Issue 058
January 2010
Commentary is indelibly marked into the televised fight experience. As such, what is said holds incredible power. But when that power means a single phrase can form opinions, sway impressions of a fight, or negatively affect a fighter or referee, commentators should be held more accountable for what they say. Commentary can change the viewpoint of every MMA fan without them even realizing.
Commentating on a mixed martial arts bout is not simply talking about the fight. It is calling the action while remaining unbiased and objective. Tough, considering the sharp emotional reactions that MMA triggers, but that is a commentator’s job. Traditionally there are two roles within a commentary team: The play-by-play commentator who states the action taking place, and often cues the color commentator through questions; and the color commentator who provides background information or analysis. For the UFC, this would be Mike Goldberg and Joe Rogan respectively. This is the framework of all sporting commentary.
When performed correctly there’s no issue. But when personal opinion mixes with factual statement problems materialize. A commentator’s task isn’t to give personal opinions on a judge’s decision or fight stoppage. It is straight fact or it is analysis. Some may argue opinion and analysis are near identical. That’s entirely incorrect. While opinion is a view not necessarily based on fact, analysis is detailed examination as a basis for interpretation. Simplistically, one is a judgment given to you whereas the other gives you the facts and lets you make your own judgment. Commentary is supposed to be purely the latter.
It’s highly common for fight fans to have their views formed by commentary. Often the terms and phrases used will be regurgitated by fans near verbatim as their own opinion. How many times has Lyoto Machida’s style been described as “elusive” by fans since Joe Rogan used the label? That kind of influence is unavoidable, so why can’t commentators divulge their personal opinions about fights? Because sometimes they’re simply not true, but still unknowingly taken as fact. That is dangerous. If the public interpret an untrue opinion as fact it can have negative consequences for the parties involved.
For example, a commentator calling a judge’s decision a “robbery”. A viewer is likely to believe that statement is true because a commentator is deemed a knowledgeable authority, and in the case of a color commentator regarded as an expert. Classing a decision as a robbery, whether that is or isn’t accurate, not only undermines the organization hosting the fight, it reflects badly on the judges and harms their reputation within their profession. More worryingly it can stir negative feelings towards the chosen winner if fans are led to believe that fighter won unjustly and ‘stole’ the win from their competitor despite the decision not being the winner’s doing. That kind of reaction is not something commentators should elicit, but it happens and it’s reckless.
From calling certain parts of the action to overstating the damage one fighter has inflicted, a commentator’s words can change a viewer’s entire impression of a fight. If two fighters both throw 50 equal punches but Fighter X’s share is never mentioned, a viewer may gain the impression that X’s blows weren’t highlighted because they simply weren’t as effective. That impression is rarely correct but occurs often. Watching a fight live allows a person to make their own judgment on who fulfilled the judging criteria.
In the eyes of the viewer, what is highlighted by a commentator is given extra weight. After Michael Bisping’s controversial decision win over Matt Hamill, ringside judge Jeff Mullen mentioned this very issue, warning that “commentary can color what you see”. This misinterpretation can happen post-fight too. After Fedor Emelianenko knocked out Andrei Arlovski he was compared to dominating sportsmen like Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan despite him soundly losing the fight up until the knockout punch. It has since been regarded as a solid win for the Russian.
Referee decisions also need to be treated more sensitively. Berating a split-second decision to end the fight after the benefit of multiple camera angles and slow motion is unfair. A referee’s ability to make a living from their job depends on their reputation. Lambasting their instinct-based choice severely jeopardizes their standing. A commentator has no right to do so.
The main problem with commentary in MMA is that it seems there is ambiguity over what exactly constitutes commentary, and that there is no accountability when damaging things are said. Commentary is not the imposing of opinions or the passing of judgments. It is simply to lay out the facts. Disciplining a commentator would be ridiculous, but they should perhaps realize the power of their words and think first about whether what they’re saying is fact or opinion. The latter has no place in mixed martial arts commentary.
