My Chat With Executive Director of the Maryland State Athletic Commission.
by szucconi on Oct 7, 2009 3:30 PM EDT
Email
PrintFirst, Mr. Patrick Pannella has been very upfront with me and kind enough to address my concerns with Maryland MMA regulations. Maryland has not yet had an MMA show of any kind. The first being a pro bout slated for later this month. After attending UWC 7 in Virginia this past weekend I was motivated to get involved in my own state. I first contacted Mr. Pannella on Sunday morning and he has been more then receptive to my requests. I think the AC is taking the right approach to qualify judges through the amateur ranks and I completely agree with what he had to say about the young, but well thought out process in MD. He had his own thoughts on UWC 7 and the judging, but I will get to that. I spoke to him this afternoon and I genuinely respect him.
He stated that he knows people have concerns about MD starting pro MMA before amateur, but many states don't even have amateur regulations. The pro regulation is tried and true and can be adopted, but the amateur process does need a little more time to develop and I don't believe that this is a case of running before you walk. He said that they will bring in qualified MMA officials and judges from other states and only use local refs and judges that are experienced and proven, while the amateur ranks will be used to develop the local ranks. He said that judges will only moving up based on experience and performance. I am young and I hope to start at the bottom and work my way up. I think he was under the impression that I wanted to jump into pro MMA and that couldn't be further from the truth. I run toward structure and regulation. Then he brought up something that made me feel great about MMA in MD. He said he believes judges should be able to justify scores. And that goes right along with rating a judge's (or ref's for that matter) performance.
Now I brought up boxing judges being inserted into MMA and it causing problems and I think that hit a nerve. I was mainly speaking of early on in the sports sanctioning and the use of boxing judges that were not as qualified for MMA as they were for boxing (Dalby Shirley comes to mind). I never got around to clarifying, but I could tell that he was slightly offended in my over generalization. He assured me that the judges involved in the UWC 7 controversy were not, in fact boxing judges that had no MMA background. He said they both had experience as trainers in MMA, although we did not get into there overall qualifications. He said in MD, a boxing judge would never judge a MMA bout unless separately qualified in MMA. He was at UWC 7 and he said that while he was, as a boxing guy, not qualified to really render a decision on the Easton Beebe fight, but he did understand the issues regarding the fight. I believe I labeled the judging "questionable at best" and he objected saying it was only one fight in an otherwise great night of MMA. This is true, but there were only four decisions on the card and in this case I thing one in four is way to high of a rate of error. Not to mention that three of the four decisions were split. Now I did not disagree with the other decisions that night, but the judges obviously did not come to a consensus. I though the other two splits were very close fights that could have either way. Although I would have protested if Riggleman and Runez didn't walk away with a win, the former being a more dominate victory.
One point he made was that he questioned the announcing of the scores. His take was that first the announcer should announce something like "Ladies and gentleman, we have a split decision". That would be fine. I like the way Bruce Buffer does it announcing the card for one, then the other, and then announcing the deciding card. It builds suspense and drama, but it's really a matter of opinion. What I absolutely agree with him on was the announcing of the judges name and then the score card. Saturday night was announced poorly in that three scores were read, then the winner, then it was called a split. No scores were assigned to judges and it was a mystery as to which card went to which fighter. This is a pattern at UWC that I don't like.
All in all I was impressed with Mr. Pannella and I hope to get started judging amateur bouts as soon as they get the regulations worked out. I think Maryland can be a first rate state for MMA and Mr. Pannella's openness can only help. I think he is a guy that I could talk to for hours if I were so inclined, but I had to get back to work. He made a convincing case for MD MMA and although I disagree with him on judging quality in Virginia, I do agree that anyone can have a bad night, but that is why there are three judges and not one, to offset a bad night. The close fights made it a hard night for judges in Virginia, but I don't want Maryland to have the next "Worst decision of the year". Not if I can help it. He told me he would send me a copy of the MD regulations and I anxiously await them.
As a side note, I am finding it difficult to describe to people that have never had there back taken just how bad a position it is. I am at a loss for an equally defensive position in boxing. In wrestling it is similar to back points/ near fall as well as riding time. In BJJ points are awarded based on hooks. While back mount is not exciting and more subtle then punching someone in the face, it is 100% defensive for the guy on bottom. The only way that bottom man can improve his position is if the top man makes a mistake or goes for a risky maneuver. The top man can do any number of things, but Beebe opted to maintain position and work a high percentage choke rather then a riskier maneuver that could lead to an escape. Does anyone else have a better analogy of just how in trouble Easton was? I don't think is rises to the level of a knock down in boxing, but it certainly is close from a grappling perspective and the amount of the last three round that Beebe was on Easton's back you would certainly make the case for that mount being equal to a knock down.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
16 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Are you going to try and apply to be a ref or judge in MD?
