Lyoto Machida and Mauricio Rua both land glancing blows
Today, Sherdog and ESPN MMA blogger Jake Rosen published an editorial with seven suggestions to fix MMA scoring. In the wake of recent controversial decisions such as Lyoto Machida’s razor thin edging out of Mauricio “Shogun” Rua to defend his title, the public consensus has been that the judging system is broken and needs to be corrected.
Rosen’s suggestions are mostly ideas that have crept up in sports blogs and message boards, with the additional psychological analysis that commissions will be hesitant to change because it’s human nature shy away from admitting fault.
Even though the point about human nature seems like the most fanciful of Rosen’s assertions, as he could not possibly have detailed incite into the minds of every judge and state athletic commissioner, it’s probably the one most applicable to the continued debate about MMA judging.
Now that there has been an outcry by fans, bloggers, and sportscasters about the need for change to MMA scoring, no one is willing to admit fault and entertain the idea that the current judging criteria of the Ten-point Must system works just fine.
The recent high profile fights that are used as evidence by the public outcry for change are the aforementioned Machida versus Rua, Randy Couture’s recent edging out of Brandon Vera, and Benson Henderson’s hard fought victory against Donald Cerrone. All of these fights have three things in common.
First, and most importantly, all of these fights were decided by one point and had one or more rounds that were too close to call. The first, third, and forth rounds of Machida versus Rua could have gone to either fighter. Couture versus Vera had both fighters clearly winning one round each with the third consisting mostly of Couture taking small victories in the clinch and Vera scoring a takedown at the end he couldn’t do anything with. Henderson versus Cerrone was very clear on the score cards save for a very close first round that decided the victor.
The public outcry of injustice stems from fights that, when taken round by round the way the judges are supposed to, could reasonably have gone either way.
Second, all these fights had some event where the fighter who lost was perceived to have done more damage. In Rua versus Machida, Rua’s leg kicks were perceived as being a potential fight ender had it gone longer. In Henderson versus Cerrone, Henderson had some severe eye swelling. The idea seems clear enough, the person who is hurt worse loses and the judges should be able to see that.
Damage, while so seemingly factual, is actually the most subjective concept in all of combat sports. I remember vividly Yahoo! Sports writer Kevin Iole saying that, looking into Machida’s eyes at the end of the forth round in his title defense and knowing that Rua could have finished the fight if he pulled the trigger.
The fact is, for even the most experienced analyst there is no way to know exactly how much damage has affected a fighter’s game. Even if the ring doctor did a thorough examination at the end of the fight and the results were factored in to the scoring, fighters react differently to objective medical damage.
Ben Henderson passed out and had to be taken to the emergency room immediately after his victory. Yet he was able to stay competitive and stick to his game plan for the majority of the time the fight was occurring. Other fighters would have folded in the face of much less severe injury. Scoring based on that kind of damage inherently punishes heart and poise.
The only type of damage judges can reasonably score on, they already do. If a technical mistake occurs as an immediate result of a technique, such as a strike stumbling a fighter or otherwise putting him out of position, then that fighter has been damaged in the technical sense.
Finally, all three controversial examples had the fighter who lost the decision win the last exchange of the fight. In a close fight, the last thing that happens leaves an impression that is very difficult to shake. Even watching a fight a second time, people tend to cherry pick events that support the opinion they already have.
In any bout close enough that two different sets of equally educated eyes can see two results, there is going to be controversy. But people tend to forget that for every Rua versus Machida there are ten clear decisions that go to the obvious victor.
This is not to say that current judging criteria are perfect. But the adjustments that need to be made come with new possible controversy. Encouraging the scoring a round where no fighter stands out 10-10 may cause the score cards to more accurately depict the fight as a whole. But more rounds scored a draw would mean more fights ruled a draw. And the outrage over Shogun versus Machida is nothing compared to what the fan reaction to a large number of undecided fights would be.
Ultimately, the scoring that MMA uses in the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts is the best system currently offered. Fans will continue to get offended and analysts will continue to debate because they have a passion for the sport. But there are more reasons than hubris for change not coming any time soon.
Comments
MMA doesn't need a better scoring system, it just needs better judges.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!