« Weekly Fight boss dies | Home | Friday media wrap-up »
The perils of judging
By Tomer Chen | December 21, 2006
By Tomer Chen
Perhaps the most contentious topic in the world of combat sports is the area of judging in fights. To begin, combat sports can have one of the following decisions rendered either after the distance is completed or one fighter cannot continue due an accidental injury (eye poke, headbutt, etc.), also known as a technical decision (or technical draw):
- Unanimous Decision – All 3 judges score the bout in favor of one fighter.
- Split Decision – 2 judges score the bout for one fighter while the third scores it for the opponent.
- Majority Decision – 2 judges score the bout for one fighter while the third scores it a draw.
- Unanimous Draw – All 3 judges score the bout a draw.
- Split Draw – 1 judge scores the bout for one fighter, 1 judge for another and the last scores it a draw.
- Majority Draw – 1 judge scores the bout for a fighter while the other 2 score it a draw.
While one may watch a fight and say “He sure beat him decisively!”, the judging rules employed by the organization or sanctioning body may favor one style of fighter over another and create an opposing decision than yours. Although, for example, the criteria used to judge a Boxing fight is pretty straightforward on an initial glance:
- Effective (clean) punching
- Effective aggressiveness
- Ring generalship
- Defensive mastery
In that order of importance (the Association of Boxing Commissions judging ‘manual’ can be seen here). However, there are subtle (and not so subtle) nuances between the interpretation and weights given to various criteria. With these nuances there is great flexibility in the ability of the judges to claim a fighter won a round even if 99% of the viewers who saw the fight thought the complete opposite, which is probably the greatest contributing factor that leads to controversial decisions.
For example, in the category of effective punching, physical damage is factored into the equation. A judge has to decide whether 6 body shots that appeared to have minimum snap on them count more than 2 uppercuts that appeared to phase the opponent based on the reactions, snap and other variables at that moment (and properly take note of it when entering their score for the round). A judge often has two ways to determine the actual physical damage dealt by a punch (beyond cuts and swelling): (a) a fighter openly appears phased by the blow and possibly staggers away or grimaces in pain or (b) if a fighter does not show pain, the execution of the punch as well as apparent power placed behind it (based on whether the fighter’s head snapped back in response to a connection or any cover-up a fighter may make following a brutal body shot) would have to be used to determine the ‘value’ of the punch in the whole picture of the round.
In addition, the element of blood and swelling can create another facet which may favor certain fighters who naturally cut and swell less may eke out rounds by scoring less effective punches than his opponent, but cuts him open at one point. Although in terms of actual punch damage the guy who was not cut would not have won the round, the physical damage may carry him over to win the round in the mind of the judges at ringside as it is a ‘flashy’ variable that would imprint into their minds that the opponent was overcome towards the end of the round and lost it. However, this consideration may unfairly restrict an Arturo Gatti or Jerry Quarry-type fighter who was not blessed with thick skin and could open up at the lightest tap from an opponent, even if the force of the punch that caused the cut was minimal. It creates an inherent conflict between the actual damage of the punch thrown (staggering, slowing the opponent down temporarily or completely, etc.) and the physical damage resulting from the right punch at the right time. While a particularly bad cut or excessive swelling may force a stoppage, it should not be considered a real factor in the calculation of a round (unless the round is virtually dead even otherwise, in which case it may give the leverage to award the round to the scorer of the cut or swelling by virtue of creating superficial damage).
Effective aggressiveness is another criterion where there can be confusion as to what exactly merits giving the round to a fighter. Judges in the past have been enamored with a fighter relentlessly chasing an opponent, even if he received the majority of a round’s worth of damage because of his apparently fearless attitude in the ring. This is NOT what ‘effective’ aggressiveness is, as a fighter who is going forward but is not capable of actually damaging the opponent significantly (if at all) is merely putting on a show by moving forward while the opponent may be moving back and is counter punching him effectively. An example of an effective bullying offense that would warrant awarding the criteria for the round to that fighter would be a swarming style utilized by Ricky Hatton or historically, Henry Armstrong. If you, as the bulling fighter, are able to repeatedly pound the backing opponent with crisp, effective shots to the body and/or head, you would be a deserving pick to win under this criterion. However, if you act like a Rocky Marciano who would often absorb 2 or 3 shots before getting off one shot of your own, you would likely lose the round under this criteria (unless the punches you threw significantly damaged the opponent to the point of it offsetting the counter shots that have piled up).
Ring generalship is an often forgotten criterion in a fight, but is an important one to consider. It essentially means the ability to force the opponent to play your game, and more often than not, a judge will award the round to the opponent who appears to be pressing the action. However, this discredits the subtle skills of a brilliant defensive wizard or counter puncher such as a Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker who could make their opponents come at them, swing and miss and get countered. The fighter who moves forward is not necessarily the same one who is commanding the pace of the fight and, in fact, the apparently defensive fighter may actually be the more aggressive fighter in the contest if he is continually setting up traps and is countering the forwarding moving offensive of his opponent. If the forward moving fighter, however, is cutting off the ring and setting up the opponent for his own bombs, he would be the one general pushing the pace in that case.
Finally, defense is a critical element for the survival of the fighter as they do not want to take excessive punishment in getting the big “W” on their ledger. However, a fighter who is merely ‘fighting’ in survival mode by covering up and running backwards or away from the opponent will either have the bout stopped against him by referee stoppage or even have points deducted and eventually be disqualified for ring cowardice. Masterful defense in setting up a proper counter shot is a good criterion to have on one’s side, but the first three criteria are, by far, the most significant factors used in judging (some judges and states do not even consider good defense as a criterion to win rounds).
Given the four (three if you do not factor in defense) criteria listed above in determining who wins a round in a Boxing match and their relative fluidity in interpretation and application, it is not really shocking that there is often a great deal of debate in whether or not a fighter deserved a decision by fans, judges and commentators. While one may appreciate the heavy countering offered by Marco Antonio Barrera in his first fight with Rocky Juarez, for example, others may have thought Rocky roughing up Marco in the later rounds should have granted him the fight (including giving him a 10-8 round for badly wobbling MAB at one point). It is often fights like MAB-Juarez I and ‘Sugar’ Ray Leonard-‘Marvelous’ Marvin Hagler that results in claims of severe controversy as it pits one style of fighting and aggressive versus another, bringing forth ideological argumentation on what is the ‘better’ form of aggressiveness rather than true controversy such as in the cases of Pernell Whitaker-Jose Luis Ramirez I, Pernell Whitaker-Julio Cesar Chavez, Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield I (which prompted a congressional investigation) and Emanuel Augustus-Courtney Burton I where under no logical basis should the winners of those bouts have received their “W” (or in the case of Chavez & Holyfield, a “D”).
Of course, there are times when judges who simply do not have the experience to judge a large title fight (such as the claim many made of Eugenia Williams in the Lewis-Holyfield I bout) or that they are approaching a very advanced age and may not be able to see the fight as clearly as they could when they were younger. In addition, some Boxing judges were former fighters (Amateur and/or Professional) or referees, and may come in with a certain mindset on which style of fighting (slugging, swarming, outside and inside worker, etc.) is the best and produces the most results in the ring, further biasing against another style of fighting.Â
Given the amount of close fights that have created lots of varying opinions on who should have won or blatant robberies such as in the above listed cases, there has been, since nearly the beginning of the sport under Marquis of Queensbury rules, a desire by fans to find a scoring system which would properly award victories and minimize the amount of questionable decisions given out (some would cry ‘fixes’, especially in the mafia-influenced period of the 30s-50s).
A final note on factors that may effect the end result of a fight can be ‘cruising to victory’ at the end of a fight. For example, in Oscar De La Hoya-Felix ‘Tito’ Trinidad, Oscar was generally regarding as being ahead of the card entering the last few rounds. However, his lackluster last 3 or so rounds swerved what should have been a pretty easy win for him into a close decision for Trinidad. In essence, his own lack of drive to push him and put an exclamation mark on his win cost him the fight in the eyes of the judges, who awarded Trinidad on a 1 or 2 point spread Majority Decision.
Currently, the scoring system used in Boxing is the 10 point must system, which says that the winner of the round should be awarded 10 points while the loser gets less (or even in the rare case of a draw). After the distance is completed, the round scores are added up and a decision is announced by the ring announcer. If the round is scored a draw in the mind of a judge (which should rarely, if ever, happen given the fact that few rounds have virtually equal output by both parties), it should be listed as a 10-10. A round where a fighter has won, either barely or clearly enough, should be scored a 10-9. A dominant round where one party gets in virtually no offense and is battered across the ring can lead to a 10-8 round (this generally does not happen as, more often than not, if a fighter is taking a bad enough one sided beating, the referee will halt the bout and award it to the dominant fighter). A single knockdown can also create a 10-8 round, although if one party clearly won the round, not including the knockdown against them, it can be scored 10-9. Two knockdowns can lead to a 10-7 round, three or more can lead to 10-6 or lower rounds (although, more often than not, if three knockdowns are scored in a round, a referee will generally halt the bout, especially if the three knockdown rule is in effect in which case it would be mandatory to halt the bout). If a fighter wins a round but is deducted a point due to a foul, the round can be scored 9-9 (some argue scoring it 10-10 is more accurate since at least one party should have a 10, and in any case, the effect is the same — a draw round). If a fighter loses a round (but not in a dominant manner) and also loses a point, he can have a 10-8 round against him.
