« Today’s MMA media content | Home | Affliction online videos »
Fight Opinion Radio #85: The debate over the judging for Rampage/Griffin at UFC 86
By Zach Arnold | July 11, 2008
While we are busy fielding offers for advertisers, we took some time to interview Rami Genauer of Fight Metric to talk about Forrest Griffin’s unanimous decision win over Quinton “Rampage” Jackson at UFC 86. Rami explains how the Fight Metric system ruled the bout a draw. Meanwhile, there’s dissension in the ranks of Fight Opinion staff over who should have won the decision. Listen to this week’s show and find out why there is a difference of opinions. Would Forrest Griffin have won the decision under PRIDE’s scoring system?
The 85th edition of Fight Opinion Radio is now online and available to download. Download this week’s show here.
Or you can use the great flash player to listen to it streaming (without having to use an external program). Check it out (down below).
[audio:http://www.fightopinion.com/podcasts/foradio-7-11-2008.mp3]Podcasting: Use http://feeds.feedburner.com/fightopinionradio. This link should work for all RSS programs and podcatching programs. You’ll never miss another show again.
If you have iTunes, do the following:
- In your iTunes program, go to Advanced. Then choose the Subscribe to Podcast option.
- Type in http://feeds.feedburner.com/fightopinionradio.
- The newest edition of Fight Opinion Radio will be automatically downloaded and future editions of FOR will download for you as well, hassle-free.
Add us as your MySpace friend.
Donations
With the listenership for Fight Opinion Radio dramatically increasing week by week, we definitely could use your financial support for the Fight Opinion project. If you want to contribute to us in a way that directly helps us out with our web server costs, you can donate directly to our web host – A Small Orange. Please help us out. I will personally contact you and give my sincere thanks if you make a donation.
Topics: Fight Opinion Radio, Jeff Thaler, Media, MMA, podcasts, UFC, Zach Arnold | 23 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
FightMetric and/or CompuStrike as judging criteria = point Karate. I hope all the whiners who bet more than they can afford on Rampage because the odds were so high realize that. PS readers to this site know I told you Forrest was a smart bet last week and PS if you bet $100 on each fight that goof said was a good value you’d be out $300.
FightMetric doesn’t take into account the flow of a fight or ring generalship, two of the most important aspects of considering who won a fight.
The strike aggregation systems are only useful for analyzing a fight and seeing how things changed from round to round. If MMA ever employs such a system it will be the death of the sport.
If it were in PRIDE, there more than likely would have been an overtime round. Which would have been the correct decision.
If Forrest was going to get the title, score a KO or submission in sudden victory, or simply dominate it completely so we get a decisive victory.
And Mr.Roadblock – people stating that there is an error in the overall judging system are not ‘whining’ – they’re making an observation based on not only this recent example, but a number of questionable decisions by the UFC judges.
Fighters, sports columnists, bloggers and even casual fans are all questioning the logic of using boxing’s antiquated system for MMA, and it’s about time.
I’m not a fan of the boxing round judging system either. But adopting the point Karate model that has ruined Olympic boxing is not going to help MMA.
Also there is no such thing as “UFC judges”. Judges and referees are appointed by the various State Athletic Commissions. Therein lies one of the major problems in judging. It is all political appointments. In many cases the heads of the Athletic Commissions don’t necessarily know anything about combat sports or have any experience in them other than being pals with the Governor. There is also no accountability for bad judging. In baseball and Football the umpires and refs are constantly evaluated and only the good ones get to work playoff games.
To me one of the biggest problems with the boxing 10 point system in MMA is the round length. An MMA round is almost twice as long as a boxing round and in MMA there are many more things happening than in boxing which is a single discipline sport. Giving the judges the ability to award a 10-10 round would help, but you’d get a lot more unsatisfactory draws.
I liked the PRIDE system where the judges would consider the whole fight when deciding the winner. Save the “they let the Japanese win” for another day. That judging system worked great most of the time.
I think judges should have to write their opinions the way real judges do and then be evaluated on those opinions.
I think Rampage probably would have won under PRIDE rules, but that is neither here nor there.
I have no problem with Forrest winning, but I think draw is the correct answer.
I also am amazed that people consider FightMetric to have so much credibility. It’s a nice idea, but it is still all under the discretion of Rami to make judgment calls on whether a strike even connected (or connected cleanly enough to count) and whether a strike is LoPer vs HiPer. Bias can easily creep in, whether Rami will admit it or not. (And he won’t, at least publicly).
Pride criterias are bad, bad, bad. It’s more prone to bias than the current system. Pride’s judging is clearly more subjective than the ten point must system. Human nature always weigh what is recent higher than what has already occurred.
