The Idiocy of "Beating the Champion" to Be the Champion
by Luke Thomas on Nov 1, 2009 2:04 PM EST
in News
83 comments
Some of the most reflective thought in MMA goes on in Sherdog.com's Doggy Bag and while this isn't the headiest material ever discussed, it is essential:
A quick note on Machida vs. Rua: people need to remember that if you are going to beat the champion by decision, it has to be decisive. Championships are different than normal fights. Bottom line: Rua wasn't decisive.
-- Jason
TJ De Santis, radio host: Can you please tell me where this "beat the defending champion decisively" rule is located within the unified rules? Let me save you some time: it doesn’t.
One point or five. A victory is a victory. If you beat the champion by one point on two of three scorecards, you have beaten the champion.
The New York Yankees are currently playing the Philadelphia Phillies in this year’s Major League Baseball World Series. Philadelphia won last year’s. That makes them the current and defending champions of baseball. Does that mean the Yankees need to win fives games out of seven instead of the standard four? Or maybe because the Phils’ are defending champions, they should only lose games when they have been defeated by two runs, instead of one.
The singular nature of championships (either you are or you aren't the champ) as well as their gravity naturally make us lean in the direction of cleanliness. If a challenger wins, they should win decisively; should being the operative word. The reality, though, is that we live in a world of imprecision. And more to the point: once the cage door shuts and both competitors are fighting, there no longer is a champion. In a very real sense, the title is up for grabs and will go to fighter who performs better even if that performance is only marginally superior. The notion that some drubbing is owed to the champion should the challenger wish to take the title is nothing more than the desperation of loyalists hunting for excuses to protect their preferred fighter.
And to that end, "never let it go to the judges" is another meme that deserves to be removed from the language of the MMA community. Again, it would certainly be preferable if all fights ended with a clear victor, but that is not the world we live in. And if a fight does go to the judges, they should not be so incompetent that we have to collectively worry they'll be able to perform the duties asked of them. Arguing for a finish is never a bad thing, but being frightened by judging because of inconsistency and lunacy is not a problem that will be solved if we ask fighters to punch harder or hunt for submissions more actively. The answer is to a) assume some measure of judging error will never go away and b) work tirelessly to make sure athletic commissions have educated and experienced judges.
1 recs |
83 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
It's kind of amazing
That we need articles written about this subject. A win is a win, whether it’s close or a runaway. Couldn’t agree more with you, Luke.
by KrmtDfrog on Nov 1, 2009 11:11 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think most fighter have gone with option A, they are pretty certain that there will always be a judging error. Thats where never letting it go to the judges probably comes from
by IRodC on Nov 1, 2009 11:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Again, it would certainly be preferable if all fights ended with a clear victor, but that is not the world we live in. And if a fight does go to the judges, they should not be so incompetent that we have to collectively worry they’ll be able to perform the duties asked of them.
Luke, these seem to opposing viewpoints and that is exactly the point of the “never let it go to the judges” reasoning. If a fight is so close that rational people could see it going either way then you don’t have room to complain if the judges don’t side with you. If two judges see it 48-47 for fighter A and one sees it 48-47 for fighter B does that make mean the one who scored it for B is incompetent? I don’t think so.
by ufc4 on Nov 1, 2009 11:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. So long as there are judges, there will always be room for subjectivity. Thus an element of the fight will always be out of the control of a fighter unless he finishes. I have never been a fan of relying too much on judges in any sport. Yes, there will always be an element that involves referees and judges, but unfortunately human error is too prevalent, that I see the justification for being afraid of letting things go to judges. I totally agree that “beating the champion” line is ridiculous, but there is merit to not letting things go to the judges.
I love me some Sexyama!
by pud333 on Nov 1, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the correct line of thinking is “don’t sit on a perceived lead” rather than “don’t let it go to the judges.” Decision is a legitimate way to win a fight, the problems come much of the time from a fighter deciding that/being told by his corner that he is in the lead and rather than fighting to win they start fighting to protect a lead that they may or may not actually have.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
exactly. that is the real issue here. Shogun shouldn’t have been told he was in the lead and to protect it, because his trainers had no idea how the judges were scoring it. Thats probably the worst advice i’ve heard in a corner. Maybe, “we think you’re winning so keep doing what you’re doing”, but why would you risk that situation?
