Lately I’ve been thinking, and writing, about the current state of judging and scoring in MMA quite a bit. One thing that I keep running into is confusion between the two. While the two issues are certainly related, and some proposed remedies may overlap, I’ve been insistent that the two issue are fundamentally separate.
On Tuesday’s Jordan Breen show, after reading emails that incorrectly attribute changes to the scoring system as solutions to judging, he read an email from Josh from Illinois that really gets it:
“As a person who has heard about the half-point scoring system a lot recently I had no idea that it changed the judging criteria and that it added a fourth judge in the event if a tie. I thought it was simply allowing half-points at the scoring table. I have a feeling several others feel the same way and don’t know the particulars. Also, for those who say the problem isn’t the system, but rather the uneducated judges, I have a question. Why is finding a way to have better judges – a problem that can never be fully corrected – a legit reason for opposing a system change? To me they’re apples and oranges. When discussing the merits of a scoring system the competency of the judges should have no bearing on the conversation. To me it would seem more appropriate if we compared the two systems side by side and decided which is more appropriate for MMA based on the criteria and structure used to decide the winner. When you say ‘it’s the judges,’ that does nothing to address the fact that another system could still be beneficial and help change the perception of what it means to win a fight.”
Unfortunately Jordan Breen then goes on to ignore the entire premise of the email and replies “how does the a half-point system help things like Pham/Garcia when judges are actually scoring it the wrong way?” Its ironic that Jordan Breen, someone widely considered one of the most knowledgeable people in MMA, doesn’t take a more nuanced stance on the issues.
Jordan goes on to use the analogy “if your house is built lopsided, its not because the hammer and the nail are a bad invention. Likewise its not suitable to give the idiot who built it power tools.”
I really like this analogy and I would take it a step further to suggest that just because an idiot built a lopsided house with a hammer and a nail does not mean that power tools are not better. Regarding changes to the scoring criteria and improving the quality of judges, to quote Josh, “they’re apples and oranges.”
Jordan also criticizes the idea of having a fourth tie-breaker judge. Specifically he says “if people see it a draw, I don’t see why it can’t be a draw.” There are two problems with this. The first is that in both the 10 point must and half-point scoring systems not every round with a given score is equal. Even with half points, given the dynamic nature of fighting and MMA, not every 10-9 (10-9.5) is going to be equal. Therefore it is fundamentally possible that even though one fighter did more in a fight, given the confines the scoring system the a fight is ruled a draw. That however does not preclude the possibility that a fight could actually result in a draw where neither fighter did more than the other. And this is the second problem with the criticism. The proposed half-point system does not preclude the possibility of a fight being ruled a draw, it simply eliminates the possibility based on the scoring system’s limitations.
Later a caller asks why scoring a take down in a close fight means winning a round. This is in fact something that is indicated in the rules. However, these types of scoring criteria questions, as well as the explanations given by the judges in the Garcia/Pham fight, actually reinforces my premise that the major problem with the current system is that it is overly open to interpretation. And this is where there is actually some overlap in revising the scoring system and improving the quality of judging.
I think it is undeniable that there are numerous problems with judges. These include:
• knowledge of MMA scoring criteria
• an eye for distinguishing effective technique
• adequate visibility of the action
While I do not believe changes to the scoring system are meant to resolve problems with judging this is one of the areas in which a new scoring system could potentially result in reducing that problem. A proposed MMA scoring system has the opportunity to offer more clarity than the current system, leaving less open to interpretation. In addition while all the judges are *supposedly* already familiar with the 10 point must system, they will need to be trained in a new system, which can only help. Despite the fact that changes to the scoring system aren’t designed to fix the problem of incompetent judges, the mere fact that there is a system overhaul requires EVERY judge to be retrained, and possibly reassess his/her criteria for judging fights. So-called “experienced judges” won’t lean on their supposed expertise, because everyone would be back at square one. And people like Kizer don’t need to call anyone out, or throw them under the bus, because now ALL judges are tasked with implementing the new system, and doing it competently.
So of course revising the scoring system will not resolve the issues with MMA judging, but it wasn’t meant to. But only after you improve the scoring system, which must include clarifying it, can you begin to address any problems with judges.
