J-1 judging?

KJI · 11-01-2009, 02:47 AM

i am exceptionaly new to k-1, and in fact, the only real reason i've been watching it is because hdnet is now exposing it, and i'll be damned if i don't enjoy it.

the thing that confuses me is the judging though. i understand how in mma they judge different in japan, and sometimes there seems to be a fix in on a fight, but after watching a good number of k-1 events in the last year, i've noticed that the judging makes absolutely no sense about 50% of the time, and the other 50% of the time it is ok at best.

what exactly is the cariculum for these judges to look at? numerous times i've seen 2 guys stand there and bang, and it seems very close, which the drawn round makes sense, but instead we get 1 fighter winning the round, then you get these rounds that look like a fighter has somewhat asserted himself enough to win the round, and it ends up being drawn. then beyond that, there are the close rounds, the oens i believe should be 10-9, and they end up being crazy shit like 10-7, or of course, they could always just give the round to the other guy too.

with god awful judging like this, do they really expect to take a real step into new markets? this sport has great potential, it's exciting, fast paced, and just plain enjoyable to watch, and i hope this gets looked at.

Torrid · 11-01-2009, 03:46 AM

If you're not Japanese and it goes to the judges you probably lose.

If you fought in MMA more than K-1, you probably lose.

If it's for a contendership bout and you've already fought the champ you probably lose.

You see a trend there?

Cid · 11-01-2009, 03:51 AM

K-1 has judges?

I thought they drew names out of a hat if it went to a decision.

Kankurou · 11-01-2009, 03:58 AM

Though I am not defending the K-1 judges in anyway, because it should be called J-1, but one major difference in K-1 from other kickboxing judging such as Muay Thai is that no matter how hard they hit, blocked hits do not really count for points. Case in point the Melvin vs Remy fight that recently happened. I don't know if I completely agree with the decision but you'll notice Remy had his hands up in a shitting defensive boxing posture about everytime Melvin hit him with bombs. Though it jerked him around, the counter kicks he threw everytime probably scored more then the power shots from Melvin because they hit the body. Even though Melvin's blocked attacks probably did more damage and were more agressive.

Another aspect of K-1 is how attractive the fighter is. Since about 50% of K-1's fans are females, you can especially hear this when Masato or Artur fight for example, the more attractive you are, the more the crowd cheers for you. Since the crowd pays the bills at the end of the day, leaning towards one fighter over the other doesn't seem that bad if your fans are happy. This also works for where you are fighting as opposed to the nationality of the fighters, case in point Hong-Man Choi vs Schilt when they fought in Korea.

Finally I believe honestly that the judges will try to make something as dramatic as possible, sending fights into overtime rounds that have no bussiness being there. I.E. Masato vs Buakaw in I think '04, MAX finals, they went to 1 or 2 overtime rounds when clearly Buakaw was whooping that ass. You see it happen more so in super fights, if they know it'll produce a knockout or slugfest, they might be leaning on tied rounds.

Just my opinions though

sweede · 11-01-2009, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torrid

If you're not Japanese and it goes to the judges you probably lose.

If you fought in MMA more than K-1, you probably lose.

If it's for a contendership bout and you've already fought the champ you probably lose.

You see a trend there?

You are generalizing. You think all Japanese fighters get the same good treatment as Masato in K1 Max?

Why on earth would you draw parallells between K1 judging and MMA fighter losing?

I don't see any trend here.

rpn453 · 11-01-2009, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJI

. . . there are the close rounds, the oens i believe should be 10-9, and they end up being crazy shit like 10-7 . . .

When did that happen? The only time I've seen a 10-7 was when there were two knockdowns in the round.

But I agree that K-1 judging isn't good.

Check out Bonjasky-Musashi at the 2004 WGP for the worst judging I've ever seen.

stu3ufc · 11-01-2009, 10:56 AM

TS I am new to K-1 as well and the judging is freaking confusing

Karaev fan · 11-01-2009, 12:28 PM

It's only Masato who gets consistently good treatment. Sato got robbed against Drago, Hinata against Askerov. Though to be fair, Masato's highly aggressive, in-your-face style does tend to rack up more points.

TS is seeing hallucinations if he sees fighters leading by more than a point for no reason. The only way that can happen is by (multiple) knockdowns.

Steakeater · 11-01-2009, 12:36 PM

Masato and Musashi are known he get favorable judging, but even then, if the judging was actually biased, they wouldve given Masato he first fight with Souwer, as the KD was a slip imo.

They robbed Sato who is Japanese and give victory to Kalakoda as well. Sato shouldve won that fight EASILY.

Torrid · 11-01-2009, 12:42 PM

Man, people really don't get humor on the kickboxing board...

I was making parallels between Buakaw's treatment, Manhoef / Overeem getting some shady judging, and the recent Masato match-up.