MMA Reporter Franklin McNeil (no relation) has an excellent write-up regarding the controversy surrounding the Machida - Rua result from UFC 104; specifically, that the judge's decisions are solely reflective of how they saw the fight.
First off, I'd like to say that I've not seen the Machida-Rua fight yet; therefore I have no opinion on how the fight was scored.
That said, I've been sat next to judges whilst shooting UFC events - literally elbow-to-elbow with them - and have first hand experience of the issues that they face when trying to read and score a fight.
There have been a few occasions where I've thought a fight went in favour of one guy (based on my vantage point) only to be surprised when the scores came in.
If I've simply shooting a fight and thinking "Hey, this guy's got in it the bag" based on what I saw... well the same must hold true of the judges. How else to you explain split decisions or differences in how many rounds are scored for which fighter?
I'll tell you what it's not: it's not incompetence, it's not fight-fixing and it's not corruption.
Read the article, think a little and then hopefully it might clear up some of the trash talk that's been going on about the judges in the Machida - Rua fight. I'd invite anyone to try doing their job from their vantage point. It ain't easy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment