# Machida was robbed tonight. MMA pundit scoring ITT



## mo25 (Feb 7, 2011)

Things are coming even more clear how obvious this is was a complete robbery.

Sherdog Poll 80% Machida
Sherdog play by play 30-27 Machida
Dana White 30-27 Machida
Cage Potato 30-27 Machida
Fightmetric 30-27 Machida
Bleacher Report 29-28 Machida
MMA weekly 30-27 Machida
MMA Junkie 30-27 Machida
Sports Illustrated 30-27 Machida
MMAfighting.com 29-28 Machida
MMA frenzy 29-28 Machida
Fighters.com 30-27 Machida
MMA Linker 30-27 Machida
5thround 30-27 Machida
MMA convert 30-27 Machida
MMA rising 30-27 Machida
Insidefights.com 29-28 Machida
Middle easy Machida, does not give official score
Fightofthenight.com Machida, does not give official score
MMA torch 30-27 Machida
Pro MMA Now 30-27 Machida
MMA Kanvas 29-28 
Loretta Hunt scores it... DANA DOESN'T GIVE A ******* **** WHAT LORETTA HUNT SCORES IT... 30-27 Machida
FOX Sports 29-28 Machida


----------



## JWP (Jun 4, 2007)

one thing is for sure it kind of devalues the whole 'win' thing

there are alot of things about this sport i would change, judging has to be right up there


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

I wonder how it's always the judges that matter that get it wrong and every other sports analyst get's it right?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

All of those guys were watching the fight with Stann giving garbage commentary and praising every stupid whiff as some sort of KO. Only the judges had the benefit of not being fed nonsense.

Machida did nothing that whole fight except one decent straight left in each of the 1st and 2nd round, followed by complete whiffs in flurries. He also got taken down and hit with the more solid shots, ENDING both the rounds on the ground (which counts big because if it wasn't for rounds/bell, he would never have gotten up to dance around inneffectively and pretend to fight). 

He was completely placid and all his shots were checked or blocked, Davis was the aggressor the whole fight. Neither fighter did much but Davis was the less ineffective of the two.

Most of those guys were also emotionally invested in Machida as the win because that is what every single one of them had "predicted" before the fight. Go ahead and read their predictions before the fight.


----------



## Stun Gun (Oct 24, 2012)

Liddellianenko said:


> All of those guys were watching the fight with Stann giving garbage commentary and praising every stupid whiff as some sort of KO. Only the judges had the benefit of not being fed nonsense.
> 
> Machida did nothing that whole fight except one decent straight left in each of the 1st and 2nd round, followed by complete whiffs in flurries. He also got taken down and hit with the more solid shots, ENDING both the rounds on the ground (which counts big because if it wasn't for rounds/bell, he would never have gotten up to dance around inneffectively and pretend to fight).
> 
> ...


I can agree with this right here. It was such a close fight


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Its a similar situation to the Rampage fight in which i believe he won but because he is so inactive for long periods i think the judges go against him.

His style is great but he needs to add a bit of aggression and he will be on the other end of some decisions.


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

Machida won but it was a close fight. Neither Machida nor Davis showed any championship attributes this fight. I think Machida should have a talk with his friend Anderson Silva and state that he is going to drop down to middleweight and go for the title.

Davis standup was no good. He was both slow and inaccurate. Also, was it just me or were both of them tired already in the later stages of round 1 ?
I mean come on, the fight was not frantic pace but I felt they tired and were tired for the rest of the fight.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> Machida won but it was a close fight. Neither Machida nor Davis showed any championship attributes this fight. I think Machida should have a talk with his friend Anderson Silva and state that he is going to drop down to middleweight and go for the title.
> 
> Davis standup was no good. He was both slow and inaccurate. Also, was it just me or were both of them tired already in the later stages of round 1 ?
> I mean *come on the face *was not frantic but I felt they tired and were tired for the rest of the fight.


I see what you did there


----------



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

Oh, the wit.

It was a bad decision.


----------



## The Best Around (Oct 18, 2011)

Even though Machida probably won, I have zero remorse. He has had so many controversial fights in the last few years because he fights like a backtracking wus. And he always has the nerve to keep asking for a title shot.


----------



## miceld (Jun 22, 2013)

Liddellianenko said:


> All of those guys were watching the fight with Stann giving garbage commentary and praising every stupid whiff as some sort of KO. Only the judges had the benefit of not being fed nonsense.
> 
> Machida did nothing that whole fight except one decent straight left in each of the 1st and 2nd round, followed by complete whiffs in flurries. He also got taken down and hit with the more solid shots, ENDING both the rounds on the ground (which counts big because if it wasn't for rounds/bell, he would never have gotten up to dance around inneffectively and pretend to fight).
> 
> ...


Agreed. Very well said.


----------



## cookiefritas (Jun 17, 2011)

Experts don't tell us what Davis didn't do to win the fight, tell us what Machida did to win the fight.

When Machida fights, he somehow always deserves to win if he doesnt get koed, he doesn't need to do any damage himself .


