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?