If You Can't Drive An Automatic, You Can't Drive Stick: Why A New System Won't Fix MMA Judging

[Dirge]

View attachment 728503

Works on my girlfriend as well. She can drive my SUV but won't touch the car in the garage under a cover

 

[Dirge]

How about judges who actually have competed in mma?

Judging boxing events is completely different than judging mma.

 

[Merlotte's]

Just got to accept judging for what it is. Fighters already know it’s in their best interest to finish. Fans will never be satisfied when their fighter loses or in the most recent case when the fighter they hate wins.

 

[Thickfreakness]

A good starting point would be developing an actual point scoring system. Right now, the judges watch the fights and score the rounds based on their subjective experience of who they believe is winning.

MMA doesn't have an actual scoring system that tells the judges exactly what a fighter needs to do to win the round. Without this in place, we can't blame the judges for seeing the fight as they see it.

There is a system, and it's fairly clear. If you mean that it should be based on striking totals/grappling passes/sub attempt totals then that's different. But if you look at the rules they're fairly clear. There's always going to be some differing of opinions. But if you look at most fights that aren't incredibly close, educated fans and pundits usually agree on the result.

 

[grimballer]

So you think that even if one fighter has effectively taken over the fight from say, 3 minutes into the fight until the 10 minute mark, and if the round was 10 minutes it would clearly be scored for him, but because there is a scoring sampling milestone at every minute 5 mark, its "a draw" at that point ? ...just because of the arbitrary 2nd scoring sample?

You see I see that as having a flaw but OK, I guess I you see it differently. I think arbitrary marker points are terrible. Perhaps if it was 3 minute rounds and there were 12 of them, ok, I can see that. But 3 milestones in 15 minutes? Just score it 'overall' like OneFC/Pride (again with decent judges) and you get better results overall. I've never liked round by round (particularly for 3 rounds) as it artificially influences the fight also

that’s a good point.

Essentially 10 point system was made for boxing.

More, but shorter rounds

every kd gives you extra point (or opponent losses a point)

n all you gotta evaluate is who’s controlling the fight with punches (no kicks, no grappling)

In boxing you’ll see a losing fighter get a round or two from judges, however it won’t change the outcome of a 12 round fight.

In mma one or two rounds make a huge difference, so giving two (or three) rounds to the same fighter pretty much determines the winner.

most judges would rather have it tie going into final round n that round be the deciding one (this is especially true in title fights).

 

[grimballer]

There is a system, and it's fairly clear. If you mean that it should be based on striking totals/grappling passes/sub attempt totals then that's different. But if you look at the rules they're fairly clear. There's always going to be some differing of opinions. But if you look at most fights that aren't incredibly close, educated fans and pundits usually agree on the result.

k...

Explain what’s effective striking n effective grappling

 

[Thickfreakness]

k...

Explain what’s effective striking n effective grappling

...It's in the rules. "Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact."

"Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact."

 

[shankmcgank]

A good starting point would be developing an actual point scoring system. Right now, the judges watch the fights and score the rounds based on their subjective experience of who they believe is winning.

MMA doesn't have an actual scoring system that tells the judges exactly what a fighter needs to do to win the round. Without this in place, we can't blame the judges for seeing the fight as they see it.

Can you elaborate please? Not trolling, but I think this covers what you said.

 

[OmegaRugal]

Jimmy Smith explains why education and accountability, not a new system, is needed to fix MMA judging.

That makes no sense.

That's like saying we would go from 3 judges to just 1.

The less judges, the more room for error.

The more judges, the less chances of screw ups overall.

It's simple mathematical statistics.

Small Sample Size Decreases Statistical Power
The power of a study is its ability to detect an effect when there is one to be detected. ... A sample size that is too small increases the likelihood of a Type II error skewing the results, which decreases the power of the study.Mar 13, 2018

 

[Sumomike]

I don't like the 10 point scoring system for a 3 round fight at all, not even for a 5 rounder. I believe the fight should be judged as a whole, look at total significant strikes, knockdowns, takedowns, octagon control, etc and of course, the damage done.

