Do Judges & Fans Give The Fight To Whos More Flashier Rather Than Whos More Effective

[xBarnmuckerx]

those kicks that franky caught hit the target before he caught them. nobody bitches when franky gets takedowns and can't make them count. i know everybody wants to see a striker ko someone and a wrestler take someone down but this is mma. fighters prepare for this and when they are prepaired it makes the fights boring and people complain. i don't like gsp,edgar,sonnen because of their takedowns. if they can't take it to the ground they can easily lose. mma win how you can. greg jackson screaming take him down like a crazed monkey.you get points for takedowns just because. they should not reward points for takedowns.

Quoting for mental retardation.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

Only if Garcia is fighting.

 

[I Know It All]

the best view is at the table cage side.
The major problem with making them watch on a monitor is they are limited to watching what some camera men decide to show them. Not exactly a fair way to judge a fight.

Then they only get the view from where they are. Downsides to everything.

 

[Roxxo]

Then they only get the view from where they are. Downsides to everything.

Easy solution, cageside with a monitor.

 

[ABC]

Then they only get the view from where they are. Downsides to everything.

the only time there is any issue is when the action is on the ground and they are facing away from you. You have to try to adjust your view a little bit so try to see what is going on or see how close a submission is. It's minimal compared to trying to watch it on a monitor.
It makes a huge difference in judging striking. It is so much easier to determine which strikes landed and did damage watching it from cage side.
I'm not opposed to putting a monitor cage side to make it easier to see when you do get the action blocked a little bit. Some promotions attach big screen monitors right above the cages, so you can lean back and use them.

Cage side is by far the best location for judges to view the fight.

 

[ABC]

Easy solution, cageside with a monitor.

just mentioned that. Some promotions also use large screen monitors, and some who don't have seats all the way around the cage will use a projector type screen to help people view the fights, and those can be used by judges as well.

 

[JayElectra]

just mentioned that. Some promotions also use large screen monitors, and some who don't have seats all the way around the cage will use a projector type screen to help people view the fights, and those can be used by judges as well.

Do you work for the ABC?

 

[ABC]

Do you work for the ABC?

nope, just a judge/ref

 

[JayElectra]

nope, just a judge/ref

Cool. What do you think about the changes that allow for visible damage to be taken into account?

 

[ABC]

Cool. What do you think about the changes that allow for visible damage to be taken into account?

when did the committee approve that?
I haven't seen any memo talking about visible damage. The last one we got took defense out of the equation, made it clear effective grappling/striking were equal and determined by time on the ground vs time standing, and took the word damage out of the criteria, and replaced it with different wording.

 

[JayElectra]

when did the committee approve that?
I haven't seen any memo talking about visible damage. The last one we got took defense out of the equation, made it clear effective grappling/striking were equal and determined by time on the ground vs time standing, and took the word damage out of the criteria, and replaced it with different wording.

These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain. Cumulative impact on a fighter will also be weighed.

I got this from a Bloody Elbow article which linked the rule changes in July.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/1...ns-abc-changes-unified-rules-scoring-mma-news

I remember discussing the Edgar vs. Bendo fights and having many posters bring these criteria up as part of the reason why Henderson won those fights. It is my opinion that things like visible damage are simply unreliable when scoring fights. One reason is that it gets very difficult to judge exactly when a cut or bruise is caused and exactly what it came from. Also, obviously, some fighters cut and bruise a lot easier than others and harder shots don't necessarily equal more cuts or bruising. A few posters even interpreted the cumulative part as allowing someone to score rounds in retrospect according to which fighter looks more damaged at the end of the fight (which I realize isn't stated in the rules).

 

[ABC]

I got this from a Bloody Elbow article which linked the rule changes in July.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/1...ns-abc-changes-unified-rules-scoring-mma-news

I remember discussing the Edgar vs. Bendo fights and having many posters bring these criteria up as part of the reason why Henderson won those fights. It is my opinion that things like visible damage are simply unreliable when scoring fights. One reason is that it gets very difficult to judge exactly when a cut or bruise is caused and exactly what it came from. Also, obviously, some fighters cut and bruise a lot easier than others and harder shots don't necessarily equal more cuts or bruising. A few posters even interpreted the cumulative part as allowing someone to score rounds in retrospect according to which fighter looks more damaged at the end of the fight (which I realize isn't stated in the rules).

