GDT: UFC 282: Blachowicz vs. Ankalaev/Bellator 289: Stots vs. Sabatello

[Avs_19]

The always eloquent Luke Thomas haha.

 

[m9]

Crosby wasn't a judge in the Francis-Gane fight or any of the Jones fights...?

I'm conflating a couple things there, but sure we can stick to Crosby.

He thinks the promotion wanted Sabatello to win 50-45? Why?

He thinks PFL wanted Pacheco to beat Harrison?

Stevie Ray to beat Anthony Pettis?

Lauren Murphy to beat Miesha Tate?

These are fights Crosby has judged in the last few months where it is probably in the best interest of the promoter to have the guy/girl Crosby went against win. There aren't really any other examples of Crosby judging noticeably for the guy the organization would want. This Paddy thing is basically a one-off, unless I'm missing something. I don't see a single other example of Crosby doing something that would help the promotion recently.

I just.. don't see what he's talking about. It's a weird theory, that's all.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

I'm conflating a couple things there, but sure we can stick to Crosby.

He thinks the promotion wanted Sabatello to win 50-45? Why?

He thinks PFL wanted Pacheco to beat Harrison?

Stevie Ray to beat Anthony Pettis?

Lauren Murphy to beat Miesha Tate?

These are fights Crosby has judged in the last few months where it is probably in the best interest of the promoter to have the guy/girl Crosby went against win. There aren't really any other examples of Crosby judging noticeably for the guy the organization would want. This Paddy thing is basically a one-off, unless I'm missing something. I don't see a single other example of Crosby doing something that would help the promotion recently.

I just.. don't see what he's talking about. It's a weird theory, that's all.

Crosby also wasnt the only one who went with Paddy, they all did.

 

[pistolpete11]

I'm conflating a couple things there, but sure we can stick to Crosby.

He thinks the promotion wanted Sabatello to win 50-45? Why?

He thinks PFL wanted Pacheco to beat Harrison?

Stevie Ray to beat Anthony Pettis?

Lauren Murphy to beat Miesha Tate?

These are fights Crosby has judged in the last few months where it is probably in the best interest of the promoter to have the guy/girl Crosby went against win. There aren't really any other examples of Crosby judging noticeably for the guy the organization would want. This Paddy thing is basically a one-off, unless I'm missing something. I don't see a single other example of Crosby doing something that would help the promotion recently.

I just.. don't see what he's talking about. It's a weird theory, that's all.

The only one of those fights I watched was Murphy-Tate and it was a pretty clear win for Murphy. I don't think Ariel is saying he does it every time, but when he does have one of these WTF cards, it seems to be towards the organizations interest. Unless there any examples of him getting the scorecard wrong against the organization's guy/gal?

Ariel is not above making mistakes, of course, but that's a pretty wild accusation to just throw out there without any rationale behind it. It's really not anything new, though. It's been happening in boxing forever. I don't watch a ton of boxing, but Canelo-GGG 1 comes to mind. That was a pretty clear case of protecting the cash cow. If it happens in boxing, why wouldn't it happen in MMA?

If it is just incompetence, why can't the UFC pull the same levers to get rid of these people like they did with Mazzagatti or Yamasaki? It's hurting the product and even more so now with the integrity of the sport being questioned.

 

[m9]

The only one of those fights I watched was Murphy-Tate and it was a pretty clear win for Murphy. I don't think Ariel is saying he does it every time, but when he does have one of these WTF cards, it seems to be towards the organizations interest. Unless there any examples of him getting the scorecard wrong against the organization's guy/gal?

Maybe I'm not being clear. There is literally only one example of Crosby judging in favor of the promotion recently and it's the Paddy fight. He has had many other opportunities to do it - all of which I have listed above - and he hasn't. Is he claiming that he just started doing this Saturday night? Shouldn't he have even one other example if this is what he's going with?

Now compare that to the case that Crosby is just incompetent. He has a history of questionable judging history, including one literally the prior night. And the prior night, there is nothing to suggest a 50-45 Sabatello card did anything to help the promotion.

And then finally, like I and @Tobias Kahun mentioned above - even if you throw away all of that, all 3 judges scored the fight for Paddy. So now are all judges doing this theory Ariel suggested, or is it just Crosby?

It just doesn't make any sense. It's a dumb suggestion by Helwani that he can't even back up. It's not like I just dismissed it as a dumb suggestion immediately, I looked up Crosby's fights and it just doesn't make sense.

Ariel is not above making mistakes, of course, but that's a pretty wild accusation to just throw out there without any rationale behind it. It's really not anything new, though. It's been happening in boxing forever. I don't watch a ton of boxing, but Canelo-GGG 1 comes to mind. That was a pretty clear case of protecting the cash cow. If it happens in boxing, why wouldn't it happen in MMA?

Do you really think the UFC embroiled in a massive betting scandal is going to be involved in anything like this at all right now, and of all thing to protect Paddy Pimblett getting a win? If there was ever a card where Dana just wanted reasonable judging, this was probably it. Probably one of the reasons he was so pissed Saturday night. And we're comparing this situation to one of the biggest boxing matches of the last decade? And again, all 3 judges went the same way?

If it is just incompetence, why can't the UFC pull the same levers to get rid of these people like they did with Mazzagatti or Yamasaki? It's hurting the product and even more so now with the integrity of the sport being questioned.

I've said before that for the most part bad judging doesn't hurt combat sports so they have limited interest in fixing it. Controversy gets people talking and creates rematches. You take some bad along with it as well, but ultimately I wonder how much they care.

You are also talking about refs, not judges. We've seen commissions watch refs who do something dumb early on a card pull them from reffing later fights on the card. I don't know if it's to protect fighters or what, but clearly refs are treated differently. Plus those two guys were punted what, a decade ago? It's not like it's happening every week.

 

[pistolpete11]

Maybe I'm not being clear. There is literally only one example of Crosby judging in favor of the promotion recently and it's the Paddy fight. He has had many other opportunities to do it - all of which I have listed above - and he hasn't. Is he claiming that he just started doing this Saturday night? Shouldn't he have even one other example if this is what he's going with?

Now compare that to the case that Crosby is just incompetent. He has a history of questionable judging history, including one literally the prior night. And the prior night, there is nothing to suggest a 50-45 Sabatello card did anything to help the promotion.

And then finally, like I and @Tobias Kahun mentioned above - even if you throw away all of that, all 3 judges scored the fight for Paddy. So now are all judges doing this theory Ariel suggested, or is it just Crosby?

It just doesn't make any sense. It's a dumb suggestion by Helwani that he can't even back up. It's not like I just dismissed it as a dumb suggestion immediately, I looked up Crosby's fights and it just doesn't make sense.

You're assuming Ariel doesn't have anything to back it up because he didn't offer it up on a podcast. Say what you want about Ariel, but he's about as plugged in as anybody in the business. He talks to a lot of people and hears a lot of things, on and off the record. Again, I'm not saying he's always right, but when he says something like that, I think it's worth considering. He's not some tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist on the internet.

Do you really think the UFC embroiled in a massive betting scandal is going to be involved in anything like this at all right now, and of all thing to protect Paddy Pimblett getting a win? If there was ever a card where Dana just wanted reasonable judging, this was probably it. Probably one of the reasons he was so pissed Saturday night. And we're comparing this situation to one of the biggest boxing matches of the last decade? And again, all 3 judges went the same way?

Do I think they sat down with the commission and said "Score this for Paddy no matter what"? No, of course not.

Do I think it's possible that there is an unsaid understanding that this fighter or that fighter would be better for business? And that in turn, is better for the commission's business? Yes, absolutely.

How does Canelo-GGG being a massive boxing match disprove the point? They are only willing to be corrupt when there are millions more eyeballs on them?

How does 3 judges scoring it the same way disprove the point? Everybody scored it for GGG except the 3 judges. Does that mean they aren't corrupt?

I've said before that for the most part bad judging doesn't hurt combat sports so they have limited interest in fixing it. Controversy gets people talking and creates rematches. You take some bad along with it as well, but ultimately I wonder how much they care.