Do not let human bias or subjectivity get in the way of judging. In a two round fight, a fighter’s actions in the last five minutes tend to have higher weight than the fighter’s first five minutes, if a fight were judged as a whole. This is why a round must be judged immediately. This is the same reason why so many people see Rampage winning rounds that he lost. No one remembers Griffin’s first four minute once he got knocked down in the last one minute.
The ten point system is not flawed. It’s the judging criteria and the experience of the judges that is flawed.
The UFC better change the judging system or it won’t last and go down hill like the fixed boxing matches and the way of dinosaur, extinct.
I understand that if you look at the fight as a whole you can say it was even and it should have been a draw. But you can’t say that it should have been “scored” a draw. The judges score round by round and add them up at the end of the fight. If the scores are even, then it’s a draw. But it’s hard for a fight to be scored a draw in a five round fight. Or look at the Ortiz-Evans fight, Tito had a point deducted for holding the fence. Even though he won the fight, the scoring ended up being a draw. That’s just the way it goes. When you have swing rounds like the 3rd and 4th that could go either way, it’s going to be a close decision. That does not mean it was wrong.
Just a quick 2 cents:
Mr. Roadblock: You’re right that a point system is absolutely wrong for judging MMA fights. There is no way that stats can measure things like “ring generalship” so we don’t try and don’t claim to judge fights. All we do is measure effectiveness.
Grape Knee High: I don’t mean to shock you, but I freely admit that bias affects scoring (and have said so in public). The system is designed to be as objective as humanly possible. Given that we’re all humans, it will never be perfect. That’s why we maintain a margin for error, a recognizable statistical measure that says some things are just too close to call, given the subjectivity and biases inherent in a human-based system.
As an aside, as we enter election season in America, you’re going to get bombarded with stats and poll numbers. Never forget that those numbers are colored by biases and watch out for that margin for error. If people were as skeptical of poll numbers as the MMA community is of our numbers, we’d have a much better-informed electorate!
I have no problem with Fightmetric doing what they are doing, though it doesn’t interest me in the least. I just hope no one is taking it too seriously. Look at it for what it is not for what it isn’t. It isn’t based on the Unified Rules as far as I can tell and I don’t know how they measure what they claim to be measuring. I suppose it generates conversation.
Under Pride rules, I believe Forrest would have won. The first criteria is attempts to finish. I would possibly give Forrest the edge with the triangle but you could call the knockdown a near finish. Second category would be damage. Forrest clearly caused more damage because of the leg kicks. That right there would be enough to give the fight to Griffin under Pride rules.
One problem continues to be that the so-called experts don’t seem to be scoring the fights based on the rules being used. They use their own feelings. Nice, but not really helpful. The Unified Rules are out there, in print. You can get them. Pride scoring criteria is also available.
And yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable that a judge could have scored the first 10-9 for Griffin. It is hardly outrageous. Our hosts seem to think differently but make no reference to the rules and then proceed to give reasons as to why the knockdown wasn’t so important.
An immediate rematch would be an absolute slap in the face to Forrest, especially after Juanito opened his mouth. You would be telling him he didn’t really win. If anything, Hendo beat Rampage the first time out, and the judges scores there were really outrageous.
Rami, I was going by the last discussion we had on a post here on FO. I said exactly what I said above, and as far as my possibly faulty memory can remember, you would not freely admit the large bias element in your statistics.
If you’re now admitting the inherent biases, then I take back what I said above about you not willing to admit it. 🙂
Richard Bertrand (MMA Judge)& “big” John McCarthy said on taggradio “to become the champ, you have to beat the champ and it’s not true in mma. it’s a myth. it probably comes from boxing or pro-wrestling.”
BJM said he would of scored the fight 48-46 for Forrest
Richard Bertrand said he would of scored it 48-47 for Forrest
The problem with judging is this. No where under NSAC rules does it saying, which criteria is most important to the least important.
if you judge Rampage Vs. Forrest based on “Octagon Control” Forrest wins the fight.
if you judge the fight on “Damage.” Rampage wins the fight.
three things:
-Everyone can determine that Rampage/Griffin was a close fight. Close fights aren’t really robberies, and there’s a great number of people who fall on both sides of the fence here.
-PRIDE critera almost certainly would have had Forrest winning. He clearly won round 5, had nearly taken Rampage’s knee out, dominated him on the mat and nearly finished him with submission attempts. Rampage was largely passive throughout the fight and purely attempting to counterpunch.
-For all the talk about bad decisions, the UFC did used to have decisions rendered by the sum of the bout in the early days. You know what kind of decisions came of that? Ones way, way more controversial than this. Rampage/Forrest is one that probably more than half the fans agreed with. Rutten/Randleman? PRIDE’s “judging errors” were far more egregious than they ever were in the UFC, and their use of “overtime rounds” equally so. Just ask Guy Mezger.
Both sides of this debate need to show respect for the other side. The people who think Forrest won need to understand that it’s also credible to make a case for Rampage winning or for a draw. The Rampage supporters need to make sure to give Forrest the credit he’s due even though they don’t fully agree with the outcome.