That article looks fairly accurate to the last memo I've seen. I see where you are pulling out visible damage. Before this memo, the instructors were teaching to break strikes up into 2 categories, those that did damage and those that landed and didn't do damage. They didn't actually change anything in regards to the striking breakdown other than re-worded it. Some of the committee members were worried about the way the criteria was worded and the stereotyping involving the sport. It's still the same thing we were doing though. When you are sitting cage side, it really isn't that hard to tell which strikes landed clean and were effective. This is actually why I was so against the suggestion of moving judges back stage, because it is so much easier to determine when it happens right in front of you rather than from a distance or on a TV.

 

[JayElectra]

That article looks fairly accurate to the last memo I've seen. I see where you are pulling out visible damage. Before this memo, the instructors were teaching to break strikes up into 2 categories, those that did damage and those that landed and didn't do damage. They didn't actually change anything in regards to the striking breakdown other than re-worded it. Some of the committee members were worried about the way the criteria was worded and the stereotyping involving the sport. It's still the same thing we were doing though. When you are sitting cage side, it really isn't that hard to tell which strikes landed clean and were effective. This is actually why I was so against the suggestion of moving judges back stage, because it is so much easier to determine when it happens right in front of you rather than from a distance or on a TV.

Alright, I got you.

 

[ABC]

Alright, I got you.

don't worry about that part about the cuts and bruises. Most of the judges should be used to seeing cuts and blood, and don't really think about it. You judge the damage done more on sound, and re-action, where the strike landed, and whether it was a solid impact versus a glancing blow. By the time you start seeing the blood and the bruises, you have already determined in your mind whether or not the strikes did any damage.
I do see your point about certain people cutting and bruising easier, but in most cases, this has little impact on scoring the round, and the old criteria specifically used the word damage, so the change in wording should have no effect.

 

[ABC]

I would like to point out that the other changes made are good for the sport.
Specifying grappling/striking as equal and getting rid of defense is moving us in the right direction.

 

[btz]

from what i have seen the judges can not tell if the punch lands and hurts or misses, watch diago vs kap or garcia vs pham

 

[ABC]

from what i have seen the judges can not tell if the punch lands and hurts or misses, watch diago vs kap or garcia vs pham

as with any sport, you have refs/judges who are good at doing their job and others who aren't. I've worked some shows with a judges who couldn't tell the difference between somebody being in a guillotine and the guy on the bottom reaching up and laying his arm across the top guys head.
You can't blame that on the rules. The thing I am trying to push for is for all officials working shows to get a copy of the fights so they can go back and critique their own work, and I would like to get to a point where a committee appointed by the state reviews tapes and provides feedback/constructive criticism.
The other thing that needs to be fixed is the technique portion of the classes needs to be longer and more hands on.

 

[RenoBJJr]

Throw spinning flashy shit that misses completely during a close fight and expect to win.

 

[JayElectra]

don't worry about that part about the cuts and bruises. Most of the judges should be used to seeing cuts and blood, and don't really think about it. You judge the damage done more on sound, and re-action, where the strike landed, and whether it was a solid impact versus a glancing blow. By the time you start seeing the blood and the bruises, you have already determined in your mind whether or not the strikes did any damage.
I do see your point about certain people cutting and bruising easier, but in most cases, this has little impact on scoring the round, and the old criteria specifically used the word damage, so the change in wording should have no effect.

That's good to hear.

 

[kurtsloan23]

One of the biggest offenders of this was Hominick Vs Garcia. Garcia was making loud noises and throwing heaters all night swinging at air while getting utterly picked the f**k apart and one judge one awarded the fight for Garcia...one of the worst cards I've ever witnessed.