You are also talking about refs, not judges. We've seen commissions watch refs who do something dumb early on a card pull them from reffing later fights on the card. I don't know if it's to protect fighters or what, but clearly refs are treated differently. Plus those two guys were punted what, a decade ago? It's not like it's happening every week.

Behind there being too many belts and maybe the best fighters not always fighting each other, corrupt judging is one of the most common complaints people have about boxing. Why would you want that in MMA, too?

You don't need shitty judging to do rematches. You can do immediate rematches whenever you want, even if there is a definitive ending. Happens all the time with title fights, but they did it with Poirier-Conor, too.

Yes, I know, refs are treated differently than judges. My point is they shouldn't be. If they are this "incompetent", the UFC should be pressuring the commission to get rid of them, just like they did with those refs.

 

[m9]

You're assuming Ariel doesn't have anything to back it up because he didn't offer it up on a podcast. Say what you want about Ariel, but he's about as plugged in as anybody in the business. He talks to a lot of people and hears a lot of things, on and off the record. Again, I'm not saying he's always right, but when he says something like that, I think it's worth considering. He's not some tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist on the internet.

This is what you posted, so I'm transcribing based on what you wrote:

1. Ariel's speculation (and he made it clear it's complete speculation) is that Crosby is judging fights based on what he thinks the promotion wants.

So first, he made it clear it's only his speculation - this isn't about being plugged in. I totally agree what he says is worth considering, which is why I dug in to see if it's true or not. It would actually make sense as then the promotion would be more likely to want you back, etc. You also said "fights", not just this particular fight. I urge anyone to look at this and determine that there is any history at all to this prior to Saturday:

Douglas Crosby :: Judge :: MMA Decisions

www.mmadecisions.com

The only other fight I see recently that was questionable is MVP/Lima which was an extremely close fight and most people agree could have gone either way. No doubt the promotion would have wanted MVP to win, which is how Crosby scored it. And like I said, a handful where he judged for the person the promotion probably wouldn't want to win. Especially the PFL ones.

Do you think there is evidence to support Ariel's "speculation"?

----

I'm going to leave the rest of the stuff aside, my point was more about Ariel discussing Doug Crosby in particular and his motivations. I agree with a good portion of what you wrote in regards to judging/etc as a whole.

 

[pistolpete11]

This is what you posted, so I'm transcribing based on what you wrote:

1. Ariel's speculation (and he made it clear it's complete speculation) is that Crosby is judging fights based on what he thinks the promotion wants.

So first, he made it clear it's only his speculation - this isn't about being plugged in. I totally agree what he says is worth considering, which is why I dug in to see if it's true or not. It would actually make sense as then the promotion would be more likely to want you back, etc. You also said "fights", not just this particular fight. I urge anyone to look at this and determine that there is any history at all to this prior to Saturday:

Douglas Crosby :: Judge :: MMA Decisions

www.mmadecisions.com

The only other fight I see recently that was questionable is MVP/Lima which was an extremely close fight and most people agree could have gone either way. No doubt the promotion would have wanted MVP to win, which is how Crosby scored it. And like I said, a handful where he judged for the person the promotion probably wouldn't want to win. Especially the PFL ones.

Do you think there is evidence to support Ariel's "speculation"?

----

I'm going to leave the rest of the stuff aside, my point was more about Ariel discussing Doug Crosby in particular and his motivations. I agree with a good portion of what you wrote in regards to judging/etc as a whole.

Yes, speculation. As in he doesn't have the evidence to report it as a fact. That doesn't mean he doesn't have reason to believe it. It could be rumors, it could be his observations, someone else's observations, off the record statements, etc. Otherwise known as speculation.

I don't know if there is evidence to support it, but like I said, the fact that it is Ariel saying it on air, I think it's worth considering. And I don't think checking the last couple months of his judging and saying "There's only 1 instance" is enough to disprove Ariel's point. The guy has been judging UFC fights since 2000(!).

 

[m9]

Yes, speculation. As in he doesn't have the evidence to report it as a fact. That doesn't mean he doesn't have reason to believe it. It could be rumors, it could be his observations, someone else's observations, off the record statements, etc. Otherwise known as speculation.

