After careful consideration, the staff of Sherdog.com has decided
that the outcry regarding the judging of mixed martial arts
contests in the past year was too great to ignore. As such, the
contributing editors have agreed that the cluster of questionable
decisions, and the ensuing public backlash, was 2010’s “Story of
the Year.”
The first blip on the radar came at
UFC
112
in April, when lightweight kingpin
B.J. Penn
put
his belt on the line in what was supposed to be a routine title
defense against
Frankie
Edgar
. Instead, the heavily-favored “Prodigy” found himself in
a competitive match where the speedy Edgar used superior movement
to outlast the longtime champion and earn a hard-fought unanimous
decision victory.
Most fight fans and pundits agreed that the fight was a close one.
Ringside judge Douglas Crosby, however, was not a part of that
group: he scored the contest 50-45, a clean sweep for Edgar.
Two weeks later, at
WEC
48
, promotional staple
Leonard
Garcia
and WEC newcomer
Chan Sung
Jung
threw down in a wild, “Fight of the Year”-candidate brawl.
Though both men sustained heavy damage, it was Jung who generally
got the better of the bout’s many exchanges. Statistic providers
FightMetric and CompuStrike both observed that the “Korean Zombie”
had landed more strikes with better accuracy than his opponent.
Somehow, two of the three officials cageside scored the bout for
Garcia.
The month of September brought with it another pair of baffling
verdicts. At
Bellator Fighting Championships 31
,
Zoila
Frausto
defeated
Jessica
Aguilar
in their semifinal of the promotion’s 115-pound
tournament. Though Aguilar continually pressed the action and
seemed to have won the fight handily, two of the Louisiana judges
scored the fight for Frausto.
At
UFC
119
, former lightweight champion
Sean Sherk
outpointed rising prospect
Evan Dunham
.
Sherk looked to be in total control in the early going, grounding
his younger opponent and lacerating him with patented “Muscle
Shark” ground-and-pound. In the final two frames, however, it was
Dunham who battled back and took control. The then-undefeated
prospect used excellent takedown defense to keep the fight standing
and capitalized by using his considerable reach advantage to punish
Sherk, particularly in the third period. Nonetheless, Sherk was
declared the winner by split decision.
UFC
123
in November continued the trend of controversial decisions,
as suffocating wrestler
Nik Lentz
defeated longtime UFC competitor
Tyson
Griffin
, while
Quinton
“Rampage” Jackson
got his hand raised against
Lyoto
Machida
. While it was generally agreed that the Machida-Jackson
bout was a close one, “The Dragon” scored a big takedown and landed
the most meaningful blows of the bout in the third period after two
lackluster rounds from both men. In the case of Griffin-Lentz, most
viewed the fight as a clear-cut victory for Griffin. Sherdog.com
and MMAJunkie.com each scored the fight 30-27, while MMAWeekly.com
scored it 29-28, all for Griffin.
One of the final decisions of 2010 was also, arguably, the most
controversial. In a bout named Sherdog.com’s 2010 “Robbery of the
Year,”
Leonard
Garcia
defeated
Nam Phan
by
split decision at
“The Ultimate Fighter 12” finale
. Both men fought hard, but it
was Phan who was more accurate with his strikes, cutting through
the windmill offense of Garcia with straight punches and crisp
kicks. According to CompuStrike, Phan out-landed Garcia 122 to 66
in total strikes, and connected with 61 power strikes to Garcia’s
39. Still, two of the three judges awarded the fight to Garcia.
Following that contest, UFC commentator Joe Rogan spoke live on air
about the state of judging in mixed martial arts, asserting that
there were a few good judges surrounded by “a bunch of incompetent
morons who know nothing about the sport.” Rogan pinpointed Nevada
State Athletic Commission Executive Director Keith Kizer as the man
turning a blind eye to a problem in dire need of fixing.
Kizer, however, does not see it that way. According to the NSAC
head, at such a high level of competition, there are bound to be
close fights, and with those close fights come dissenting opinions.
Even Garcia-Phan -- which Kizer himself scored 30-27 in favor of
Phan -- may fall under this philosophy.
“It’s not a problem that fans are so passionate in arguing for or
against a decision. In fact, I think that’s a good thing. But just
because some people get on a message board, that doesn’t mean
there’s an actual epidemic, either,” said Kizer. “Several [members
of the media] gave either the first or third rounds to Leonard
Garcia. I still don’t see that, but I don't want to discount those
[points of view].”
