Ask the guy who just took the ABC refereeing/judging training

Practiced your extended palm out technique much?

Youll need it in order to take under the table bribes from Dana and co. Lol
 
BenjaminDuffy said:
Hey! I just rolled back into town from taking the two-day training on MMA refereeing and judging provided by the Association of Boxing Commissions. (It was in Austin; I'm in Houston.) While the ABC itself doesn't certify or sanction judges or refs, this course is a preamble to getting certified by the NSAC, CSAC, TDLR, etc.

Attendees numbered about 50-55, and included a large crowd of people who planned to get into officiating, plus a half-dozen of the best-known refs/judges in Texas.

If anyone's curious, I'm here to answer any questions.

EDIT: I should have mentioned this off the top, but beyond simply taking the training, there was a test at the end. While the results won't be published for another week or so, I have good reason to believe I did well on it.
Click to expand...
From a lifetime ago, check this out.

https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/24445685/what-does-take-mma-referee

Kudos for taking the course, sir. I tried a few times but shit kept coming up and I kept postponing.

(EDIT: oh shit it's only 4 years old. I thought it was written in like 2012)
 
Last edited:
Why is sal damato used on every judging card when a million more competent people are willing to be there and do the job properly for less pay
 
Jitter said:
Are you persuaded to not give fighters the full 5 minute recovery time after a foul. Seems like a lot of refs push the fighter to quit or continue very quickly
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you feel that way. I'm not necessarily arguing your point, it's just that my perception is usually the opposite: when a fighter takes an eye poke or groin foul, they usually want to get right back into it, and the ref is the one reminding them that they can take their time to recover. If you can think of a specific case of a ref hurrying a fighter to quit or resume fighting, I'd love to hear it.
 
wwkirk said:
So do you intend on actually refereeing (assuming you pass), or are you undecided?
Click to expand...

Ethically, I don't think I could judge or referee fights while on the payroll of a media outlet. There are just too many potential conflicts of interest. If this phase of my life ever comes to a close as I walk away to write the Great American Novel, I'd absolutely be interested.
 
Rawplier said:
I was going to ask about a referee/judge who has fought someone or trained at a certain gym if they would be "disqualified" to officiate said fighter/gym.
Click to expand...

Kevin's advice was simple: if there's even a shadow of a doubt, disclose it to the commission. He gave an example, using his own experiences. Since he's been a fixture in Boston-area MMA for two decades now, there are certain fighters whose fights he absolutely will not referee, because they're actual friends. (He used Calvin Kattar and Joe Lauzon as examples.) In those cases, he's told the commission in charge that he's close with the fighter in question and shouldn't be assigned that fight.

With other fighters that he doesn't know that well, but he sees them around and they've probably trained in the same place a few times over the years, he tells the commission and leaves it up to them. His example here was Rob Font, whom Kevin did ref in a fight a year or two ago. He told the commission, they decided it would be fine, and therefore if there were some accusation of favoritism or bias after the fact, it's clear that he was above board the whole time and not trying to hide anything.
 
BenjaminDuffy said:
Dude, I feel that last sentence to the bone. Anything that happened before about March 2020, tack five years onto how long ago it feels to me.
Click to expand...
But what did you think about the article? Other than BJM's class was more physical than yours...any shared experiences? Differences?
 
Last edited:
BenjaminDuffy said:
For judges: Damage is paramount. Takedowns that do not lead to damage, either through ground strikes or legitimate submission attempts, count for nothing. Being on top in guard is not inherently an advantageous position; i.e. you're not winning just by being there.
Click to expand...

Is this new?

It seems like “Octagon control” has long been an accepted part of the sport.

You are saying it’s not even part of the scoring criteria?
 
Stuart0502 said:
Is this new?

It seems like “Octagon control” has long been an accepted part of the sport.

You are saying it’s not even part of the scoring criteria?
Click to expand...
It changed a few years ago.
https://mmafutures.com/mma-101-explaining-the-new-unified-rules/
Since MMA’s beginning, judging has focused on ‘octagon control’. The fighter that was more aggressive and able to dominate the space in the cage was favored in scoring. That has become problematic over the years as fighters have grown more skilled in grappling and striking. Scoring heavily based on who dominated the floor is very similar to boxing, and doesn’t take into account the unique grappling aspect of mixed martial arts. The new rules place an emphasis on striking and grappling exchanges, with judges awarding the fighter who is the most effective in each exchange. Fighters who are making an impact on the fight, whether by landing bigger/more strikes, or by making more submission attempts, will be favored. This means a fighter with top position in a ground exchange who is doing little more than maintaining position could be at a disadvantage over their opponent who is attempting submissions from the bottom.​

Alas, folks across the sport (fighters, judges, fans, commentators, etc) all seem to easily revert to what they used to know.

Hell, all people do. There's a good book about this, called Factfulness. And on a non-mma segue, I highly recommend this book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,168
Messages
58,262,926
Members
175,986
Latest member
BloodandBeer

Share this page

Back
Top