Breadfan

I don't know how to better explain it... so hear me out here.

A split decision means that 2 judges think that after adding all 3 rounds points together, Fighter A wins, but a 3rd judge thinks that after adding round points together Fighter B wins.


Since judging from ALL 3 Judges should be completely unbiased and each judge should be following the exact same guidelines, a split decision should never happen.

__________________

Thanks to
D.P. For the Sig!

Favorite Fighters:
Donatello
Leonardo
Raphael
Michelangelo

Damone

Quarry beat the shit out of another great ground fighter, with ease, mind you.

30-27 for The Stone.

__________________

HexRei

It was a close fight, and while I think Quarry won (I am a big fan, he is a hometown guy and I have even met him and got pics n stuff) he looked a lot more beat up than Credeur. I feel it was close and it's silly to say he wont with ease.

__________________
His helmet was stifling, it narrowed his vision. And he must see far. His shield was heavy. It threw him off balance. And his target is far away.

Nomale

Awesome! I laughed out loud at the "gameboy for when fights go to the ground"!

G0K0S

Really guys? lol

To help the other guy out with explaining it....

There are 3 judges who score all 3 rounds of the fight. Forget how they score each specific round. 2 judges say that fighter A wins the fight and 1 judge thinks fighter B won the fight, then it is a split decision. Meaning the decision of the winner was split between judges. If they all pick the same fighter; that means all judges unanimously came to the same conclusion (about who won... doesn't mean they all had the same score). It wasn't split. We're not talking about rounds here. Just the pure outcome of the fight.

Couchwarrior

Every once in a while, somebody on this forum expresses the opinion that a fight should have been ruled a split decision, and it always fascinates me to think of any reasons how that could be possible.

Might it because no two judges are ever sitting at the exact same place at the same time, so because they are watching the fight from slightly different angles, it should have seemed to one of the judges like the other guy scored more points, and because he should be impartial, he thus should have given the win to the wrong guy?

Or did one of the fighters many years ago save the life of one of the judges' first born son, making it morally acceptable for that judge to score the fight in that fighter's favor in case there was even the slightest doubt that the other fighter won the fight?

Or, is it the posting member who is suffering from dissociative identity disorder, and one of his identities, a teenager with dreams of becoming a professional MMA fighter, scored a lot of points for takedowns and submission attempts, while his other identity, a middle aged boxing enthusiast who enjoys collecting stamps, only scored the standup?

__________________
"I don't think you can underestimate the amount of motivation that Quinton Jackson will have coming back here and fighting in Japan." - Joe Rogan

Breadfan

I don't mean to insult any of the posters, I just want to make sure they understand what a split decision is.

__________________

Thanks to
D.P. For the Sig!

Favorite Fighters:
Donatello
Leonardo
Raphael
Michelangelo

GMK13

best thing i have ever seen.