I am wondering what their training courses are like myself. I’m putting together the required cover letter and resume now. I’m damned good at writing a resume. ;)
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
There is no course work, its all about having a background in martial arts, working amateur events and being evaluated. They should have the amateur program up some time in 2010. You can wait until then. I was told to get in contact with them after the amateur regs were ironed out. The whole process for having amateur bouts is yet to be defined in MD.
Yea
I got an email from Pannella yesterday about their training programs pretty much saying the same thing except he told me I should still send in my information anyway. * shrug *
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
I don’t agree that having your back taken is equal to a knockdown… I personally don’t think grappling positions should be looked at like that at all.
I think ground work should be scored by time spent in dominant positions with ground and pound/sub attempts added on top of that… but i see what you’re saying as far as how should the two be compared… maybe like a minute being on the bottom of mount/someone on your back would equal one kd?
I am not saying there is a standard or there should be, I haven’t given that much thought. I am saying I have a hard time describing the positions equal in terms people that are not familiar with grappling fine easy to understand. Maybe like in football when a team is kicking an extra point, but on that play there is zero the defense can do other then defend. They can’t put points on the board on that play under any circumstance. Now when you can make an escape, then you are back able to play offense, but while the hooks are in there isn’t a whole lot you can do. There are escapes, but there is no further that the top man can go to improve position.
If you forced me to compare a grappling position to a circumstance in a striking-only sport, I’d equate having someone’s back to having your opponent reeling, about to be knocked out, but maybe not quite there. The fighter wouldn’t have any meaningful offense, except in particularly unique circumstances. That comparison doesn’t hold up under any scrutiny though, because there’s always the chance of a wild desperation punch leveling the guy who was about to knock the other guy out, whereas when someone has another person’s back, striking is almost entirely off the table, and all grappling is defensive, trying to prevent the opponent from getting their hooks in and/or protecting the neck to prevent the rear naked choke.
Not that you actually compared taking someone’s back to a knockdown as far as I can tell, but I’d just remind everyone that there is already a circumstance in MMA that is very similar to a knockdown in boxing. In MMA, it’s called a knockdown. The uninitiated observer might think that they are the same, but we as long-time MMA fans know better. In boxing, a knockdown automatically deducts an additional point from the scorecard of the round’s loser, as do any subsequent knockdowns. In MMA? Depending on the judge, knockdowns can mean slightly more or less than a takedown.
It’s very silly when you stop and think about it.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Yeah, along with scoring position points like wrestling or BJJ, you need to be scoring the stand up in a similar way to boxing. The difference is, a knockdown is boxing is a defining moment in a round. In MMA, not so much. More then one knock down can happen in a round and the action doesn’t stop and the round is so long that anything could still happen. But I completely agree. And “Depends on the judge”, to me is completely rediculous. Its true, but unacceptable.
The difference is, a knockdown is boxing is a defining moment in a round. In MMA, not so much.
That’s because:
Depending on the judge, knockdowns can mean slightly more or less than a takedown.
First of all, let me unequivocally state that a knockdown is worth more than a take down as far as I’m concerned. I’m open to debating the issue, but that’s where I’m coming from on the issue.
The fact that knockdowns are not always defining moments in an MMA match (I say “not always” because in many cases they are) speaks to the devaluation of the knockdown in MMA. It’s nonsensical that a maneuver that offers the most tangible display of damage done, which as I understand is a key criterion of determining who wins each round, while either leading directly to the finish, putting the knocked down fighter into a prone position, or putting the knocked down fighter into a 100% defensive position is not valued in a similar manner to boxing.
Take for example Frank Mir v. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira. Nogueira took on of the worst beatings in recent memory, being knocked down three times in the first round. Nogueira was finished shortly thereafter in the second round. The fact that we cannot say with 100% certainty that we know that the first round was at least 10-8 in favor of Frank Mir highlights the widespread failure of judging in MMA.
As far as I can tell, the only way in which the addition of techniques available to Mixed Martial Artists above and beyond punching is that the fighter’s primary defensive focus is not on avoiding the knock down 100% of the time. This, of course, should not matter. Were special considerations to half back tocuhdowns when the forward pass was instituted in football? Does a goal in Hockey count for more because the Goalies have more sophisticated padding? Or, more to the heart of the matter, does a knockdown in K-1, whether by kick or by punch, not yield the same scoring result, Japanese bias aside?
After all, isn’t MMA the sport that combines all martial arts into one competition? To suggest that a knockdown is worth less because of the consideration of other available techniques not only implies that there is a widespread inferiority when it comes to defending strikes, but it goes a long way toward re-defining just what it is the sport of MMA is about. My understanding is judging should not dictate how a fight plays out, only score what does play out. Judges who continue to devalue the knockdown in MMA perpetuate the idea that takedowns in particular are the skill on which the most points are awarded, and that alters how fights play out. That’s wrong.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Well put, but my point was more about action stoppage in boxing with a standing eight make it a very well defined event inside a round. A knockdown in MMA is followed up by additional punishment and is judged more on total damage inflicted standing and then after the knock down. In boxing the knockdown either happened or it didn’t. In MMA a knock down is less of a bool value. But yeah, Mir/Nog round 1, at least 10-8. Would you say the same for Nog/Herring? or did Nog recover enough to earn a 10-9? I think that fight better illistrates my point because it not only affected the outcome of the fight, but the divition and Herrings career.
From what I recall of Nog v. Herring, yeah, that’s a 10-8 round despite Herring’s stupidity vis a vis allowing Nog to stand up for no reason.
However, I should qualify that opinion for everyone else (because I know you know I feel this way) by saying that I feel a knockdown should automatically be a point deduction. It’s a little tougher to score than in MMA because slips and takedowns are more frequent than in boxing for example (you know, since there aren’t takedowns in boxing), but that just highlights the need for judges with a greater understanding of the sport and the ability to discern from the different action upon which they are adjudicating.
Fighters should not be penalized because of bad officiating, whether it be as egregious a display as the one highlighted by Luke’s ongoing series, or something more subtle like how a knockdown is scored. It’s amazing to me, though, that in 2009 there are no clearly defined rules stating how a takedown, a knockdown, different submission attempts, etc. should be scored. MMA judging is 100% subjective within the very limited criteria of “-Clean Strikes -Effective Grappling -Octagon (or Ring) Control -Effective Aggressiveness”.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
As a Marylander living abroad...
I look forward to being able to watch some fights in my home state some day.
Thanks y’all.
What a Fashion Don’t! That’s like your dick wearing socks with sandals.
Taking the back is not inherently offensive. Like any other position in the sport, it is what you do with it. With the new rules preventing striking to the back of the head being enforced so carefully in some states, the position is less valuable than ever.
Caol Uno showed that this position is not necessarily a fight ender a decade ago. With effective striking eliminated, it is essentially just a setup for a RNC. And that can be easily avoided. In reality, I’d consider this position better than being on top in the guard, but less effective than side control or even a skilled half guard.
Well, RNC is only the least risky move that doesn’t give up the position. There are tons of things you can do while the bottom man can only defend. The rules disallowing strikes to the back of the head are not new. Unlike a GnP from half guard, back control is more subtle, but that doesn’t mean the fighter is doing nothing, far from it. For one, you have complete control of the downed fighters hip and that can not be understated. And I find you “Taking the back is not inherently offensive” utterly ridiculous. No its not a fight ender, but it is entirely offensive in nature. And if often leads to the fight ending because with all that control the fighter can set up any number of moves or strikes (without attacking the spine or back of the head).
I disagree.
Taking the back is not inherently offensive.
It very much is inherently offensive. In an MMA fight, you can either be on offense or on defense, and in a few cases, there are neutral positions.
To claim that back control is not inherently offensive because strikes to the back of the head are illegal and because the rear naked choke “can be easily avoided” misses the point. The person whose back has been taken is in a 100% defensive position. It follows that, if in a fight one of the fighters is in a 100% defensive position, his counterpart is in a 100% offensive position. It does not matter whether or not the person controlling the position has a plethora of maneuvers available to him, only that his opponent has nothing but defensive maneuvers available to him.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
not to mention that saying “it is essentially just a setup for a RNC”, is just flatly wrong. There are other subs you can try and ways to make an RNC basically unstoppable (trapping an arm with you leg). If you opt to strike you can hit the ears as much as you would like. I often enjoy a hook up under the arm pit that knock an unsuspecting man in the chin.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
