Can The Judging In Mixed Martial Arts Be Fixed?

by Kelvin Hunt on Nov 30, 2009 10:52 AM EST in News Comment 25 comments

Jake Rossentakes a stab at it with his seven step method. If it can't be fixed, it can still be improved and Rossen has some solid points, and some points I can do without. Below are the his points and my thoughts are after the jump:

Have 5 judges instead of 3
Place cameras on the judges to make sure they are not distracted from the task at hand
Randomly test the judges
Have a media member at the judges table
Determine the limits of control(defining how much a take down with little action afterwards stacks up against a strong flurry of strikes landing on an opponent).
Have more 10-10 rounds
Have stats from fightmetric available for the judges to help render their decisions

-I like the 5 judges idea as long as the 5 judges are competent and not complete idiots about how to score an MMA fight. If they are not aware of what's going on, it wouldn't matter if you had 10 judges. However, Rossen addresses that problem in his test the judges randomly part which I agree with completely. Also, a increase in the number of judges allows for a more thorough decision.

-I don't know about placing cameras on the judges. I think that's a bit much. I would like to think that judges don't look out into the crowd or check out the booty of ring card girls for like 5 minutes straight.

-I think having a media member at the judges table doesn't make sense either. There are ton of media members that don't have a clue about how to judge a fight. Just let the judges that have been randomly tested and passed the exam do their job without having to look at, talk too, or worry about some random media member all up in their grill piece.

-I definitely think the limits of control portion should be clearly defined. I think the central part in that should revolve around damage inflicted. That's subjective, but I don't think it's too difficult to determine who did more damage throughout a round.

-Yes, to more 10-10 rounds. Often times, rounds are so close that it's basically impossible to determine who won the round. There's no sense in awarding fighter A the round because he got a weak take down and did nothing with it on the ground.

-I think having stats available is both good and bad, but we have to remember that those stats are determined by humans as well. So you have to take the human error into consideration with that as well. Ultimately, if I were a judge, I don't think I would need to see any stats to determine who won a round and/or the fight.

What say you?

0 recs | Comment 25 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The solution is simple no matter what judging system you utilize: well-educated, qualified judges. The PRIDE-system sounds excellent on paper but it still didn’t prevent wacky decisions.

Bloody hell.

by 3PA on Nov 30, 2009 11:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I wrote a piece about this over the summer, but I’m 100% for open scoring. Having the scores announced after each round tells fighters where they stand and, hopefully, sheds light on what the judges are looking for. I’ve never understood the closed scoring system.

by SlickRick00 on Nov 30, 2009 11:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

They have used it in boxing

And it has failed miserably. Let this generation of boxing judges pass and I believe it will be a slightly better system. Changes needs to be made in the Unified Rules to make it clear to the judges what to score.

by EVeezy on Nov 30, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m for open scoring partly because I think it’s much more fair to the fighters and fans. Most boxers and MMA fighters that I’ve talked to would love to fight under an open scoring system. It’s literally the difference in knowing whether or not they’re winning or losing the fight. Fighters, in my opinion, deserve a chance to know how a judge is scoring their fight and the chance to make adjustments accordingly. Right now you do as good a job as you know how and hope that you don’t have an idiotic judge. At least knowing that you’ve got an idiotic judge scoring the fight early on would help you make adjustments accordingly (change in strategy).

by SlickRick00 on Nov 30, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Humm...

It is intrusting, In boxing the fighter with the lead, always sticks and moves for a boring a Dec. I wonder what would happen in an MMA fight? I would be intrusted in watching it being applyed. Honestly I don’t see it making a dramatic differnce, plus it doesn’t exactly slove the problem of horrid judging. But I would like to see the idea play out.

by EVeezy on Nov 30, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I see what you’re saying. I’m with you on it not fixing horrible scoring. The benefit I see is that it would make it immediately apparent that horrible judging is going on. These fighters have so much money on the line (not to mention the fans that are shelling out $50 in a down economy to watch the fight) that all I ask for is that they find out up front that the judges are incompetent. Most fighters that I’ve talked to have, almost unanimously, said they’d rather fight under an open scoring system. I don’t think we’ll ever see it, though.

by SlickRick00 on Nov 30, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I also like the encouraged usage of 10-10 rounds in really close rounds that are hard to call.

by SlickRick00 on Nov 30, 2009 11:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

why not have seperate judges for each round. 3 for first, 3 different for 2nd and 3 diff for 3rd. same thing applies for championship fights. or get rid of the decision and fight untill someones wins or ref stops the fight and declares a winner.

by scotts99 on Nov 30, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ehh…I’m not a fan of the seperate judges …I think that brings in too much subjectivity in a very small time frame…I think the fight should have the same judges the whole time.

or get rid of the decision and fight untill someones wins or ref stops the fight and declares a winner.

We tried that…but you have to have a time limit or somebody would get killed…

http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@MMA4Real

by Kelvin Hunt on Nov 30, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for sure on the time limit. 5 minute rounds untill someone wins

by scotts99 on Nov 30, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yea

but you still need a time limit overall…what if a fight went 8 five minute rounds? We’d get to see like 3 fights on every PPV!

http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@MMA4Real

by Kelvin Hunt on Nov 30, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah you have a point there ppv could end up being like 8 hours or like you said we’d only get to see 2-3 fights. i know judging has been iffy in the past but not as much as resently. why all of a sudden does every ppv have a fight or 2 thats questionable on the judges decission.

