Contributors/Columnists
SHAWN ENNIS
JASON BENT
MATT PELKEY
ALEX WILLIAMS
JED GOODMAN
FRANK HYDEN
JASON BENT
JOHN TAYLOR
MAYNARD SWEENEY
MARC PATCHING
MIKE JARSULIC
BRUCE MITCHELL APPLY TO JOIN OUR TEAM
A problem that plagues many MMA decisions is the inconsistent officiating. "Don't leave it up to the judges" is an old axiom in the world of MMA. For new fans that becomes painfully obvious the first time they see a seemingly bunk decision. Even amongst seasoned fans the judging can often be a source of frustration and confusion. Trying to defend the judging can at times be akin to swallowing a mouthful of cinnamon.
There needs to be a system for judging a MMA fight. The system needs consistent rules and all judges should have to adhere to a standard of uniformity. The fact that one judge sees a takedown as being more important than a submission attempt while another judge feels the exact opposite way is clear proof that a change is needed. Discrepancies in the way judges score a bout are bound to happen, but not the extent to which they occur now. As things are now, it's too much of a crapshoot trying to figure out which way a judge leans.
The debate of whether a takedown is worth more than a submission attempt needs to take place as well; but after it's decided to enforce a consistent standard with which to judge. After fighters know which is worth more in the judges eyes they can adjust their game accordingly. For instance, a submission fighter who normally doesn't worry about being taken down may defend takedowns better if he knows that the judges award more points to takedowns than submission attempts.
Usually the judging isn't too egregious. At least, not to the point that it makes you question the sanity of the judges. But there are cases that spring to mind when discussing bad judging. The most important one that I can think of offhand is the fight between Forrest Griffin and Quinton Jackson. I've waited a few months to try to look at that fight as objectively as possible but I still believe that Jackson won the fight. I think the worst case scenario for Jackson should have been a draw, and even that's reaching as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see how the fight was ruled in Griffin's favor. The UFC would have been wise to ask the judges to explain their thought processes in giving the fight to Forrest. That way it would shed light on what they were thinking and why they scored the fight a certain way. I'm the type of person who wants to know why you feel a certain way, especially if I disagree with you.
One of the major reasons that I advocate a standard system for scoring fights is that I want the judging to be as clinical as possible. Comparing the same areas of a fight is obviously easy, 3 takedowns are worth more than 2 takedowns; but again we come back to whether a takedown is worth more than a submission attempt. I'm always in favor of eliminating the human element in sport whenever possible. Major League Baseball has just instituted instant replay in an attempt to eliminate missed home run and fan interference calls. Officiating MMA could be helped by establishing a point value for each action. Awarding 1 bonus point for every additional arm or leg strike you land as compared to your opponent should increase the action standing up. Assigning 5 points for a submission attempt, 3 points for a takedown, 2 points for a submission escape, and 1 point for defending a takedown would do wonders towards making the rounds easier to call. Those point values may not be perfect but you could always tweak them. Points accrued could be reset at the beginning of the next round or carry over throughout the fight, whichever each individual company prefers.
The current system of judging fights is by no means perfect. At best, it needs tweaking and at worst needs a complete overhaul. Fixing what's wrong with the system is well worth whatever effort is spent. The only question is whether anyone wants to expend that effort.
