Joe Rogan: “fights are supposed to be about who does more damage”

Poor Yoel fans cant take the loss like men. Sulky bitch level high with the common offenders.
tenor.gif
 
Just Joe Rogan flapping his lips.
"How does UFC even work bro?"
Hes so full of shit.
 
That second fight was a sports travesty. A guy with a broken hand fighting a guy that didn’t make weight. Still bothers me that fight was allowed to continue.
 
In theory, I agree. You want to think that whoever would win a real fight, would also win in the octagon. But judging damage taken is not an exact science by any means. Some damage is not visible. Some visible damage is not as bad as it looks (and some guys just bruise and cut more easily). All knockdowns aren't "near KOs".

Basically, any kind of scoring system will never be perfect. Would it be better than the current one? Maybe.

GSP vs Hendricks, yeah, probably a win to Hendricks scored like that. Same goes for Bisping vs Hendo too. But as far as Whitaker vs Romero 2 goes, I don't know. Romero took some serious damage too. Whitaker got knocked down, yeah, but Romero took a lot of damage. Probably more than Whitaker. Whitaker probably came closer to losing during the 5 rounds, but had the fight gone past 5 rounds... different story.
 
TomTomNT said:
Because this is a simpletons logic... There is a reason the fights are scored round by round... you can do tons of damage in round 1, and then lose the next 4 by an inch and lose the fight... By Joes logic the guy would of won the fight by simply winning 1 round... which makes just as little sense... but then again if you smoke a ton of pot its probably hard to concentrate for extended periods of time and analyze who won beyond a simple damage factor.
Click to expand...

Well we have a different definition of fighting then. If we meet on the street, you beat me up pretty hard in the first 5 mins, then u gas and for 15 mins we only more or less touch each other lightly, I would call you the winner of the fight. Also our faces and bodies would look accordingly.

What you are saying, basically, is that both fighters did almost no dmg in rounds 2-5 but fighter two is the victor due to barely winning those rounds, whereas my definition is that fighter 1 did 90% of the whole dmg in the fight and should win. Fighter 2 has 4 rounds to do as much dmg and if he can't he deserves to lose.

EDIT: That would actually happen given the current scoring system if judges learned to score 10-10 and 10-8 rounds better. When a round is a coinflip or really close, give out a 10-10 not a biased 10-9 and all is good.
 
Last edited:
Its a tricky one. So what if one fighter pieces the other up all of each round but the orher lands one big blow.
Maybe breaks the nose, knocks them down etc? But otherwise is massively outstruck
 
So... how about all those wet blanket wrestlers?
 
NekMinnit said:
Yup do nothing for an entire round. Throw one big punch and you win the round
<{katwhu}>
Click to expand...
GSP landed like 100 strikes to BJ's face and couldn't leave a mark on him yet BJ couldn't remember what planet he was on. GSP's face is a mess after one good punch. Judging a fight based on superficial wounds is silly.
 
Mortal Wombat said:
Poor Yoel fans cant take the loss like men. Sulky bitch level high with the common offenders.
tenor.gif
Click to expand...
Second time I see you saying this, now I'm starting to get offended (despite you directing it plural, it still bothers me, and I usually like your posts but can't deal with it anymore) Wtf does this have to do with the fans, idiot? Don't you get it, it's about the inconsistency in the application of the scoring criteria which seems to change from fight to fight and it isn't logical that in a fight where the main purpose is to do damage above all, that it isn't taken into consideration and many fighters (not just yoel) have suffered dumb decision losses, for ex. Dj might mouse.

And for those steering this towards subjective damage, it's about common sense at the end of the day. Only a very small percentage of fights end equally damage wise, and those should be called draws. Most close fights aren't close enough to not be able to discern a winner judging by damage, control, attempts to finish, etc.

It ain't that hard but since they have a system set up in pace to take advantage of ambiguity, then the lower iq fans buy into their official scoring, despite how inconsistent and blatantly corrupt some decisions may seem. That's what should change.
 
Last edited:
If you want to move to a damage-only scoring system, it will automatically bias the fight towards people that can accumulate damage more quickly, compared to someone who would do it more methodically from a controlled position. In my view, giving a certain amount of "points" for winning the positional hierarchy, control, etc...is credited on the idea that in a "real" fight with no time limits/restrictions/etc, the guy with the positional advantage is going to be doing much more damage over time, all else equal, but restarts/rounds/short time limits/etc kind of block that idea to some extent.