Sorry to get off the subject but is there any new news on lesnars condition and are they or are they not going to have a interim champ

by scotts99 on Nov 30, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ummm

I think I recall Dana White saying he was going to wait until Lesnar got checked out by the Mayo Clinic before definitely deciding on an interim title…Lesnar should be seeing the Mayo place in the next week or so…

http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@MMA4Real

by Kelvin Hunt on Nov 30, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

I agree

by EVeezy on Nov 30, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they should let fans text who they think won and do a tally…lol..j/k

all good ideas on paper but I have a feeling we’d still be subjected to bizarre decisions, just the way it goes when there’s not a point system that can numerically calculated like in other sports

by Charles Walker on Nov 30, 2009 11:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

lol on the let fans text who they think won

by scotts99 on Nov 30, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

lolol..

yea,…Charles was trippin..

http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@MMA4Real

by Kelvin Hunt on Nov 30, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like open scorecards

but I do think that after every decision, the judges should be required to write a short paragraph explaining their reasoning for that decision, and it should be made publicly available ASAP.

by Shaun32887 on Nov 30, 2009 3:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t care if you’ve got TEN judges, because there are a lot of judges that make stupid decisions all the time. The only thing you can hope to do by adding two more is dilluting the bad ones with (ideally) good ones. JUST FIRE THE BAD JUDGES. Boom, problem solved, and you’re not paying two more people.

Having a member of the media with the judges will be a problem, because there are a lot of people in the media that are inherintly biased, and they could add to the decision in ways that aren’t positive. The same thing happens when you start flashing fight metrics in someone’s face; show a judge the metrics of Kimbo vs. Roy, and that first round is a 10-7 because of the sheer number of strikes landed. If a judge can’t watch the fight and get a good idea of who hit who more, then again, fire them.

As for 10-10 rounds.. I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean. There are already provisions for 10-10 rounds, and judges just DON’T use them. If you tell the judges to do more 10-10s, then they’re impacting their decisions. If they can figure a round out that’s great, and if that round was a 10-10 then that’s fantastic. The problem isn’t that there are 10-10s available, it’s that judges think that they’ll get canned if they use the 10-10.

Live previews and reviews of all major fights!
LightsOutRadio.com

by -Neil- on Nov 30, 2009 3:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As for 10-10 rounds.. I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean. There are already provisions for 10-10 rounds, and judges just DON’T use them. If you tell the judges to do more 10-10s, then they’re impacting their decisions. If they can figure a round out that’s great, and if that round was a 10-10 then that’s fantastic. The problem isn’t that there are 10-10s available, it’s that judges think that they’ll get canned if they use the 10-10.

My assumption is that have the judges use more 10-10 rounds AFTER they have been properly educated on scoring…and yea they can score rounds 10-10 now…but it’s obvious many of the judges aren’t competent….in regards to them getting canned…they aren’t getting canned for rendering shitting decisions…so I don’t see why they would be canned for using the 10-10.

http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@MMA4Real

by Kelvin Hunt on Nov 30, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I think that the mentality about them getting fired for a 10-10 is that a 10-10 isn’t a decision. So if they’re giving a decision, even if it’s the wrong one, they’re still doing their job.

I think that the problem here isn’t that the rules don’t work, it’s that the people that are in place to do it aren’t any good at it. Even after botching a wicked decision, they’re still in place, and continue to do it time and time again. Talking about things like adding two more judges is on par with switching on the safety on a loaded gun before handing it to a 4 year old. It’s a good idea if that’s what you’re stuck with, but just like keeping those judges, you really don’t need to keep giving that kid a gun.

Live previews and reviews of all major fights!
LightsOutRadio.com

by -Neil- on Nov 30, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“Well, I think that the mentality about them getting fired for a 10-10 is that a 10-10 isn’t a decision.”

I think I know what you’re saying here, but technically 10-10 is a decision. It’s a decision that neither fighter did enough to distinguish themself as claiming the round (ex: if two fighters go through a 5 minute round and just circle each other and never make contact, that would be a 10-10 round). It’s definitely a minority of the time, but I’ve seen lots of rounds that I would have scored 10-10.

“I think that the problem here isn’t that the rules don’t work, it’s that the people that are in place to do it aren’t any good at it.”

This is 100% correct.

by SlickRick00 on Nov 30, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

more 10-10’s will no doubt lead to more draws

by Charles Walker on Nov 30, 2009 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nah

I don’t think so…it’s pretty rare when you have a fight that’s THAT close for 3 rounds…and in the advent that you do…then it should be a draw…

http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@MMA4Real

by Kelvin Hunt on Nov 30, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if the 3 judges are competent you wouldn’t need 5, and as Kelvin pointed out media presence would be counter productive cos hey, theyre spose to be watching the damn fight! we’re left wondering half the time as it is what fight they’ve been watching without encouraging future behaviour…(hey Cecil, where you at son?!). cameras, stats..meh! random testing and 10-10 rounds should be in use as we speak, why arent they…[sigh]

"I had to fight all my life to survive. They were all against me... but I beat the bastards and left them in the ditch." ~ Ty Cobb

by RearNakedPoke on Nov 30, 2009 6:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs