Thread Tools

Display Modes

ag8416 · 01-13-2010, 12:08 PM

This is more for anyone who watches A LOT of ufc fights.
There are certain fights where the results freak me out. For example, my jaw dropped when i seen that Couture was awarded the win over Vera. I guess that's the main reason why i dont do any sports gambling.
Anyways, are there ever major fights (in the UFC specifically) when a decision win is awarded to the underdog when it seemed like the fight was super close? Hopefully you guys will discuss fights that happened in the last 6-7 years.

thanks

ag

**Xerxes** · 01-13-2010, 12:16 PM

Youre asking a very good question sir.

I do believe that the betting odds (big favorite vs big underdog) and fighters status (champ vs challenger, contender vs gatekeeper) have somewhat of an influence over the judges scorecards. There are SO MANY examples to back up this point (especially lately).

You may find the exception to the rule (Rampage vs Forrest?) but most of the time, that's what I'm seeing tbqh.

Repped

Ps: you dont just see it in the UFC but in most if not all MMA orgs. Pride was far worse with the biased reffing and judging imo.

ag8416 · 01-13-2010, 12:42 PM

so for rampage vs forest, rampage was considered the underdog by ODDS MAKERS?? I am not talking about "champ vs challenger" so much as odds makers decision. For example, odds makers still had machida as the favorite and evans as their underdog, so if their fight went to a decision (and for arugments sake lets say it was a close match), would the judges favor machida or evans or would there not be any favoritism. I guess a crap example would be vanderlei vs lidell. Anyone (besides helen keller and others in her circumstanses)knows that lidell didn't win ALL three rounds. However one judge gave him all three rounds. Keep in mind lidell was the favorite by odds makers.

**Xerxes** · 01-13-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ag8416

so for rampage vs forest, rampage was considered the underdog by ODDS MAKERS?? I am not talking about "champ vs challenger" so much as odds makers decision.

Alright I see.

For the Rampage vs Forrest example I was rather talking from a champ vs challenger's pov. But Rampage was ALSO a very big betting favorite so the point still remains that that fight in particular could be viewed as 'an exception to the rule'.

Quote:

For example, odds makers still had machida as the favorite and evans as their underdog, so if their fight went to a decision (and for arugments sake lets say it was a close match), would the judges favor machida or evans or would there not be any favoritism.

Tbh I have no clue about this one. If I have to answer, Id say they would favor the champ Rashad (+ Machida wasn't that big of a favorite odds wise).

Quote:

I guess a crap example would be vanderlei vs lidell. Anyone (besides helen keller and others in her circumstanses)knows that lidell didn't win ALL three rounds. However one judge gave him all three rounds. Keep in mind lidell was the favorite by odds makers.

Just wondering, why are you only considering betting odds for your argument?

There are other factors that come into play imo and I listed some of them.

munkie · 01-13-2010, 01:19 PM

The way I see it, the household name or the champ is gifted the decision as soon as the fight it signed. The less established challenger needs to come out and seriously impress to even squeek out the decision. Look at Shogun/Machida. Clearly Shogun won the fight, but wasn't convincing. Or he couldn't force Machida to deviate from his gameplan. I don't really agree with your views on the Vera/Couture fight. To be honest, I don't really remember the fight at all, I just know I can't stand Vera so I automatically agree with anyone that has a win of him.

**Xerxes** · 01-13-2010, 01:33 PM

Not to turn this into another 'Shogun vs Machida' or 'Shogunz got robbed!!1' thread but I do believe Lyoto being the defending champion, heavy odds favorite and his hype coming into the fight got him the nod on the judges scorecards.

When youre the heavy underdog, challenger, gatekeeper or a nobody, you have to do a lot more than your opponent to get the decision from the judges. If the fight is very close and 'could go either way' well, very often you'll end up being on the wrong side of a decision

Edit: Randy vs Vera is the same case. If Vera was the one with the big name.. he'd have gotten the decision imo.

munkie · 01-13-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxes

When you're the heavy underdog, challenger, gatekeeper or a nobody, you have to do a lot more than your opponent to get the decision from the judges. If the fight is very close and 'could go either way' well, very often you'll end up being on the wrong side of a decision

That's pretty much what I was saying when I say, "The big name is gifted a decision upon signing the fight."

ag8416 · 01-13-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxes

Just wondering, why are you only considering betting odds for your argument?

because i was wondering if i should start betting money on fights; i dont want to put money on fights if a dude does great in a fight yet loses on the score cards due to "other" reasons

**HitOrGetHit** · 01-13-2010, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ag8416

because i was wondering if i should start betting money on fights; i dont want to put money on fights if a dude does great in a fight yet loses on the score cards due to "other" reasons

You should have said that in your topic. It would have changed the responses from the get go.

BobbyCooper · 01-13-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ag8416

because i was wondering if i should start betting money on fights; i dont want to put money on fights if a dude does great in a fight yet loses on the score cards due to "other" reasons

lol this will always be an issue in Sportsbetting. Just look at the recent Soccer scandal. Did it reached the MMA World yet?

hope not!