Ultimately, Forrest is the champion. The torch has passed. Rampage really needs to work on all aspects of Muay Thai–the last 4 fights he has lost have been as a result of deficits in his Thai boxing (plum defense, knee strike defense, checking leg kicks). Frankly, Rampage won’t be champ again unless he improves his Muay Thai skills. That’s what the Rampage fans should be focused on.
Point on Ibarra – I love the fact that people are pointing out what a boob this goofball is for the excuses and rants he is giving regarding Rampage’s latest loss. But I got to thinking that many of these people are probably the same people who were toeing the line for him when he made the litany of excuses and accusations about Quinton’s losses in PRIDE.
Maybe we’re actually just seeing the true colours of an idiotic, sore loser.
Hey, I have an idea that nobody has thought about before (lies!), remove decisions from championship bouts altogether! I know it’s probably not possible thanks to athletic commissions and it’s not really a bad thing either.
There’s no questionable about it.
They’re the judges, they’re paid to make a decision, and you’re not. You can second guess balls and strikes until the cows come home, it doesn’t change the result of the game because your opinion doesn’t count.
Rematch will answer all questions I just hope its immediate. I thought Rampage won but he didn’t, no point in getting riled up at this point in time.
To the people bashing Juanito, come on! You are really just hating for the sake of hating. In a razor thin fight what is he supposed to say. nah my fighter totally lost. Motivation is a major factor for Rampage and that’s what Ibarra was able to do for him. That and he’s also his manager he needs his product to not look cheap.
In other news did you see how high deuce bigalow was on inside MMA? His eyes were pure red. He probably could have gogo’ed gomi.
There’s a big difference for “hating for the sake of hating” and taking someone to task who is claiming a “fix” and “robbery” in a closely contested fight AND who makes excuses EVERY time his fighter loses rather than just admitting that it wasn’t his fighter’s night or that the opponent was the better man.
Forrest/Rampage was a close fight. Close fights are hard to judge no matter what scoring system that is in place.
Is this FightMetrix garbage… Is there a guy at ringside taking the stats? Nobody has been able to answer this. If the guy is no at ringside, then it is pointless.
Pretty sure I’ve seen him say that he watches the taped fight and has some type of device to input “scores” as the fight happens. I’m sure he could shed light on this for you. Hey judges who SIT ringside themselves have a hard time scoring the fight correctly, so what does that really have to do with anything?
And it’s “garbage” – why is it garbage? I don’t believe they ever claimed to be the judge and jury of who wins the fight, but rather a statistical tool to analyze and breakdown fights. And unlike the vagaries inherent in the current rules and level of subjectiveness they leave, FightMetric spells out exactly what they score, why they score it and how much weight each factor is given (granted there is still a level of subjectiveness in that as well). I personally find it to be a very interesting endeavour.
But I’m sure if it was endorsed by Zuffa, you’d think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
A lot of controversy came out of Forest Griffin’s win over Quinton Jackson. I scored it a draw, as did many MMA analysts as well as FightMetric. What most “experts” seemed to be focused on is that while the decision might be questionable, it’s far from the biggest robbery ever and therefore not worthy of all the controversy. While that might be true, I think the magnitude of the injustice, if any, is offset by the fact that this was a title fight in the most prestigious division in the premier promotion.
One topic to come out of this fight is what it takes to constitute a 10-8 round. I scored the first round 10-9 for Jackson and the second round 10-8 for Griffin. I did not think the knockdown in the first round was enough to make it 10-8 for Jackson, because Griffin did enough to present a threat throughout the round, not to mention that he was able to recover from the knockdown. In the second round Jackson presented absolutely no threat to Griffin, while Griffin did enough to dominate the Jackson. “Dominate” is the key word when making the distinction between 10-8 and 10-9. I think Fightmetric has the right idea. They define a 10-8 round as when one fighter scores six times as much as their opponent and at least 100 points. The spirit of that is a combination of absolute and relative damage. That means the fighter must damage their opponent, but not necessarily come close to knocking them out. In addition a contentious round that contains a near knockout does not constitute a 10-8 round.
Another topic to come out of this is the validity of the phrase “to be the champ, you have to beat the champ.” While the phrase may be taken out of context, I do think that it is absolutely true. But that only goes so far. It does not mean that if a round is a draw it should go to the champ. It does however mean that if the entire fight is a draw, then the champion maintains their belt.
As for the idea that a contentious fight “should” be a split decision, that is a ridiculous notion that displays a lack of understanding. Ideally judges have a firm understanding of their jobs and their “should” be no split decisions.
The phrase “to be the champ, you have to beat the champ” is NOT true in MMA. Richard Bertrand (CSAC and Florida MMA Judge) and “Big” John McCarthy said “this statement is not true in MMA. it’s a myth.”