FightOpinion.com – Your Global Connection to the Fight Industry.

Where’s Yoshida?

By Zach Arnold | December 24, 2006

Maybe it’s time to put Hidehiko Yoshida’s face on the side of a milk carton, because he hasn’t been announced for PRIDE’s biggest show of the year. PRIDE’s strongest Japanese drawing card not on the NYE show? What a strange business.

Topics: All Topics, MMA, PRIDE, Zach Arnold | 12 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Sunday media spread

By Zach Arnold | December 24, 2006

Today’s top news stories, plus a look at the MMA calendar for the next 45 days. Key word: Oversaturation. Plus, go listen to the Christmas radio show if you haven’t already. Plus, Kimbo Slice returns.

Continue reading this article here…

Topics: All Topics, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 8 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Saturday media special

By Zach Arnold | December 22, 2006

Go to full-post view to read today’s links.

Continue reading this article here…

Topics: All Topics, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 9 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Fight Opinion Radio: The Christmas Show

By Zach Arnold | December 22, 2006

Six big MMA guests, five days of taping, four radio team members producing, three guest co-hosts for a segment, two weeks to produce, and one large three-plus hour-long Christmas radio show. An emergency room visit, a visit to the mental institution, armlocks in an American football scrum, Christmas shopping at the mall, and coming home after a 20-hour flight from Russia. Just a sampling of some of the stories told by our guests this week on this special Christmas Show edition of Fight Opinion Radio.

First, we have event promoter Barry Meyer in Las Vegas. Barry is producing the first-ever Pro-Am MMA event in Las Vegas, taking place on December 29th (the day before UFC 66). The event also features a submission wrestling match with Renato Babalu. For more information on this check, check out Barry’s HP at TuffnUff.net.

Second, we have BodogFIGHT play-by-play TV man and HOOK ‘n SHOOT event promoter Jeff Osborne to talk about the latest happenings in Bodog, UFC, and PRIDE. Jeff came back from Russia after taping several days of season two of the BodogFIGHT series. Want good promoter stories? Check. Want a good perspective of how the MMA business has changed in the last decade? Check. For more information on Jeff, check out FightWorld.com. That web site also features some brand new DVDs, including a new Vanderlei Silva DVD.

Third, we have special co-hosts Bryan & Vinny (along with Blake Norton) from F4WOnline.com to talk about many things MMA and pro-wrestling related. How has the MMA boom in 2006 impacted the business of wrestling? What can pro-wrestling promoters learn from the MMA industry? Will MMA devolve into what boxing has become in the near future? Plus, which F4W personality was recently locked up into a mental institution? Quality entertainment from the F4W crew. I highly recommend this segment whether you are a pro-wrestling fan or not.

Fourth, we have an interview with Kenny “KenFlo” Florian, who fought Sean Sherk last October for the 155-pound Lightweight title. When is his next match? What are his thoughts coming out of the Sherk fight? What’s the latest regarding the MMA scene in the New England area? Spend some time with us and get smartened up on the latest grass roots news coming out of Kenny’s area. For more information on Kenny, you can visit his web page at KennyFlorian.com.

Fifth, we have IFL coach (his team is the Anacondas in the IFL) Bas Rutten on from the emergency room, where someone got a toe ripped off during sparring. Mutilated body parts? Check that off on your wish list. One of the best interviews ever produced on an MMA show. Specials thank to the great Mr. Canada for the El Guapo remix song. You can check out Mr. Rutten’s HP at BasRutten.tv for more information on the man, the myth, and the legend. A special thanks to Mr. Canada for his F4W El Guapo remix song that we played in full on the air. High-quality entertainment.

Sixth, we have Arena Football star Rex Richards of the San Jose Sabercats (and of West Texas MMA & Carlson Gracie BJJ) to talk with us about his latest fight that happened on December 8th at the StrikeForce event at the San Jose Arena (now called HP Pavilion). What is his reaction to ESPN signing a deal with the AFL to start airing games on prime-time television every Monday night? What does he like better, football or MMA? How does a man 6’5″ and over 300 pounds become a brown belt in BJJ? What submission holds does Rex apply during a football scrum? Meet one of MMA’s largest two-sport star athletes.

Seventh, we have Gracie FC star fighter Jake Shields (MySpace link here) on the program to talk about how he broke into Mixed Martial Arts, his thoughts on fighting Japan a few years ago and how the scene has changed, plus his take on the upcoming Gracie FC event from Miami, Florida on January 20th. All while doing wind sprints and Christmas shopping. A very good guy.

Last but not least, the world-famous grab bag makes an appearance on our Christmas show. Want to know what it’s really like when you have obnoxious family members all together in a group setting for the holidays? Then listen to this week’s segment and find out exactly what happens when everything falls apart and no one is there to save the day. Merry Christmas.

We would like to give our special thanks to both the IFL and Gracie FC for helping us out with producing the program. Most importantly, a sincere thanks to Jeff Thaler, Erin Bucknell, and Luke Nicholson — the hardest-working MMA radio team in the business today. Bar none. Without them, you wouldn’t have the high quality show for free for Christmas that you have today. This is the season for giving, so make sure that if you enjoy the show that you contribute to the Fight Opinion project by donating money here. All the money goes to pay for the actual costs of this project. Your donations are greatly appreciated.

Comments off

Podcasting Links

iTunes subscribers – click here.
Yahoo Podcast subscribers – click here.
Podcast Alley subscribers – click here.

The Christmas Show edition of Fight Opinion Radio is now online and available to download. Here are your options for listening to the show:

Broadband (MP3) | Dial-up/Streaming

Continue reading this article here…

Topics: All Topics, Erin Bucknell, Fight Opinion Radio, IFL, Japan, Jeff Osborne, Jeff Thaler, Luke Nicholson, Media, MMA, podcasts, Pro-Wrestling, StrikeForce, UFC, Yakuza, Zach Arnold | 3 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Friday media wrap-up

By Zach Arnold | December 21, 2006

The Fight Network: Zelg Galesic likely signing with PRIDE
The Press (New Zealand): Kevin Barry finds new in-roads in MMA (as a backer of Gina Carano in Las Vegas)
Prince George Free Press: Bill Mahood’s new media man (detailing his relationship with BodogFIGHT and how his experience in Russia was)
PRIDE HP: Kazuyuki Fujita vs. Eldari Kurtanidze (1996 & 2004 Olympic wrestling bronze medalist) announced for their 12/31 Saitama Super Arena event.
Hamilton Spectator: Beyond the Cage: The rest of the story (Jeff Joslin)
Business Wire: IFL to raise $24 million USD in common stock
Interview notes: Sakakibara in Kami no Puroresu magazine
MMA HQ: UFC Christmas Greeting
Canadian Press (via SLAM! Sports): PRIDE doping tests draw suspensions
Houston Chronicle: Couture outlines fight plan for Ortiz, eyes return to octagon if Tito succeeds
Radio: An interview with Renzo Gracie
Daily Sports (Japanese): Akira Maeda considers bringing back RINGS

Topics: All Topics, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 9 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

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 judgingÂ rules employed by the organization or sanctioning body may favor one style of fighter over another and create an opposing decision than yours.Â 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).Â A judge often has two ways to determine the actual physical damageÂ dealt by a punch (beyond cuts and swelling): (a) aÂ fighter openly appears phased by the blow and possibly staggers away or grimaces inÂ pain or (b) if a fighter does not show pain, the execution of the punch as well as apparent powerÂ placed behind it (based on whether the fighter’s head snapped back in response to a connection or anyÂ cover-upÂ a fighter may make following a brutal body shot) would have to beÂ used to determine the ‘value’ of the punch in the whole picture of the round.

In addition, the element of bloodÂ and swellingÂ 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, butÂ 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 restrictÂ 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.)Â 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 deservingÂ pick to win underÂ 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 toÂ the point of it offsetting the counter shots that have piled up).

Ring generalship is an often forgottenÂ 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 theÂ 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 statesÂ 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, itÂ is not really shocking that thereÂ is often a greatÂ deal ofÂ debate in whether or not a fighter deserved a decision by fans, judges and commentators. While one may appreciate the heavy counteringÂ 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 haveÂ granted him the fight (including giving him a 10-8 round for badly wobbling MAB at one point).Â It is often fights like MAB-Juarez I andÂ ‘Sugar’ Ray Leonard-‘Marvelous’ Marvin HaglerÂ 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)Â 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,Â outside and inside worker, etc.) is the best andÂ produces the most results in the ring,Â further biasing againstÂ another style of fighting.Â

Given the amount of close fights that haveÂ created lots of varying opinions on who should have wonÂ 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 fansÂ to find a scoring system which would properly award victories and minimize the amount of questionable decisions given outÂ (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 2Â point spreadÂ 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,Â the round scores are added up and a decision is announced by the ring announcer.Â 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 willÂ 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).Â 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 poundÂ andÂ submissions into the equation. As seen before with the decent leeway available on aÂ relatively straightforward combat sport like Boxing, MMA hasÂ manyÂ 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:

CleanÂ 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 theÂ crisperÂ punches more efficiently than simply a volume puncher who ‘slaps’ his way away for the most part), there are nonetheless a number ofÂ situations that come up that test theÂ effectiveness of the judging criteria.

One situation would be what really constitutes a question about theÂ quality of the rules is how takedowns areÂ judged. For example, does a lateralÂ drop or German Suplex count more than a trip takedown due to theÂ (apparent) difficulty of theÂ 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 mountÂ on a takedown count more than getting guard, or side mount more thanÂ the butterfly guard, and ifÂ so, by how much?Â Successful ‘clean’ takedowns may also be in the eye of the beholder.Â For example, if a fighter sprawls and defends a takedown, but seconds later slips backwards (perhapsÂ 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?Â 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 positioningÂ attempts.Â Â

Another set of questionsÂ 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,Â they may not see the guillotine is wrapped around the opponent’sÂ 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 smallerÂ issue with the wording of the judgingÂ criteria, at least in my opinion, is that throwing a strikeÂ while moving forward should be worth more than a backward shot. To counter that argument, I would simplyÂ point toÂ ‘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 blastedÂ 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.Â 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 orÂ 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 withÂ utilizing the systemÂ 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 theÂ judgingÂ criteriaÂ 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 itÂ 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 coastÂ two if he won the firstÂ 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,Â 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 HumeÂ refuted the claim that Ricco had dominated the ground control).Â 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 humanÂ 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)Â 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 theÂ early 1900sÂ 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 |

Weekly Fight boss dies

By Zach Arnold | December 21, 2006

By Zach Arnold

Yoshihiro Inoue, the main boss behind the Weekly Fight publication that debuted in 1967 (backed by Osaka Shimbun) and shut down a few months ago, died at the age of 72 on December 13th at 1 PM in Osaka. The publicly stated cause of death was stomach cancer. Inoue’s “children” (such as Tarzan Yamamoto, Katsuhiko Kanazawa, etc.) became big players in the pro-wrestling media business.

Continue reading this article here…

Topics: All Topics, Japan, Media, Zach Arnold | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

One day mailbag

By Zach Arnold | December 21, 2006

Christmas show radio taping is tonight. You got an e-mail you want us to answer on our biggest show of the year? Send your comments or questions to me at [email protected]. Waste no time.

Topics: All Topics, Fight Opinion Radio, Zach Arnold | 3 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |