How do three out of three judges make a decision that nobody, including probably his family and friends watching the fight, agreed with? I agree with Jamie Penick's analysis that while Shogun Rua clearly fought the better fight and did more damage throughout, it wasn't such a blowaway win that it's the biggest outrage in UFC history.
If I had to make a case for Machida and a defense of the judges' decision, it'd have to rely on the argument that a champion deserves preferential treatment. It's like the "tie goes to the runner" in baseball taken up a notch.
Machida didn't "get beat," as Jamie said earlier, he was outscored. Rua was just conservative enough throughout the fight to not lose, but also not win. Dana White has said it numerous times to fighters - don't leave it in the hands of the judges. Rua looked content to leave it in the hands of the judges instead of going for the kill. It's a lesson to all challengers in the future, in lieu of a major change in how UFC instructs judges to score fights, that they need to take it to the champion.
Again, I'm stretching here simply to make a case defending the judges here, even though I'd have scored the fight for Rua and think he deserves to be champion today. Continuing on that path, if you believe that all champions had to overcome the same bias toward the previous champion, then what seems unfair when looking at an isolated fight becomes fair in the big picture. Machida decisively won his title. He didn't edge out a majority of rounds and rely on judges. So his challenger should have to face the same steep requirement to capture the belt.
In a way, if you're a fan of aggressive fights where challengers have to take it to the champion and not sit back with the equivalent of a 3-2 lead in baseball going into the ninth, then last night's judges' decision is good for your enjoyment of the sport.
While Shogun overall was more aggressive and scored more and punished more, Machida's few high points stood above anything Rua did. Machida did go all out for a KO more than Shogun did.
The key is not to be coy about the rules. Fans and fighters deserve to have UFC declare that challengers can't eek out the equivalent of a 6-3 football score. They need to go for touchdowns, not run out the clock or settle for fieldgoals. As long as everyone is clear on that, then our jaws won't be dropped in the future when three judges see a fight differently than pretty much the rest of the universe. It'd be clearly built into the rules - champions have to be beat, and a slight-edge in a five-round near-stalemate doesn't lead to a title change.
I wonder if last night's fight wasn't a title fight, but instead was between two challengers trying to earn a title shot, if the judges' would have scored it differently?
===
Wade Keller is the Supervising Editor and Founder of MMATorch.com. He has covered MMA for the Torch since before UFC existed, including Japanese shoot-fight cards such as Pancrase in the early 1990s, plus all of the early UFC PPV events (some of those reports can be found in the MMATorch Flashbacks category). He covered the first UFC event in Las Vegas in person in 2001 and Brock Lesnar's recent return to his hometown Minneapolis when he defeated "Crazyhorse" Heath Herring. He has interviewed Dana White, Mike Goldberg, the original UFC match-maker Art Davie, and others in MMA over the years. He has also been interviewed as an MMA reporter by major newspapers dating back to the mid-1990s. He has trained in karate, judo, and jiu jitsu, with over 12 years of formal martial arts training and tournament fighting. He is a double black stripe belt in tae kwon do.
FAVOR: Would you help MMATorch by taking a short survey to create demographic info for our ad company? CLICK HERE
ALERT: Every Tuesday night, listen to the MMATorch Livecast from 9-10:30 p.m. ET or listen now to the most recent shows by clicking here. Listen live this coming Tuesday as Jamie Penick and Matt Pelkey discuss the latest MMA happenings. Online listen at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mmatorch or call into the show at 646-716-8090 to either just listen or participate.
what about rampage vs griffin?
griffin didnt do much to warrant the win, except hurt rampage's leg. and
yet he won...
argentplowman
25 Oct 2009, 17:30
Interesting thoughts. What I want to know is, if the hypothesis you propose
is true, how does that position granted to the champion become realized in
the scoring?
<p>
If scoring is scoring, at what point do the judges exercise this position?
<p>
Do they not count certain points? Do they award more for certain strikes
than they normally would? Do all the challenger's strikes have a lower
value unless there is a decisive finish?
<p>
How does this effect the scoring, if it is true?
Jared
25 Oct 2009, 23:42
Jay- The reason I think Rampage-Griffin was different is because Griffin
won round 2 (I believe) 10-8. It was a close fight that had a portion where
Griffin clearly had the edge. Rua-Machida was pretty close the entire
fight. I still think Rua won, but I think Griffin's was a tad more decisive
(not by a lot).
