Observing action in the fight then scoring it based on a set of predefined rules, that should be the MMA judge's job.
Instead, judges in our beloved sport observe the action, make up the rules and then score that action based on those made up rules each fight.
What else should they do? they don't have any rules to score fights upon. All they have is some guidelines that everyone interprets his own way.
Unless a fight is one sided (but not too one sided), the three judges, fans, journalists...etc scorecards often turn out differently (sometimes even from their own initial scorecards after re-watching the fight).
That's because everybody makes up the rules (i.e. interprets the aforementioned guidelines) each single fight while watching it.
So, how about we agree on the rules before fights? lock up all those "judges" in a room and not let them out until they agree on those rules.
That way (even if those rules turn out to be absolute crap), fighters will do stuff that score, know for sure where they are on the judges scorecards throughout the fight, fans will get the decisions they expected (the fair ones most of the time), judges will actually agree with each other and journalists will stop whining about it.
to be continued...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hello,
I'm confused. There will always be personal opinion and subjectivity in MMA judging, but we absolutely have a cemented foundation of scoring criteria/rules that are not nearly as ambiguous as you suggest.
They clearly define and prioritize what is judged so that judges, fighters, media, and the fans are all on the same page...?
I only metioned the media and fans to calrify that I'm not blaming judges for this mess. And if you think that MMA judging criteria is clearly defined take a look at how Jiu-Jitsu tournaments are judged and you'll know exactly what I mean.
I think one of the biggest problems is the scoring rather than the actual judging. Its so rare to see a 10-8 round that fighters who got destroyed in a round and may have deserved a 10-8 can rebound and eek out two rounds, and win because judges refuse to award anything but a 10-9. And when there are only 3 rounds to work, more liberal (and I think appropriate) use of 10-8 or even (god forbid) 10-10 scores would change the complexion of the game.
Now I've talked to commissioners, and they've actually stood behind some of the controversial decisions that stick out in recent memory. So it may be that we as fans could be getting distracted, or run off the scent by our less knowledgeable buddies, or even commentators. Or, I'm being fed company line by the people I know in the commission.
Post a Comment