The need for a better judging standard

 

Note:I wrote the first draft of this right after Machida-Rua. After waiting a few days, the controversy seemed to die down, so I put this aside. Given posts in the last two days or so, I decided to revisit the issue.
 

 Machida-Rua: It wasn't a robbery, it's a broken system of judging 

Full disclosure: At the end of five rounds, I was convinced Shogun just won the LHW title. I was appalled when Machida was announced the winner. After letting the reality of the fight sink in, I can say that the decision doesn't bother me *given the current system of judging MMA fights.* But at the end of five rounds, Shogun was clearly the dominant fighter and - using a more reasonable judging criteria - should have walked away with the win.

The comments that follow have been made elsewhere, but they're worth revisiting. You can find relevant posts on BloodyElbow right now in the main articles and FanPosts as well as by searching Google for "10-point must system MMA". I was even tempted to replace Stevenson and Guida's names with Rua and Machida in some old analyses of the 10-point must system in MMA.

Much more after the jump.

 The 10-point must system 

First off, the 10-point must system is fine as a theoretical scoring system. The unfortunate aspect is how it's applied in practice. Nearly every round is 10-9, and this is why Dana White commented after the fight that neither Machida nor Rua tried to "steal the round" in the final thirty seconds. Given Machida's history as an elite counter-striker, an attempt to steal a round against him has a significant chance of either losing the round (via Machida's counter-striking) or losing via KO (via Machida's counter-striking). So, apparently the key to beating Machida is to ignore the perfect gameplan (see Rua, Mauricio, "UFC 104") so that you can potentially steal a round while greatly increasing the chance of losing, at best, the round and, at worst, the fight?

  More 10-10 and 10-8 (and even 10-7) rounds 

The first thing we need to do is see more 10-10 rounds and accept that many MMA fights can - and probably should - end in a draw. One simple addition to the 10-point must system is to allow judges to declare a winning fighter (or a draw) at the end of the fight, and these declarations are only used in the event of an actual draw (which would seem a nice middle-ground between US and Japanese MMA judging). This could make sense in a three-round fight where a judge has it 10-8, 9-10, 9-10, so it's 28-28. This additional declaration would allow a judge to say whether it's really a draw or that the 10-8 round was much more of a blowout than the two 9-10 rounds; conversely, the judge can determine that the 10-8 round wasn't so dominant as to even out the two rounds lost by the fighter.

More extensive use of 10-10 and 10-8 rounds would also mean that it's more difficult to ride out a victory. Grinding out the first two rounds in positional advantage but no damage should not automatically offset a dominant third round by the other fighter, though this can easily happen when every round is scored 10-9.


To be the champion, you've got to beat the champion 

I've heard this a few times over the weekend, and it brings back childhood memories of Ric Flair proclaiming, "To be the man, you've got to beat the man. Woo!!!" I'm convinced this is the source of the claim for most MMA fans (ignoring it's use in boxing, since, well, my guess is that most MMA fans are more likely to be old pro wrestling fans than old boxing fans). Aside from the fact that it's a gimmick, the reason for it in pro wrestling (which, yes, I know is scripted) is that they had "rules" that a belt could not change hands in a draw or disqualification, so you actually had to "beat the champion" (pin or submission) to get the title even though you could still win the match (count-out or disqualification) without getting the title.

Alleged Cecil Peoples' quotes on "leg kicks" and "Octagon control" 

Regarding the leg kicks, it's not clear if he means kicks to the legs (the obvious interpretation) or kicks using the legs (Redundant, right? How else do you kick somebody?) It's been a long time since I watched the fight, but didn't Pete Spratt take out the seemingly-invincible Robbie Lawler by chopping him down with leg kicks? And looking at the slowed pace and red glow of Machida's body, I'm guessing those body kicks did tremendous damage.

As for "Octagon control" by forcing Rua to follow him... Kalib Starnes did the same thing. By that rationale, Starnes was winning 10-9 rounds. Yeah, you know the fight and the opponent I am referring to. Backing up and being followed wasn't Octagon control when Starnes did it, and it wasn't when Machida did it.

 A new approach to judging 

There is some room for the 10-point system in MMA if we introduce more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds so that more fights end in a draw. In such cases, I'd rather see an automatic rematch, since the champion also hasn't won the fight. Overall, I would much rather see more draws where they should happen (and these "it could go either way" rounds and fights should be draws) than to keep seeing highly questionable decision losses on fighters' records.

To make it simple... just because you didn't win, it doesn't mean you lost. These fighters often lay it all out for us (and for fairly low wages when it comes to many fights), and nobody deserves to get these debated losses on their records, which can open or close doors... or get you cut from the UFC for "losing" too many fights. Seriously, if this was the third "loss" in a row for Mauricio Rua, would you be OK with the UFC cutting him after that performance?