I don't know if there is evidence to support it, but like I said, the fact that it is Ariel saying it on air, I think it's worth considering. And I don't think checking the last couple months of his judging and saying "There's only 1 instance" is enough to disprove Ariel's point. The guy has been judging UFC fights since 2000(!).

I went back and watched the actual Helwani clip,



He came up with a theory that sounds great but as he said he has no evidence. And the actual evidence - the scorecards - don't back him up. You can go back 10 years and not really find it in regards to the UFC. Lots of close fights, but no scorecards that are out of whack for a guy/girl the UFC would be invested in winning the fight. Most of his dissenting scorecards are for fights nobody even cares about. Keep in mind Crosby first got on the map for an awful scorecard where he had a relatively unknown Frankie Edgar 50-45 over one of the most popular fighters in ufc history, BJ Penn.

If what Ariel's suggesting was true, I need some evidence. Him being one of three judges who scored the fight for Paddy isn't enough. He's extrapolating a ton from very little.

How I see it? Crosby is a weird narcissist who sometimes makes bad decisions and probably isn't a good judge overall. That's a major issue that needs to be fixed.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Yes, speculation. As in he doesn't have the evidence to report it as a fact. That doesn't mean he doesn't have reason to believe it. It could be rumors, it could be his observations, someone else's observations, off the record statements, etc. Otherwise known as speculation.

I don't know if there is evidence to support it, but like I said, the fact that it is Ariel saying it on air, I think it's worth considering. And I don't think checking the last couple months of his judging and saying "There's only 1 instance" is enough to disprove Ariel's point. The guy has been judging UFC fights since 2000(!).

My take is he had no evidence to support it but sort of tied it in with the results and the crowd support. It seems the guy at the very least is incompetent but the other two judges scored it for Paddy as well.

 

[pistolpete11]

I went back and watched the actual Helwani clip,



He came up with a theory that sounds great but as he said he has no evidence. And the actual evidence - the scorecards - don't back him up. You can go back 10 years and not really find it in regards to the UFC. Lots of close fights, but no scorecards that are out of whack for a guy/girl the UFC would be invested in winning the fight. Most of his dissenting scorecards are for fights nobody even cares about. Keep in mind Crosby first got on the map for an awful scorecard where he had a relatively unknown Frankie Edgar 50-45 over one of the most popular fighters in ufc history, BJ Penn.

If what Ariel's suggesting was true, I need some evidence. Him being one of three judges who scored the fight for Paddy isn't enough. He's extrapolating a ton from very little.

How I see it? Crosby is a weird narcissist who sometimes makes bad decisions and probably isn't a good judge overall. That's a major issue that needs to be fixed.

It's not just dissenting cards. As you've pointed out, this Paddy fight was not dissenting.

I also don't know that judging for the UFC's interests is limited to 'bad' cards or screw jobs either. I think almost always giving the UFC-preferred fighter the benefit of doubt falls in that category, too. GSP-Hendricks, Jones-Reyes, more recently O'Malley-Yan. The list goes on and on. Since I've been watching, I can't think of any UFC stars getting screwed and very few where they didn't get the benefit of doubt in a "this could have really gone either way" type of fight. Volk-Max 2 is all that comes immediately to mind. Edit: GDR-Holly as well. Probably the closest I've seen to a UFC star getting screwed by a non-star.

Listening to that clip again, he does say it's not just Crosby as well.

 

[m9]

It's not just dissenting cards. As you've pointed out, this Paddy fight was not dissenting.

I also don't know that judging for the UFC's interests is limited to 'bad' cards or screw jobs either. I think almost always giving the UFC-preferred fighter the benefit of doubt falls in that category, too. GSP-Hendricks, Jones-Reyes, more recently O'Malley-Yan. The list goes on and on. Since I've been watching, I can't think of any UFC stars getting screwed and very few where they didn't get the benefit of doubt in a "this could have really gone either way" type of fight. Volk-Max 2 is all that comes immediately to mind. Edit: GDR-Holly as well. Probably the closest I've seen to a UFC star getting screwed by a non-star.

Listening to that clip again, he does say it's not just Crosby as well.

If he's saying this as a general thing where judges tend to favour stars, then that's fine. I could see that. This whole thing seemed different than that though to me - more about Crosby specifically. If it wasn't, then fair enough.

 

[pistolpete11]

If he's saying this as a general thing where judges tend to favour stars, then that's fine. I could see that. This whole thing seemed different than that though to me - more about Crosby specifically. If it wasn't, then fair enough.

Crosby was certainly the catalyst given his horrific weekend (and long term reputation) and I probably didn't help things at the beginning of our discussion, but yeah...Ariel says in that clip it's not just Crosby.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Crosby was certainly the catalyst given his horrific weekend (and long term reputation) and I probably didn't help things at the beginning of our discussion, but yeah...Ariel says in that clip it's not just Crosby.

Ariel brought up another great point and it's scoring fights based on damage, and how subjective it is. If you look at both guys' faces post-fight and nothing else, it appears Paddy got the better of him. The trend also seems to move away from takedowns, submission attempts, control time, and pretty much anything that happens during clinching. I feel like most of that stuff is being ignored in many recent fights.

 

[pistolpete11]

Ariel brought up another great point and it's scoring fights based on damage, and how subjective it is. If you look at both guys' faces post-fight and nothing else, it appears Paddy got the better of him. The trend also seems to move away from takedowns, submission attempts, control time, and pretty much anything that happens during clinching. I feel like most of that stuff is being ignored in many recent fights.

To muddy the waters even further, Big John said that they actually don't use the word 'damage' and instead use 'impact'. He wanted to use damage, but they said it sounded too barbaric or something along those lines.

It's definitely a problem that it is so open to interpretation. It's almost like they want it to be vague because then they could justify a lot of different scorecards...

 

[pistolpete11]

MK talking about the Crosby situation.

Apparently the Mohegan Commission is going to review the Bellator card with him as a "learning moment". Sounds like bullshit if you ask me, but at least it's something I guess.

Luke and BC both seem to agree that it is a mix of incompetence and soft corruption. Luke compares it to politics where somebody works in an administration and then when that's up, end up with cushy jobs at Goldman Sachs or Big Tech. Like the line of politics/big business have been blurred, so has the line between promoter/commission.

They also bring up why the UFC doesn't lean on the commission like they did to get rid of Mazzagatti. They think the commission basically did Dana a solid by agreeing to sanction the slap fighting shit. So Dana's not going to go out there and put the commission on blast now. Like I said in my initial post on this topic, though, if it was just incompetence and decisions were routinely going against the UFC's interests, I think there might be a little bit different of an attitude from the UFC/Dana.



And @m9, I was watching something else on the NYSAC. They happened to mention that Crosby was one of the judges for Silva-Brunson. So there's at least 1 other example of Crosby specifically getting a card terribly wrong in favor of the UFC's interests.

 

[m9]

MK talking about the Crosby situation.

Apparently the Mohegan Commission is going to review the Bellator card with him as a "learning moment". Sounds like bullshit if you ask me, but at least it's something I guess.

Luke and BC both seem to agree that it is a mix of incompetence and soft corruption. Luke compares it to politics where somebody works in an administration and then when that's up, end up with cushy jobs at Goldman Sachs or Big Tech. Like the line of politics/big business have been blurred, so has the line between promoter/commission.

Watched this yesterday and generally agreed with them. I'm paraphrasing a bit here but I think they kind of went with incompetence for Crosby and then layered in some bias/corruption stuff overall in judging which I totally agree with and some of that applies to Crosby as well.

And @m9, I was watching something else on the NYSAC. They happened to mention that Crosby was one of the judges for Silva-Brunson. So there's at least 1 other example of Crosby specifically getting a card terribly wrong in favor of the UFC's interests.

29-28 Silva (giving Brunson Rd 1) isn't terrible or anything there, at least from what I recall. Really close fight & I think I had it for Brunson.. but no issues with this one because at least he judged the rounds semi-correctly as opposed to Saturday when he gave Paddy Round 1.

