|
|
decision time
can you really judge a fight?
 CHEATS
BOLLOCKS
WHAT WERE THEY WATCHING?
FIX
WHERE DO THEY FIND THESE CLOWNS?
WE WUZ ROBBED.
This is a small selection of the comments made whenever a fight goes to
the judges’ cards. From the grandest arena to the lowliest leisure
centre- nothing stinks the place out like a points decision.
There is clearly a problem, but what is it?
Are the rules fundamentally flawed?
Are the judges really the myopic set of corrupt piss artists that crowds
claim they are?
What can we learn from other sports?
Worry no more- hurtbusiness has all the answers.
To kick off let’s look at the rules. Which rules you cry- and there’s
the first stumbling block. With no official governing body, the rules
are whatever the promoter decides they are. Is it any wonder fans don’t
get it? In a rare display of common sense and unity, the majority of UK
promoters are signing up to the rules put forward by the National
Fighting Arts Commission (www.nfac.co.uk). Despite this, the dodgy
decisions continue. This is not surprising. The Roman
Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Methodists all use the Bible as their
rule book but have the odd difference of opinion on interpretation.
The NFAC rightly command a great deal of respect and their rules are the
best that anyone has come up with so far. So please allow me to quote
from them.
Criteria that the judges will be assessing, in order of priority, are as
follows: -
a) Effective Aggressiveness.
This is determined as the fighter showing most effort to win. It is of
no use to simply be aggressive. The fighter’s effort must be effective
effort.
Fair enough, (Although the use of Yank words like Aggressiveness grates
with me) but what does it mean? Effective is a totally subjective word.
If a fighter is being truly effective, he will stop his opponent and
there’ll be no need to trouble the judges.
b) Effective Technique.
This area includes Striking, Clinch Work, Takedowns, Submission
attempts, Transitioning, and Positioning.
For me, this is hugely problematic. MMA’s strength is the variety of
techniques available to a fighter. The excitement level is increased because, unlike other
combat sports, no-one can predict the shape of any contest. This
strength becomes a weakness when it comes to judging. I would argue that
is impossible to fairly score an MMA bout on technique. Scoring a
pure striking contest is complex enough but comparing the merits of striking
and grappling techniques is like evaluating a combined chess and archery
match.
Example i) Two fighters are on the ground for 95% of a round. Fighter B
is in command and attempts a number of submissions which Fighter A only
just escapes. They are stood up with a few seconds remaining. Fighter A
decks his opponent with a head kick. The bell rings before he has the
chance to finish off his drowsy opponent.
Example ii) 95% of the round is fought standing up. Fighter B has faster
hands and good boxing skills, picking off Fighter A without seriously
hurting him. Seconds before the end of the round, Fighter B stumbles and
Fighter A follows him down applying a tight armbar. The bell rings just
before the inevitable tap.
In both examples, Fighter B has demonstrated the more effective
technique throughout the round, but Fighter A has come closest to
finishing the fight with effective technique. Who wins? For me it’s
Fighter A every time, but it is equally justifiable to argue the
opposite case.
c) Cage/Ring Control.
This is assessed by determining which fighter has used the fighting area
to his / her advantage the most.
d) Defence/ Escapes.
This area includes avoiding and blocking of strikes, reversals from pins
and mounts, escapes from submissions i.e. transitioning to avoid a
submission, etc. etc.
The above areas are to be used in order of priority, and each
consecutive area is only considered if the preceding one has been
determined to be equal for both fighters. If a fighter dominates area
‘a’ there is no need to assess area ‘b’, and so on.
Let’s face it, if we get down to using c + d, the round is even, but the
rules don’t allow for even rounds.
Judges should be well versed in all areas of MMA competition and
techniques, and should show no bias to just one area, i.e. striking over
submissions.
MMA is a sport for all rounders but people will often have a better
grounding in one discipline or another. Strangely, this bias often works
in reverse. I have spent a lot of time round Muay Thai and Boxing
whereas I’ve only briefly dipped my toe into grappling (and had it
uncomfortably twisted). I know effective striking when I see it and may
well be less than impressed by the efforts of an all round fighter whose
stand up does not measure up to what I’ve been brought up on. I will,
however, be more forgiving of below par grappling on the basis that I
may be missing something. Conversely, a BJJ aficionado may well pick up
on sloppy mat technique but be seduced by a flashy striking combination,
even if it lacks bite.
