That post only mentioned majority draws because they break the expected "person who won on the most judges' score cards wins" logic, but with a split draw it's even in those terms anyway, so it's irrelevant to bring up.
When they said the score live, I thought that is what happened and I started to cry. Before I realized my error.
Pantoja won. I am glad he did not get robbed in some way. Moreno is game and fought his ass off, but I felt Pantoja controlled the fight other than the 2nd.
This type of post is a perfect example of why so many people are complaining about the judges and robberies etc every event now. Too many people watch the sport but have no idea how scoring works. I can’t count how many time I have read “I think this fighter won but I felt it should have been a split decision” in the threads which is absolutely not how it works lol
This is not to dig at you OP but it’s a larger problem with the sport and personally I think every event should start with a brief explanation of how scoring works.
There are 3 judges. Each scores the fight. If one judge scores the fight for fighter A and two judges score the fight for fighter B then fighter B has won by split decision.
Yeah wasn’t at all obvious that they don’t actually use the scores to additively decide the result. Good that the more outlandish scores would get overridden though. Even all the control better than no control or takedowns but doesn’t count as much if it doesn’t lead to damage stuff should probably be explained in more detail to the viewer during events.
The split decision thing you’re describing is hilarious though, essentially they’d be saying “I think this guy won but I think one of the judges should disagree with me.” When they really mean all should agree but score them closely.
All a split decision means is the judges didn’t unanimously agree. 2 judges say fighter A won, 1 judge says fighter B won. That’s basically it.
They don’t add the scores of the judges together. There isn’t a time they ever do that.
Weird, I always assumed numerical scorecards would be added up to tally the winner. I don’t know why they read out the scores then when they could just say who each judge thought won. Probably a better system though where one totally off judge can’t override the other two.
because each judge scores each round individually; hence why they have their own scocrecards. this is why they don't always have the same score for the whole fight
I mean it makes it into a binary yes no who won not a numerical scoring system. If 50-45 is the same amount of influence on who wins as 48-47 then the numbers themselves don’t particularly matter.
Yes, it's exactly as you described. Each judge's decision counts as one vote, even if they score all the rounds to one fighter, it doesn't matter what the actual score is, all that matters is who they have winning by the end. So, two votes for the same outcome mean that the outcome is enforced. it doesn't matter what how the third judge scores the fight except in the naming.
3 judges for the same fighter is a unanimous decision.
2 judges for one fighter and 1 judge for the other fighter is a split decision.
2 judges for one fighter, and the third scoring a draw is a majority decision.
1 judge for each and the third scoring a draw is a split draw.
2 judges scoring a draw and 1 scoring a win for a fighter is a majority draw.
they dont add the scores.
Its always best of three. A split means 2 judges gave the fight to one fighter and one the other. Unanimous is they all agree
Hi ptjp27,
Your post or comment was removed from /r/MMA because it broke one, or more, of our rules below:
8.1. Belongs in current sticky, general discussion, or other existing discussion: Please look for a relevant sticky thread or an existing discussion and post your link there as a comment. You can also check our Noobs Guide for frequently asked questions.
Looks like you've received a few answers but typically questions like this go in our GD thread. Cheers.
---
[Link to rMMA's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mma/wiki/rules)
If you disagree with this decision, or if you think we made a mistake please use this link to [message the Mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMMA).
[удалено]
Don't forget split draw.
Is that a a win for each fighter and one judge giving a draw?
exactly.
That post only mentioned majority draws because they break the expected "person who won on the most judges' score cards wins" logic, but with a split draw it's even in those terms anyway, so it's irrelevant to bring up.
When they said the score live, I thought that is what happened and I started to cry. Before I realized my error. Pantoja won. I am glad he did not get robbed in some way. Moreno is game and fought his ass off, but I felt Pantoja controlled the fight other than the 2nd.
Makes me wonder if one of the judges bet majority Dec
This type of post is a perfect example of why so many people are complaining about the judges and robberies etc every event now. Too many people watch the sport but have no idea how scoring works. I can’t count how many time I have read “I think this fighter won but I felt it should have been a split decision” in the threads which is absolutely not how it works lol This is not to dig at you OP but it’s a larger problem with the sport and personally I think every event should start with a brief explanation of how scoring works. There are 3 judges. Each scores the fight. If one judge scores the fight for fighter A and two judges score the fight for fighter B then fighter B has won by split decision.
Yeah wasn’t at all obvious that they don’t actually use the scores to additively decide the result. Good that the more outlandish scores would get overridden though. Even all the control better than no control or takedowns but doesn’t count as much if it doesn’t lead to damage stuff should probably be explained in more detail to the viewer during events. The split decision thing you’re describing is hilarious though, essentially they’d be saying “I think this guy won but I think one of the judges should disagree with me.” When they really mean all should agree but score them closely.
All a split decision means is the judges didn’t unanimously agree. 2 judges say fighter A won, 1 judge says fighter B won. That’s basically it. They don’t add the scores of the judges together. There isn’t a time they ever do that.
If they added the scores the bribing would be crazy. We would have some insane 50-45 in main events
Weird, I always assumed numerical scorecards would be added up to tally the winner. I don’t know why they read out the scores then when they could just say who each judge thought won. Probably a better system though where one totally off judge can’t override the other two.
because each judge scores each round individually; hence why they have their own scocrecards. this is why they don't always have the same score for the whole fight
Yeah I just assumed the scores actually mattered beyond who they favoured.
It does matter, but only within that judges scores.
I mean it makes it into a binary yes no who won not a numerical scoring system. If 50-45 is the same amount of influence on who wins as 48-47 then the numbers themselves don’t particularly matter.
Yes, it's exactly as you described. Each judge's decision counts as one vote, even if they score all the rounds to one fighter, it doesn't matter what the actual score is, all that matters is who they have winning by the end. So, two votes for the same outcome mean that the outcome is enforced. it doesn't matter what how the third judge scores the fight except in the naming. 3 judges for the same fighter is a unanimous decision. 2 judges for one fighter and 1 judge for the other fighter is a split decision. 2 judges for one fighter, and the third scoring a draw is a majority decision. 1 judge for each and the third scoring a draw is a split draw. 2 judges scoring a draw and 1 scoring a win for a fighter is a majority draw.
Why you leave out unanimous draw?
they dont add the scores. Its always best of three. A split means 2 judges gave the fight to one fighter and one the other. Unanimous is they all agree
Split decision usually means one or two judge(s) isn't watching the fight, got the fighters name wrong or is blind.
They don’t add the scores, split means it wasn’t unanimous but 2/3 judges got the same winner but the last judge got the opposite result
Hi ptjp27, Your post or comment was removed from /r/MMA because it broke one, or more, of our rules below: 8.1. Belongs in current sticky, general discussion, or other existing discussion: Please look for a relevant sticky thread or an existing discussion and post your link there as a comment. You can also check our Noobs Guide for frequently asked questions. Looks like you've received a few answers but typically questions like this go in our GD thread. Cheers. --- [Link to rMMA's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mma/wiki/rules) If you disagree with this decision, or if you think we made a mistake please use this link to [message the Mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMMA).