« In the world of UFC fans, Josh Koscheck = villain & Chael Sonnen = hero | Home | Decision December for the two major promotions in UFC & K-1 »
How changes in California evaluating judges could negatively impact scoring fights
By Zach Arnold | December 9, 2010
New update at the bottom of the article.
I wanted to point out this discussion with Dave Meltzer, who takes a look at how California’s commission will start evaluating judges in 2011. Take note of what kind of changes are coming and use that template to analyze the judges giving Leonard Garcia a decision win over Nam Phan last Saturday in Las Vegas.
DAVE MELTZER: “I don’t know. You know I mean, it’s Tony Weeks and Adalaide Byrd who gave rounds one and three to (Leonard) Garcia. The other judge, now this is another point, actually, the other judge, the Japanese judge, gave all three rounds to Nam Phan but the key is that, and this is not Nevada so much, but California… this is the point… California’s going to be evaluating judges based on, um, how they fare when you score rounds as compared to the other judges.”
BRYAN ALVAREZ: “Oh God…”
DAVE MELTZER: “So the Japanese judge who probably had it right would actually, if this was California’s evaluation system, he would look really bad because he missed on two of the three rounds based on the consensus and so it would look like he was the bad judge as opposed to the other two judges. So, that’s one of the things where the way they are evaluating judges and the way you evaluate judges’ consistency, it’s uh, you know, compared to the other two judges…”
BRYAN ALVAREZ: “Oh, this is great. So we got a bunch of stupid judges and if the stupid ones are, uh, outnumbering the intelligent ones then we’re just going to have more stupid judges.”
DAVE MELTZER: “Not necessarily that, but in certain cases some guys may look bad. But the point of the evaluation is is that subconsciously what’s going to happen is no one’s going to give 10-8 rounds.”
BRYAN ALVAREZ: “Oh God…”
DAVE MELTZER: “Because they know that the other judges aren’t going to give 10-8 rounds so if they give a 10-8 and the other judges give a 10-9, then it looks like that they were out of sync with the scoring. So, that’s the, um… you know, and this is again not in Nevada but it will be, it is how in 2011 the California judges will be evaluated and to me the end result is is that we’re going to see a lot fewer 10-8 rounds in California because the judges are going to know that I’ve got to, instead of judging how I believe the fight goes, now I have to judge based on how I believe the other judges are going to judge the fight and not be off on that and that’s a completely different mindset. I mean, again, when I, you know, and people who follow my play-by-plays and everything, I always say you know in a lot of these fights, you know, which is often the key on these would be fights where a guy is on top, does nothing on top, the guy on the bottom is threatening submissions, actually gets near submissions and things like that, and I’ll go like, the guy on the bottom won the round but I think the judges are going to give it to the guy on the top. If you are now a judge and you were, you know, wanting to protect your position, if you thought that the guy on the bottom won you might give it to the guy on the top based on the fact that that’s how it’s usually judged, so it’s really um… There’s a lot of issues with the judging, you know, it’s a bad system to begin with and bad judges…”
(snipped to discussion a few minutes later on in the discussion)
DAVE MELTZER: “The problem is not the 10 point must system. The problem is how judges are trained in that they’re going to give everything a 10-9. They won’t give 10-10’s because the commission frowns on 10-10’s which is ridiculous because when no one does anything to either guy, you know, it’s an even round! And someone shouldn’t get credit for, you know, what I call a coin flip round and that’s what it is. … I mean, when there are rounds when nobody does much of anything, it is, you know, essentially a coin flip round, either guy can get it and it creates a situation where, you know, and it’s the same value of beating the [expletive] out of somebody in the other round. So, it’s… and you get these decisions like [Nam Phan losing to Leonard Garcia]. It really wasn’t… uh, an outrageous decision yet I know the people in the UFC were absolutely furious. I know (Joe) Rogan was furious and when Rogan went off, UFC if Rogan had gone off and I can tell you this one, if Rogan had gone off on that and UFC did not agree with it, Rogan would be in hot water and he is not in hot water. In fact, they were really glad he did, which just tells you where, you know, their mentality was is that they believe that, you know, Nam Phan got completely robbed and in a sense he did, but you know again, it’s partially the system. Also at the end, I mean when it was over though it was like you would really I have to stretch I thought to get two rounds for Garcia but um… it was a very good fight up until the decision. I mean, it was what I expected, you know I mean Garcia just, Garcia goes all out. He swings really hard until he gasses out. He gassed out earlier in usual because he wasn’t in the shape he’s usually in which is what happens when you’re called late. Nam Phan, very disciplined, you know, pretty exciting fighter and… in a sense, you know, at the end of the day my feeling is that a lot of people are going to go, he got robbed, and he did but… for your career, honestly, a lot of people don’t realize this is but it’s like with Matt Hamill in a situation or even Evan Dunham recently. It actually benefits you to get robbed because what happens is so many people get behind you for being robbed. Like if Nam Phan were to actually won this decision, nobody would be talking about Nam Phan. They would be a little bit and you know it still would have gotten Best Fight and everything, but Nam Phan will gain a lot more popularity for being robbed and UFC, which is the key to the whole thing, is that the UFC matchmaking and the UFC hierarchy will not hold this loss against him because they consider it a win. So, you know, I mean who people analyze records and go, Oh my God, he’s 16-8 instead of 17-7, oh my God! You know what? It doesn’t mean [expletive] and the reality is like when Matt Hamill lost to (Michael) Bisping. Matt Hamill became so much more popular for losing to Bisping because he got robbed than had he won the fight justly.”
