Quote of the Day: Joe Rogan Talks MMA Judging
by Kid Nate on Jun 23, 2009 3:59 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
TM: You've seen a lot of good judging and a lot of bad judging over the years, and a lot of good refereeing and bad refereeing. What's your natural reaction when you see a judging or refereeing decision you disagree with? Is it pretty much what we get on the air, or do you try to temper it a little bit because you don't want to pile on?
Joe Rogan: The problem with the referees when we go to a place like Nashville is we have to use local referees and a lot of these guys just aren't prepared for the big show. They're not good enough, and they're nervous and some are real trigger happy. They want to step in and stop the action or tell the guys what to do. They make mistakes and don't know what to do. Then you get guys like Herb Dean, who's the best in the business and he knows what he's doing. As far as scoring, we have a 10-point must system that works for boxing when you have one attack, with hands. But when you have to evaluate punches vs. takedowns or knees vs. elbows you have to figure out some way to quantify attacking, effective aggressiveness, defense, how you score things. I think we need to come up with our own system. I think MMA needs something more. If we're going to use a 10-point must system, we need to be clear on what counts for what. It's frustrating when one guy is beating the other in the standup but the other guy takes him down and does nothing. The judges will sometimes give it to the guy who scored the takedown, but I think you've got to give it to the guy who's beating him up. And it's so subjective. You have two judges who see the same fight and have different reasons for scoring it different ways. If it's close like Caol Uno-Spencer Fisher, I don't say anything. I could see how someone would see Fisher won or Uno won. If something is ridiculous, I'll speak out on it. Especially when we had boxing judges. I remember Darby Shirley did some judging for UFC and his scores were (expletive) wacky. It has to be pretty bad. I think it all goes back to the scoring and we need to revamp that.
TM: What do you think about implementing some ideas from Pride, like scoring the fight in its entirety or rewarding effort to finish the fight?
JR: That's a real interesting question there. There's something to be said for that system. Do you remember the Brad Blackburn-Ryo Chonan fight?
TM: No, I'm blanking on the specifics of that one.
JR: OK, well Blackburn was winning the first two rounds. But Chonan hung in there and was kicking his (butt) in the third. Chonan lost the decision but won the fight. Blackburn won the decision but lost the fight. The last five minutes were Ryo Chonan beating the (expletive) out of Blackburn. Basically Blackburn survived. If you looked at the way the fight was going, you'd think Blackburn would get stopped if the fight continued. It's interesting. I kind of like the way Pride treats it as a whole and scores for the guy trying to finish the fight.
UFC announcer Joe Rogan talks to Todd Martin at CBS Sports.
64 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I say go back to the old days when the judges would write on a peice of paper who they thought won the fight, or move to a cumulative point system.
Keep firing Assholes!
Out out, you demons of stupidity!
The only
problem I have with that is round 3 become heavily weighted. We will see people like Sherk lay and pray til the 3rd and use their cardio to win the decision.
There is a reason why the sport went away from not scoring the fight by rounds. The system stunk.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jun 23, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s kinda funny how Joe likes the notion of scoring the fight as a whole and then proceeds to focus on the last five minutes of the Chonan/Blackburn fight.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
Well, that’s kind of proving his point. If you have to score by rounds Chonan/Blackburn goes to Blackburn 2 rounds to 1. But if you score the fight as a whole, and effort to finish, you can give the win to Chonan even if he technically “lost” the first two rounds on scorecards.
A wise man told me don't argue with fools
Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who
It’s not a critique, I just thought it was funny sounding. That’s all. ;-)
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jun 23, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
You may have missed the point. Take the fight as a whole, and one guy won. Divide the fight into thirds, and the other guy won the early rounds. I’d say if a guy weathers the storm, then does massive damage, he won, but under the three rounds scored method, the guy who won two rounds, even by a small margin (say, one takedown each round) won the fight.
cheers,
Andrew
I'm sticking to my story
Rounds. Rounds are what matter. If you win two rounds, you should do no worse than a draw. If you win the shit out of one round and are worried about losing a decision, there’s this magical other way to win called FINISHING A FIGHT ESPECIALLY AFTER COLD COCKING YOUR OPPONENT.
So yeah, if you lose the first two rounds, then you sure as shit better finish him in the third, otherwise, you’re on the shit end of a decision. I haven’t shed any tears for Guida (though I feel he won 29-28) because if you want to remove any and all subjectivity from the outcome of a fight, then FINISH it.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2009 4:11 PM EDT reply actions
Rounds are a completely arbitrary function, though. And there aren’t enough (like say a ten or twelve round boxing match) to reduce the variance that extremely dominant or extremely close rounds can introduce to the judging.
I’m not saying get rid of rounds, I just think this absolute, hard-line stance is a bit short-sighted.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I like the system as is. It’s the humans that man it that need improving.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
don't we all?
It is not [Hawk Harrelson's] fault that his genius goes unappreciated by uncultured louts like you. -Nick
by Leopold Bloom on Jun 24, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Some changes I would love to see in American MMA rules...
1. Allow foot stomps and kicks/knees to the head of a downed oponent
2. More draws..how come the FC hates giving out draws when they are warranted?
3. Allow magic spandex pants to fighters
1. No – not until the public fully accepts the sport
2. No – except in the case of a point deduction, somebody wins every round
3. No – that shit is cheating
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
1. no except for knees and upkicks (ie Anderson Silva vs Okami should be a KO, not a DQ)
2. no, draws suck, everyone hates them.
3. yes! yes!
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
This is what I don’t get about number three, you’re allowed to use a knee brace or ankle brace which basically does the same thing so why can’t the magic pants be allowed? Is there really a good reason for not letting magic pants be used other than “they look retarded”. Which they do.
Why did he have to pick Nashville? We’ve had MMA legal for less than a year. Low blow.
Wasn’t it Ohio that had the crazy refs?
You’re from Tennessee? Suddenly your remarks seem less… biting.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
We could just give each judge 10 marbles per round, give each fighter a jar and let the refs drop them in whenever they want in plain view.
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2009 4:31 PM EDT reply actions
I prefer the pine cone/birch bark system.
Each judge gets 100 pieces of birch bark and 100 pine cones.
Birch bark represents fights A and pine cones represent fighter B.
Judges then decide how many of each to put in the basket.
The only problem is that when you get 200 pine cones and 230 birch bark in a basket, it weighs a couple of kilometers.
Thats how we do it in Canada.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
by MonkeyCHops on Jun 23, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
it weighs a couple of kilometers.
:-)
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
normally
after a statement like this “it weighs a couple of kilometers.” I’d lay into someone, being from Canada, but this one was funny, so your safe for now, next time though, and for future reference, it’s kilograms. Basically that would be like me saying it weighed a couple of yards, or something like that, but funny none the less.
I think thats part of the joke. And not all Americans would make that mistake, just the retarded ones.
That’s not as bad as the time the American AVN tech filled a passenger jet on a transcontinental flight with 20 000lb of fuel instead of 20 000kg of fuel. Ran out of fuel over Winnipeg.
Keep firing Assholes!
Out out, you demons of stupidity!
I like the idea of awarding the fight based on who beat up the other guy more, and who tries to finish. It’s so frustrating to see someone winning in the standup only to be taken down and basically held to the ground for the rest of the round. Octogon control is important, but I don’t think holding a guy down and doing the old lay and pray is fighting; that’s just surviving IMO. Judging is so subjective, so you need a standard that issues clear points for various attacks, which takes out as much of the subjectiveness out of judging as possible. For example, a take down should be worth less than a knock down via punch or kick, but a takedown coupled with effective GnP could be different. I dunno. At this point, I may just be talking out of my ass, but it doesn’t seem like there is a uniform idea of what attack is worth more, etc.
I love me some Sexyama!
Award points for various attacks?
That creates point fighting. That would ruin the sport.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jun 23, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
they tried that.
a “human cockfight” broke out. ;)
Pride’s system was vague and allowed anybody to win the fight that they wanted to. It was actually very bad.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jun 23, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
rec'd
Frankly, and this is going to ruffle some feathers, but using Pride or Japanese MMA as a cornerstone in this argument is just bad reasoning based on all of the other underhanded practices that went on in Pride. K-1 has some shaddy stuff too, it seems at times.
Joe didn’t the fact that Darby scored the Bonnar/Rashad fight a draw leading to the Majority decision. However there needs to be more draws or 10-10 rounds. It will put the onus on the fighters to definitively win rounds/fights or they would have fought for naught. Although I would like to see the fights scored as a whole.
Fighters can only do so much. And having more 10-10 rounds would create a lot of draws. So fighters would have records like 7-3-4 like the guys in Shooto do.
Whether this is right or not, the fans pay the bills…. And the majority of the fans want to see a winner, even if it is a close fight.
10-10 rounds for this very reason does not work.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jun 23, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
I agree with you on the 10-10 rounds Jordan Breen has a great opinion on why 10-10 rounds are needed so bad in MMA. There are so many close close rounds where nothing happend at all or bolth fighters did about equal that should get a 10-10
The 10 Point Must System isn’t perfect. Actually, no system is perfect. I still think it works good.
The problem is, I have yet to see a good alternative discussed. Typically the suggestions I see would turn MMA into Point Fighting or is so hard to figure out that it would actually create more problems in the long run.
I kind of like the current system. They do need a better crop of judges. But it’s really simple…. A fighter must win 2 rounds to win the fight. I like that system. Of course there is always the chance for a 10-8 round, but that is rare.
I don’t think MMA scoring needs a major overhaul. As stated ad nauseum, more liberal use of 10-10 and 10-8 rounds. Better training and education of officials.
The problem with scoring the fight as a whole is that 1) you’ll still have controversial decisions and 2) it doesn’t solve the root of the problem – that being undereducated/miseducated officials.
Also, for those who want an alternative to the ten-point must that doesn’t involve scoring the fight as a whole…what do you suggest? Rogan likes to talk about “figuring out a way to involve the various facets of MMA.” Well, the ten-point must system does that, if used correctly.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Jun 23, 2009 7:42 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Scoring as a whole would also lead to more controversial decisions
By paid off or incompetent judges.. It would only add more controversy in the sport.. And that is why we changed it in the first place..
by Anton Tabuena on Jun 23, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Rec’d.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jun 24, 2009 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions
you have a flawed poll Nate!
That is unfair. Hahaha. Option 1 you agree.. If you don’t, you have to call Nate and Rogan stupid. Hahaha.
Well I pick option 3. I disagree, but it is really good in theory, so no one is stupid. haha!
How about more points per round?
Or more specifically, a 10 point must system per facet of a round.
10 point must for:
Striking
Grappling
Submissions
Takedowns
etc..
So that fighters could score better or worse than their opponent on each of those with a total being achieved for each round and the fighter overall.
For example, in the Sanchez v Guida fight, round one might look like:
Striking: 10 – 7 Sanchez
Takedowns: 10 – 9 Guida
Grappling: 10 – 9 Guida
Submissions: 10 – 10 (I don’t remember any submissions in that round)
Octagon Control: 10 – 9 Sanchez
Total for round 1: 48 – 46 for Sanchez
Just and idea and an example.
That’s an interesting idea. Prima facie, it sounds pretty darn good.
That said, I don’t agree with your actual scores for round one. :-P
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jun 24, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
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.
