http://www.moneytreedreams.com

This is a wild site i like it. I will rss feed your site

@ steampunk22 - Hey great job on looking it up. You must be the least lazy dude on here. I didn't even look it up, but I would have shat myself if there was a 10-7 round. And you are right they should have been straight 10-0 scores. Or rather he should have been DQ'd in round 2 for avoiding contact.

@macreadysshack - be careful with that thing. You don't want your ghost sperm swimming up some ghost vag, you could end up with some unexpected little spooks running around.

@Ben
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I probably am) but isn't the UFC under a 10 point "must" system? (I've heard Goldie say this on a few occasions...although that doesn't mean much) And the judges are not even able to give 10-10's to begin with?

If this is the case, then the problem lies with the commissions and their league of decision-makers. Hamilton is exempt from responsibility, and simply stating what he can and cannot do.

If this is not the case, then yeah, eff him for being a pussy about it. A pussy who has a cool job he doesn't want to lose in a shitty economy, but a pussy never-the-less.

@Ghostboner

The Starnes/Quarry fight was scored 30-24, 30-26, 30-27. So the lowest scoring was 10-8 on average, which is FUCKED. I never actually bothered to look that up, but holy wow is that ever messed up.

That just gave me a ghostboner.

Why the hell do we have 10 points when only the last 2 ever get used??? When has anyone ever got a 10-7 or a 10-6 or below? Has anyone ever seen it happen in professional mma? Even if you get absolutely owned the worst you can expect is a 10-8. Anyone remember the score on the Kalib Starnes vs Nate Quarry fight? Why don't we go to a 2 point system with the winner getting 2 points? Or better yet the judges just call every round a win loss or draw?

I agree with Cp in that the judges need to call more 10-10 rounds. However, I am also glad that Doc spoke up. It is bullshit that he has to worry about falling on his sword by calling the fight the way he saw it. The only reason he should have to worry is if he is completely uninformed and repeatedly making flagrant bad calls.(Cecil Peoples) To me having the Athletic commission influence him, by discouraging him from scoring the fight accurately, is unethical. Maybe not on the same level as fixing fights, but still unethical. And the politics behind this would not be discussed or brought to light if he does not pipe up about it.

Haha, yeah, no douchers or that guy who uses ridiculous latin and lawyer-ese BS to hide his lack of critical thinking skillz!

Huzzah for today!

@steampunk: lick my balled area

@Organ @Macready

Maybe getting balled by CP ain't so bad? It would be Mr. Sexy Fowlkes after all! Even if he does sort of look like the Alien wearing the Exterminator's skin from the first Men In Black.

This was a strangely polite thread, kind of nice actually!

Hurray for fights on Saturday!

LOL Organ Donor

@macreadysshack

Thanks for the disgusting mental image of CP* balling my mother.

Paternity or not, CP* definitely balled me. That's enough to make me want to ball.

*due to an unfortunate coincidence, Cage Potato and, pardon the expression, Cecil Peoples share the same acronym. The above CP refers to, pardon the expression, Cecil Peoples.

@Organ Donor

Is Cecil Peoples your father?

If, so, you WERE molested by him.

I like the diversity of judges idea. Maybe it should include some current or former pro MMA fighters.

I won money on the Machida vs Rua fight, but nonetheless was left feeling vaguely like I had been molested by my father.

@denver_rolling

more judges would be a good thing, averaging more scores together would minimize the mistakes of any one judge. Maybe 5 or even 7 judges would be a good thing.

But lets not forget the Machida v Rua fight was a unanimous decision, its not like it was a close split, every single judge at ring side thought Machida won. not disagreeing, just saying.

@ csuders,

I think thats why I always assumed that the judges had monitors.


The commentary booth has monitors!

I saw on some website awhile ago an idea to add more judges.

I think his idea was to have a grappling expert, a boxing expert, the ref's decision, + 4 standard judges all having an equal voice in determining the winner. The panel's majority (there would have to be one) would dictate the loss/win/draw.

I thought that was the best idea i've seen for awhile. I mean really, how much can you pick apart the point system itself. 9.5-10? 9-10? Why not make it 1000 pts so you can rate a round 914 to 1000 to be really REALLY accurate. It can only be so good with points. Get a bigger panel and wider variety of experts!

@ Organ Donor

Bah! BALD! Ya happy now? I'm still hung over from the past week. Its lucky I'm even at work to surf CP!

"[Dana White] is the balled guy."
- csuders

Does that mean he has balls, or got balled?

- submitted by Organ Donor in the absence of anything useful or enlightening to say.

@ csuders: Nice.

+1000 for polite and intelligent discourse.

+1000 for shin kicking people in the face.

Damn, we have it all.

kudos for admitting when you're wrong. i agree that .5's would be stupid, and the AC needs to let them judge a round 10-10 without any flack.

as far as monitors, DW is the freaking president of the UFC and has just as good a seat as the judges. ever notice him in the background during a fight? he's easy to see, he's the balled guy in the expensive suit, and all you see is the top of his shiny head cause hes always looking down at the monitor by his feet, even if they're trading blows right in front of him!

@Steampunk22 Yeah, it could be done SO much better! I wonder if he'll get an ass-chewing or just outright fired for saying what he said.

Agreed on this all being sketchy territory.

These commissions won't tolerate chinks in their armor so I wouldn't be surprised if Hamilton is out of a job.

Big John . . . Yes.

"Judges don't have monitors??? ..."

I thought that same thing. I never really watched the judges, I just assumed that they did.

I agree with having monitor feeds from all the cameras available.
I'm also glad we finally got replay, despite mazz immediately charging in from the yard to lift his leg and spray it.

I dont really get the half points deal though. It might just over complicate things.
I dont want to think about the trouble we'd be asking for by arming cecil peoples with decimal points.

@Maccreadyshack

Well we definitely agree that is in awkward step. I think thats sort of my problem with it, although maybe it has to start somewhere.

I dont think discourse is a bad idea, it almost never is, but I would just like to see it done correctly I guess. You know, with the people that actually get to MAKE the decisions.

If Hamilton wants to balls up and talk shit about the way things are run, he should do his part by judging fights PROPERLY without his personal interests determining the results. Thats the real problem that I have with his statements. All glory, no guts. I get that he's probably got a wife and kids and all that, but he's involved in a billion dollar industry, in fact, he DETERMINES THE OUTCOMES OF FIGHTS BY JUDGING THEM. He is admitting that he lets his personal feelings alter the way he casts his score, in a sport that people GAMBLE on. This is pretty sketchy territory.

Somethings gotta give. I guess employing judges that are passionate about their work is out of the question....

God I miss Big John.

Judges don't have monitors??? It all makes sense now.

I discussed an almost identicle idea with a mate a few months ago; making it a 20 point system and giving close rounds 20-19 and allowing judges to score dominant rounds more easily. The 10 point system does leave little room to manouver. You've got to really put a beating on someone to get a 10-8 or 10-7 round which is not easy with high level competition, and if you do dish out that kind of damage, then the fight's probably pretty close to being stopped anyway.

I thought the 10 point must system was that you had to give one person 10 and the other less than that because they didn't want a lot of fights ending in draws. Probably becasue it makes it easier to establish rankings if there's a definite winner and loser. If you look back at the early UFCs, they didn't have judges, then they brought them in but they only had a vote to win/lose/draw. And then we got the rounds and 10 point must.

If there have been this many complaints, then it is time to have another look at the system because it's failing. I don't think it would hurt to try the 20 point system and see how much difference it would make. As a quick check, get people to re-watch some close fights like Machida/Shogun, Rampage/Forrest, Forrest/Tito or Bisping/Hamil. What say ye potato nation?

How in the fuck is a judge allowed to "miss a round"?

Why the fuck didn't me mention "missing a round" before?

Has cecil peoples been missing every round all these years and just never bothered to mention it?

"Oh yeah, no. I haven't seen a round in years. I didn't think it was that important."

xs

@robthom

Haha, I think he's missed entire fights.

Haha, Steampunk22, I was thinking that BF was being idealistic. Funny to hear your opposite take on it.

On this topic, though, we disagree.

"Don't get me wrong, I think changes are needed, but admitting faults should be done privately, within the organization."

I think this awkward step toward disclosure is good. I think one of the biggest problems with these commissions is that they are WAY too private.

Let's have some discourse. Let's see some people inside admit things need to be changed. It might not be pretty but it's a step in the right direction.

"I like balls."

- macreadysshack, in a recent post that I (mostly) agree with.

I for one, would like to see Hamilton get some support from the community. He works for a super political unilaterally acting athletic commission. Him speaking up is like some upper level North Korean politician speaking out against their Dear Leader. It takes balls to speak up. I like balls.

@Ben @Goat

Ben is right, GOAT is idealistic but wrong. Its easy to come up with proposals and rule changes when you dont actually have to hold any of the responsibility when those changes fail. Hamilton probably wants to help, but he is acting out of turn, and a bad suggestion is arguably worse than NO suggestion. I agree with Mr. Sexy Fowlkes. And not just because he's sexy.

The judges are afraid to judge, this is the problem, as Ben has said. I agree with this. How could you not? Whenever you have officials in any sport or organization afraid to make decisions because they are worried of how it will affect their career, that they dont want to stand their ground, it brings the whole sport down. And now he comes out with a bunch of excuses and said he make a mistake on a fight that has all ready been concluded, thats a bit of a professional faux pas anyways.

Also, since there is no current appeal of the scoring of this fight, or the result, it is WAY out of line for a judge to step up and volunteer the information that he made the wrong decision. In a sport with a precarious grasp on legitimate reffing, it doesnt really help to expose the judging as being flawed as well, especially WAY after the fact. ESPECIALLY since there is already a rematch on the horizon, there just isn't really any point. And for him to offer the info is just retarded.

Don't get me wrong, I think changes are needed, but admitting faults should be done privately, within the organization.

I am also of the opinion that this ridiculous and never ending bullshit would have been solved if this fight had simply been a SPLIT DECISION. You can pretty argue for Machida for the first three rounds, just as easily as you could argue the last three for Rua, with the 3rd round obviously being the swing vote. Rua won the last two, no argument there, but it lends to a slight audience bias.

In the words of the great Hedonism Bot: "I have never seen an Opera, but if you can keep me entertained through the Overture, I will consider it a success".


Anyways, you can't give Hamilton credit for admitting he "made a mistake" when he goes on to say his number one priority is job security and that influences the decisions that he makes. Sorry boys, can't have it both ways.

This isn't boxing, give me a ten count

Organ Donor Says:
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 10:59

I dunno - I'm just an unfrozen caveman.



+1

I agree with GOat on this. At least the guy admitted that he made a mistake, tried to explain why as best he could and suggested improvements. Giving him shit for doing so just seems kinda childish and petty. Now if it's Cecil Peoples, who tells us fans that we can "go to hell" if we don't like his decisions, feel free to bash away.

I had kinda always assumed that judges had monitors. I mean, Rogan and Goldy do. Are they saying that the commentator's roles are more important than that of the judges' in a fight?

@ Goat:Hamilton is an employee of the athletic commission, so while it's nice that he has spoken candidly and thoughtfully about the problems in MMA judging, he doesn't actually have the power to change anything. (If you read the Yahoo! article, you'll see that Keith Kizer has no interest in improving the status quo.)What Hamilton *does* have the power to do is judge fights more accurately — in the current system, that would mean giving more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds.  But he won't do that because it's a political minefield.  So eff him.

The ref has the best seat in the house. He's right there, unobstructed. Perhaps it breaches some kind of holy bureaucratic separation, but isn't it silly that the ref doesn't have input? Maybe as an adviser to the judges? I dunno - I'm just an unfrozen caveman.

Good for Doc Hamilton for admitting he's wrong. Shame on CP for giving him shit for being afraid to call a 10-10 round. If he's right in that it would get him fired, then what's the point of doing it? It would result in him being replaced by someone else who doesn't have the balls to call a round 10-10, and what would be gained? The problem is in the scoring system itself, and the assumption that 10-10 rounds are bad.

I can't believe the judges don't use TV monitors. Even the commentators who have seats in a similar position as the judges use the TV feed to call the action.

So a judge comes forward, says the system needs to change, makes some suggestions (some not so great), and then makes a truthful statement about the political structure he is working in and CP rips him for it?

CP, I like your silly banter and blatant insults most of the time, but this is a stretch. Why rip the guy for actually making an effort to make things change? It's not 'exactly' how you guys would like it, but it's a step in the right direction.

You guys should stop making statements as if you have such a steady hand on the pulse of the hardcore mma fan. Because, really, you don't, and you're simply an entertaining website that makes internet and sex jokes.

i've always thought monitors should be used the TV cameras usually have the best angles. judges need to give more 10-8 rds to differentiate between a clearly won rd and a squeaker.

personally I just say watch the fight and a pick a winner, nobody likes draws but if its too close to call, call it a draw.

im SURE they can come up with a good scoring system! i know i could!

"The use of half-point scores is clearly not the answer."

Reading the article, it sounded like a better alternative than what we have now. Hamilton sounds like a guy i'd like to keep in the business: he sees a problem, and points it out in an intelligent manner. Plus, he's willing to admit that he made a mistake. (You hear that, Peoples?)

Using fractional points is kinda like how Churchill endorsed democracy--it's not great, but it's better than all that other silly shit we've tried so far.

at least he knows he is wrong. if i were going to change the scoring, i would make it much easier for things like 10-8, 10-7 etc to occur. ive seen some dominant rounds, and they are all 10-9s and MAYBE a 10-8 if the opponent did absolutely nothing. if he did nothing, he should get a 10-0. if he did a tenth of the victor, a 10-1, etc. if he did 9 tenths of the victo, then its a 10-9. ONLY THEN. if its impossible to tell, PLEASE a 10-10. have overtime rounds or something. besides, a draw isnt a terrible thing.

It's hardly transparent but I'll take translucent, at this point.