The rules are open to subjective interpretation and, no matter how
tightly they are worded, this will always be the case. Putting the
rulebook to one side, other more human failings contribute to dodgy
decisions. Ignorance is one. At some smaller shows, it appears that the
only qualification for being a judge is knowing the guv’nor. Higher up,
respectability is no guarantee of quality. American Athletic Commissions
appoint boxing veterans to officiate. The gravy train has little space
for MMA newcomers. Pat Miletich has spoken out about AC appointed judges
who have turned up at events and happily told him it’s the first time
they’ve attended ‘one of these things’.
Even the most ‘well versed’ observer is fallible. We all like to liked.
We all like to make the ‘right’ decision. You’re being paid by the
promoter. It’s a close fight. It would be better for the promoter if the
young up and comer with a future got the nod. Nine times out of ten, the
judges come up with the ‘right’ decision. I’m not suggesting brown
envelopes stuffed with tenners are rife, just a desire not to rock the
boat and to be asked back. The same emotions (laced with some added fear) lead to the classic
home town decision. Man United get penalties, Sheffield United don’t-
it’s the way of the world. Toss in the old adages from boxing- A
challenger has to take the title from the champion, the Yanks always
favour the guy who comes forward (substitute on top for a ground
battle)- and the picture becomes clear.
Even if the rules are well thought out- the judges’ decision will not
necessarily be correct. The high percentage of split decisions is proof
enough of the inconsistency of MMA scoring.
One way forward is to see how other sports score using a points system.
Traditional martial arts are judged by a ref (and/or judges) who awards
points per technique. They must wear a blazer, have an Elvis quiff with
sidies and have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the art in question. As
far as I can see- this usually comes up with a fair result with the
person who has lost the least number of points for fouls winning. I have
felt kicks from Taekwon-Do lads and know the power and athleticism
required to make it in the sport. Unfortunately, the contests look
nothing like a fight. Competitive TKD is the worst spectator sport known
to man. It resembles two kids in skateboard helmets bouncing on a garden
trampoline with an occasional half hearted attempt at break dancing.
TKD and Judo (prison foreplay) may have made it to the Olympics, but
their scoring systems are not conducive to making exciting fights.
Figure-skating, diving and gymnastics attract large numbers of casual
fans when they are televised. Both substitute artistic impression for
aggression and score on the basis of executing set techniques with
ranked degrees of difficulty. The idea that a fighter has to complete a
set number of techniques per round to score is ludicrous but oddly
appealing. Who wouldn’t like to see two grapplers jump to their feet
twenty seconds before the end of a round when they realise they have
still to complete their required elements to receive a score. Dour
ground wars would erupt as they unleashed a whirlwind of axe kicks and
spinning elbows.
Despite the obsessive denial by some MMA bods, boxing is our closest
relative. Before the Marques of Queensbury stuck his peg in, each
knockdown was considered a round and a fight was over when one fighter
was unable to carry on. Scoring was introduced, but not universally. In
many American states, especially ones where boxing was banned, bouts had
no judges and were declared no contests if they went the distance
(enabling them to be classed as exhibitions and therefore; legal). In
such cases, newspaper decisions became the norm. Bets were settled on
the basis of who the ringside newspaper ‘experts’ considered had won the
fight.
Gradually, the ten point system became the norm and the template for MMA
scoring. Alas, it don’t work. 10-9 for a standard round, 10-8 for a big
round (usually a knockdown), 10-7 comes around about as often as
Halley’s comet. The system does not give enough scope to reward big
rounds. Also, every round is equally weighted. It beats me how can a
tentative feeling out round carry the same weight as a blood and guts
finale?
Of course, I don’t have to tell anyone that it’s bent. Proper bent.
Formerly run by the Mafia bent. The guys with the violin cases may have
shipped out, but the stench stays the same. Any business person, from
Enron down to the local landlord who pours his slops into the real ale,
has a choice: play fair or play dirty and earn a few quid on the side.
The idea that our sport will get higher quality judging as it becomes
more high profile, and subject to more scrutiny, is laughable. More
money means more malarkey. Absurd judging decisions are as much a part
of boxing tradition as bow-ties on ref’s. It’s not even any kind of
secret.
Everyone knows that in Germany and Italy- the home fighter
always wins.
In Vegas- the promoter’s boy wins. Everywhere else- a
slightly watered down version of the hometown / golden boy scenario. The
promoters have the dosh and the power and can pick a new alphabet
sanctioning organisation to work with if they are not getting the
results they require. Totally shameless. Exhibit A: Holyfield v Lewis.