by amadeus on Nov 1, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see
how that was such bad advice, considering all the judges gave Shogun rounds 4 & 5… Shogun didn’t “back off”; in fact, in the judges minds, he kicked it up a notch (no pun intended) and won the rounds. That was AFTER his corner told him he was up.
by Excelsior! on Nov 1, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It was bad advice because he wasn’t up, he didn’t need to just win the last 2 rounds, he needed to finish the fight.
by ufc4 on Nov 1, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but the thing is…not every fighter does that. It’s simply that it’s bad advice…regardless of the outcome
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thought i heard Machida’s corner giving him nearly identical advice
by Grappo on Nov 1, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree fully. The line of “don’t leave it to the judges” really only works when a fighter complains about a close decision. Case in point Chuck/Jardine (sp?) Chuck has stated that he feels he won the fight but its too close to complain and that he should not have left it to the judges.
by Riley_96 on Nov 1, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Since we’re being honest and admitting that winning a decision is a legitimate outcome, and that there’s no requirement to decisively dominant the champ in a Machida/Shogun type situation, can we admit that corners should be given the scores between rounds? Judging needs to continue to improve and become more standardized, but to reroute Luke’s baseball analogy, what if pitcher’s didn’t know if balls or strikes were being called until the ump calls a strikeout or a walk? I think if fighter’s knew where they stood, they’d be in a position to do something about it during a fight, instead of complaining afterward. The argument that fighter’s who were ahead might cruise holds no water for me, since they sometimes do it already. but in a close fight, the guy behind would know for sure that he had to really be aggressive to either catch up in rounds, or finish the fight…
by Kwisatz Haderach on Nov 1, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NOOOO
It really ruins the sport to have open scorecards. For viewers it leads to a large disinterest (it’s been proven through the boxing experiments) for corners they retire their fighters on the stool more often (You’re losing, you can’t knock him out…let’s call it a day). It’s all around very bad.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I should point out..
that most MMA fans who bring it up are unaware that boxing has tried the “open scorecard” thing several times with bad results every time. Not saying that as a knock. I just want to make sure everyone knows that this has happened.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
IMO boxing is a very different beast from MMA
Boxing matches are usually much longer drawn affairs with each round having relatively less weightage than in MMA. Most MMA matches are 3 rounds and I believe that having open scoring will help fighters actively avoid bad decisions. I believe K1 experimented with it or still has it, and I’m positive nothing negative came off it.
Bob Arum thinks I'm a white Nazi skinhead even though I'm a brown grad student (with hair)
by ludakrish on Nov 1, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It still has the negatives.
For every fighter you have that knows he is down 2-0 going into the third that goes nuts trying to end it, you’ll have a fighter who knows that he is up 2-0 going into the third and doing everything in his power to not get stopped.
If a fighter is able to win the first 2 rounds I don’t think it would be that hard for them to lose a round 10-9 without ever being in danger of being stopped.
by Phildo on Nov 1, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A solution to that is to bring in the red and yellow cards from Pride. If you stall, you lose your purse. Hit them where it hurts…
Bob Arum thinks I'm a white Nazi skinhead even though I'm a brown grad student (with hair)
by ludakrish on Nov 1, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One, I hate that idea. They’re contracted to fight for a certain amount of money, give them that amount.
Two, you could probably manage a way to do it without getting carded also. That would make it a little harder, but if this was such a great idea it would have caught on in boxing.
by Phildo on Nov 1, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a. ‘I hate the idea’ is a pathetic argument. They’re paid to fight, not avoid getting hurt a la Thales Leites. Everybody has a job to do and they get paid to do it, not avoid it. If you don’t want to get hurt get a college degree.
Again with the boxing argument. I have no idea why everybody brings up the boxing argument when it comes to MMA. Boxing is corrupt, rife with ineptitude and for a sport that has been around for so long is losing everything. Why would you want to draw anything from boxing, for any other purpose than to avoid their mistakes.Bob Arum thinks I'm a white Nazi skinhead even though I'm a brown grad student (with hair)
by ludakrish on Nov 2, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s corrupt, but you have to learn from it, it’s the closest thing we have to draw from.
Yes, mma should avoid boxing’s mistakes, like experimenting with open scoring.
And “i hate that idea” is at least some sort of justification, “a solution” is a much better argument.
by Phildo on Nov 2, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure but your logic depends on what a lot of people call “bad judging”. Since terrible decisions happen, you can never be sure you’re ahead, and thus give your all in the third or fifth, regardless of whether or not you think you’re winning. In reality, what you’re talking about already happens as a matter of course. Fighters presume that judges are doing a reasonable job, and that for instance, Cain Velasquez doesn’t go into the last round thinking he’s got to knock out or submit Kongo to win the fight, he’s just gotta control him and not get knocked out or subbed himself. Sure he’s going to try to finish, cause there’s “unofficial” pluses for guys finishing opponents, rather than decisioning them, but he’s not going to take any risks at all. And honestly, if he flat runs from his opponent the whole last round, he’s going to be hated on by every MMA fan there is, and you know the UFC is going to hold it against him as well. I really don’t think giving the corners the scores would have any effect at all in fights, except those rare exceptions when the fight is exceptionally close, and no one has come close to finishing it. In those cases, it’s seems only fair to me that guys know where they stand, know what techniques are winning points and what aren’t, and crazy that in a sport, the athletes should have no idea how they’re doing until it’s over…And I do think it would silence a lot of the complaints, and serve to amplify the outcry at the occasional “truly horrible decision” when it occurs.
by Kwisatz Haderach on Nov 2, 2009 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I respect your opinion, just wanted to throw it out there, cause this seems to be where a “fight” vs. “a sport” start to clash a bit. Everyone says that scoring shouldn’t matter, that you should always be trying to end the fight by submission or knockout, but we know that’s not how it is already. Obviously scoring is being taken into account. I guess I’d rather have accurate information available. I can’t see how it would affect a fight at all, unless it was a very close fight like Machida/Shogun, or hard to score ones like Sanchez/Guida, Hardy/Davis, etc. There are already incentives for knockout, submission and fight of the night to motivate fighters to win the fight outright. Unlike in boxing, where the better fighter wins almost every time, MMA is a lot more unpredictible. Just because you’re down in rounds, doesn’t mean you can’t win. You just have to leave it all on the line and try to finish the fight. As I said above, I would only want this info given to the corners, not to the crowd, announcers, etc. I just think it would take some of the heat out of people’s complaints. Obviously better judging is the best answer, but it will NEVER be infallible.
by Kwisatz Haderach on Nov 1, 2009 11:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also....
Has anyone ever examined the affects that adding two more judges would have? Would that just make everything more complicated and confusing or could it actually help add clarity to the fights that go to a decision?
by ufc4 on Nov 1, 2009 11:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Everyone balks at the idea..
… but I say, the more TRAINED, COMPETENT judges scoring the fight, the better. Three is better than one. Five would be better than three. Only downfall is if 2 judges score it one way, and three score it for the other fighter, split decisions would be even closer.
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some of MMA fans are not trained and competent, don’t know Unified Rules and still they are sure they scored the fight correctly.
So how do you recognize trained and competent judge? When he scored the fight like untrained and incompetent fan?
by dancingChicken on Nov 1, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, when he isn’t trying to defend a loser.
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you know who is a loser if you’re not trained and competent?
by dancingChicken on Nov 1, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’M NOT… I said referees! They are trained and competent if the Athletic Commission says so. But, there’s ZERO point in arguing this with you, as I see Machida is one of your fave fighters. Figures.
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
errr... Judges
Bute yeah, if the AC says they are qualified, that’s all we can go by for now.
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By that logic, every decision is 100% correct, and there’s no difference between 1 judge and 100 judges
by Shaun32887 on Nov 1, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They are trained and competent if the Athletic Commission says so.
So how do explain Beebe-Easton?
by ufc4 on Nov 1, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They’re being investigated for a reason.
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn’t answer the question, the AC appointed them so by your logic their decision was correact.
by ufc4 on Nov 1, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it makes no sense to add more judges. Just get the best three you can. If you keep adding more judges, you’ll just be picking from the bottom of the barrel and lowering the quality of the scores.
Really, this article is just idealistic. The whole “beat the champ” mantra exists because we live in the real world with human judges, and if you want that belt, you better not leave that decision in anyone else’s hands. Human bias effects perception and judges are no better.
by judonerd on Nov 1, 2009 3:50 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
If you look, I said this is all we can go by for now, as in, until we overhaul the entire athletic commission. You asked about more judges and I tried to answer…. what else do you want? I give both positives and a possible negative about your question. I don’t know what you want.
As for Beebe-Easton, I honestly haven’t even seen the fight, so I WOULD NOT know how to explain it.
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is zero point in DISCUSSING with you, because you don’t know what you’re talking about…
And because Machida is one of my fave fighters doesn’t mean that I’m stupid or blind (my english is limited i’ll give you that, but it has nothing to do with Machida[or does it?]).
by dancingChicken on Nov 1, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, since I am so incompetent and cannot decide anything, please outline your proposed solution to the judging situation. How would YOU determine if they’re qualified?
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think 5 judges would just further complicate things.
Using Machida/Rua as an example, if these 3 were 3 of the 5, Machida still wins the fight, and I don’t think that if it was 5-0, 4-1, or 3-2 would really change the amount of whining being done (from both sides)
It would be nice if there were additional judges to make up for a bad/incompetent/just plain lousy decisions, but I think in the end it won’t solve that much.
by Phildo on Nov 1, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't agree more......
When the champ steps in the cage/ring, the title is ON THE LINE. It’s no longer his. The fight is for that belt. So saying he has some sort of precedence for scoring is just stupid.
by Dexerion on Nov 1, 2009 11:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
seriously
he’s fighting for the title as much as the challenger is, and if he isn\t he doesn’t deserve the spoken title regardless of whether he keeps the one around his waist
"he's the best punchy face man in the buisness"
by blubber_guard on Nov 1, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Luke, we needed this reminder.
… now I’m just waiting for the Machida apologists to show up.
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This has nothing to do with Machida apologists...
i still scored the fight for Machida but I wrote an article stating the same thing that TJ said the day AFTER the fight. I think Machida won the fight by winning the first three rounds, not because he gets the benefit of the doubt as champion.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No need to apologize for Machida’s performance. Anybody using the “beat the champ” line to defend Machida is off his rocker. Machida’s performance speaks for itself. He won the first three rounds based on the 10 point system.
I love me some Sexyama!
by pud333 on Nov 1, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there is also an inherent problem with the 10 pt system
and the criteria for judging… and the judging credentials.. and everything else. machida won, rua lost, and they’re gonna fight again
by amadeus on Nov 1, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely. Unfortunately, it’s the only system we have right now.
I love me some Sexyama!
by pud333 on Nov 1, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of months ago, people qualified the readers into UFC Fanboys and Fedor Die Hards (or something similar), Now it’s PRIDE nuthuggers and Machida Apologists?
Labels are lame..
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 1, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
labels are for people waiting for football to start
by amadeus on Nov 1, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought the distinction was PRIDE nuthugger or TUF n00b… at least that’s what I read on Sherdog
by Excelsior! on Nov 1, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, ok… I will heretofore refer to them as “People who must defend Machida at every turn.”
And I consider myself a Pride Nuthugger… a proud one at that!
by TDITZ on Nov 1, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing wrong with loving Pride. I loved Pride. Shogun was is one of my favorites. I just don’t understand why a fan had to be either, or. I loved both the UFC and Pride for equal but different reasons.
I love me some Sexyama!
by pud333 on Nov 1, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to be honest
I really don’t think this fight was that big of an issue. I think people are making it into a bigger issue than it is because very few people thought shogun was going to come close to beating machida. No one had figured the machida puzzle yet and his thrilling tkos over silva and evans were enhancing the mystique. Shogun came in patient and effectively took Machidas quick movements away, left very few openings, and damaged lyoto more than we’ve ever seen. But truly, he never put machida in a bad position. All three judges scored it for machida. It was not a split decision… the three people who are paid to judge and sat directly outside the ring all thought machida won. theres no reason to be sentimental for rua. He impressed everyone and is getting the rematch he deserves, and if he is truly better then he will win the belt this time around. I think its a little unnecessary to still be crying about this.
by amadeus on Nov 1, 2009 11:36 AM EST reply actions 5 recs
I agree, and it’s basically the argument I’ve been making the past two weeks. No one was dominant in the fight, so there’s no way to logically argue that it was a terrible decision. Emotionally, people can argue whatever they want. And I think Shogun’s defiance of expectations had a lot to do with people’s reaction. He fought a great fight, and as we waited for the judges, I felt like I had no idea who won. I’m glad people are keeping pressure on the judges and advocating for better standards in judging, as it’s the only way for the sport to improve, but some of the overblown outrage is counterproductive, and is going to result in officials simply tuning out the fanbase as a bunch of homers for either side. That’s if they’re really paying attention to the fans at all anyway.
As a sidenote to Luke, please don’t even bring baseball umpires into the discussion. This is not the postseason to be comparing them favorably to anything, or using baseball as a standard. And at least baseball teams KNOW for a fact where they stand after a game. Not so for fighter’s between rounds, which I think should change. I don’t want it posted for the fans at home or in the arena, but the corners should be given the scores after each round.
by Kwisatz Haderach on Nov 1, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Luke didn’t bring baseball into the discussion, the article he quoted did. And it didn’t mention anything about umpires.
by ufc4 on Nov 1, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did the article magically arrive on Bloody Elbow? And while it doesn’t mention umpires, and while I agree with the basic premise that a fight is a fight, and whose the defending champ shouldn’t matter at all, my point is that even a sport where scoring is a definite thing, like baseball, still has tons of controversy as to how the games are called. The point Luke and De Santis are making is valid, but IMO, using sports like baseball as a comparison, particularly this season, asks a lot more questions than it answers. Wasn’t really arguing with Luke as to his basic point.
by Kwisatz Haderach on Nov 1, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You told LUKE not to bring baseball into the discussion. HE didn’t. He quoted TJ’s response.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Luke it is a well known fact that when playing they defending champions you have to win by 7 points. That’s why the Steelers are still undefeated…
watchkalibrun.com
by Zak Woods on Nov 1, 2009 11:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Does that mean the Yankees need to win fives games out of seven instead of the standard four?
That is a ridiculous statement. Points (runs) earned and games won (based on the total number of runs) in MLB baseball are not ambiguous like points earned in a sport with subjective judging like MMA and boxing. The problem really is what constitutes a point in the judges eyes? What are the judges really looking for when awarding points and are all 3 looking for the same thing? Are takedown attempts worth nothing when they don’t succeed and stuffing takedown attempts worth points as Cecil Peoples has said? Do light punches that do little damage (like Nate Diaz throws) worth as much as huge power punches that drop fighters? What really constitutes “effective striking” ? If we’re just counting total number of strikes to award rounds, then fighters should clinch up and just throw non-damaging punches to the body. The day a fighter takes an opponent’s back and proceeds to give a deep tissue massage to his back in the the interest on “landing a HUGE number of strikes” is the day I change the channel.
In the end, all your friends and family let you down and you die in your own arms, so who cares?
by pharmboy on Nov 1, 2009 11:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Bravo!!!
I completely agree. Comparing Baseball scoring, or pretty much anything other than boxing with MMA is a mistake. Hey the scoring in MMA is closer to figure skating than baseball. I think the biggest issue needs to be a clarification of the scoring across the board.
"The ball always seems to find Ed Reed...The man is a menace"
by UMBC Oriole fan on Nov 1, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is probably never going to happen due to the complexity of the sport.
Which is also what makes the sport so great.
by Razreshat on Nov 2, 2009 8:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Beating the champion
This saying is true, as you do need to beat the champion to take the belt. If it’s a draw the champion keeps the belt. You have to beat him, he only needs to draw.
This only applies to fight sports from what I understand. Other sports have ways of sorting a winner in a final. Judging doesn’t.
As usual people go off on one without knowing what they’re talking about.
by katolotus on Nov 1, 2009 12:21 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think YOU get it. We’re talking about the idea that people have that any close round should be scored to the champion based on some idea that you have to “truly” beat the champion to earn the title.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he gets it, and is just making fun of the way people are phrasing their crusade against a non-existent problem.
by Hesperus on Nov 1, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I say the Judges are there for a reason….we’re too stupid to make this decision ourselves. all we want is something to rant and rave about until the next “controversy”(real or manufactured) comes along where we can all tell each other how much we know about the sport and down those who don’t see it our way. personally i love MMA more than any other sport out there, but have come to a point where the MMA fan is becoming more and more difficult to stomach. to the MMA fan i say the same thing to you that i would say to any actor who spouts political views: " No one cares what you think." whether it be about scoring systems, judging, the rules, or whether you watched the fight again with the sound off. And for the love of God……no one cares how you had it scored on the side of your budweiser label, or on your Hooters placemat.
