Nick Lembo Comments on Judging for Machida vs. Shogun, Couture vs. Vera
Nick Lembo of the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board adds some perspective on two controversial decisions recently within MMA. I only bring them up because Lembo's responses naturally appeal to common sense, something lost amidst the discussion about how to judge or change the scoring system.
On Machida vs. Shogun from UFC 104:
Fighters like Lyoto Machida have changed the way we traditionally view "octagon control" with his evasive tactics of defense. His modus operandi can be fairly accurately described as the definition for effective defense (avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks), but how do you feel his backward movement and counterstriking fits into octagon control? Is a fighter using this strategy generally dictating the pace and location of the fight?
"It depends how it plays out, in the Rua fight, I did not think it was successful."
Can the fighter chasing him down earn points for octagon control if he is having more success offensively despite being "in pursuit"?
"Yes, obviously."
"Machida, to me, in a sense, is reminiscent of certain counterpunchers in boxing. They are not pressing forward and pushing the pace but they are responding to your offense and movements, and waiting for openings. Machida should be credited for his counterstriking and his defense, even if he is not moving forward."
On Couture vs. Vera from UFC 105:
The Couture/Vera fight brought up several questions relating to octagon control in the clinch position. If Fighter A is pressing his opponent against the cage and keeping him there, but Fighter B is defending Fighter A’s attempts at the takedown, which fighter would get the nod for octagon control? (Fighter A for dictating the location, and Fighter B would get effective defense in that situation?)
"In the Couture/Vera fight, Couture would get the nod for dictating the location of the bout and Vera would get credit for effectively defending the takedown attempts. In that fight, and in your example, Couture would get a slight nod because Couture was controlling where most of rounds one and three occurred. Even though the takedowns were defended, Vera clearly did not want to be backed up against the cage for that period of time."
I recommend reading the entire interview to get his thoughts on what constitutes 10-8 rounds, whether or not 10-10 rounds should be used, what changes he'd propose for altering the 10-point must system and more.
What I'm repeatedly force to acknowledge reading the sober judgment of competent, experienced professionals is that it is far better to have competent, fair judges in an imperfect system than incompetent judges in a great system. Let's worry about the judges before we began tinkering with the rules.
Photo courtesy MMA Junkie.
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Honestly, Octagon Control is a bit ridiculous in terms of one fighter pressing the pace over another in the STANDING portion of a fight. It should simply be based on offensive output standing. If the backpedaler is landing, then he’s winning. If the forward fighter is landing more, he’s winning. It’s pretty basic when it comes to standing. Octagon control just fucks everything up and makes for poor excuses when a fight is purely a striking battle.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Octagon control, as I see it, should be more of a tie breaker than a criterion weighed against, say, damage done.
Otherwise, you start to argue that Forrest Griffin was winning on Anderson Silva because he was moving forward while Anderson just sort of clobbered Griffin while backing up. The knockout makes it a moot point, but you understand the silliness of the circumstance.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Dec 1, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Forrest outlanded him 16-15 strikes.
If he kept that up, he should have won a decision.
by pdl on Dec 1, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
Forrest outlanded him 16-15 strikes.
If he kept that up, he should have won a decision.
I rest my case.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Note
CompuStrike counts all strikes that contact, while FightMetric’s basic fight reports only count “HiPer” strikes (which it defines as being techniques with a historically high percentage chance leading to a finish, apparently); CompuStrike ended up noting the difference in its own report on Silva vs. Griffin.
While Forrest made contact more, Silva was far more accurate with good strikes, and Forrest was far worse there.
Getting knocked down changes everything.
by MickDawg on Dec 2, 2009 5:25 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I agree with his logic about the Couture/Vera fight...
I just don’t like how that rule plays out in that situation. I would like to see that aspect of MMA scoring changed so that situations like that aren’t rewarded.
Great interview
I think he’s representative of what the next generation of judges/officials will look like
Everytime I read these discussions regarding MMA judging..
I realize just how important it is to finish your opponent by submission or KO. That being said I understand the Japanese concept of judging the fight partially by damage done. It seems reasonable to decide a winner by how much physical damage is inflicted on their opponent. In the Couture/Vera fight I feel that the ref played a big part. In a fight that is regularly stalemating against the fence because one fighter insists on “clinch and press” technique but can’t get the takedown or land any punches the ref needs to seperate the two fighters early and often. The refs need to establish control and do their part to create an in-ring enviroment that can establish a clear and dominate winner.
"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"
Nick Lembo always comes correct. I’ve heard him a few times in long interviews with Breen, which I’d highly recommend listening to. They disagree on a few things, but listening to two well-informed people who actually give a crap about officiating sharing their opinions is great, if that stuff interests you whatsoever.
50% more Ultimate than the leading competitor.
it is far better to have competent, fair judges in an imperfect system than incompetent judges in a great system
I totally agree.
This was a great interview. I personally like the idea of putting judges in separate rooms to watch the fight on TV. That way you get each judge watching the fight from the exact same angles. Of course, something could be missed, but I think there’s a greater chance of a judge missing something ringside.
I love me some Sexyama!

by 




















