Issue 089
June 2012
By Gareth A Davies, MMA and boxing correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, London.
What have all these matchups got in common? The first meeting of Lyoto Machida vs Shogun Rua; Martin Kampmann vs Diego Sanchez; Randy Couture vs Pedro Rizzo I; ‘Rampage’ Jackson vs ‘Ninja’ Rua. Yep. They were all shocking to differing degrees. They were all judging decisions which opened universal debate, and, from some quarters, condemnation.
The aftermath from these fights opened debate into the scoring system employed in MMA. Every now and again, a new idea to solve the judging conundrum pops onto the radar. It gets put up. Then it gets shot down.
Last year the half-point scoring system was mooted at the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) annual convention. Long-standing judge ‘Doc’ Hamilton presented on behalf of the half-point system, proposing it as an alternative to the 10-point must currently in use in both MMA and boxing.
It involved such things as the referee signaling a near-submission, and the role of an additional fourth judge. The bottom line was that it was an attempt to “score bouts in a manner that accurately reflects the qualitative difference between the combatants.” The toss was argued, but the long and the short of it was that it simply over complicated the current system.
The likes of Marc Goddard, referee, judge and former fighter, believe we will never find a better system than the one we currently have in place. His theory is that the judging of fights comes down to the quality of interpretation. And, in that aspect, some decisions appear much better than others.
A fresh alternative has been presented by Kim Winslow, a referee on the Nevada State Athletic Commission, and Zuffa Octagon regular. Kim has come up with a novel way of looking at it, which in some ways does look at addressing, and perhaps simplifying, ‘interpretation’ in the sense that Goddard sees it. Kim sent me the criteria for her theorem.
The current system is based on a ‘10-point must’ with the judging criteria currently being based on aggression, cage control, damage, striking and grappling. Winslow suggests adjusting the current system but keeping it similar enough that it remains workable for the judges currently employed in the system.
“Keep the 10-point system, but award separate points for different categories,” Kim says. “I have paired up the similar or overlapping categories and narrowed it down to three.” Thus, ‘aggression and cage control,’ becomes one category in Kim’s system, worth 10 points; ‘damage’ is separated into its own category for 10 points; and ‘striking and grappling’ are paired into a ‘combat’ category for 10 points.
“You would award 10 points to the winner of the category and nine or less to the loser. If a fighter is caught in a submission and is saved by the bell it would come under ‘damage,’” Kim explains. “If a fighter completely dominates his opponent and has him in serious trouble it would come under ‘damage’, if you wanted to award a 10-8 round. The other categories scored would still be 10-9. If you have a striker versus a grappler it is the one who dominated the round who is awarded the 10 ‘combat’ points. Striker vs striker or grappler against grappler, it is who was more effective that is awarded the 10 combat points.
“Making this even more simplified I have broken it into what I call the ADC.”
These are the categories for judging boxes A=Aggression, D=Damage, and C=Combat (covers any style of fighting). This allows the boxes to have a reminder headline for scoring that is simple.
Depending on the state (athletic commission), the totaling up of the score and point deductions can be left to the scorekeeper or commission representative and not the judges. But the main advantage here would be that the differential over three rounds could be nine points (with no deductions for fouls). I’m assuming no ‘damage’ results in a 10-10. Would Rua vs Machida I, have ended differently under the criteria above?
It’s certainly an interesting suggestion from Winslow, who was formerly an air traffic controller. She had to use ‘timing, focus and judgement’ in that role for 15 years, she told me. But will we ever get away from judging controversies, disagreements, debates in mixed martial arts? I don’t think we will.
I’m with Goddard and believe the quality of a judge is what counts. Some fights are very close, and can go either way. It’s the ones which are clearly scored wrongly that are most worrying. When it happens, human error is to blame. And, arguably, the over-scoring for takedowns when an opponent gets straight up.
If anything the fact we argue the toss over close decisions – even ones which stink – is as much a part of the lifeblood of the sport as debating who is going to win and why. And that goes for fighters and fans, journalists and commentators alike.
What do you think? Do you have a system you think would be more effective in encompassing all the styles and nuances within MMA? We’d like to hear about it.