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

I had it 30-27 Machida, but I also had it 

29-28 Henderson 
29-28 Jackson
49-48 Shogun

It sucks that I bet big on Machida and he lost but he was blessed by decisions in the past.


----------



## jamiejame911 (Jun 1, 2008)

Machida's sumo is so good he could make one adjustment and more than likely win more decisions: Feint and grapple/sweep people to the ground. Do that once a round and presto! You R TEH WINNAH!


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

cookiefritas said:


> Experts don't tell us what Davis didn't do to win the fight, tell us what Machida did to win the fight.
> 
> When Machida fights, he somehow always deserves to win if he doesnt get koed, he doesn't need to do any damage himself .


That's a very good point. :thumbsup:


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

John8204 said:


> I had it 30-27 Machida, but I also had it
> 
> 29-28 Henderson
> 29-28 Jackson
> ...


Yeah he was definitely gifted against Hendo and Shogun, two fights he should have lost due to his fear of engaging. So sick of everyone giving Machida's "elusive style" the automatic benefit in every fight. If he doesn't get finished, then he automatically won because the other guy couldn't figure out how to beat him. Bullcrap. Machida did zero damage and laid back not engaging against Hendo and Davis.


----------



## Ludinator (Mar 15, 2012)

It wasn't a robbery at all. Machida needs to realise its not a karate tournament, he can't throw 1 strike and reset. The fight sucked, both done pretty much nothing, so to call it a robbery is a joke. The fight was close, and Davis got the win. Machida fans really are dumb sometimes.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

The fight was very boring IMO... I honestly looked at my wife at the end of Rd3 and said "Davis?".... BTW she had Machida..ROFL


----------



## BOOM (Sep 23, 2012)

Liddellianenko said:


> All of those guys were watching the fight with Stann giving garbage commentary and praising every stupid whiff as some sort of KO. Only the judges had the benefit of not being fed nonsense.
> 
> Machida did nothing that whole fight except one decent straight left in each of the 1st and 2nd round, followed by complete whiffs in flurries. He also got taken down and hit with the more solid shots, ENDING both the rounds on the ground (which counts big because if it wasn't for rounds/bell, he would never have gotten up to dance around inneffectively and pretend to fight).
> 
> ...



Exactly this, there was no robbery. It was a close and mostly boring fight but Davis did a little more to secure the win. Machida has not changed in any way and it's been catching up to him for a long time.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Machida has to KO someone to win convincingly, otherwise it's a decision that leaves people wondering how to judge it.


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

Liddellianenko said:


> All of those guys were watching the fight with Stann giving garbage commentary and praising every stupid whiff as some sort of KO. Only the judges had the benefit of not being fed nonsense.
> 
> Machida did nothing that whole fight except one decent straight left in each of the 1st and 2nd round, followed by complete whiffs in flurries. He also got taken down and hit with the more solid shots, ENDING both the rounds on the ground (which counts big because if it wasn't for rounds/bell, he would never have gotten up to dance around inneffectively and pretend to fight).
> 
> ...


I'm glad someone else seen the same fight as I did. As much as I like Machida, when I was listening to the commentaries I was like "what the f... did they just see from their chairs that I didn't see with all those thousands and one angles?"

There was this combo in the 1st, a few kicks and punches and whatnot, but overall, Davis was clearly the agressor, if anything, machida lost on "timidity" (I think that is in the rules book, actually), basically refusing to clearly engage and waiting for the counter.

I was perfectly fine with the decision. close match up but Davis has it in my book (for what it's worth), 29/28 I can live with that and I think it's fair.

they should give him rashad next, I'd love to see the rematch, Davis has been on a roll and Rashad looks like he's on his way out, mentally since his loss to Jones and that whole blackzillians thing


----------



## Big_Charm (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm sorry to say this, but the way Machida fights these decisions (or fights like this) are bound to happen.

He pulled the trigger too late against Rampage and lost, had a very uneventful fight with Hendo and squeaked by... and had a ridiculous robbery against Shogun in their first fight.

They need to:

a) Fix judging criteria (pts weighting on take downs/octagon control, etc)
b) Make the fights 5 rounds


----------



## FatFreeMilk (Jan 22, 2010)

I have no sympathy for Machida. He looked surprised when he "beat" Shogun, and didn't seem to like the unbiased crowds reaction to that decision, but apparently the booing last night, by brazilian fans no less, should be indicative of how bad the judging was this time. 
I'm still a fan of his, but he needs to be more active to win.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> All of those guys were watching the fight with Stann giving garbage commentary and praising every stupid whiff as some sort of KO. Only the judges had the benefit of not being fed nonsense.
> 
> Machida did nothing that whole fight except one decent straight left in each of the 1st and 2nd round, followed by complete whiffs in flurries. He also got taken down and hit with the more solid shots, ENDING both the rounds on the ground (which counts big because if it wasn't for rounds/bell, he would never have gotten up to dance around inneffectively and pretend to fight).
> 
> ...