Update (12/9): Eric Kamander has an absolutely must-read article on the new scoring system in place, which includes a fourth judge in case there is a tie. I strongly encourage you to read this and give me your feedback.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 27 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Oh Jesus, it just keeps getting worse doesn’t it?
This nonsense, and the idiotic half point scoring system. The only answer to bad decisions is getting rid of bad judges period.
Half points make no sense.
Just use 10-8 or 10-7 rounds more often.
Judging isn’t half as bad as people act like it is. Most of the fights people complain about were actually close and hard to judge no matter what system you use.
The Nam/Garcia was not CLOSE to judge. Everyone, save for two of three judges at cageside, has it for Phan.
And if this had happened in Strikeforce, you would have jumped all over it about how fucked up things were. But since it is your precious little UFC you act like nothing is wrong.
And your comments here 45 Huddle are proof positive that you are a UFC-whore and an blooming idiot.
Listen you piece of sh!t…..
1) I never mentioned Phan/Garcia. So for you tell me the judging was not close has nothing to do with my post. Get some reading comprehension.
2) I never mentioned the UFC. I never mentioned Strikeforce. You are the first one to mention them both. You have some warped sense of reality that when I talk about judges throughout the entire sport…. That in your tiny little brain you think I am talking about organizations. That makes you stupid.
3) If you don’t like what I say, then don’t read my comments. It’s that simple. Stalking me on this website and feeling the need to comment on every one of my posts makes you a creepo.
Considering the fact that the article we are commenting heavily discusses the fight, and that is it the major talking point coming out of this weekend, and the fact that you are talking about judging, it is completely relevant for me to bring it up.
And 45 Huddle, when you bring up valid, relevant points, I usually agree with you. But the other 99% of the time, you spew utter nonsense and I am going to call you on it.
45 might be full of
shit, but at least he always comments on the content Zach’s articles rather than running around making ad hominem attacks all the time. 45 is annoying at times, but you are WAY worse. All you do is follow 45 around and call him names. You never contribute anything to the discussions.Just abduct him and make a skin suit out of him already. At least then we won’t have to read any more of your whining about the guy.
If 45 moved to Mexico, would Jonathan take up border patrolling?
Rounds that are scored differently by different judges seems like an ok point to start off the review process, but the process needs to be more than saying that the majority of judges is right.
The commission themselves, or a larger panel of judges should look at every round that doesn’t have a consensus score, and figure out how it should have been scored.
Or maybe someone should modernize the judging process and make sure the judges can do their thing without an obstructed view from ringside.
I’m of the opinion that these sorts of wild decisions are not entirely the result of bad judging. It is the result of bad sightlines through the cage. You can’t judge a fight properly if you cannot reliably tell if a strike landed or not.
It’s the same reason why Rogan many times get calls wrong; because he can’t see shit from where he sits. Judges should be forced to use monitors. Enough with the archaic boxing traditions.
Judges can and do use the big screens in the arena just like everyone else.
And you don’t think it would make it easier to have the monitors on a desk right in front of them?
So which big screen are they supposed to look at? The one across the way where they have to look through two sets of chain link, and possibly the ref and a camera man? Or do you want them to rubberneck and look at the one behind them?