The NSAC head isn’t the only one with an explanation for the outcry
over the decisions in 2010. Longtime judge and referee Nelson “Doc”
Hamilton -- who scored the Griffin-Lentz and Garcia-Phan bouts in
favor of Griffin and Garcia, respectively -- believes much of the
issue stems from the exposure that the sport now receives.
“The sport has grown so big, and we have so much more widespread
coverage than we used to have. [This includes] Yahoo, Sports
Illustrated, ESPN and the L.A. Times,” said Hamilton. “I think
there was always controversy in regard to judging certain fights.
Even 10 years ago, [there were disagreements], it's just that there
was no light shined on it.”
File Photo
Garcia (above) won two close bouts.
One point on which both men agree is that much fan criticism comes
in the form of personal attacks, which only weakens the disgruntled
party’s argument. Also noted is the frequency with which complaints
are made, creating a “fan who cried wolf” effect, according to Nick
Lembo, chairman of the MMA Committee for the Association of Boxing
Commissioners and legal counsel to the New Jersey State Athletic
Control Board.
“I think that there is an issue with judging in the sport to a
recognizable degree,” Lembo told Sherdog.com. “However, I do not
agree that every so-called disputed decision is a blatant robbery.
I think that rampant complaints about every razor-close, arguable
fight weaken the argument for bouts where there is serious,
legitimate questioning and concern over the scoring.”
The last and least-credible line of defense for the questionable
performance of judges is one mostly purported by fans: unreliable
decisions create more exciting fights, since fighters no longer
want to risk their bouts going to the scorecards.
Phan has personally heard this reasoning dozens of times,
particularly in relation to his bout with Garcia, and he’s
developed a routine to deal with it.
“People come up to me and say, ‘Nam, you shouldn’t have left it in
the hands of the judges, man,’” Phan told Sherdog.com “You know
what I do? I give them the most sarcastic look and I say, ‘Wow,
that’s such a great idea! In all my 10 years of fighting, why
didn’t I think of that? Knock him out or submit him... that’s
genius!’”
While it is clear that the system needs fixing -- if for no other
reason than so that fighters like Phan do not have to crack jokes
after losing fights they should have won -- the solution is
somewhat murkier. Should state athletic commissions “clean house”
and start anew, as Rogan suggested at the “TUF 12” finale?
This would prove difficult, at least in California, according to
CSAC Executive Officer George Dodd, who noted that he feels his
state employs some of the best judges in the sport. Dodd explained
the process for removing a license not as a slight toward judges in
California, but in hypothetical terms for educational purposes.
“When you have a license, in order for the state to take your
license away, you’ve got to have cause. And it’s really hard to
prove cause for removing a license. Does one bad match make you a
bad judge? Where is that line?” Dodd asked. “I don't think anyone
has been able to establish [a standard where] if a judge falls
below a certain mark, then the commission is going to remove [his
or her] license and provide extra training before the judge is put
back in the system.”
But in Nevada, said Kizer, the rules are a bit different.
“Everybody’s license is a privilege [in Nevada]. It expires Dec. 31
every year, and if you’re not worthy of a renewal, then you don’t
get renewed. There is no continuing investment in that license,”
said Kizer. “At the end of the year, sometimes we have to say,
‘Thank you for your years of service. It’s nothing personal, but
we’re not renewing your license because you don’t meet the standard
anymore.’”
Perhaps judges simply need more tools in order perform their duties
at the highest level. Technology is often a helpful means to that
end, and small video monitors that judges may use at their
discretion have been proposed so that officials can always have a
good vantage point on a fight. Concerns over the use of monitors
are numerous, however, as some feel that they may cause judges to
ignore the live action right before their eyes.
“Monitors are a useful tool, but keep in mind that they will not
always be available at local, smaller MMA events,” said Lembo.
“There are times where your angle is not as good as the monitor,
but there are also times where watching something live in front of
you provides a better vantage point and feel for the action.”
Another point of view is that the system is at least partially to
blame, as the “10-point must” method of scoring was taken directly
from boxing and is therefore not the most effective way to judge an
MMA bout. Among the subscribers of this theory is Hamilton, who has
created an alternate system that he feels is a more exact tool for
scoring MMA.
“Mixed Martial Arts Specific” scoring, or MMAS, has been
erroneously labeled by many as the “half-point system.” Though it’s
true that the method utilizes half-points for scoring (10-9.5 for a
marginal victory in a round, 10-9 for a clear-cut round, etc.), the
system is far more comprehensive than most realize.
