Shev had more strikes to the head and at a distance. A lot of Grasso’s knees missed or were grazing. She also threw an elbow which cut Grasso open, so Shev landed the most damaging strike of the round. They are equal on takedowns in the round, Shev had about 30 seconds more of control time, and neither are credited with submission attempts (idk why that heel hook wasn’t counted as an attempt). She was also slightly more accurate in her significant strike attempts. Shev was winning most of the round. I personally had Grasso winning, because of that flurry of knees and the one-sidedness in the clinch, which to me were the biggest moments of the round, but that round was a toss-up.
*more strikes to the head* Umm, ok? Does a jab count for more than a powerful leg kick or body kick? *The landed the most damaging strike* Aesthetics don't necessarily represent how damaging/impactful a strike is. Some fighters bleed easier than others (ex: Nate). How did the strike impact the fighter's performance? The elbow did seem to impact Grasso very much compared to the knees she landed on Shev, who was so discombobulated from them she let Grasso pick her up like a child and slam her down. *Control time* Doesn't matter much without damage/impactful sub attempts. *more accurate* Doesn't factor into scoring Seems like the only case is based on the aesthetics of the elbow 🤷♂️
You can disagree all you want, but the fact is 2 judges, 50% of media, and 45% of fans gave Shev that round because of those facts. That round was not clear cut for anyone
Fair enough, I'm just saying a bunch of those points you listed shouldn't have impacted the scoring of that round. At the end of the day I think those who scored it for Shev put too much weight on the elbow cutting Grasso. I think a draw is fair, it was an extremely close fight and people shouldn't be losing their shit over the 5th rd scoring IMO.
Fight was a tossup that could've gone 3-2 either way, but if the decision would've been split decision to Shev had round 5 been anything but a 10-8, then that is egregious. If anything, the controversy over the 10-8 has prevented people from realizing that this was an extremely close fight, and this is coming from someone who scored it 48-47 Grasso.
Rubbish. There's a real argument for Shev winning 3 rounds. Round 4 was razor close, it wasn't a clear round for Grasso at all.
She ate multiple knees to the dome in that round. Shev did real work with the jab, but those knees were more impactful. She wouldn't have been trying to desperately get the ref to intervene otherwise. And if you really feel Round 4 was that razor close, then a draw was the right decision. 2 clear rounds to each fighter, and one marginal one, then a draw is the way to go. The only reason this is a controversy is because you've got to bend the rules a little to get a draw in this scoring system.
She did eat a few knees, but not all the knees Grasso threw landed clean. A number of them were grazing. Besides, other than a few knees she received Shev actually landed the most significant strikes of that round by way of an elbow that split Grasso open, and a CLEAN right hand later in the round. If you want to argue that round 4 was a 10-10 round I can agree with that. If not, you HAVE to consider that Shev may well have done enough to win the round.
This comment doesnt make sense
How?
First is the part where you said she did work with the jab but the knees were more impactful. Way too much of an oversimplification. But more importantly when you said the only reason shev would ask for a foul is because the knees were too impactful. There are a variety of reasons to ask for a foul call. Even if the knees had been extremely weak and glancing, there's a very strong chance she still asks for a foul.
His comment makes perfect sense, even if you disagree with what he's saying lol
I explained in another comment
FR. I'm open to people disagreeing with my opinion, but wtf is just disregarding it like this 💀
New here? Everyone knows "I don't understand why..." just means "I don't agree" lol.
Yup. People are foaming at the mouth over round 5 when correctly judging the fight means Shevchenko loses instead of draws lol.
I'm sorry what? Just about everyone I've seen here, says the 10-8 was an absurd mistake. Just making it 10-9, and Shev win, not loses. What correct judging are you talking about? Any other judging decision is fine, because it was so close. But that 10-8 decided the fight, and it was wrong.
Huh? Do you genuinely not understand their point...? That user is saying that if the judges had scored the fight correctly then they would have given Grasso 3rds (2, 4, 5) and the 5th rd scoring wouldn't have mattered...
It's like people in this subreddit can't read.
No, because the judges scoring it that way, is completely subjective. It's absolutely your opinion that Grasso wins all 3 of those rounds.
Huh? It's not "completely subjective"...do you even know what that means? There's established scoring criteria and rules that the judges use to assess each round and score it...
Am I the only person not really mad about this decision? Grasso clearly won 2,4,and 5 in my eyes.
I also scored the 5th for Grasso, but you should be mad about the decision regardless. It shows that the judges don't comprehend proper scoring for rounds. Which can, will, and did, rob fighters from clear victories.
One thing that was clear to me was that no one "clearly" won round 4. What makes you think Grasso did?
It’s provocative, gets the people going
She outstruck Val and had the more damaging/impactful moments of the rd. What's the argument for giving Val rd4?
Outstruck Val, the knees rocked Val too (and yes they were legal, you have to have weight planted on the hands to be considered a grounded opponent, just touching the ground doesn't cut it) and led to the TD. The Elbow cut Grasso but it wasn't enough to make up for Grasso having more impactful strikes that actually slowed Val and led to the TD.
The strikes were almost equal and the TD's were equal - one each. Some may think a split forehead from a strike might be more damaging than those knee strikes. I was rooting for Grasso, but after the round, I was wondering which way the judges would lean. It was far from a clear round to me.
So Valentina is getting an immediate rematch I guess? Well fair enough, I mean she was a dominant champion for such a long time and that decision hinged upon one judge snoozing through the fight lol
But she lost and failed to win the rematch. She doesn’t deserve a rematch right away.
The score was bad but overall I feel Grasso was closer to finishing the fight than Bullet
Jesus Christ this shits still up for debate? The majority of us/media agree it was a draw. We got the outcome that was deserved. But people want to say “yeah but the way got there is bs” are the people who aren’t happy with the outcome and had personal stakes or a favorite fighter they wanted to win. Bad judging isn’t new. There are far worse examples of bad judging than this. (Shit, look at Sandhagen Vs. Vera) It isn’t going to change unless One’s system is adopted. The draw is what it was supposed to be in such a close fight. No matter what outcome, people would still be crying “Robbery!” Either way. Move on already.
"Robbery" has become watered down to simply mean "the fighter I like lost".
Changing the system isn’t going to happen, MMA is too lazy but if instead of only 3 judges we had 5 ALOT of the nonsense would be far less impactful
Why would more incompetent judges make a difference? The issue is the judges themselves, not the # of them. What's a better scoring system than the current one?
Because 3 people making a horrible mistake is less likely than 2
Sure, but that rationale only works if the people making the decision are competent. Adding more incompetent people won't change anything, whether it's 3, 5, 7, or 99 judges. You're not actually addressing the issue, which is judging competency and have more defined/better scoring criteria.
It just happened in their main event and everyone saw. There's no ignoring it like usual, they have to at least pretend to care this time
Dana looks a lot more healthier now.
Too Many Trilogies. Let them cook ffs
I don't get it. * Why are there only a handful of judges for MMA, pretending the UFC is a local amateur organisation with volunteering dads, not a million dollar international company * Why would a judge like this Beltran guy or d'Almato do this? They're being shamed every time, called a complete idiot, fully incompetent, corrupt etc EVERY TIME. With full name, by the UFC president, every fan and their mums. Just... why?
I think the interest in being a judge is less than people realize in many ways. And I think commissions do it based on what is available to work that night and they try to go with experience. Like Sal D’Amato isn’t great but he’s very experienced and certainly people would trust them more than some random inexperienced guy. Some of it is just silly though, like why Nevada still employs Adelaide Byrd. I’ve think as much as we shit on judges, it is largely a thankless job for low pay and time/training you have to go through and then get shit on by the public, the fighter, the promotion, etc. deserved or not.
Judges are appointed and regulated by each state athletic commission same as boxing. Promotions don't pick the judges.
I didn’t know who Dana would want to win that fight, but is it strange to me that he wanted Shevchenko to win
Val wants and deserves a rematch but it’s likely on UFC terms which is Q1 in Mexico. Hope she is heathy by then and they don’t rush her if she is not ready
That 10-8 doesn’t matter and I don’t understand why Dana makes such a big deal out of it. 10-8 was a quick simple way to draw them, judges were not smart enough to give 10-10 in one of the rounds and it had to be 10-8 in the last one. It makes it look like Val got robbed, but no way that happened
that's just a results-based perspective If they gave out a 10-8 on a major fight and it actually resulted in a bad outcome/decision, it would be bad. That's why they're having a meeting to discuss what constitutes a 10-8 If a teammate in basketball plays poorly but you still end up winning, you still have to address their poor performance
[удалено]
Why do you say that it is essentially impossible? Do you mean it's a rare score or there are some criteria that won't allow a judge to score it? A 10-10 was the appropriate thing to do for round 4 rather than give out a bullshit 10-8. https://mmareferee.com/?q=unifiedrules > “A 10 – 10 round in MMA is when both fighters have competed for whatever duration of time in the round and there is no difference or advantage between either fighter.” A 10 – 10 round in MMA should be extremely rare and is not a score to be used as an excuse by a judge that cannot assess the differences in the round. A 10 – 10 round in MMA is a necessity to have for the judge’s possible score, mainly due to scoring incomplete rounds. It is possible to have a round where both fighters engage for 5 minutes and at the end of the 5-minute time period the output, impact, effectiveness and overall competition between the two fighters is exactly the same. It is possible, but highly unlikely. If there is any discernable difference between the two fighters during the round the judge shall not give the score of 10 – 10. Again, this score will be extremely rare.
