Majority draws should be split decisions

[Dark Individual]

But if the third judge is waaaaaaay off and the others are right on with their scoring than the nit-wit judge decides the "winner"?

If two judges score it a draw and one judge scores it for either one, he cannot be wayyyyyyyyyy off as far as the end result is concerned.

 

[elanimalsantana]

elanimalsantana said: ↑But if the third judge is waaaaaaay off and the others are right on with their scoring than the nit-wit judge decides the "winner"?

If two judges score it a draw and one judge scores it for either one, he cannot be wayyyyyyyyyy off as far as the end result is concerned.

Yes he/she can!! lets say the one judge has it 50-45 fighter A when the others have it a draw?

 

[Dark Individual]

elanimalsantana said: ↑But if the third judge is waaaaaaay off and the others are right on with their scoring than the nit-wit judge decides the "winner"?

Yes he/she can!! lets say the one judge has it 50-45 fighter A when the others have it a draw?
View attachment 466325

No you are a moron. Like I said, as far as the end result matters, a draw already means fight was close so the third judge cannot possibly be way off in his end conclusion. Nice try though low iq guy.

 

[mahavishnunj]

A majority draw is a dumb idea and also logically flawed, a better solution would be to have it as a split decision. This would stop situations where fighters such as Tyron Woodley and Matt Frevola are robbed of wins. It would also mean that Wonderboy would have not got an undeserved second title shot and that Lando Vanatta would probably be on his way out of the UFC. Here is the maths behind it: we have three judges in MMA. In a split decision 2 vote for 1 fighter and 1 votes for the other other, making it 1-0. In a majority decision, 2 vote draw and 1 votes for 1 fighter making it 1-0. There is no logical reason for majority draws to exist. Hopefully this rectified and also Tyron and Matt's records are retrospectively fixed.

theres no reason for split decisions to exist either. it should go to an extra round if that happens.

 

[Aluminati]

You're wrong about Lando/Frevola, but right about Woodley/WB, so i'll give your opinion a majority draw

I think he's wrong, and that settles it...

 

[Medulla Omoplata]

TS began his argument with the flawed premise that draws do not exist and a winner must be determined. This is wrong. I think there should be more draws.

 

[Blayt7hh]

When fights are that close no one should win them. It’s about as fair as flipping a coin at that point.

 

[Blayt7hh]

TS began his argument with the flawed premise that draws do not exist and a winner must be determined. This is wrong. I think there should be more draws.

This. IMO a lot of time these split decisions really should have been draws

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

The last thing we need is more split decisions.

 

[Me&MrJones]

They should fight until there's a finish, 100% finish rate. Will be a long night with 13 fights though.

 

[grimballer]

It would defeat the purpose of having more than one judge there.

Judges are sitting around the ring to see the action from different angles n each has its own bias

Now if 2 judges decided that the fight was too close n it’s a draw, then the fight is most likely n draw n the 3rd judge either missed something, sucks as a judge or is corrupt

 

[Ghost in the Dark]

People who can't cope with the concept of a draw have deep autism and society should not be rearranged to avoid triggering them.

 

[Cooliox]

I officially nominate this as dumbest thread of the year 2018

 

[Rolento]

it should be called the dick down reach around.

j1 red
j2 red
j3 draw

winner by dick down reach around red corner

 

[Flokk]

Majority draws are split decisions.

"Split draw" just sounds odd.

 

[RampageFaction]

You're wrong about Lando/Frevola, but right about Woodley/WB, so i'll give your opinion a majority draw

 

[fractal]

Terrible opinion, next.

You should read and try to understand it this time. Slowly.

 

[dim_]

A majority draw is:
Judge 1 - none
Judge 2 - none
Judge 3 - blue
Winner: none
Surely blue should have won that majority draw?

bloke standing trial for murder

Juror 1 - cant decide
Juror 2 - cant decide
Juror 3 - Thinks hes guilty


So on the basis of 1 persons opinion you would give the death penalty?

 

[fractal]

Blue Draw Draw - Majority Draw: because the majority agreed there wasn't a winner.

It can be taken two ways. Since two people couldn't pick a winner, the third person's vote takes it.

3 friends want to go to a restaurant and they have X choices. Two like each option equally so the odd vote gets to decide. Just because two can't decide doesn't mean all three don't eat. If you can't decide take your vote out of the count.

I see the point of the Majority Draw though, since two thought it was a draw, but I agree with the TS that draws should happen only if all three agree it is. Otherwise it should go to the single deciding vote by default.

 

[RampageFaction]

The most concerning thing about this thread is that there are people who have no fucking clue about how the majority rule works, but they are probably still allowed to vote at the elections.

You don’t need to know that to vote. It doesn’t even apply in this country because majority definitely doesn’t rule in our presidential elections.