LOL this is one of the dumbest
fuckinthings I’ve ever heardLet me be the first to say…. The biggest problem isn’t the judges. Sure, there are some incompetent judges out there…. And they should never be able to judge again…. But they aren’t the biggest problem….
THE FIGHTERS ARE!!
Far too often…. I see fighters just not doing what is necessary to give them a clear cut decision.
I see wrestlers going in for takedowns and doing nothing with it for a minute.
A see far too many fights where one round is very close, the next round is in favor of one fighter…. And then for the 3rd round, they both stall to the finish. Neither one makes a statement that they want to win the fight.
Sorry, but if you throw a jabs for the entire fight…. Even if you are effective…. You aren’t doing enough to guarantee yourself a decision.
Nam Phan won that fight over Leonard Garcia. But I certainly don’t feel bad for him that he lost. The guy has absolutely no killer instinct. He let himself be outworked for the entire fight. He did do what was necessary to distinguish himself in the eyes of the judges. And during the 3rd round, he almost gave the round away just because he wasn’t fighting as he should have been.
I think that steps do need to be taken to improve the judging. Guys like Keith Keizer are bad for the sport and are in denial about what to do.
But not enough blame is being put on these fighters who are paid to FIGHT…. And then don’t do so enough to get a clear cut decision.
In all fairness 45, some fighters are extremely difficult to put away, I would say for example Leonard Garcia.
The problem for the fighters is they walk a tight rope – take GSP and the whole “playing it safe” angle. Its hard to blame GSP for taking such a stance – its always better to win after all, but when someone is difficult to put away why shouldn’t you be able to rely on the judges to decipher the winner?
I agree with what you’re saying to a large extent but “Nam Phan won that fight over Leonard Garcia. But I certainly don’t feel bad for him that he lost” – I don’t know how you can reconcile these two positions. You think he won but are OK with him not winning? Or am I misreading you?
I guess I must be in the minority but I thought that the first rounf was close but was leaning toward Garcia, Nam def won the second round and I thought even though Garcia was gasing in the thrid was pushing the pace enough to get the nod. I cant remember anything that Nam did in the third that should of sealed it for him. To me it was a close decision and there is a reason why you are not suposed to leave it in the hands of the judges. No matter what scoring system you have in place (and I am not saying the current system cannot be improved) it still comes down to someone opinion when scoring.
And if you take that opinion away, then it becomes point fighting…. And that is an even worse path to go down….
I agree with you that the 1st round was close. Much closer then Joe Rogan was saying it was. Sometimes Garcia would hit Pham with a few strikes and Pham would get one punch back and Rogan talked about those strikes.
Rewatch it if possible. Garcia landed practically nothing in the first, and got countered to the body and face at will. Your right in that Rogan sometimes focuses solely on one fighters offense, but 95% of the strikes Leonard threw in the first round were either blocked or missed completely.
Opinions are opinions, but there should be no question about who won the first round and as an end result the fight.
Even if they couldn’t figure out who was landing exactly, I thought the judges would favour the guy scoring the staggering/knockdown blows. Apparently not.
Wish I could read the article zach, but can’t open it for some reason.
Ill check it again when I get home.
The 4th judge thing is a bad idea. Way too much power to one person.
What they should do, is allow judges to give more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds…. And then if they have it as a draw on their scorecards, that specific judge should be able to look at the entire fight and determine who he thinks won. But that judge would still have 1/3rd of the power in determing the winner…. Which is better then giving 100% of the power to 1 person.
You just described the Sengoku “must” system, which of course is universally loved and has never lead to any controversial decisions.
Is that how they judge in Sengoku? I honestly haven’t followed that organization in a long time.
Japan has fully corrupt judges. If you have judges without corruption, the system would work much better.
Speaking of Japanese MMA…. Mr. Arnold was certainly right about it’s full on collapse. Not that I doubted him, but all of the news is further pointing to that direction….
Omigawa signed with the UFC and Kid Yamamoto is trying to. Any smart fighter would jump ship while they have some sort of negotiating power left.
“Is that how they judge in Sengoku? I honestly haven’t followed that organization in a long time.”
“Japan has fully corrupt judges”
You’re sure now?
So Zach, to piggyback off 45’s post, do you think the UFC takes a run at a show in Japan now if KID signs?
Perhaps, but I think South Korea or Hawaii (most likely) are more viable options. Perhaps Singapore or Macau even.
According to Dana – they HAVE signed KID.
Interesting times.