the solution is simple: change the scoring system or be prepared for more of the same French style judging
by erogers72 on Nov 1, 2009 1:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm sooooo bored with this subject
Luckily November has lots of good fights so there be other things to talk about soon
by HighNoon on Nov 1, 2009 2:23 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Open AND Fractional scoring is the key
I was surprised to see Kenny and Rashad on MMA live both speak out against open scoring. They both like the suspense that accumates when the score is read after a fight. I think open scoring would certainly provid a benefit to the fighter who is down on the cards but also provides good feedback to the fighter who is winning too. More importantly than open scoring, however, is modifying the 10 pt must. We have seen a 10-9 score attributed to rounds than are as close as rounds 1 and 3 of machida/ rua to 10-9 scores for rounds that are total beatdowns. How can MMA claim to have a good system when the same scoring outcome is attributed to razor thin and totally one sided rounds? OBviously, this is where the major flaw lies. The soloution is pretty simple. Instead of just using whole numbers why not let a judge score a round 8.6 or 9.7 for a fighter. Under the current rules both of these would probably be good ole 10-9’s. One of the enormous benefits of scoring fractionally is that a judge can score a 10-10 round when it is applicable and still not worry about an excessive amount of fights ending in a draw. Most olympc sports that have judges determine the winner use fractional scoring. why not MMA?
Some of you might say “well someone could win 2 rounds but still end up losing the fight” I say, you’re right , so what? I dont think Guida edged out Sanchez in round 2 but even if he did win it 10- 9.6 AND won the 3rd 10-9.4 Diego should still have WON ( not a draw) that fight by virtue of his 10-8 mauling in the 1st. Make sense?
by naturalist on Nov 1, 2009 4:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
fractional scoring = yes (only in halfs though as in 9.5 not 9.3)
Open scoring = no
Trust me…I’ve been through this many times with boxing. Open scoring is really fucking lame and kills fan interest in the fights.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i read your comments about regarding open scores and I’m not convinced it’s that applicable to MMA. I dont think it’s realistic that we’d see fighters quiting on the stool cause they are down 2 rounds. There are countless cases where a fighter knows that already but none of them quit for that reason. Occassinally we see a fighter quit on the stool cause they dont like the beat down or injury they just received but quitting just because they are down 0-2?? Hard to imagine that fighter having a carrer for very long. As for fan disinterest, I can see how that might be a factor when you have 12 rounds but not 3 or 5. Besides, “our” sport is full of ways to end a fight and that’s what most of the fans want to see anyway. If anything it could increase fan interest because everyone would know that a (t)ko or sub would be neccessary for victory.
by naturalist on Nov 1, 2009 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as bad as we all break a guys balls for missing weight, i cant imagine how bad the backlash would be towards a fighter who quit on the stool. if anything, i would hope that knowing you’re down 2 rounds would give you that much more motivation to go after the elusive 3rd round finish
by erogers72 on Nov 1, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not fighters quitting...
it’s cornermen. Say your fighter is down 20-18 after two VERY brutal but close rounds. It’s clear that it is very unlikely for him to get a finish and he’s going to absorb more punishment in a third round that at best gets him a 29-28 loss. Many cornermen would stop the fight rather than see their fighter take punishment in a fight he has a very low percentage chance of winning. This isn’t the case in EVERY fight but honestly as a cornerman it’s the right thing to do to look out for your fighter’s health in a fight he can win.
For a reference point roughly 20% of fights that make it to that point are finished in the third round.
But really…the drama of going to the scorecards is a big thing in combat sports. I would hate to see that taken away. It has bombed tremendously in boxing and I can promise it would bomb in MMA.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh...
and there is a proven history of winning fighters laying off the gas rather than taking any risk at all if they know all they have to do is avoid being stopped.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In the scenario you outlined I think that the fighters and corners would both want to continue the fight so that can do what they came to do which is put on an impressive performance. I would hope that cornermen know that the performance and experience are nearly as important as the win. If the fight is close, as you describe, then it is also not unreasonable to think that a stoppage could occur. Even if there was no 3 rnd stoppage it is still obvious that losing 29-28 to a slightly better fighter, who may or may not have coasted in the 3rd, is a whole lot better for your carreer than calling it quits and the end of the 2nd.
Thanks for bringing in the reference point of 20% of fights that make it to the 3rd round are stopped in the 3rd round. That’s actually a pretty high number. That number is obviously derived from our current status where the fighters do not know if a stoppage is neccessary. It’s reasonable to conclude that figure could go up slightly if fighters knew a stoppage was neccessary.
As for fighters laying off the gas. I guess we do see that from time to time and could probably see a lil more off it. The UFC has a pretty effective way of dealing with that. Pay huge bonuss for FOTN, sub and KO of the night. Any respectable promotion will find a way of giving the fans what they want to see and the fans will certainly remind them of what their cheif objective is.
You’re main point about losing drama waiting for the decision to be read is the big one. Perhpas it isn’t worth losing that drama just to give the fighters the current score. I do like the idea of only telling the corners and not the viewers. Knowing the score does become important in title fights. It certainly would have ifluenced Shogun’s fighting in rounds 3-5. I doubt if it would have affected Machida since he faded in4-5 anyway!
I guess corners need to assume that their fighter lost each round unless you got a couple knockdowns and your opponent had none. Unfortunately and inexplicably that’s not what we usually hear.
by naturalist on Nov 1, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course...
you have to stop showing the corners in between rounds then because the cornermen are going to say “you’re down 2 rounds, gotta go for the knockout.”
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never ever heard of this until Forrest beat Rampage. I couldn’t believe how crazy it sounded. No champ deserves to be champ if they were beaten by even the slightest of margins. It’s in the very definition of being a champ.
however if “The answer is to a) assume some measure of judging error will never go away and” then wouldn’t you say it’s a safe rule to never put the fight into the hands of the judges? I mean, didn’t this fight solidify the point that you should never let a fight go into the hands of the judges? And isn’t the fact that you could make the argument for each of these guys winning and the fact that there are many educated fans and fighters alike that agree with different decisions a good reason for a fighter to “never let it go into the hands of the judges?”
by Dooda on Nov 1, 2009 4:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thank you...
finally a voice of sanity. The ‘never let it go to the judges’ phrase has stuck on from TUF where DW wanted a KO or a sub from every fight to sell the show and the UFC. If Rua did attack Machida more, he would have been drawn into the Dragon’s game. Instead he came up with an almost flawless gameplan (the reason I say almost is obvious) and in one night undid the mystique of Lyoto Machida. He deserved to win even if it was by a point.
To misquote Dr. Seuss – ‘a victory’s a victory no matter how slim’.
Bob Arum thinks I'm a white Nazi skinhead even though I'm a brown grad student (with hair)
by ludakrish on Nov 1, 2009 7:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Incidentally
Sherdog has Shogun quoted as voicing that reason why he didn’t finish:
"I got really sad with that result but happy by the impact," Rua said. "I train hard, and every round, my corner told me to be calm because I was winning. Once I was winning, I decided to not expose myself and enter into Lyoto’s game. If I got more aggressive, I would have entered into Lyoto’s game and taken unnecessary risks, just like all his previous opponents did. I used the right tactics and I will probably do the same in the rematch."Interesting that that was the case even in the fifth round that pretty much everyone except Anderson Silva gave to Machida… wonder what that says about the two title fighters?
by Chortles on Nov 1, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
judging is subjective
That is why my mantra is “Never Leave It To The Judges” Judging will always be a subjective thing no matter how many guidlines you put in place or how educated the judge is. I know because I am also a certified IKF judge and have refereed many Boxing and Kickboxing matches. The only clear way to determine a winner is by one combatant beating the other either by KO, Submission or having the opponent quit. Even a ref stoppage can be subjective. I agree that education and experience is a very good thing but judges see the fight from different angles and persepectives so each can see things slightly different. So if you are in combative sport you should try to beat your opponent in the ring, or cage and not let it go to the judges. You are leaving the decision of combat to a third person which in my opinion is never a good idea.
In sports such as baseball, football, or others the score determines the winner. The judges, or refs as the are refered to in some of these sports, can influence the out come allot more before the final than in a combative style sport.
Again this is only my opinion.
by karatevideoguy on Nov 1, 2009 10:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Never Leave it To The Judges
The comparison above between the World Series and the Machida / Rua fight is completely ridiculous. There are no judges in the World Series. Someone will win. Period. Rua left it in the hands of the jduges and he didn’t get the damn decision. Move on already!!!!!
by coachbarbour on Nov 2, 2009 9:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