The prosecution rests.
Amateur boxing was forced to change it’s scoring after a string of
decisions which were amazing even by boxing standards. Hometown boy Park
Si-Hun’s victory over Roy Jones Jr at the Seoul Olympics is arguably the
most ridiculous fight decision ever. Olympic boxing came up with a
system where each judge must push a button simultaneously to register a
point. Problem solved. Except the judges still seem to 'miss' plenty of
clear scoring shots. Add the fact that the scores are up for
all to see and you realise they have done the impossible and made it worse.
Any fighter who is clearly up early plays for time and kills the fight
off in terms of excitement.
Is there any sport that can show us the way? Can you have judging system
that truly reflects the action and comes up with a deserving winner? How
about Muay Thai? Fists, elbows, knees and shins. The ultimate stand-up
combat sport. In the good old days, fighters would battle to the death
in rings constructed on baked elephant dung. I suspect that this set up would
be a logistical and
administrative nightmare in the UK today, so we need to look to the modern rules.
Many say that Muay Thai scoring is obvious and straight forward but hard
to explain. This contradiction means that everyone has their own idea of
what it is. A technique only scores if it hurts or does damage. Tippy
tappy jabs- nil points. Muay Thai scoring makes more sense as you are
judging a fight, not a series of individual rounds as in boxing.
That doesn't mean you don't score the early rounds but they carry less
weight unless there is a clear difference between the fighters that has
an impact on the rest of the fight. Traditionally, round one will be
scored even as it is the feeling out round. Knees are considered the
king of strikes and will score higher. The most effective striker
who performs best in the fight as a whole rather than rounds viewed in
isolation will win. The later ‘business’ rounds outweigh the early
exchanges. It all adds up to me.
Predictably, Muay Thai’s seemingly flawless system
 is...flawed.
Throw humans into the mix and they will cock a job up for you. All
judges seem to have their own interpretation of the 'obvious and
straight forward' rules. Western influence has also messed things up.
Europeans tend to rely on boxing more than the Thais, yet solid punches
are often outscored by less than brutal knees. Organisations such as the WBC are moving into Muay Thai and hastening the move to equally weighted
round scoring. In any East v West clash- the judges always give the nod
to the Thai. For the purist elite of UKMT- this is their version of a
hometown decision as they all romanticise the Thai’s to a ridiculous
extent. Oh, and did I mention that some people in South East Asia like a
flutter.
So what conclusions can be drawn.
The current system of judging is unsatisfactory. I’d say the amount of
bitching confirms this.
No other sport has a judging system which could be copied by MMA. The
National Fighting Arts Commission have done magpie job a put together a
workable set of rules, but history suggest that human nature and
corruption will mean that, as in every other sport, the poor decisions
will keep coming. Also the nature of MMA and the variety of techniques
available mean that scoring will always be open to question.
For me, there can only be one way forward. No judges. No decisions.
The beauty of MMA is it produces real fights. There are holds barred,
but fighters can use any means within reason to prevail. In the real
world, the winner of a conflict situation never comes by way of an
adjudication. Whether it’s a pub brawl, World War Two or lion v
wildebeest, we all know the rules. The winner is the last man standing
or the one who forces the other to submit.
Practically, eliminating the judges would have huge benefits. Fights
would still have time limits- nobody wants to see hours on end of grunt
and groan, but any fight that did not get finished would go in the books
as a draw. For fans, this would make fighters’ records much clearer. A
fighter with stoppages is a good fighter. A fighter with an unbeaten
record full of points decisions may well be highly skilled in the
fighting arts, but he is not a good fighter. By definition- a good
fighter should KO or submit his opponent.
Fans want to see a clear winner. Having no judges would give MMA a unique
selling point over other sports. What you see is what you get. It’s a
fight and that’s it. Don’t worry if you don’t know the difference
between a Kimura and an Americana- if he taps it’s good, if he don’t
it’s no good. Fights are always decided between fighters and never by
the team with the strongest financial pull.
The fights would return to being genuine fights. A guy with more Ws than
Ls would certainly expect a bigger pay day than a guy with a string of
Ds. It would be imperative to win- you know like in a real fight. People
would take risks. Imagine the excitement and entertainment of winner
takes all: the anticipation before the final round, the clock counting
down, risking all to avoid the dreaded draw. Real fighting. True Sport.
If Ultimate Fighting (© UFC) is to be the Sport of the Future (© Cage
Rage) we need to return to Real Fights.
|