Agreed. Questionable decisions are the norm these days, but Machida barely did anything during this fight outside of landing a few counter punches and stuffing some takedowns. Davis was the aggressor during all three rounds and ended two of them in an aggressive top position. If anything the decision could have been a split with the third going to Machida, but to say that Machida was robbed is ridiculous.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

They should have WFOTN de-bonus where the worst fight of the night the winner doesn't get a win bonus.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Rauno said:


> I wonder how it's always the judges that matter that get it wrong and every other sports analyst get's it right?


We should hire sports analysts as judges. :thumb03:


----------



## towwffc (Jan 1, 2008)

Using the Rampage fight and now this one as a reference, I think it's obvious that Lyoto's style works against him at times.

I don't have an abundance of sympathy for him because he should know better after the Rampage fight, and after all of the other bad judging decisions in the past. Also, if he really wanted a title shot, the goal is to win IMPRESSIVELY, not just do enough to win.

I was begging him to be a bit more aggressive and really put a stamp on this fight, and he didn't do it. He left it open to interpretation and that worked against him. So I do blame the judges, but Lyoto himself should take atleast a small amount of the responsibility for not trying a bit harder to put a stamp on the fight and make it obvious that he should win.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

Machida did exactly what he needed to do and he doesn't need to fix anything,Phil kept throwing his weak shit and Machida blocked and checked everything and in later part of the rounds he starts countering. It takes Machida a lil while to measure his opponents, as it should.People who think Phil won this fight are the same people that are dragging mma down just like the shitty refs.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

cookiefritas said:


> Guys watch the fight again without commentary.
> 
> Machida had one good moment in the fight and didn't catch Davis on that flurry in the first; Davis slipped. Tried to do a similar flurry again and Davis switched levels brilliantly and took his ass down, pounded on him and constantly went for subs while on top. Machida was not getting up from either takedown. The two most dominant moments in the fight belonged to Davis and that is why he won. You don't get points for running in reverse and not landing strikes while doing it.





Liddellianenko said:


> All of those guys were watching the fight with Stann giving garbage commentary and praising every stupid whiff as some sort of KO. Only the judges had the benefit of not being fed nonsense.
> 
> Machida did nothing that whole fight except one decent straight left in each of the 1st and 2nd round, followed by complete whiffs in flurries. He also got taken down and hit with the more solid shots, ENDING both the rounds on the ground (which counts big because if it wasn't for rounds/bell, he would never have gotten up to dance around inneffectively and pretend to fight).
> 
> ...





Rauno said:


> Machida has to KO someone to win convincingly, otherwise it's a decision that leaves people wondering how to judge it.


Pretty much sums up how I saw it - good posts. Neither impressed me much, either. And I do like both fighters. :dunno:


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

Not sure if serious :confused02:


Bknmax said:


> Machida did exactly what he needed to do and he doesn't need to fix anything,Phil kept throwing his weak shit and Machida blocked and checked everything and in later part of the rounds he starts countering. It takes Machida a lil while to measure his opponents, as it should.People who think Phil won this fight are the same people that are dragging mma down just like the shitty refs.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

js9234 said:


> Not sure if serious :confused02:


What exactly are you not sure about ? do you know how to read? Phil did nothing to win the fight he got owned with a counter one that almost koed him,he got owned in a bunch of exchanges and Machida checked all his kicks,and after Machida completely measured Phil he stuffed EVERY single take down and started making him look like a joke even putting Phil the so called ncaa Division I wrestler on his back. ******* joke


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

LOL Apparently you can't watch a fight without being biased or crying about the results later sounding like a butt hurt teen.


Bknmax said:


> What exactly are you not sure about ? do you know how to read? Phil did nothing to win the fight he got owned with a counter one that almost koed him,he got owned in a bunch of exchanges and Machida checked all his kicks,and after Machida completely measured Phil he stuffed EVERY single take down and started making him look like a joke even putting Phil the so called ncaa Division I wrestler on his back. ******* joke


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Far from a robbery. Controversial sure, but not in any way a robbery.

First round was close. I edged it to Phil for the takedown (just knowing how mma judges score). Second was clearly Phil's. Third was all Machida.

Would I have been surprised had it gone the other way? Not at all. That's how close fights work.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

js9234 said:


> LOL Apparently you can't watch a fight without being biased or crying about the results later sounding like a butt hurt teen.


I could care less about Machida lol some people just don't know how to fight it's cool so it's hard for them to judge. aka you


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

It is a bit of a bummer, but Machida is going to continue to see this kind of thing happen unless he gets more offensively minded.


----------



## Purgetheweak (Apr 23, 2012)

If you want to guarantee victory, finish the goddamn fight.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

I was wrong. Must be a Preteen:confused03:


Bknmax said:


> I could care less about Machida lol some people just don't know how to fight it's cool so it's hard for them to judge. aka you


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

I thought Machida won the first round, the second was a toss up but could go to Davis, and the third was easily Machida's round.

It wasn't a "robbery" because the first round I suppose if you really get a hard on for late round takedowns that don't actually do anything (as judges do), you could score it for Davis even though like 30 seconds before that TD he was getting hammered by Machida's strikes in a much more impressive and important "point scoring" moment.