So if you want to remove standups, restart the next round in the same position the previous round ended (or do away with rounds entirely), that's fine.

Of course, real decisions are going to be made by the entertainment factor, so that's a pipe dream.
 
TheAmericanGazelle said:
If you want to move to a damage-only scoring system, it will automatically bias the fight towards people that can accumulate damage more quickly, compared to someone who would do it more methodically from a controlled position. In my view, giving a certain amount of "points" for winning the positional hierarchy, control, etc...is credited on the idea that in a "real" fight with no time limits/restrictions/etc, the guy with the positional advantage is going to be doing much more damage over time, all else equal, but restarts/rounds/short time limits/etc kind of block that idea to some extent.

So if you want to remove standups, restart the next round in the same position the previous round ended (or do away with rounds entirely), that's fine.

Of course, real decisions are going to be made by the entertainment factor, so that's a pipe dream.
Click to expand...
Nobody has mentioned the idea of a damage only scoring system.
 
2004 account said:
Second time I see you saying this, now I'm starting to get offended (despite you directing it plural, it still bothers me, and I usually like your posts but can't deal with it anymore) Wtf does this have to do with the fans, idiot? Don't you get it, it's about the inconsistency in the application fo thew scoring criteria which seems to change from fight to fight and it isn't logical that in a fight where the main purpose is to do damage above all, that it isn't taken into consideration and many fighters, not just yoel have suffered dumb decision losses, for ex. Dj might mouse.
Click to expand...
Make it a third.
tenor.gif

I like your posts too, For someone to score a close fight for the other guy isn't inconsistency. Damage as we have seen was done mostly by Whittaker as Yoel is STILL fuct up. This isn't a one sided robbery. Some think RW won, Some YR, some a draw. Thats a close fight if there ever was one. Rogan ALWAYS favours those who have been on his podcast. I listen and like most of them but he strongly is bias with TJ, Jones, Yoel and others. He said 30 seconds before the fight finished that he needed a finish to win. Then goes on to say it was a bad decision. Now thats some fucking shilling maybe the worst he has done. You ate it up and cant get over the loss.
 
IrritatedTomcat said:
This. If a guy loses every round but has a great round with a knockdown he shouldn't win the entire fight lol
Click to expand...
One of the first questions that should be asked always is who was closer to winning the fight. If it was an evident knockdown, and the other fighter just pitter pattered and point fought the whole fight, should he really be the winner? After all he was the one that almost got removed from his consciousness. Those blows should count for more, surely shouldn't they?
 
Rogan is right. The primary goal of a fight is damage. Judging is ludicrous at the minute.
 
2004 account said:
One of the first questions that should be asked always is who was closer to winning the fight. If it was an evident knockdown, and the other fighter just pitter pattered and point fought the whole fight, should he really be the winner? After all he was the one that almost got removed from his consciousness. Those blows should count for more, surely shouldn't they?
Click to expand...

I should've elaborated it as a flash knockdown and borderline starch and almost finish haha

it definitely depends on the situation. If someone lays on you for two rounds then you drop them and almost finish them and win the round then I'm okay I guess but the whole point is, this isn't PRIDE. The fight isn't scored as a whole so while I don't disagree, that's just how the fights are scored, by round.

If a guy is soundly beating someone for two but didn't drop them, then they shouldn't lose the fight for losing a round. It depends how the fight goes. Like I said, I don't disagree, but it's just not how scoring is so you can't justify giving a fight to someone for winning one round. Best you could do is make it a 10-8 and hope the guy "won" himself a draw.
 
For me fights are also about damage. Therefore I had no problem with the Fury Wilder decision, although if you go by the boxing rules Fury should ve won. Still it was clear that Wilder had done more damage.
However, in many fights it is not measureable which fighter did the most damage. Some fighters just have that damaged look after the first round, although they have not absorbed that many shots. Therefore I think that the current way of scoring is best
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,885
Messages
55,523,662
Members
174,810
Latest member
BackagainBert

Share this page

Back
Top