Compared to the old rounds system (which awarded rounds merely on whether or not the fighter won the round as a whole rather than giving additional credit to scoring knockdowns, point deductions and dominant rounds), the 10 point must system and its variations (such as the 5 point must system) would seem to be the more equitable system to apply in the world of Boxing. However, given the inherent nature of the judging criteria and the relative flexibility offered to the judges, there will often be close decisions (or perhaps not so close decisions) which could switch between the combatants depending on whether or not you feel a certain interpretation of criteria warrants awarding points or reducing them for the combatant. On the other hand, there will always be favoritism presented to one fighter over another and wanting to push up a prospect/superstar may lead to judges being influenced to vote in favor of the fighter with a future, even if logically the prospect/superstar should not have won. Corruption by judges is another possibility as well (hence the term ‘the fix is in’, which was heavily used during the era of the Mafia in Boxing). As such, there will always be controversy present when a person renders a scorecard based heavily on their opinions with a relatively weak rubric to build off of.
In MMA, there is even more variation on the criteria present than in Boxing. Given that Boxing is a relatively one dimensional combat sport which relies on punching to the head and body and avoiding getting hit back in return, MMA adds in kicks, knees, takedowns, ground and pound and submissions into the equation. As seen before with the decent leeway available on a relatively straightforward combat sport like Boxing, MMA has many more opportunities for variation in opinion by the judges. For example, according to the UFC judging criteria as put out by the Mixed Martial Arts Council, the primary criteria used in judging an average UFC fight are:
- Clean striking
- Effective grappling
- Octagon control
- Effective aggressiveness
In that order of priority (with #1 & #2 about equal in weight per the rules). Although the rules are rather straightforward in a number of cases on the application (such as favoring the striker who lands the crisper punches more efficiently than simply a volume puncher who ‘slaps’ his way away for the most part), there are nonetheless a number of situations that come up that test the effectiveness of the judging criteria.
One situation would be what really constitutes a question about the quality of the rules is how takedowns are judged. For example, does a lateral drop or German Suplex count more than a trip takedown due to the (apparent) difficulty of the techniques, or are all takedowns judged equally? In addition, if a fighter pulls guard on the opponent, is it regarded as a takedown or is it regarded as the guard puller dictating the pace of the fight that he wants to approach? Does gaining rear mount on a takedown count more than getting guard, or side mount more than the butterfly guard, and if so, by how much? Successful ‘clean’ takedowns may also be in the eye of the beholder. For example, if a fighter sprawls and defends a takedown, but seconds later slips backwards (perhaps due to a logo on the mat or just a slippery surface) and the opponent follows them into their guard, is that considered a takedown? In regards to the criteria of effective grappling, it may be wise to take a page out of ADCC’s book and create an internal points system to determine (relatively) objectively what happens in a number of situations and based on the quality of the takedown, the position that one ends up in, and how much credit should be given for positioning attempts. Â
Another set of questions that invariably pops up is: how does one rate the quality of submissions attempted and cinched in? Does a half heartedly attempt at guillotine count as much as a full locked in armbar that is applied for 20 seconds before the opponent escapes? How does a judge determine from their vantage point whether or not the submission attempt is legitimate or half hearted? Although they may see one angle, they may not see the guillotine is wrapped around the opponent’s Adam’s apple or they may think that the toe hold is properly applied from the wrong angle when it is not. Once again, there must be a demarcation between the level of success on the submission attempts (which, in turn requires knowledge of the submissions, how they should be applied and how they shouldn’t in order to be successful) in order to assess the level of success from the vantage point of submissions for a fighter.
Coming off these two issues, there is the issue that many MMA judges in employment today by the various athletic commissions are Boxing judges with minimal knowledge of Wrestling, Submission fighting and Kickboxing/Muay Thai technique. As such, there should be more than ample training of the judges in the finer points of the various fighting arts so they can identify which are crisp takedowns/throws or submissions and which are sloppy. The sport of MMA as a whole needs more judges like Matt Hume who either (a) have significant experience in MMA and/or a number of its underlying fight sports or (b) have accumulated enough judging experience in the sport as well as training on the finer points of various fighting styles to accurately judge fights. Given that MMA is a young sport, it does not need heavily controversial decisions such as Holyfield-Lewis I to mar its image.
A smaller issue with the wording of the judging criteria, at least in my opinion, is that throwing a strike while moving forward should be worth more than a backward shot. To counter that argument, I would simply point to ‘Sugar’ Ray Robinson-Gene Fullmer II was what many call the most perfect left hook of all time, which happened when Ray planted his feet a moment while going back and blasted Gene as he walked into it, cold cocking him. In theory, it is harder to land more effective shots while back pedaling, but it isn’t universally true, so I would say it should be on a case-by-case basis. I must say, however, that I concur with the ‘sliding scale’ of criteria weighing in Section L according to the time spent in one position (standing or ground/throwing) since that would adjust the criteria based on what actually happened rather than keeping it the same irregardless of what actually happened.
My biggest quarrel, however, would be that the UFC judging, under the NSAC & NJSAC is done under the 10 point must system. The biggest problem with utilizing the system deals with any score lower than 10-9, as that would constitute domination (since there is no official knockdown rule that can cause immediate point deductions like in Boxing; point deductions can cause 10-8 or lower scores in a round, however). The rules says factors like a knockdown blow, secured submission, big throw/slam and big bombs can cause a 10-8 or lower rating, but that means it is at the discretion of the judge and not automatically enforced, so if, for example, a judge thought the knockdown punch by David Loiseau against Rich Franklin in Round 3 of their fight warranted a 10-8 or 10-9 round, it would negate the thrashing he got for most of those 5 minutes (much more physical damage was dealt by the beat down Franklin gave him), although in MMA the fight does not get halted when an opponent is dropped like in Boxing where a mandatory eight count is made. I personally believe the judging criteria should consider that one very good shot or submission alone is not enough to carry the round unless it has been a virtual dead heat (especially when the opponent has dominated for the vast majority of the round as in Franklin-Loiseau).
PRIDE FC, meanwhile, has its own set of judging criteria (you can read it here as well):
Decision
If the match goes the distance, then the outcome of the bout is determined by the three judges. A decision is made according to the following: the effort made to finish the fight via KO or submission, damage given to the opponent, standing combinations & ground control, aggressiveness and weight (in the case that the weight difference is 10kg/22lbs or more). The above criteria are listed according to priority. The fight is scored in its entirety and not round by round. After the third round, each judge must decide a winner. Matches cannot end in a draw.Â
There is one significant difference between the PRIDE & UFC rules: the ‘full fight’ system. Whereas the UFC uses the 10 point must system that says a winner should be determined on a round by round basis (and so a fighter can theoretically coast a final round and win the fight if he pretty clearly won the first two rounds or coast two if he won the first three in a title fight), PRIDE considers the entire fight and how much control was had throughout the time period by a fighter. In addition, PRIDE judges weigh the final minutes a bit more so fighters shouldn’t be trying to coast to victory as they may cost themselves the fight if their opponent comes off as better in the end (see the ODLH-Trinidad fight example listed above). On the other hand, getting dominated for 90% of the fight and coming back for the last 10% will not guarantee victory, either, as it is a composite of the entire time period and not just one period being considered.
Of course, questions have been brought up regarding the priority of the criteria used by PRIDE FC, especially in fights like the Ricco Rodriguez-Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira fight where several submission attempts by Nogueira on the bottom trumped Rodriguez’s apparent ground control (although judge Matt Hume refuted the claim that Ricco had dominated the ground control). Some felt that besides the Kimura in Round 3, Nogueira had not been particularly impressive in his submission attempts, but others said that what he did trumped the relatively weak striking by Ricco while on top and his takedown attempts and relative lack of activity while on top.
It is an example of a fight where several attempts at striking and submissions by both parties led to a large schism on the outcome with a good number of people claiming that Ricco was robbed while others (including Matt Hume) pointed out according to the importance of criteria, Nogueira won the fight and Ricco would have probably won under UFC rules (where ground control itself would have been a larger variable than under PRIDE rules). Something as apparently minute as the priority of the criteria to determine a winner, as a result, can create a huge variation on who wins a fight, as such.
With the nature of Boxing, MMA and, really, all combat sports having so much variation and human input/error in the judging (as judges can miss key moments while being at the fight live based on their seating angle, etc.), there are really only two options available for those that fear the judges and the potential of getting screwed: 1) to head back to a ‘No Decision’ era like in the early 1900s with Boxing where you either won by (T)KO (or submission in the case of MMA), or, if it went the distance, it would be ruled a No Decision (and newspapers of the early 1900s gave out their own unofficial verdicts to readers on the contests) or 2) hope that the fighters will follow ‘Marvelous’ Marvin Hagler’s philosophy (often attributed after his controversial draw with Vito Antuofermo for the World Middleweight Championship) of making sure that the fight doesn’t end up in the judge’s hands. Most likely, the latter option would be the more realistic one at this point in time.
Topics: All Topics, Boxing, MMA, Tomer Chen | 6 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
I just got rid of the original ‘cute’ response and the response to it (which would have made no sense if I kept it by itself). Let’s try to stay somewhat on topic, shall we?
I have always found it comical when fans complain about the judges, yet the forums are 50/50 on who won a particular fight. MMA is of a nature that judging becomes very difficult. No matter which way you score it….
The problem is that a 10 point must system in a 3 round fight is a terrible method of determining who is the victor. This is compounded by the nature of Mixed Martial Arts. In particular when referring to the “mixed” part. A 10 point must system works in boxing and in kick boxing because those are contests fought by two opponents competing in the same style. At the end of the round the judges decide which fight performed better at that style and award points. In MMA you may have a striker with a mediocre ground game fight a grappler who can not really strike. If the strike lands a solid flurry early and stunds the grappler but then gets taken down, held in guard and put in a guilotine or rnc but not submitted, who won that round? The 10 point system falls apart because you are comparing the strenghts of two separate arts.
The other problem with a 10 point system in a three round fight is what happens if fighter X breaks fighter Y’s nose in round one, floors him three times and is seconds away from finishing the fight at the bell. But fighter Y slows the pace in rounds 2 and 3, there is little action, but fighter Y gets a take down or two or try a sub, just enough to win rounds 2 and 3. Fighter Y wins the “fight” but fighter X did more damage and was closer to winning during the fight. That is a flawed system.
I think MMA should employ a point system. For example five points for a knock down from strikes, two points for a take down, two for reversal, two for a clean sub attempt (ie rnc is in, guillotine in, arm bar established), one point for blocking a sub attempt, two for escaping back to the feet, one point for each exchange one. Something like that. An immediate reaction from a lot of people will be, “Well fighter X will just run up a point lead on fighter Y and stop fighting”. That already happens. Look at Kosheck’s fight the other night. He kept going for takedowns in the second and third rounds that are essentially to MMA what a clinch is to boxing. You should be losing points in MMA for taking an opponent down and not attempting to advance to a finish.
A question I’d like to see answered (Chuck vs Bustamante is what really put it in my head) is why a striker running away from the ground game is showing ‘effective sprawl and brawl’ while a grappler running away from the standup gets stood up. Watching Chuck turn his back and sprint across the ring rather than wrestle was pitiful and I thought he should’ve been disqualified. Instead he got the gift decision. Jens Pulver in his title days was another practioner of the ‘win a decision by running from any grappling engagement’ school of thought that is still rewarded under current mma criteria
Mr. Roadblock:
I would assume in the hypothetical fight you mentioned, it would probably be a draw fight due to a 10-8 first round for fighter X and 2 10-9 rounds for fighter Y, leading to a 28-28 set of cards. Of course, this assumes that the judges say that the first round really was that dominant. But yeah, I agree that the ’round by round’ system is heavily flawed given that you can theoretically coast to victory if you won the first two rounds out of three.
I do think that Koscheck & Arona’s style of taking down opponents and doing minimal work while getting points riding them is pretty crappy, however. But, the responsible to push the activity of these fighters falls more on the referees, who should be giving out point deductions to the so-called ‘Lay and Pray’ fighters. Sure, takedowns are a good start, but holding down the guys is timidity (failure to attempt to strike and/or submit your opponent to a stoppage).
Nick:
Foul #29 (“29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.”) of the UFC rules does cover this, although the referees seem to be very, very lax in enforcing the rule and possibly deducting points and/or DQing a fighter for basically running away or refusing to engage. In Boxing you can be DQd for excessive clinching (such as in Lewis-Akinwande), although on the flip side some referees in Boxing too allow huggers such as John Ruiz to hug without reprisal.
If a striker wants to avoid going to the ground, though, there is technically nothing wrong since that’s working to one’s strengths and the grappler should either try to force it down (with effective takedowns and throws) and stay active while on the ground (not show no intention of improving position or trying to finish the fight) or improve their standup element. However, I’m personally surprised personally that both guys on top and bottom can get away with timidity on the ground (failure to improve position, go for strikes and/or submissions, etc.) without point deductions.
I hate the 10 point scoring system. Its horrible for MMA!