In the judges eyes I'm not surprised at all that Davis won the first for the late takedown, but I had it for Machida because the fight was about even on the feet until Machida opened up on him and slapped him around against the cage, and the late takedown was worthless (but not in judges eyes, this needs to change).


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

js9234 said:


> I was wrong. Must be a Preteen:confused03:


Do you say anything meaningful? or is it just a bunch of random shit that has no point. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

mo25 said:


> Things are coming even more clear how obvious this is was a complete robbery.
> 
> Sherdog Poll 80% Machida
> Sherdog play by play 30-27 Machida
> ...


This is definitely one of the worst decisions in UFC history. Even the Machida haters are having trouble making sense out of this one.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Calminian said:


> This is definitely one of the worst decisions in UFC history. Even the Machida haters are having trouble making sense out of this one.


It was a bad call, but personally I thought Henderson/Machida was a worse call. If you ask me the worst decisions of the year so far. It was a bad call to credit what Davis did over Machida but if you want to score a TD to win the fight then you have to respect it. 

1. Bryan Caraway/Takeya Mizugaki
2. Francis Carmont/Lorenz Larkin
3. Dan Henderson/Lyoto Machida
4. Chris Cammozzi/Nick Ring
5. Lyoto Machida/Phil Davis


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

John8204 said:


> It was a bad call, but personally I thought Henderson/Machida was a worse call. ..


How could you possibly think Henderson won a fight in which he never landed a punch? I saw the fight. It was boring. But if you think Henderson won, you're biased to the point of blindness. The guy did absolutely nothing. He didn't argue the decision one bit and was frustrated with his performance.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

If anything this will probably make Lyoto look to finish decisively in the future the way he did against Thiago Silva, Randy and Bader. He's had some interesting results; Rampage, Hendo (although he landed some very solid shots), and even against Tito way back. Others he's finished impressively. It's a matter of seeing the right opportunity and pressing forward. 

Damn takedowns. Not landing takedowns should also count against the wrestlers then cuz Lyoto had some pretty cool takedown defense and reversal. It should have been a split or draw, but I saw it as Machida with a UD...haha. It happens.


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

I don't see how anyone can call Phil the aggressor when Machida controlled the center of the octagon for a majority of the fight.


----------



## SlowGraffiti (Dec 29, 2007)

I really have no remorse for Machida. He absolutely lost that first Shogun fight and showed no humility whatsoever.


----------



## Hennessy (Feb 28, 2011)

2 takedowns at the end of 2 rounds are apperently worth more than significant strikes landed....I don't know...this is too much for me to handle anymore.so frustrated with this BS.

These wrestling fav rules are killing MMA. It has been said before, but nothing ever changes and I don't believe it ever will. At least not in the UFC.

very sad day it was. once again

And Dana Whites comment:" you can't leave it in the hands of the judges"...man WTF is a fighter like Machida againt a wrestler suppose to do? Rush in like a maniac? he will lose the fight then as well.
This whole situation with the judging is just a big fat joke at this point!


----------



## GDPofDRB (Apr 18, 2013)

Machida got robbed, plain and simple, easy fight to score, for me... Machida being on the opposite end of the Shogun robbery nor any questionable results of more recent fights, doesn't change the fact this was a bad decision.


----------



## dlxrevolution (Jul 16, 2009)

This is the judges way of telling Machida to go to 185 lbs.


----------



## usernamewoman (Sep 24, 2007)

I think this decision is a testament to how far judging in mma has come when a stand up martial art like Machidas is still being judged compared to kickboxing/muay thai. No matter how the decision goes it is always wrong, the sport is mma but the judging/scoring is most certainly not mma.


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

Bknmax said:


> Machida did exactly what he needed to do and he doesn't need to fix anything,Phil kept throwing his weak shit and Machida blocked and checked everything and in later part of the rounds he starts countering. It takes Machida a lil while to measure his opponents, as it should.People who think Phil won this fight are the same people that are dragging mma down just like the shitty refs.


I didn't see the fight, so I can't argue about that. But apparently a lot of people on this forum saw Phil win. Are you are saying that if their opinion differs from yours they are ruining the sport of MMA?


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

I think the varied opinions of who won this fight is tantamount to the problems that we have with current MMA judging, perspective comes into play way too much with the current ruleset with how takedowns are scored. Half of us feel one way, half the other. Something needs to be changed with the judging system, or simply call every fight that lasts the distance a draw. Perhaps the only winners in a MMA fight should be the ones who finish their opponents.


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

Scarecrow said:


> I think the varied opinions of who won this fight is tantamount to the problems that we have with current MMA judging, perspective comes into play way too much with the current ruleset with how takedowns are scored. Half of us feel one way, half the other. Something needs to be changed with the judging system, or simply call every fight that lasts the distance a draw. Perhaps the only winners in a MMA fight should be the ones who finish their opponents.


Excellent point. Well stated. Finding a way to remove some of the subjectivity would be an improvement.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Scarecrow said:


> I think the varied opinions of who won this fight is tantamount to the problems that we have with current MMA judging, perspective comes into play way too much with the current ruleset with how takedowns are scored. Half of us feel one way, half the other. Something needs to be changed with the judging system, or simply call every fight that lasts the distance a draw. Perhaps the only winners in a MMA fight should be the ones who finish their opponents.


Just do live round between round scoring so fighters know what the judges are valuing. I think of Edwards/Cruickshank which was a fight were you could literally argue either fighter won the fight 30-27. Cruickshank stuck and moved and took no damage, Edward wadded in with punches and pushed the pace of the fight. What is unacceptable is keeping the scoring secret from the fighters.


----------



## zarny (Mar 4, 2007)

Ridiculous.

You can certainly argue Machida deserved the decision; but he wasn't "robbed". 

Striking totals were 29-27 for Davis. Less than 10 strikes per round isn't much to go on. It was a close fight because neither fighter did much.

That isn't getting "robbed". That's losing a close decision.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Scarecrow said:


> I think the varied opinions of who won this fight is tantamount to the problems that we have with current MMA judging, perspective comes into play way too much with the current ruleset with how takedowns are scored. Half of us feel one way, half the other. Something needs to be changed with the judging system, or simply call every fight that lasts the distance a draw. Perhaps the only winners in a MMA fight should be the ones who finish their opponents.


And like 80% of all fights would be draws then, even fights where one guy was pounded for 5 rounds straight. Can you imagine Randy vs Tito being a "draw"? You think fighters fight defensively now, if they do this anyone remotely close to losing will just hug and hang on for dear life until they "not lose".

They actually had this sort of thing in the original game format of cricket (something like baseball for those not familiar) .. dudes used to play 5 days straight and most of the time it ended in a "draw", even when one team beat the snot out of the other one. All the losing team had to do was survive till the 5 day time limit. Needless to say it made for the only sport less exciting than watching paint dry. Most modern versions have abandoned this 5 day long draw-fest format.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

Still don't know why they don't show the live scoring like any other sport. So many times the corners have it wrong including all of us watching.

Welcome back Scare Crow. It's been a minute.


----------



## Danm2501 (Jun 22, 2009)

As much as it's an issue with the judges, Machida also needs to re-assess his game, and realise that he doesn't have a style conducive to winning decisions. He barely beat Hendo, and then lost decisions to Rampage and Davis. Unless he gets a finish, or does something decisive, he just doesn't seem to have a style the judges rate as fight winning. It's certainly something he needs to look at.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

MLD said:


> I didn't see the fight, so I can't argue about that. But apparently a lot of people on this forum saw Phil win. Are you are saying that if their opinion differs from yours they are ruining the sport of MMA?


If your going by who did more damage in fight logic then Machida won the fight,so if the people on these forums agree with the Judges then they are ruining the sport.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Bknmax said:


> If your going by who did more damage in fight logic then Machida won the fight,so if the people on these forums agree with the Judges then they are ruining the sport.


Why? For one blitz in the first where maybe one clean shot landed?

Everyone knows judges favor takedowns and top positions. To act shocked and shaken when someone scores points with the judges in an EXTREMELY close fight and wins a decision is ludicrous. 

I don't understand how people like you refuse to even admit when a fight is close. It could have gone either way. I personally had it for Davis. I wouldn't have been surprised if it went to Machida. Most logical people have a similar mindset (I.E. decision could have gone either way).


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

How was the fight close Machida was never in trouble and by the 3 rd round he was throwing Phil around yet people like you and apparently Phil thought they won .And Phil even thought he won Round 3 wtf did you even do in round 3. Sad very sad 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

Close fight.
I woulda given the first to Davis, machida had it in the second and easily in the third. I guess the judges really count a lot from those takedowns. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

kc1983 said:


> Close fight.
> I woulda given the first to Davis, machida had it in the second and easily in the third. I guess the judges really count a lot from those takedowns.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


I like how people agree that judges give way to much credit for tds and then say it was a close fight. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Bknmax said:


> How was the fight close Machida was never in trouble and by the 3 rd round he was throwing Phil around yet people like you and apparently Phil thought they won .And Phil even thought he won Round 3 wtf did you even do in round 3. Sad very sad
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Why are you so controversial when it comes to this subject? Sounds like someone kicked your dog or something.

Machida clearly won the third IMO. Davis clearly won the second. First was a toss up. That's called a close fight.



Bknmax said:


> I like how people agree that judges give way to much credit for tds and then say it was a close fight.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


That is EXACTLY why it was a close fight. We understand how judges score. Most fighters understand how judges score. Neither fighter inflicted much damage with the exception of Machida scoring one or two solid hits. Davis hit a couple solid takedowns. Judges are big on takedowns. 

How do you not understand that is why it was a close fight?


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

PheelGoodInc said:


> That is EXACTLY why it was a close fight. We understand how judges score. Most fighters understand how judges score. Neither fighter inflicted much damage with the exception of Machida scoring one or two solid hits. Davis hit a couple solid takedowns. Judges are big on takedowns.
> 
> How do you not understand that is why it was a close fight?


Because getting a TD is not the same as a knee to the gut or a left hook yet it counts twice as much for some reason,everyone understand how the judges score and i don't agree with it.


----------



## GDPofDRB (Apr 18, 2013)

Understanding how wrong the judges can be in scoring a fight in no way justifies bad judging when it happens. This was an easy fight to score and kind of like a easy test, like a "do you even understand what you are watching?" test. This fight was easy to score, plain and simple. Not liking Machida's style or his past decisions has zero real bearing on this, trying to use the excuse that commentators swayed nearly everyone with bias is a wafer thin argument for why someone would think Davis was better then Machida Saturday. This was not a very close fight, this could not of gone either way, this was easy. Easy test. Everyone should be pretty upset that the sport still has to be compromised in such a manner and where it is very important. The most outrageous part of it is the growing complacency for what has been consistently poor judging, like it has to be accepted and catered to, how about just fixing this problem instead of embracing it?


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

GDPofDRB said:


> Understanding how wrong the judges can be in scoring a fight in no way justifies bad judging when it happens. This was an easy fight to score and kind of like a easy test, like a "do you even understand what you are watching?" test. This fight was easy to score, plain and simple. Not liking Machida's style or his past decisions has zero real bearing on this, trying to use the excuse that commentators swayed nearly everyone with bias is a wafer thin argument for why someone would think Davis was better then Machida Saturday. This was not a very close fight, this could not of gone either way, this was easy. Easy test. Everyone should be pretty upset that the sport still has to be compromised in such a manner and where it is very important. The most outrageous part of it is the growing complacency for what has been consistently poor judging, like it has to be accepted and catered to, how about just fixing this problem instead of embracing it?


Lol, whatever you say, fountain of all knowledge.

The debate is over, lads. It was an easy fight to score. Case closed.


----------



## GDPofDRB (Apr 18, 2013)

Canadian Psycho said:


> Lol, whatever you say, fountain of all knowledge.
> 
> The debate is over, lads. It was an easy fight to score. Case closed.


Would this be easier for you if I and everyone else who makes a post puts "IMO" in front of it? Is that what you need?


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

It was unless you are an idiot judge and don't care about Mma


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

GDPofDRB said:


> Would this be easier for you if I and everyone else who makes a post puts "IMO" in front of it? Is that what you need?


You've crossed the point of offering your opinion, and you're essentially telling people how it 'really is'. There's an obvious difference. Though I suppose not as obvious as the 'easy to score' Machia/Davis bout.


----------



## GDPofDRB (Apr 18, 2013)

Canadian Psycho said:


> You've crossed the point of offering your opinion, and you're essentially telling people how it 'really is'. There's an obvious difference. Though I suppose not as obvious as the 'easy to score' Machia/Davis bout.


Right, because I gave the disclaimer that the commentary in post was only 100% fact... Nothing about it could of been perceived as my thoughts and or opinions on this topic. Oh wait I didn't do that either, crap. How is someone like you ever going to know what's going on and being said?

Why don't you try to make an actual post on the topic, or is this as good as it gets?


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

Bknmax said:


> Because getting a TD is not the same as a knee to the gut or a left hook yet it counts twice as much for some reason,everyone understand how the judges score and i don't agree with it.


If that knee or punch doesn't wabble, rock, or drop the recipient then why should it be counted heavier than a TD that secure positional control on the recipient? Had Machida actually done damage than these TD scoring complaints would be entirely valid, however Machida didn't do anything to WIN the fight. In an even striking match where no one gets hurt, but a fighter lands TD's that lead to some GnP, then that fighter wins.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

Terror Kovenant said:


> If that knee or punch doesn't wabble, rock, or drop the recipient then why should it be counted heavier than a TD that secure positional control on the recipient? Had Machida actually done damage than these TD scoring complaints would be entirely valid, however Machida didn't do anything to WIN the fight. In an even striking match where no one gets hurt, but a fighter lands TD's that lead to some GnP, then that fighter wins.


Even striking match lol a td is not a suplex some fighters use it as a clinch to get away from danger.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

You must have been watching something different to me. Machida landed next to nothing. Maybe 1 good shot per round at a push. The striking in the stand up was equally lacking on both parts.

Even in the 3rd where machida clearly won he didn't really land much.

The takedowns and subsequent ground strikes are what won phil the fight and rightly so IMO.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

Bknmax said:


> Even striking match lol a td is not a suplex some fighters use it as a clinch to get away from danger.


I assume you're implying it wasn't even...Where was Machida doing damage and putting Phil in danger? He didn't. Phil was landing plenty of leg and body kicks. Even striking match. 

Phil didn't do that, he took him down and started landing knees and punches, while maintaining top control. In an even striking match that is given weight.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

Killz said:


> You must have been watching something different to me. Machida landed next to nothing. Maybe 1 good shot per round at a push. The striking in the stand up was equally lacking on both parts.
> 
> Even in the 3rd where machida clearly won he didn't really land much.
> 
> The takedowns and subsequent ground strikes are what won phil the fight and rightly so IMO.