Ya, like basketball or football. There are periods, but they are just to rest. It's not who won each quarter, its the total score at the end.

I do understand why in combat sports its a little different. Points for rounds isn't a stupid idea because unlike those sports, scoring is a but subjective. a ball passed the line or in the hoop is the same each time, but there are levels to punches. Imagine if you got extra points for dunking HARD. It would be so confusing since that is subjective.

I don't truly know a good solution.

 

[Thickfreakness]

That makes no sense.

That's like saying we would go from 3 judges to just 1.

The less judges, the more room for error.

The more judges, the less chances of screw ups overall.

It's simple mathematical statistics.

Small Sample Size Decreases Statistical Power
The power of a study is its ability to detect an effect when there is one to be detected. ... A sample size that is too small increases the likelihood of a Type II error skewing the results, which decreases the power of the study.Mar 13, 2018

You're absolutely right that more judges would decrease the likelihood of error. As you said, it's simple statistics. The bigger the sample size, the better the results. However, those judges still need to be educated. If they're not educated it's all for nought. Plus, Jimmy didn't say it, but you also have to consider what's actually feasible. Employing more judges means more overhead costs. Also increasing to five is certainly better, but it's not a drastic increase in the already small sample size.

 

[Black Paladin]

Ignorance, corruption and weakness. How to deal with it?

We usually elect a new president. I am not sure how they do it in MMA judging.

 

[Hirashin]

We usually elect a new president. I am not sure how they do it in MMA judging.

You know, mma is just a sport. The real problem is that the judicial system suffers from the same flaws, the judges can be corrupt or ignorant and they can rule which ever way they feel its ok by them, and they are not held accountable. I know, its terrifying.

 

[Sumomike]

I don't this his analogy follows. Couldn't I argue in reverse?

Right now its manual, so creating a new automatic would make it easier for others to do.

I don't have any real answers to the problem because it IS complicate, I just think it's a shitty analogy.

Some of these judges are not as informed in MMA, so a more automatic system so even casual people could follow who is ahead is not a bad idea to at least TRY to develop.

 

[ticho123]

how about two pairs of judges?

3 judges
3 judges from retired fighters who don't share a common gym/common history with the judged fighters
House of Representatives and the Senate

Seems to work out well

 

[OmegaRugal]

You're absolutely right that more judges would decrease the likelihood of error. As you said, it's simple statistics. The bigger the sample size, the better the results. However, those judges still need to be educated. If they're not educated it's all for nought. Plus, Jimmy didn't say it, but you also have to consider what's actually feasible. Employing more judges means more overhead costs. Also increasing to five is certainly better, but it's not a drastic increase in the already small sample size.

I don't think they should cost TOO much. I don't know how much they make but we are talking about huge events.

Just put 7 to 9 judges and make them watch educational videos every year similar to how an accounting CPA needs to take a certain amount of CPE credits a year to maintain your license.

^ this should be simple and easy to do.


Another recommendation but I totally understand if some people don't like it, is just judge the entire fight.

Enough of this round by round crap.

 

[Magooglie]

Give all judges a test of judging criteria before the fights, every event. Put more judges on a fight.

 

[grimballer]

...It's in the rules. "Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact."

"Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact."

Those are guidelines n look simple on paper, but it’s up to judges to interpret those criterias

it’s not like there’s a actual scoring breakdown where:

5 jabs = 1 hooks

Or

1 td = 2 sub attempts

What if one fighter is picking apart the other standing for 4 minutes n 58 seconds n then gets dropped by a solid hook

did he lose that round?

What if one fighter is jabbing the other 1st half of the round, but then gets taken down n stays there for the remainder of the round

who’s winning there?

It’s not as simple as it seems