NJSACB's Nick Lembo Talks Ideas on Improving Judging in MMA

by Leland Roling on Sep 11, 2009 10:30 AM EDT in News Comment 19 comments

In an interview over at Bleacher Report, E. Spencer Kyte sat down with the legal counsel of the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board (NJSACB) in Nick Lembo. Most fans have heard of Lembo as he's involved heavily with the mixed martial arts scene on the east coast, and he has been in the news recently as he responded to Sean Salmon's admission with a suspension from competing in the state, specifically on a September 11th card in Atlantic City.

The most interesting piece of this interview revolves around Lembo's ideas about how judges should be trained:

How do we improve judging in Mixed Martial Arts?

Start with training seminars for individuals with appropriate martial arts backgrounds. Then have them "shadow" judge at amateur events; have them judge hundreds of amateur fights over several years.

Then, have them start at a small show in the pros alongside two very experienced judges. Consistently review and assess their performances and review any controversial scores with them.

Interestingly enough, it sounds like this program is currently in place in New Jersey from some later questions, and Lembo also talked about sitting through "Big John" McCarthy's C.O.M.M.A.N.D. program presentation regarding courses for officials within MMA.

The key to this entire process working is the review process. "Shadow" judging is a good way to get those inexperienced judges the experience in watching MMA fights and knowing exactly what to look for in terms of the criteria. But Lembo still isn't hitting at the problem that I've been pushing for quite some time now.

The real problem here is how those "experienced" judges and the people reviewing these "shadow" judge scorecards are interpreting the judging criteria. Does Cecil Peoples (Cecil isn't actually licensed in NJ, it's just an example) fall under the "experienced" judge category? I certainly wouldn't want that type of explanation as to why my card isn't matching his card at the end of the evening.

While this is a well-put together program to give new judges the experience they need in order to judge fights effectively, I don't think it's the ultimate answer to better judging. I have a feeling that "experienced" judges aren't progressive in changing their tune when it comes to judging takedowns, fighters scoring off their backs, and giving points to submission attempts and escapes. The review process would need to teach judges the newer ways of thinking in regards to MMA such as the forementioned situations that can occur in the cage.

I'd be interested to find out what John McCarthy is teaching in his judging course at C.O.M.M.A.N.D. as I think it would be something that's truly beneficial for the future of judges if it used a philosophy that top control isn't the "Holy Grail" of a winning round. I'd also be interested to hear Lembo's comments regarding the review process and how they are teaching the future of MMA referees in accordance to the judging criteria.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: nick lembo, john mccarthy, mma judging

Comments

Love that you have the Uno Fisher fight pic up for this article

'He built his whole reputation as a waffle house chef. They’ve been serving him up ham and eggs with a side of canned tomatoes' - Don Frye on Fedor Emelianenko

by Well Read Idiot on Sep 11, 2009 10:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If I remember correctly, the poll swung to Uno...

Which surprised me because I felt I was in the minority.

Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

by Leland Roling on Sep 11, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reviewing an employees work and giving constructive criticism?

This seems like such a novel idea. i wonder if this could be applied to things beyond the world of mma. This could be a real game changer in the world.

by Phildo on Sep 11, 2009 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There are a lot of real issues that surround judging an MMA fight. The problem is almost all judges (99.9%) aren’t involved in MMA outside of judging fights. It’s comparable to having John Q. Public writing law enforcement policy and they have never been a cop. It just doesn’t work. I think there needs to be a set list of what moves/strikes score what. I like some of Dreams rules. The takedown doesn’t score any points unless you do something with it. Like your opponent is rocked by the takedown or you immediately transition to a mount/submission. Also the fight should be scored as a whole and not individual rounds. We all know there needs to be changes but who’s going to make them?

by BrandedToKill on Sep 11, 2009 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think this is why Lembo has stated that a martial arts background is a must.

Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

by Leland Roling on Sep 11, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

10-9, 10-8, 10-7

It’s a little off topic from the good article above, but in my head I keep coming back to the scoring system we use. The vast majority of rounds are 10-9 rounds.

My argument is this doesn’t fit MMA at all. Unlike what some other people have said, however, I don’t think you need to scrap the 10-point must system. You could solve a lot of problems by getting rid of what has basically evolved into a “loser almost always gets 9 points” system.

A very close round is a 10-9 round. A decisive round where real damage has been inflicted is a 10-8 round. A beatdown of a round is a 10-7 round.

Apply this to a fight like Sanchez Guida, and you give Sanchez a 10-7 in the first round for beating the snot out of Guida. Now Guida has to really turn it on and dominate some of the fight in order to get a win. Outwrestling and out-positioning to eke out some 10-9 rounds won’t cut it, because he would still lose 28-27. As a result he has to really go for it.

Am I crazy or could this approach have a huge and positive impact on the accuracy of judging and on the mentality of fighters to try and do more than just get a 10-9.

by GregS123 on Sep 11, 2009 12:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That’s one of the major problems.

The 10 point must system could work if it was used properly, but it’s not used properly.

Along with what you said, there need to be more 10-10 rounds. When every round is scored 10-9, leaning one way or another on a really close round (or a really uneventful round) has way too much impact, especially in a 3 round fight.

by Phildo on Sep 11, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a bit extreme.

10 point must system can work, but we need judges who all score consistently the same and have a solid understanding of how to judge a MMA fight. Usually, you have a judge or two who sway toward top control and takedowns as a factor while another judge might see damage from the back and score that round for the fighter who was on his back. It isn’t consistent across the board.

Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

by Leland Roling on Sep 11, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It isn’t consistent across the board.

That is the most frustrating aspect. Then there’s Cecil Peoples, who I’m convinced is watching tape of other fights and scoring them instead of the one in front of him.

"That feeling after you win and they raise your hand... it's like you have this energy that releases from your body, and it's like you mingle with the cosmos, and you feel omnipotent"

by woomikee on Sep 11, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fixing the inconsistency will be tough. Because how do you weigh all these components against each other? Is a takedown worth more than some nice leg kicks? Really hard to say.

HOWEVER I think just about any judge will know a close round from a lobsided one when they see it. Requiring judges to give out 10-8 and 10-7 scores when they see lobsided rounds would effectively nullify a lot of the controversy. The controversy comes up when you have these very close 10-9 rounds that end up deciding the outcomes of fights.

by GregS123 on Sep 11, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I think the general rule should be that a takedown while doing nothing shouldn’t be counted as anything. If a fighter can transition to a better position from the takedown, ok. If the fighter can damage his opponent after the takedown, ok. If the opponent escapes, I think the opponent should get some value from that.

Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

by Leland Roling on Sep 11, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s be honest though, takedowns and controlling of positioning does not damage your opponent or possibly finish the fight.

Combine that with your argument that judges don’t even see these items consistently.

Wouldn’t that be an endorsement for the scoring system I propose? This way, the most that a fighter can expect to get out of a takedown + lay n pray strategy is a 10-9 round.

Doing real damage either through strikes or sub attempts is the only way to get 10-8 or 10-7 rounds. It seems like it would work quite well to me…

by GregS123 on Sep 11, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Takedowns resulting in damage do. And transitioning to a better position in a fight that is basically a chess match on the ground will result in points.

Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

by Leland Roling on Sep 11, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

takedown: usually no damage at all.
slam: can do some damage

transitioning to side or full mount – good stuff.
takedown and sitting in someone’s guard – not so good.

the point is, these moves are not all equal in their impact on the fight. scoring everything as 10-9 is the problem. I can get the same result from doing no damage with some takedowns as I can get with doing lots of damage with some strikes? It’s crazy.

by GregS123 on Sep 11, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The actual movement in a takedown… yes, isn’t damaging. I’m talking about the subsequent pounding someone would take.

Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

by Leland Roling on Sep 11, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

right ok – agree there.

so let’s say you’ve got:

round 1: guy gets a takedown, smothers his opponent, but doesn’t land any strikes, or pass guard, or do any sub attempts. guy on the bottom is trying to go for subs but can’t get anything.

round 2: guy gets a takedown, and lands some nasty GnP, cuts open his opponent’s head and seriously hurts the dude.

why would we call both of these the exact same 10-9?

i’m saying call the first one 10-9, call the second one 10-8. i believe it will be relatively easy for even inexperienced judges to do this.

by GregS123 on Sep 11, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because both guys controlled the round one just did more damage, you want a 10-8 it needs to be total domination and near stoppage giving out 10-8 for some damage is wrong.

by Raker on Sep 11, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’m not talking about the current definition of 10-8 raker.

keep up.

by GregS123 on Sep 11, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no perfect system, but with guys like Nick Lembo dedicated to making it better and working with officials and judges, not to mention Big John’s program, we’ll get there eventually…

Bloody Elbow: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Bloody Elbow -

Pound-for-Pound the Best in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) Commentary, News and Community