Yah i must off, lets just go by highlights because you people actually have no argument and keep saying that it was an equal striking match






So Machida lands a perfect shot in the gut and then a knee in Phils skull also a left hook right before the td Phil does nothing round ends.Second Round Phil gets stuffed gets checked a bunch of times gets caught with the most significant straight left that rocks him Machida checks more kicks to make Phil more tired so he can finish him in Round 3.
Round 3 Phil gets owned, Good fight Phil good job on doing nothing in a fight absolutely NOTHING no damage whatsoever good job on winning the fight Phil


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Bknmax said:


> Yah i must off, lets just go by highlights because you people actually have no argument and keep saying that it was an equal striking match
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had Machida winning a close fight, but honestly Machida didn't do that much more than Davis. He landed a few extra strikes, that's literally the extent of it. If you want to talk about doing no damage, Machida did no damage to Davis the whole fight.

It all came down to the takedowns in the first two rounds. Machida landed a few extra strikes but then he got taken down at the end and although not much happened, he did control the pace of the fight and landed a couple of strikes from top and I believe he got side control at some point as well. In the eyes of current MMA judges, that's more important than landing a few extra strikes standing.

It's a tough call, I had Machida winning 1 and 3 and Davis winning 2, but that takedown in the first must have swayed the judges. It's not that crazy of a decision to be honest, it could have gone either way depending on how the judges scored that first round.


----------



## cookiefritas (Jun 17, 2011)

Bknmax said:


> Yah i must off, lets just go by highlights because you people actually have no argument and keep saying that it was an equal striking match
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol. Some people.

You do realize Machida didn't land shit on the flury where Davis slipped?

That hightlight video is pretty much all Machida did the whole fight. He only landed that one straight left flush, everything else he missed Davis with.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

cookiefritas said:


> Lol. Some people.
> 
> You do realize Machida didn't land shit on the flury where Davis slipped?
> 
> That hightlight video is pretty much all Machida did the whole fight. He only landed that one straight left flush, everything else he missed Davis with.


Lol ,some people .You do realize he did land a kick and a knee and also a straight left a high kick while Phil landed close to nothing.You do realize my reply is to a guy who said Davis and Machida had an equal striking match


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Bknmax said:


> Lol ,some people .You do realize he did land a kick and a knee and also a straight left a high kick while Phil landed close to nothing.You do realize my reply is to a guy who said Davis and Machida had an equal striking match
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


You really need to not be so confrontational for no reason... Especially about a close fight. Relax brah.


----------



## Hexabob69 (Nov 8, 2008)

Time and time again I have stated that if you want to win do not leave it to the judges to make the decision. Niether really proved they were title worthy, thus possibly giving JBJ a more bloated record. I hope Jones moves up soon so we can finally see a legitimate loss on his part.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

PheelGoodInc said:


> You really need to not be so confrontational for no reason... Especially about a close fight. Relax brah.


There's def a reason and it wasn't a close fight


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Bknmax said:


> There's def a reason and it wasn't a close fight


What's the reason? Your mad at a judges decision so you're overly confrontational with people who can understand that decision? Sounds like anger issues to me.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

PheelGoodInc said:


> What's the reason? Your mad at a judges decision so you're overly confrontational with people who can understand that decision? Sounds like anger issues to me.


There's a difference between understanding a decision and saying Phil Davis and Machida had an equal standing exchange in the whole fight. def an anger issue though your right


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Bknmax said:


> There's a difference between understanding a decision and saying Phil Davis and Machida had an equal standing exchange in the whole fight. def an anger issue though your right


It wasn't equal but it certainly wasn't lopsided or a huge difference. Davis landed some nice shots, some leg/side kicks, the margin of how many more strikes Machida landed than Davis is like 5-10%.

That's not saying Davis is THAT good of a striker, but he certainly didn't struggle at all with Machida's striking or was overpowered by it, it did very well standing with Machida and the difference between strikes landed was not that high.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

What does it say to you when 95% of fighters seemed to score it for Machida? 

Are they wrong? Or do they just not understand how their job works? 

Either way it is a problem. When fighters don't even understand how fights are supposed to be scored....that is a huge problem. 95% of fighters I guess don't understand the scoring system. Can't say that for any other sport. 

It isn't like other fights. More fighters gave it to Diaz than Condit. But there were still quite a few that gave Condit that fight. Same with Frankie and Bendo. This fight however it is hard to find anyone in the sport that thought Phil won. Powerhouse wrestlers like Askren gave it to Machida for focks sakes.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

M.C said:


> It wasn't equal but it certainly wasn't lopsided or a huge difference. Davis landed some nice shots, some leg/side kicks, the margin of how many more strikes Machida landed than Davis is like 5-10%.
> 
> That's not saying Davis is THAT good of a striker, but he certainly didn't struggle at all with Machida's striking or was overpowered by it, it did very well standing with Machida and the difference between strikes landed was not that high.


That's because for some reason you think blocked kicks and checked kicks count as landed, I didn't see Phil get one significant in.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Bknmax said:


> That's because for some reason you think blocked kicks and checked kicks count as landed, I didn't see Phil get one significant in.


I didn't either. Wasn't like Machida beat Phil up bad. But he totally controlled the stand up the whole fight. I'm not sure what some people watched. Seems like the actual fighters in the sport saw the same fight we did.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Bknmax said:


> That's because for some reason you think blocked kicks and checked kicks count as landed, I didn't see Phil get one significant in.


I saw with my own two eyes during the fight him landing leg and side kicks cleanly, so I have no idea what you're talking about. He also landed a few overhand rights. I'm pretty sure there's a gif running around (many gifs of the fight) where it shows him landing a solid one.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

kind of a shoulder strike if it is this one:


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

That't about the only one and the push kick in the beginning of the fight i pointed those out to my friend during the fight,Phil was throwing to waste time so he wouldn't strike with Machida while Machida was trying to counter since he already measured Phil.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Yeah I believe that's the one I seen. He lands a few of those in the fight (although where they hit exactly I don't remember).

Point being, he lands side kicks, he lands leg kicks, he throws some overhands and they land. No these kicks are not "checked", they land cleanly. In the first two rounds he lands more than he's being given credit for here. The third round was further apart from what I remember though as Machida eventually found his timing, and he clearly won that round.

As I've said in another thread, I scored it for a Machida win with him taking R1/R3, but the striking was not far enough apart for the judges to give Machida R1 after the TD and after having a couple of days to stop and think about it, I don't have a problem with how it was scored, it was a close fight and I could see R1 going either way (which was the only controversial round IMO, I thought 2 and 3 had clear winners).


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

I feel the same way for the most part. Phil stole round 2 at the end. Round 3 was clearly Machida. I gave R1 to Machida but it wasn't a blowout by any means.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Ape City said:


> I feel the same way for the most part. Phil stole round 2 at the end. Round 3 was clearly Machida. I gave R1 to Machida but it wasn't a blowout by any means.


Exactly.

People who call this a robbery have no clue what a robbery really is...


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

What would you call it then? It wasn't the worst decision of all time, but it was a bad one. Not sure what else you can call a fight where 9 out of 10 thought Machida won. 8 out of 10 gave him each round. Yet he loses. 

I don't recall a fight where more news sources or fighters had one guy winning who didn't actually get the decision. I have literally seen one person give it to Phil and that is Florian. The other 100 of so opinions I have seen from people in the sport had Machida winning. 

When they said all 3 judges score it 29-28, I asked my friend what round did they give Phil?


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> What would you call it then? It wasn't the worst decision of all time, but it was a bad one. Not sure what else you can call a fight where 9 out of 10 thought Machida won. 8 out of 10 gave him each round. Yet he loses.
> 
> I don't recall a fight where more news sources or fighters had one guy winning who didn't actually get the decision.


I was amazed how many news sources/mma journalists had given it to machida... most 30-27. 

Is it not a case of people who predicted Machida to win, wanting to be right?


I dunno, Im surprised so many people are getting annoyed at a decision that was very close.


----------



## Danm2501 (Jun 22, 2009)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Exactly.
> 
> People who call this a robbery have no clue what a robbery really is...


This. Far from a robbery, could have gone either way. I had it 29-28, but round 1 was very close. Takedown for Phil gives him the round for me. Helps if you actually watch the fight and avoid listening to the slightly biased commentary of Stann. No way did Machida land 4 punches and a knee in that flurry, might have landed one punch at best.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Killz said:


> I was amazed how many news sources/mma journalists had given it to machida... most 30-27.
> 
> Is it not a case of people who predicted Machida to win, wanting to be right?
> 
> ...


Oh come on. Wanting to be right? The news outlets score each fight for every card. You think they care to be right on their original prediction? You think fighters care if they predicted a fight correct? You are grasping at straws. Askren had it Machida and Askren is hugely biased towards wrestling. 

At least 9 out 10 fighters who had an opinion after, scored it for Machida and said they were shocked with the decision. Never seen such a clean sweep like that for a fighter who lost. Usually close fights will have at least some mix of opinions.

Fighters seem to not even know the scoring criteria for their own sport. Most fighters even wrestlers don't give Phil much of anything for his 2 meaningless takedowns. 

I'm not even a Machida fan and bashed him hard many times before.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Oh come on. Wanting to be right? The news outlets score each fight for every card. You think they care to be right on their original prediction? You think fighters care if they predicted a fight correct? You are grasping at straws. Askren had it Machida and Askren is hugely biased towards wrestling.
> 
> At least 9 out 10 fighters who had an opinion after, scored it for Machida and said they were shocked with the decision. Never seen such a clean sweep like that for a fighter who lost. Usually close fights will have at least some mix of opinions.
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong, im by no means trying to give excuses or weight to a Phil Davis Win. I scored it for Davis, regardless of what fighters or Critics scored it.

I was just throwing up possibilities as to why it was such a unanimous verdict through all the media in a fight, that was very close.


Got to be honest, I couldnt care less who won, im not a fan of either fighter and dont see either of them as a threat to Jones.


----------

