Old news, but...

It seems to me that the Hermes decision is like the Liddell-Bustamante decision. I think both decisions picked the wrong winner and in both cases it was because of a bias against ground fighting.

I'm sure there are many who will disagree.

I agree, Hermes was more dominant.

I was just thinking about Murillo dropping to guard when Chuck tried to box him, and about how that looked like knock downs to the judges, and about Hermes pulling half guard, and how that must have looked bad to the judges also. Add in that both the opponents were scared of the ground game, and I think it is pretty similar.

Renoslovaskia - it wouldn't look to you like Murilo won the standup IF you didn't understand his flopping to guard after getting hit. If you thought those were knock downs, then it would look like liddell kicked his ass.

"I'm sure there are many who will disagree."

No, I agree completely. As an all-around fighter, you'd have to be able to see why in the eyes of the judges, they'd give the fight to a guy who elects to take it to the guy standing up. As a striker, at least in my opinion, this is completely justified. I should be given the point for socking the guy in the FUCKING face, before he should be given a point for "ground control". Seriously, at that point, what is "ground control"? Not getting socked in the face again? Whatever, BRO. Fight's mine in that case if ya ask me.

Looking just at the standup, neither Hermes nor Murillo lost. In fact, both of them were more dominant. It is ONLY when you misunderstand their groundwork, and see it as some sign of losing, that you can think that they lost.

Some vegas judges are notorious for using boxing criteria for judging. (Clean effective punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, and superior defense).

This is how Emerson got one judge against Javi

yves didnt really land any decent strikes, i'd say hermes struck more

hermes got robbed end of story.

Boxing and MMA both suffer from bad judging.

Hlaf the time i can't believe the judges are watching the same fight.

I really felt it should've been ruled a draw. I just didn't see that either guy was far and away better than the other.

As for the Liddell/Busta fight. That call was 100% correct. Bust got outboxed and was unable to initate any ground game offensively (and I was pulling for Busta - I'm a big fan). It was a pretty uneventful fight but flopping to guard should NOT be rewarded in MMA. If that's how you initiate your ground game (rather than learning how to effectively shoot or clinch) then you SHOULD be penalized on the scorecard. Go back to sport JJ if that's how you wanna play, this is the FIGHT game...

I do agree with EvilAsh about the perspective of a judge v. a TV viewer (even an arena viewer who is not sitting where a judge is).

But I am not terribly comfortable with the "subject matter experts" who are judging MMA in NV. The reffing is VERY good... but the judging has some issues. ALSO, I am not entirely happy with how the UFC spells out its judging criteria.

"If you don't want to get a decision against you then don't let it go to a decision."

Boom. Spoken like a true striker.

Good judging has always been a problem. Boxing and Karate Tournaments always had poor judges also. Maybe they should give the judges more training.

Gary Hughes