Last weekend's UFC 105 main event light heavyweight match-up between Randy "The Natural" Couture and Brandon "The Truth" Vera cemented itself as one of the tougher bouts to score from a judge's point of view during this year's long list of close decisions. Lyoto Machida vs. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua should be thrown in the mix as well as a recent bout that also spawned a lot of debate among fans, but the Couture vs. Vera decision focuses solely on a subject within the context of MMA's judging criteria that has hidden from criticism.
While most of the debates come down to certain exchanges landing and the value of specific strikes in opposition to other methods of scoring (i.e. the value of leg kicks versus jabs, takedowns vs. escapes), the hierarchy of the criteria used in judging a fight was the central issue at UFC 105. Per a discussion on the Sherdog forums back in 2007 regarding judging criteria, someone posted the criteria for judging MMA bouts when Marc Ratner was the head of the NSAC. We also had the discussion here. The root of the issue comes in the Criteria Evaluation:
If 90% of a round is grounded with one fighter on top, then:
- Effective Grappling is weighted first, with Clean Striking weighted next. If Clean Strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective grappling while the fighters are grounded. Octagon Control is next (Pace, Place, & Position)
The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing:
- Clean Striking would be weighed first, Clean Grappling second, then Octagon Control. Which fighter created situations that led to effective strikes.
If a round was 50/50, then:
- Clean Striking and Effective Grappling are weighed more equally with Octagon Control being weighed next.
Now, keep in mind -- these were the rules under Ratner's reign at the NSAC and these could have been changed since those days, but I think these make the case against what some fans have argued over the past week. This obviously hints that there is a hierarchy when it comes to Striking, Grappling, Effective Grappling, and Octagon Control. Striking and Grappling receive a lot of weight in a battle that's mostly standing and grappling as equals, but when entire rounds shift to the ground, the criteria is weighted to specific portions of the criteria.
This is exactly how the criteria should work, and it shocks me that we've seen arguments that some of Vera's blows in the first round would suddenly nullify anything Couture did in terms of Effective Grappling and Octagon Control. The only real problem with my view is that technically... Couture stood for much of those clinching exchanges. His style, however, was basically a grounded battle against the fence in the clinch.
Because of the way the fight went with Couture controlling Vera against the fence, weight would be pressed on the Effective Grappling and Octagon Control portions of the criteria versus Striking in the first round. The problem we see, however, is that some fans want to throw substantial weight on a few strikes when Couture controlled the round. Say what you want about how Couture worked the round... call it boring if you want, but I can't see an argument in giving Vera huge points for a few blows because Couture simply controlled him while landing barely effective strikes against the fence.
If a judge actually puts significant weight on a few clean strikes in a round that is dominated by positional control, we have a problem. It's a huge problem if a judge cannot use the rationale outlined above, and we see these problems in commissions that aren't within the list of major commissions in the United States. I have no doubt in my mind that the NJSACB and the NSAC have the competence to do their jobs using this rationale, but I know for a fact that other commissions would look at this type of scoring with bewilderment.
Without that rationale, a fight in which 90% of the round took place on the ground with a top controlling fighter doing some damage could be stolen by a fighter who gained his legs at the end of the round and landed a couple of clean strikes that didn't even daze the opponent. That is exactly what some of the arguments suggest should be the criteria for scoring a fight, and that's ridiculous.
The issue with MMA judging is that judges are open to interpretate the criteria in their own way, but interpretation of what a heavy vs. average strike looks like, the importance of leg kicks, and the entire debate regarding escapes, submission attempts, and ground tactics are the areas open for discussion.
This shouldn't be much of a debate. If Vera nearly knocked out Couture with a few strikes after being positionally dominated for the entire first round, we'd be debating what "heavier strikes with efficiency" means against the rationale that if 90% of the round is in a specific setting, more weight is put on a specific portion of the criteria. To be perfectly honest, that occurrence would lend itself to a draw round in my eyes moreso than a debate as to who barely scraped by with a winning round. But I don't think the Couture vs. Vera fight was much of a debate until the third round, a round that had a lot of different positions and areas in which the fight took place.