Anderson Silva attributes Machida loss to American bias


"So it’s like that… we don’t know what kind of criteria the judges are using to score the fights. Unfortunately… it’s American territory, American soil, he fought an American, and he didn’t knock him out"

Read entire article...
UFC-123/" target="_blank">Read entire article... (original Portuguese)

Related MMA gear from the UG Store


Roots of Fight Machida Karate Shirt

Roots of Fight Machida Karate Shirt

Only $34.95

Elevation Training Mask 2.0

Elevation Training Mask 2.0

Only $79.99


Recent Comments »

Jons Forsberg site profile image  

11/27/10 10:00 PM by Jons Forsberg

If it was in fact a 10 point system the scoring wouldn't be a problem. The current system is actually 2-point system, not 10.

georgejonesjr site profile image  

11/27/10 8:44 PM by georgejonesjr

Though I'd add the biggest problem is the way the 10 point must system is interpreted. That fight should have been scored a 28-28 (10-9, 10-9, 8-10) draw.

georgejonesjr site profile image  

11/27/10 8:43 PM by georgejonesjr

Sure, but its kind of pointless to go to another country and then complain about it - its not as if they were forced at gun point to fight in the US. And in this case much of it is simply style; I doubt the decision would have been different if Lyoto was an American, his style isn't culturally popular in the US. Look at all the flack Mayweather gets for his defensive style, and he still engages more than Lyoto. Or look at Fitch and the trouble he's having even getting a title fight - and against a foreigner (GSP). In general American audiences aren't into chess matches in combat sports, and their judges will reward someone who moves forward looking to engage.

Jaybrone site profile image  

11/27/10 6:23 AM by Jaybrone

This sums up the fight entirely for me.

Rickson's Aura site profile image  

11/24/10 12:42 PM by Rickson's Aura

This post is so wrong and filled with typical fanboy-esque exaggeration. If Machida was running for his life how do you explain a lot of the fight taking place in the clinch in rounds 1 and 2? How do you explain Rampage hitting the floor in Round 2? You can't run for your life and land kicks and flying knees in rounds 1 and 2. Machida did not barely win his round. That was the most dominant round in the whole fight. Anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional. Machida went at him with punches in kicks pushing Rampage from one side of the octagon to another. The strikes actually landed. Rocking your opponent, taking him down, and mounting him is winning a round pretty decisively if your opponent did nothing but chase & miss punches.

SKARHEAD site profile image  

11/24/10 12:00 PM by SKARHEAD

You can't RUN for your life for 3 rounds, win only one (barely) and then think you won...

Buck 65 site profile image  

11/24/10 11:34 AM by Buck 65

Imagine if the fight took place in Brazil, and Machida he had got the decision (like he should have gotten)..... Do you really think you guys wouldn't be saying the only reason Machida got the W is because it was in Brazil?

Tad Ghostal site profile image  

11/24/10 10:34 AM by Tad Ghostal

Yes you can.

Jons Forsberg site profile image  

11/24/10 9:55 AM by Jons Forsberg

I dunno why you guys as so butt hurt about it. It's fact that the judges are bias towards hometown fighters in the US as well as any other country.

THE Kevin Chandler site profile image  

11/24/10 9:11 AM by THE Kevin Chandler

 This.  I mean, lay n' pray still pretty much dominates the current scoring, so thank God at least we still have "agression" as a criteria.  That's why Rampage won the fight and why he should've won the fight (imo). It kinda surprises me when people talk about all these other reasons why they won, etc.  Striking, agression, and octagon control.  1/3 of the criteria is how exciting you are and how much you pressed the fight.  Eliminate that, and the UFC turns into professional wreslting (and I don't mean WWE), and NO ONE wants to see that.  Fuck, even WWE fans don't want to watch REAL professional wrestling.