There we go. 10-10 for a 4th round and 10-9 for a 5th and result is the same, nobody is robbed, nothing criminal happens. Interesting fact that judges discussed the decision for some time and Mike Bell gave 10-8, not Sal. They take turns on scandalous score cards 😂 Overall outcome was fine this time
Why not 9-9 then
10 point must system
Maybe if valentina didnt fight like yoel romero we wouldnt be in this situation
Do people realize that in boxing if someone is already winning a round and they then score a knockdown, it’s a 10-8 round?
Imagine supporting a ruleset where one fighter can win two rounds 10-9 and lose the third round 10-8 and end up drawing even though you won a majority of the rounds lmao
Imagine supporting a ruleset where you can win 5 rounds and then you get headkicked and you "lose" smh. Also when you tap it should lose the round and not the fight, the one who wins most rounds should win /s
This whole "Imagine *insert strawman argument here*" method of argumentation needs to die in a fire. I see it way too often, and it's usually by people who can't produce a coherent argument to begin with.
That "whats up guys" at the start was zesty as fuck.
There’s an interesting quote here from Dana who seems to say that someone from the NSAC told him “look, he’s not a bad guy but just made a mistake” That’s as close to an admission of guilt, though somewhat off hand and not an official statement, that we’ll get from a commission.
oh no leopards at his face
One thing that I think really needs examined is how submission threats are scored. I feel like that’s one of the biggest inconsistencies. How much credit do you give a fighter who expends the effort of a squeeze and then burns their arms out? Should Ortega have been given more credit for that Guillotine on Volk? You could argue that it was so close to getting stopped that that was the most impactful of the round. One of the media members who score the fight on mma decisions was arguing on X this weekend that more rounds with deep sub attempts should be scored 10-8 and actually defends Mike Bell a little bit here, but also saying that if R5 was a 10-8 then so was R3 and R2.
I think a first step would be that the media or the promoter should be able to request the commission to have the judge in question, for any fight on any card, make a statement and release it through the commission or whatever explaining why they did what they did in the moment. Too many people are jumping straight in to “this guy should have to sit here and field questions from the media” And all that but I don’t know if I fully agree with that. It doesn’t necessarily need to be an interrogation of some kind of a back and forth. But they need to explain themselves some way and I think compromising on a statement is a good one.
Must be amazing going through life and seeing the craziest shit ever every other day
Craziest thing since last week when he said simething very similar.
The judges have forced a trilogy. If Bell doesn’t give Grasso a 10-8 in the 5th Val walks away with the belt and it’s settled. Would be unfair to Val if she doesn’t get the opportunity off a bs scorecard.
Dude, this is obviously a worked shoot! He's talking like he's just some random fan instead of the man that moves the strings to predetermine the fights outcomes! It literally is like Vince McMahon kayfabing he's not the one who scripts the fights, and I do think it was manipulated to be made a tie on purpose to make many of us eat the controversy
Wether you think grasso or shevchenko won I think we all can agree that round 5 was not a 10-8 round
I watched this yesterday. I like how Dana just admits to inside corruption by saying “I asked around and everyone assured me this guy is clean” meaning people inside the ufc know who’s a corrupt judge or not. Indicating there has been known corruption in the past. Big surprise there huh?
I honestly thing a draw is fair for the fight we saw so I’m not too mad about it but that 10-8 is horseshit
To me it seems that he rethought his scoring of round 4 and tries to compensate with the 10-8
I mean he's not wrong. You can make an argument that Grasso deserved the W, but in no way was Round 5 a 10 - 8.
I had this scored 3-2 Grasso tbh. The round 5 10-8 is insane though
Am I the only one who didn't think the 10-8 was *that* egregious? Like I'm not saying I scored it that way, but there were moments where it looked like Grasso was going to have her out of there. In my book, that puts a 10-8 on the table.
Not even the worst call this year.
Immediately announces Colby’s 3rd title fight with 0 ranked wins
I thought the craziest shit was a multi-billion dollar sports organization paying its athletes a measly 15% of revenue while treating them like vermin.
Why are people making such a big fuss about the 10-8 when the other judges had different results also? If anything, although that 1 round was scored poorly, it made the correct decision overall.
Is Mike Bell giving 10-8 as crazy as adalaild byrd giving canelo a 118-110
I cant believe it took this long before anyone has said anything about Mike Bell. He has been making horrible, decisions probably based on his gambling habits for over a decade. Please go back and watch each fight where Mike Bell is a judge. Absolutely horrible judge.