I wonder just based on limited evidence if this judging issue is more tied to the old phrase you see sometimes which is "you have to beat the champ to be the champ" which lots of people still go by. Only these judges aren't just applying it to champs, they are applying it to popular fighters. This is distinct from Ariel's wording about judges just doing what the promotion/Dana White wants. The fight I think of is Jones/Reyes. Close fight, but the champ/favored guy pulls it off. I don't think the UFC/Dana White wanted Jones to win - they would have loved an undefeated guy likes Reyes to win that one. But the judges sided with the star/champ/favorite.

I feel like we get that Reyes/Jones scenario a bit too much in MMA. Maybe it's just how I remember it, I don't know.

 

[pistolpete11]

29-28 Silva (giving Brunson Rd 1) isn't terrible or anything there, at least from what I recall. Really close fight & I think I had it for Brunson.. but no issues with this one because at least he judged the rounds semi-correctly as opposed to Saturday when he gave Paddy Round 1.

I wonder just based on limited evidence if this judging issue is more tied to the old phrase you see sometimes which is "you have to beat the champ to be the champ" which lots of people still go by. Only these judges aren't just applying it to champs, they are applying it to popular fighters. This is distinct from Ariel's wording about judges just doing what the promotion/Dana White wants. The fight I think of is Jones/Reyes. Close fight, but the champ/favored guy pulls it off. I don't think the UFC/Dana White wanted Jones to win - they would have loved an undefeated guy likes Reyes to win that one. But the judges sided with the star/champ/favorite.

I feel like we get that Reyes/Jones scenario a bit too much in MMA. Maybe it's just how I remember it, I don't know.

I remember pretty much everybody thinking that was a dogshit decision. Looking at MMADecisions now, I was surprised to see even 4 media members give it to Anderson. Still, 20 scored it for Brunson and if you look at the round by round fan scoring, 61.5% gave Brunson R1 and 69.5% gave him R3. R2 was the only close 1. Normally, I don't care what the fans say, but if anything, they would be skewed towards Anderson.

To Crosby's credit I guess, at least he didn't score it 30-27 Anderson like Colon or only gave R2 to Brunson like Cleary.

I don't think the UFC wanted Reyes to win that fight. They've obviously had issues with Jones, but he's been 1 of the most consistent PPV stars, was consistently fighting at that time, and there was a lot of talk about a Jones-Izzy or Jones-Stipe/Francis super fight, both of which would have lost a lot of shine if Jones lost. Maybe that would be different if they knew Jones was going to vacate and be off for 3 years, but at the time, I don't buy that at all. Some of the "gotta beat the champ" stuff, maybe, but not the UFC preferring Reyes.

 

[m9]

I remember pretty much everybody thinking that was a dogshit decision. Looking at MMADecisions now, I was surprised to see even 4 media members give it to Anderson. Still, 20 scored it for Brunson and if you look at the round by round fan scoring, 61.5% gave Brunson R1 and 69.5% gave him R3. R2 was the only close 1. Normally, I don't care what the fans say, but if anything, they would be skewed towards Anderson.

To Crosby's credit I guess, at least he didn't score it 30-27 Anderson like Colon or only gave R2 to Brunson like Cleary.

Not going to bother debating, like I said I scored it for Brunson but it was a close fight. Good example of the star getting favored. Good review of the fight here, which I generally agree with.

Retro Robbery Review: Anderson Silva vs. Derek Brunson at UFC 208

We take a look at controversial fights and decide whether they are truly worthy of the term "robbery."

www.mmafighting.com

I don't think the UFC wanted Reyes to win that fight. They've obviously had issues with Jones, but he's been 1 of the most consistent PPV stars, was consistently fighting at that time, and there was a lot of talk about a Jones-Izzy or Jones-Stipe/Francis super fight, both of which would have lost a lot of shine if Jones lost. Maybe that would be different if they knew Jones was going to vacate and be off for 3 years, but at the time, I don't buy that at all. Some of the "gotta beat the champ" stuff, maybe, but not the UFC preferring Reyes.

Disagree. An undefeated Mexican/American fighter knocking off the GOAT is something that makes Reyes a star even though we can probably guess it doesn't last based on what happened after. You get a rematch - which would be a massive - and then you go from there. But all good, I can see both sides.