As far as the tie goes to the runner theory, I think the champion should
keep the belt in the case of a tie. A tie is going to lead to a rematch
anyways, there's no need to switch a belt if it's technically going to be
decided the next fight. However, Rua-Machida wasn't a tie, and under their
scoring system, it shouldn't have been. If they want to change the way
fights are scored, good. But under the way it's set up, Shogun won the
fight. It doesn't matter if it's by KO, submission, UD or split decision. A
win is a win. I don't care if it's 48-47 or 47.99-47.98. If Shogun wins by
a hair, he wins by a hair. The rematch can still take place with Machida as
the challenger.
Cole
26 Oct 2009, 02:32
I can't make up my mind about who actually won this fight because I can
understand the arguments for both. What I think this fight should be is a
wake up call for the UFC regarding Judges. I'd feel better about this whole
thing if the scoring system were more clear to the public. I'm ok with the
judges scoring a bit more in favor of the champion, but It's unfortunate
that it's not abundantly clear beforehand.
You guys think we should get "Up In Arms" about this so to speak? Would it
do us any good to flood the UFC with e-mails and ask them to make the
Judges deciding factors more clear? I dunno how the business works, but if
it would help I'd gladly pressure them to change things.
On a side note I came into this fight rooting for Machida, but if there
were a rematch, (Which should happen ASAP. Rua's proven at the very least
he's the best LH contender in his performance last night.) I'd be more than
happy with either guy winning as long as someone put the other guy away.
And for some of the commenters, Come on guys. "The look on Machida's face"
is NOT even a factor in deciding a fight. Give me a break. Some guys are
just more animated than others. The decision should have to do with
technique and damage not how a guys face looks.
RR
26 Oct 2009, 08:45
In my opinion, this decision was not so hard to understand. Strictly based
on points, I had Machida taking Round 2 and 3, while Round 1 and 5 were
debatable.
Furthermore, I think a big reason everyone is so 'up in arms' about this
has a lot to do with Rogan and Goldberg's commentating... everything was
Shogun Shogun Shogun... Goldberg insinuating / staing that Shogun won round
2 over and over again was a joke. Furthermore, everytime there was an
EXCHANGE, they would only comment on the strikes that Shogun landed, not
Machida.... it was like they were so used to Machida NOT getting hit, that
every little kick/punch was worth mentioning. Some times, even the strikes
that missed or were checked by Machida were made to sound like powerful
strikes by Goldberg / Rogan.
Not saying that Shogun didn't land, he did. But Machida tried to finish
the fight on 2-3 seperate occasions, and landed fluries... Shogun did not
do that once. Not once.
And then to hear Shogun's post fight interview 'I was told that I was
ahead, so I fought conservatively' is a joke.
I'm glad Machida won, and can't wait to see him wipe the floor with Shogun
on the rematch.
Jared
27 Oct 2009, 00:04
"Not saying that Shogun didn't land, he did. But Machida tried to finish
the fight on 2-3 seperate occasions, and landed fluries... Shogun did not
do that once. Not once."
You say that Machida tried to finish on 2-3 separate occasions and Shogun
didn't once. Assuming that's true, doesn't that reflect poorly on Machida?
Saying Machida tried to finish Shogun doesn't favor him, it favors Shogun
because Machida couldn't finish him. And those flurries were few and far
between and was Machida's main offense, while Shogun was kicking him all
night.
Now, it was close enough that saying Machida won isn't completely out of
line. However, it definitely wasn't *clear* that Machida won. If there was
a clear winner, I think it was Shogun. I think he attacked more
consistently and did more damage to Machida than the other way around. At
least they're doing an instant rematch, hopefully this time with a decisive
winner. Although, I don't expect Machida to "wipe the floor with Shogun"
considering you think he tried to this fight and fell short.
bangerman
27 Oct 2009, 12:32
So i just watched the fight for the fifth time and i just dont see the
controversy in it. It was indeed RAZOR thin,and if Shogun tried a little
harder he would have won....but he didnt. He has openly admitted that he
didnt push because his corner told him he was winning. I mean lets face the
facts folks. That has got to be on of the most rediculous things Ive ever
hear after a title fight. You quit cuz you thought you won? Stop
complaining and put your money on machida for the rematch. It wont go to
the scorecards this time.
