twitter google

UFC 167: Kizer Points to White, Not Judging, For Controversy

Georges St. Pierre

Depending on who you talk to, Johny Hendricks was either robbed at UFC 167 due to clueless judging, or Georges St. Pierre barely retained the welterweight belt as a result of the way fights are scored. If you were hoping for something to change, it doesn’t look like the controversial fight is going to be the catalyst, not in Nevada anyways.

Nevada State Athletic Commission’s executive director Keith Kizer has weighed in on what went down in Saturday’s headliner, and according to the official, Dana White’s post-fight comments are largely responsible for any uproar (quotes via MMA Junkie.com):

“The last four rounds were scored unanimously,” Kizer said. “The first could have gone either way, as most people thought it could have gone either way, regardless of how they scored it. It’s more about Dana’s comments than anything else, not about the scoring.”

As Kizer alluded to, all of the judges agreed that GSP won rounds 3 and 5, and that Hendricks took rounds 2 and 4. Two of the judges, however, awarded the opening round to the welterweight champ, and thus, gave St. Pierre the split decision win.

If you recall, immediately after the card, White blasted the commission by saying:

“The commission, these guys….just despicable. This city is scary. It’s not the scoring system, it’s the judges. Look around the Octagon at who is judging these fights. The Nevada State Athletic Commission has a lot of work to do. It makes me sick.”

So, chances are GSP-Hendricks II won’t be happening in Nevada…

20 COMMENTS
  • hindsightufuk says:

    i also think Joe Rogans constant belittling of judges decisions in the ring straight after the fight has something to do with it.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  • raker says:

    Yep…. If it wasn’t for Dana this would be nothing more than a jones-Gustaffson scenario. Close fight but GSP won in the eyes of 2 of 3 judges. The End.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  • SBERG says:

    I really don’t blame Dana….He’s a promoter, it’s his job to stir the pot of controversy in the hope it brings in more PPV$ in a potential rematch. Only problem with the scenario at hand is GSP might not fight anymore so in that regard it kind of blew up in Dana’s face and left him looking kinda ignorant.
    But as far as just stirring the pot goes I don’t have a problem with what Dana did.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  • Screenplaya says:

    Regarding this fight, Dana has been a whiny, petulant clown, and I wish he had shut up before he started flapping his lips. I am usually a bog fan of White’s, but he is being a toolbag right now.

    Still, I do want them to review/revise scoring in some way. We have seen a number of questionable outcomes lately, and it should be looked at.

    And, you gotta love Kizer slapping Dana when he goes too far, as in this instance.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  • raker says:

    Ya… I don’t like the 10 point must in mma. It works great for boxing over 10-12 rounds but isn’t as effective in 3-5 round fights in mma. There’s also so much more to assess in mma and what’s obvious to one may not be to another judge due to subjectivity. More 10-10’s need to be awarded and overtime if necessary just like in TUF.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  • SBERG says:

    Again I don’t think it’s as much about Dana’s comments as the it is with the obvious problem of judging…..Sure when Dana fires off more people take notice cause of who he is but realistically we all talk and read about bad decisions in this fight and others on every site we go too.
    The subject of bad judging isn’t new by any means and if anything it’s more of a move by Kieth Kizer to try and wipe his hands clean of any wrong doing. Push blame on everyone else instead of accepting a certain bit of responsibility. Dana is guilty of this too for sure…..
    The point being though is that there needs to be a fix somehow for obvious mis-handling of the judging system and that falls on Kizer whether he wants to admit it or not…..Speaking of Nevada of course.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  • raker says:

    I disagree that it’s a Nevada thing. The system is in place everywhere and questionable decisions have occurred everywhere as well. Maybe increase the number if judges to 7 or 9. I dunno. Neither GSP or Nevada are the problem though.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  • SBERG says:

    Considering Keith Kizer is the Executive director of the NSAC it absolutely is a Nevada thing. Every commission has their own guidelines pertaining to their state. Sure they more than likely share info or what have you but they are separate so I’m sorry raker but it is a Nevada thing. The fight was in Nevada sanctioned by the NSAC…..That makes it a Nevada thing.
    And no you don’t need 7 to 10 judges , just 3 that are competent enough to watch a fight.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  • AlphaOmega says:

    I think raker is pointing out that there’s been controversial decisions other places then just Nevada, so it’s not just the NSAC that is a problem, it’s all judging in general since they all use the same rules.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  • SBERG says:

    Yes we know this but to each state has their own law of order….To just say well it’s all over is just something we already know but to deal with it means taking each state on one by one. Noting will change on a national scale by what I think your trying to mean.
    This is why Dana blasted Nevada specifically. Each state implements it’s own judges with whatever qualifications each state seems fit. The problem with Nevada is the rehashing of boxing judges who understand fighting but not MMA as a whole.
    Unless a national order is signed pertaining to a unified set of rules and procedure that covers all states nothing of what you guys are saying comes into play. Again , this is why Dana blasted Nevada specifically. I don’t blame Kizer for defending himself but ultimately he’s the one guy who can change everything in Nevada and possibly , again I say possibly start a trend that carries to other states as well. But he won’t do that. Look at the state of boxing judging, that’ll tell ya all you need to know there.
    Lastly if it were that easy to get everyone on the same page nationally to have a common order of MMA rules, officating, judging and all that then why the hell doesn’t New York have MMA? Cause the NYSAC said so…

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  • raker says:

    Yes Alpha, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And why not more judges? Many people are complaining that 2 of the 3 last weekend are incompetent. That argument is less likely to fly if you need 4 of 7 or 5 of 9 to win a fight. Just a thought, not a proposal.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  • SBERG says:

    You could have 1000 judges, if they don’t understand what they’re watching the outcome will never change. Sorry guys but by just saying controversy is everywhere which is just stating the obvious means nothing. That argument completely misses the point of Dana’s rant.
    The only thing Kizer will do is slam Dana instead of taking a long hard look at a flawed system and having the balls to fix it. Again he can fix it anytime he wants by implementing some of the things that have been talked about here and elsewhere but he won’t, plain and simple he just won’t.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  • raker says:

    I think you’re missing the point about judging not just being a NSAC issue. The 3 judges last weekend used the same subjectivity and scoring format that is used everywhere else. Look again at the headline…”Kizer points to White, not judging, for controversy.” The controversy about NSAC exists because Dana said so.. but the exact same judging issues are prevalent everywhere else everytime there is a close decision/questionable judging. Dana thew out a bone and you just bit is all.

    About the judging number… the more you have to draw a decision from the less likely the excuse of incomptence can be used. There was not a thing wrong with the judging last weekend..it was close and good arguments have been made by Hendricks and GSP supporters that the decision was right and wrong. In the end the only thing that matters is that the 3 judges judging scored it the way they did. Just because it was so close that many disagree, we now have a judging controversy because the prez didnt like it. Well, too bad. Thats the way the game is played. If these two were so out to lunch why not add two or four more judges to the mix to make sure that its right. But like you said, you could have 1000 judges and if Dana doesnt like the decision then a controversy ensues.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  • SBERG says:

    Sorry but you missed the point and again this instance is a Nevada issue. I never once said the decision was bad, I’ve always said that I thought GSP won as well but I fully understand Dana’s rant. On a overall basis , again overall not just this one instance Dana is right about what he said.
    Sure him being mad about the outcome not being what he thought adds a little bias to it but again overall he’s not wrong.
    Kizer on the other hand , while being right to defend his judges and procedure is wrong for just ignoring the fact that overall there is a major problem with the people that are judging the fights. Yes it happens everywhere but you can’t get everyone on the same page all at once. Someone has to make the first leap. Again this is where Kizer fails. He has all the power to do so but does noting but get into a pissing contest with Dana. If Nevada takes the first step to truly implement a protocol to how judges are picked and trained for MMA that would set a precedent but they won’t do it. Believe me I know what your saying but you can’t lump everyone together in this. Each state is it’s own entity.
    So again whether you have 3 or 3000 judges scoring the fight, if the people doing it aren’t qualified enough to understand what they’re watching the outcome will always be clouded.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  • SBERG says:

    There was controversy about the fight as soon as it was over. All you saw on every site was “Robbed!!!”.
    That was well before Dana opened his mouth. Instead of blaming Dana Kizer should be thanking him for taking the heat off of himself temporarily. But to say Dana caused all this is absurd. The controversy was always there Dana just kicked it up a notch.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  • raker says:

    Kizer isn’t failing because there’s nothing wrong with how those two judges judged the fight. It’s subjective and there are many others who have GSP the first round. In their eyes GSP did more to win the fight. End of story. And your contradicting yourself. Kizer needs to set a precedent yet each state is its own entity. Hmmm. I get that but yet why is it fair to tip Kizer and expect him to change judging procedure and influence it everywhere when it’s not even clear there’s a problem? This wasn’t a robbery. Dana speaks so everyone should jump? All because Dana scored the fight differently. Maybe he should be the one influencing change by resigning as prez and applying to be a judge. In all honesty I don’t mean to be rude but look at the thumbs. I don’t think I’m off base.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • SBERG says:

    The thumbs? Really? That’s what your after the thumbs? There’s only 7 people that post here , what the hell do I care if any agree with me? Wow you really summed it up there…..Thnx.
    You wanna talk contradiction?
    AlphaOmega says:
    November 21, 2013 at 5:53 pm
    I think raker is pointing out that there’s been controversial decisions other places then just Nevada, so it’s not just the NSAC that is a problem, it’s all judging in general since they all use the same rules.

    raker says:
    November 21, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    Yes Alpha, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And why not more judges? Many people are complaining that 2 of the 3 last weekend are incompetent. That argument is less likely to fly if you need 4 of 7 or 5 of 9 to win a fight. Just a thought, not a proposal.

    Hmmm. I get that but yet why is it fair to tip Kizer and expect him to change judging procedure and influence it everywhere when it’s not even clear there’s a problem? This wasn’t a robbery. Dana speaks so everyone should jump?

    The last part being from your last post and your talking to me about contradiction? You don’t get controversy without a problem existing. But whatever you said it best…..Look at the thumbs , that’s what you care about…Wow…That was funny. I don’t mind being the antagonist, really I don’t cause at least it keeps the posts coming. Look at what we’ve had over the past day. Other than us this site is stagnant……But again you got your thumbs….Enjoy…

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  • Screenplaya says:

    Was the judging of this fight terrible? No, definitely not. It was a close fight, with a split decision. Only a moron, or Dana White would use this fight as the reason for throwing the NSAC under the bus.

    But, despite the completely reasonable judging of this fight, there does need to be a review of MMA scoring. There have been too many bad decisions made in too many jurisdictions.

    I think it makes sense for Nevada to head this up, since many (maybe most) commissions follow their lead.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • raker says:

    You and I disagree and that’s ok although im unclear regarding my supposed contradiction. I’m not keeping score with the thumbs other than it lends support to our positions. But if that’s an unfair way to “judge” us then maybe you could lobby 5 oz. for judging reform. It’s clearly unfair.

    And your right, the posts are coming. Good discussion…:)

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • raker says:

    I agree Screenplaya….judging in this fight ok but overall judging reform is necessary. An alternative to the 10 point must, more judges at ringside, a change in judging criteria… Something needs to change. Although, with that in mind, unless it’s based on stats or something measurable, or continues until a stoppage, judging will continue to be subjective.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

LEAVE A COMMENT!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow 5OZ