twitter google

Lyoto Machida: “I’m in a state of shock.”

Lyoto Machida: “I’m in a state of shock.”

Going in to UFC 163, light heavyweight Lyoto Machida had been promised a pair of title-shots after previous victories and seemed certain to lock up an opportunity at winning the belt with a win over Phil Davis. And, up until the moment the scorecards were read, it looked as though Machida was destined to do just that after a solid showing against the decorated wrestler. However, the rug was quickly pulled out from under Machida when “Mr. Wonderful” was awarded a Unanimous Decision, leaving the 35-year old to question what else he could have done outside of finish Davis to have earned the officials’ favor.

In an interview with MMAFighting moments removed from the rumble, Machida remained confused about the way things went down, calling for a second shot at Davis to prove he truly is the better man.

“I’m in a state of shock. I don’t agree with this result. That’s all I can say,” said the baffled Brazilian. “I don’t know what happened. I don’t know what the judges saw.”

“I’m very unhappy with MMA rules and UFC referee. I don’t think they prepare enough for the fight,” Machida continued. “If UFC can, I would like a rematch with Phil Davis because I want to prove I can beat him.”

The loss snapped a two-fight winning streak for Machida and dropped his record to 6-4 in his last ten tilts.

  • drstu says:

    I don’t know how anyone can question the results of this fight, it has to be common knowledge by now that judges only consider takedowns. Look at any fight with “questionable” judging, the most takedowns or takedown attempts wins the round.

  • AlphaOmega says:

    I think it’s because if you ask a judge exactly how much points they put to takedowns they make it out like they don’t put all that much. But then Mir did an interview that said even if their takedowns get stuffed they get more points then if they punch someone, but defending a takedown gets nothing. People will always complain about judging unless they clearly state this gives this many points, this gives this many points and so on.

  • hindsightufuk says:

    thats what happens when you have two fighters not really engaging or going for the win, point fighting, counter fighting, going for the decision etc.

    you can’t call either guy a winner or a loser after that fight.

    perfect fight to be a draw

  • joe mo mma says:

    We should go back to old school rules and do something like one 30 min round and if both fighters are still standing at the end, it’s a draw. I’m really getting sick of this last minute take-down BS to “steal the round”

  • SBERG says:

    I’m kind of sick of all the talk about what the judges judge upon….what’s really needed is a commision willing to give judges a true crash course on common sense….I don’t care about points and crap like that. It’s not too hard to just watch a fight and see who beat who…seriously. When you have unqualified people judging fights, this is what happens. How freakin hard is it to have people who are knowledgeable in MMA to judge MMA fights? It’s been happening in boxing for years so it’s only natural that it happens in MMA now.
    I could go on forever about this but just like expecting the commissions to put quality judges out there it’s pointless, soI’ll just stop here.

  • hindsightufuk says:

    sberg i agree, but you gotta put some of the onus on the fighters, if they arent willing to go out there & make sure everyone knows who won, it comes down to the judges opinion. there is no definitive guidelines for now. i couldnt tell you who i think won cos it was so fuck boring to watch i couldnt be arsed to score it

  • SBERG says:

    Well.. Myself and a vast majority of others thought Machida won going away. Yes the fighters should try and make a fight more decisive to tell but ti still doesn’t take away the fact that unqualified people seem to be judging the fights. After seeing the scorecards that were posted I couldn’t help but just sat ..WOW. Seems like someone slipped a Cecil Peoples pill in the judges water bottles…

  • SBERG says:

    ” just say”

  • MCM says:

    The problem is, SBERG, if you go to a decision everyone knows what wins fights. Effective Grappling, Striking, Aggression and Octagon Control.
    Machida had the better Striking, but not by much, and back peddling didn’t help. I understand that’s his style but the Rampage decision should have made it clear to him that that style won’t always win decisions.
    Davis had the better Grappling in that he took Machida down, held him down, and delivered punishment while he was down that Machida couldn’t get away from. It was also the only time in the fight either one seemed relatively Aggressive outside of one flurry by Machida.
    As for Octagon Control, who would you give it to, the guy walking backwards playing counter striker, or the one walking forwards looking to shoot? Seems to be a stale mate to me.
    Neither one of these guys should have “won” the fight. But if neither Should win than either Could win. It’s not the worst decision ever handed out.

  • SBERG says:

    I think that’s where I disagree in that 3 people who are supposed to know what to look for as you stated in what wins fights didn’t do that. In what I’m explaining isn’t about this one fight. Yes I put my personal opinion of who I thought won out there but this goes beyond that.
    The fact that this kind of a discussion is taking place again , and I don’t mean us but bad judging in general, is a testament of such. I don’t blame the fighters at all, they’re fighting. Who am I to tell them how to protect one’s self or be the aggressor towards another that’s trying to do the same. I blame the commission that puts the judges in place.
    It just seems that more and more we’re seeing people that really aren’t as adept with knowledge of MMA to properly look for just such points you’ve made – Effective grappling,Striking ,Aggression and Octagon control. Believe me I agree with you on those points as far as what to look for. Which again I’ll say I blame the commission as far as not putting qualified people in place to do such.
    It happens in boxing all the time where after a fight and a decision is handed down and you hear a collective “huh, what fight were they watching?”. As I stated it’s only natural that it happens here now too. This isn’t about this one fight it’s a overall assessment of a continued trend of bad people placement by the governing bodies at large. All I ask is for proper education for those that are being asked to judge so stuff like this can hopefully become a thing of the past.
    Judges are human , I get that, but so are the people who’s lives they’re affecting.

  • hindsightufuk says:

    Sberg i think we all agree with you in essence, but i also think it was just a bad fight to bring the point up with. So little action to try and score, so little of the criteria that judges look for actually took place, that i believe it really just came down to their own opinion of who won.

    but never should you have fights where one judge can score 27-30 and another 29-28. cant remember which fight it was recently, i think Woodley/Shields. No fight should allow judges opinions to differ so greatly if there is any kind of scoring system.

    i remember watching one even in recent years where the judges were John McCarthy, Jeff Blatnick and someone i can’t remember, a former fighter. it was a Bellator event and i just remember thinking, yep, we’re in safe hands here.
    So seldom do you get a real good panel of judges with that knowledge. maybe in 20 years when some fighters move to judging, but til then, we have to suck it

  • SBERG says:

    I didn’t bring the point up…I just commented on what was already being discussed and ran with it from there. As I said it isn’t about this one fight. And yes this was a good fight to talk about it as is any other fight where controversy comes into play. They’re all relevant.


You must be logged in to post a comment.