The system seeks to redefine the judging criteria by valuing damage
first, followed by effective striking and grappling, which are
weighted equally. Cage or ring control is still a part of the
criteria, but would take a back seat to the aforementioned
qualities.
The referee’s role would also change under the MMAS system, as the
in-cage official would notify the judges of near-submissions by
raising his hand. There would also be a fourth judge sitting
ringside to independently tally technical scores based on
knockdowns, takedowns and dominant positions. In the case of a tie,
these objective scores would be used to decide a winner.
“I didn’t just pull this out of my ear,” said Hamilton “Everything
that I’ve got in the MMAS system has been used at some point by
some other form of martial arts. All I did was adapt it to MMA. The
referee calling submissions? That's not new. They did that in
Shooto and Pancrase. I was a K-1 referee, and that’s where I got
the half-point system.”
“Aside from boxing, can you name me another sport in which we have
draws? Particularly in martial arts, but even the major sports have
figured out ways to resolve ties. People don't want draws,
period.”
MMAS scoring will be tested in California amateur bouts in 2011,
and all judges training to preside over amateur contests will be
trained in MMAS. Fights will be scored under Hamilton’s system as
well as the 10-point must, and data will be gathered to see just
how MMAS scoring differs from the status quo when verdicts are
rendered.
While Hamilton has many supporters for his system, including Rogan
and veteran referees John McCarthy and
Herb Dean
, the
system also has its detractors. Kizer believes that the addition of
half-points, referee “catches” and fourth judges may create a new
list of problems with which to deal. Lembo is more optimistic
regarding MMAS scoring, but says that the tool can only be as
effective as the individual who is using it.
“I am very familiar with Doc’s system, and I think it’s great to
test it in an amateur program. We need to be open to new ideas and
ways to improve aspects of this very new sport,” said Lembo. “I
think that the focus right now needs to be on utilizing judges who
understand jiu-jitsu, muay Thai and wrestling, as well as just
boxing. Any scoring system is only as good as the people we select
to use as judges. In other words, you still need the best trained
people to properly apply whatever system you choose to use.”
So, how can the mixed martial arts community ensure that all judges
are properly trained in the complex, multifaceted sport of MMA? One
solution might be to require all judges to pass a training course
similar to McCarthy’s Certification of Officials for Mixed Martial
Arts National Development (C.O.M.M.A.N.D.) program in California.
For Lembo, however, nothing beats the real thing.
“Training programs are a tool, but they are not a cure-all. There
is no substitute for actual experience,” said Lembo. “In any area,
training course proficiency does not always equate to proficiency
under live situations. There is no substitute for experience gained
in commission regulated amateur MMA events.”
Perhaps, then, a combination of testing and live experience,
coupled with thoughtful evaluation, might be the key to building a
better judging system. A big question surrounding the issue of
testing well-established judges is the respect, or lack thereof,
that comes with such an evaluation. Some veteran MMA judges who
have had their performances brought into question have scored over
100 bouts, and requiring them to take a test on rules and
techniques of a sport which they have watched since its regulation
could be construed as a slap in the face. Hamilton, for one,
asserts that he would take no offense at such a requirement.
“It wouldn’t offend me at all. I don’t know everything,” he said.
“I think I know a lot, and I think I do pretty well at what I do,
but there is always something else to learn. And I’m willing to
learn it.”
A comprehensive knowledge exam featuring both conventional written
questions and hands-on demonstrations inside a mat room could serve
as a compromise to satisfy fans subscribing to the “clean house”
philosophy, while simultaneously aiding state athletic commission.
Both Dodd and Kizer were open to the idea of a test, if one could
be created and administered, though they each reiterated Lembo’s
point regarding in-ring experience.
One thing is certain: however and whenever judging reform comes
about, it is time for the MMA fanbase, media and commission to take
the issue seriously. There will always be professional
disagreements between these groups, but as the sport evolves, so
too must those who govern, cover and follow it. In allowing for new
ideas and compromise, perhaps a nationwide method might be
determined to produce a better-equipped and more prepared network
of judges.
“The most competent people in the world, as far as I’m concerned,
are the military. Those people have got it down. They train you,
they test you, they hold your feet to the fire. They know that if
somebody screws up, it could be somebody’s life,” said Hamilton.
“Here, it’s the same thing, but you’re messing with somebody’s
pocketbook if you’re a judge, or, if you’re a referee, it’s
somebody’s life.”