Kind of funny, was reading about this fight earlier and found a funny comment from Dana White in the press after Jones/Reyes which kind of touches on everything we've been discussing here:

---
The scoring was all over the map," he stated. "Joe Silva, the former matchmaker had it a draw. Going into the last round, I had Dominick Reyes 3-1. My kids are terrorizing me that 'the fix is in, how can this happen? Reyes won.' People have it all over the place. The reality is, who gives a shit, we're not judges. They called the fight. As far as the judging and reffing tonight, do I think it was perfect? I do not. We need to do some work down here. It's never going to be perfect, but it has to be close."

He continued, "The powers that be and the commission have to realize that there were mistakes made. These things are going to happen, nothing is perfect, but it's something we have to work on. But in the Reyes fight, it was so over the map. I talked to guys who said 'you can't run in the last two rounds and take the title from the champ.' You have people that think a lot of different ways and how they score the fight. It all depends on the way you judge a fight and it doesn't f***ing matter. We're not judges. It was a badass fight. Both of these guys are tough as nails."
--

 

[pistolpete11]

Not going to bother debating, like I said I scored it for Brunson but it was a close fight. Good example of the star getting favored. Good review of the fight here, which I generally agree with.

Retro Robbery Review: Anderson Silva vs. Derek Brunson at UFC 208

We take a look at controversial fights and decide whether they are truly worthy of the term "robbery."

www.mmafighting.com

Disagree. An undefeated Mexican/American fighter knocking off the GOAT is something that makes Reyes a star even though we can probably guess it doesn't last based on what happened after. You get a rematch - which would be a massive - and then you go from there. But all good, I can see both sides.

Kind of funny, was reading about this fight earlier and found a funny comment from Dana White in the press after Jones/Reyes which kind of touches on everything we've been discussing here:

---
The scoring was all over the map," he stated. "Joe Silva, the former matchmaker had it a draw. Going into the last round, I had Dominick Reyes 3-1. My kids are terrorizing me that 'the fix is in, how can this happen? Reyes won.' People have it all over the place. The reality is, who gives a shit, we're not judges. They called the fight. As far as the judging and reffing tonight, do I think it was perfect? I do not. We need to do some work down here. It's never going to be perfect, but it has to be close."

He continued, "The powers that be and the commission have to realize that there were mistakes made. These things are going to happen, nothing is perfect, but it's something we have to work on. But in the Reyes fight, it was so over the map. I talked to guys who said 'you can't run in the last two rounds and take the title from the champ.' You have people that think a lot of different ways and how they score the fight. It all depends on the way you judge a fight and it doesn't f***ing matter. We're not judges. It was a badass fight. Both of these guys are tough as nails."
--

It would have boosted Reyes and a rematch would have done better than the first 1, but it's not anywhere close to what Jones-Izzy/Stipe/Francis would have done (and still might do).

Whatever they do, don't hire Joe Silva as a judge. Scoring that fight a draw is a worse card than giving it to Jones.

 

[m9]

It would have boosted Reyes and a rematch would have done better than the first 1, but it's not anywhere close to what Jones-Izzy/Stipe/Francis would have done (and still might do).

Whatever they do, don't hire Joe Silva as a judge. Scoring that fight a draw is a worse card than giving it to Jones.

I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant "a draw" going into the last round.. because yeah, that's bad.

 

[N o o d l e s]

Until you realize he’s in Volkanovski’s division

Honestly think Volk is probably his worst style matchup in the division too, he’s gonna need Volk to beat Islam and forfeit the 145

https://x.com/ufcrosterwatch/status/1711483202999611679?s=46&t=AUHWGUH9eFItA7rxY1KrFQ

Looks like my future bet is gonna be 20 days too late

 

[CDJ]

https://x.com/ufcrosterwatch/status/1711483202999611679?s=46&t=AUHWGUH9eFItA7rxY1KrFQ

Looks like my future bet is gonna be 20 days too late

That’s gonna be a wild fight

Feel like you may be on to something now, winds of change have been in the air

 

[N o o d l e s]

That’s gonna be a wild fight

Feel like you may be on to something now, winds of change have been in the air

It’s gonna be wild! Hope it’s true