Split decisions should mean the champion retains the title.

K

King Pun**

Blue Belt
@Blue
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
753
Reaction score
10
Shouldn't have a title change if the judges can't even make up their mind on who won. in order to be the champion you have to beat the champion
 
What? If 2 judges think you won then you won. You know 2 is greater than 1? You just have to win by the smallest margin to win. That's how sports work. If Arsenal beat Spurs on penalties they win. If the Lakers beat Celtics 110-109 They win. I don't get this bullshit fighting term.
 
No. Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad.
 
wilKO said:
What? If 2 judges think you won then you won. You know 2 is greater than 1? You just have to win by the smallest margin to win. That's how sports work. If Arsenal beat Spurs on penalties they win. If the Lakers beat Celtics 110-109 They win. I don't get this bullshit fighting term.
Click to expand...
Lol at Arsenal winning.
 
In order to the be be champion you got to beat the champion lmao. It doesnt matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning
 
If no-one is a clear winner by the end of the scheduled rounds, then the fight should continue under Thunderdome rules.
 
Just fix the fucking judging
 
Bad idea even by sherdog standards.
 
If the judges don’t agree, call it a draw. That idea has been floating around for a while and it kinda grew on me.
 
TS, you're a dope and so are the ones who liked your dumb idea.
 
First of all lets stop thinking of that line "in order to beat the champ" as some kind of special principle.

Secondly it's a fight like any other fight, if you won by split decision then you beat the champ by split decision. The champ doesn't deserve the belt if more judges scored it in the other guy's favor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,662
Messages
55,432,799
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top