Should judges have to score a close fight twice?

[Break Brick]

I picked up on a comment I read earlier, something along the lines of...

"Judges dont get to rewatch/re-score, we do"

I think few would argue against the possible benefits in accuracy rewatching a fight and scoring it again: you can judge things more clearly, notice if certain shots are actually effective, pick up on crucial nuances etc etc. So would it be beneficial to have a system in place where a independent adjudicator(s) (seperate to the panel of judges) could call for a "recount" which is essentially a rescoring.
Judges who actually determine someones career only get one crack at getting it right, seems a little crazy really.

PROS

Makes for more accurate scoring in close fights

Removes crowd reaction as possible means of affecting how strikes are scored

CONS

Slows down revealing the winner.


(feel free to add to the pros and cons list)

I've always felt in any sport, if a grievance over a referee/judges decision can be immediately reprimanded (through video replay for instance) then it should be, regardless of how much it "slows the game"

But I guess human error (or perceived human error) adds to the drama of sport so it's all swings and roundabouts really.

 

[hto63]

scoring rounds separately sucks, period.

 

[BORCAT]

scoring rounds separately sucks, period.

How so ?

 

[Break Brick]

scoring rounds separately sucks, period.

So you feel the fight should be scored as a whole? That would be tricky un my opinion, it's easier to score things if they're neatly segmented.

 

[SSJ16]

Ultimately, even though it would make for more accurate scoring, I'm going to have to say no.

Other sports, it's much easier to implement instant replay to change a call but I don't know if I like instant replay to help judging unless they were going to clearly deduct a point based on a illegal move.

The judges need to get better and fighters have to remember when they leave it in the hands of the judges, it can be a toss up. Though there are many times, I've seen decisions scored that I have disagreed with, I feel like it's rare that there is a decisions that's completely bullshit where one fighter got cheated.

For instance, the Machida/Shogun 1 match: I thought Shogun won but I went back and rewatched the match and could see how you could make an argument for Machida winning.

I feel I could make an argument either way for who won the Jones/Gus fight (I initially gave Gus the first 3 rounds) but the outcome to me is more than fair.

Same analysis goes for the last few Machida fights. If the judging was on the point where people kept getting gifted decisions, maybe I would be more inclined to go instant replay but it would really hurt the sport waiting for the judges to rewatch a 25 minute match.

 

[JethroBodine]

In Pride, the judges would pick who they thought won the fight overall. The guy who was the most busted up lost. There was no "stealing round". There were no score cards read.

 

[hto63]

How so ?

because it can lead to one fighter winning 2 even and uneventful rounds that could essentially be draws just as well, then his opponent totally dominates the 3rd round just short of a 10-8 score, maybe even on his way to a stoppage when the bell rings and he will lose the fight... that's not right.

especially the way takedowns that lead to absolutely nothing whatsoever get overrated by many judges. Takedowns like both Gus and Jones had, completely irrelevant but probably the biggest factor in who won round 1 and 5...

So you feel the fight should be scored as a whole? That would be tricky un my opinion, it's easier to score things if they're neatly segmented.

at least judges should be able to put more emphasis on the last round if one fighter finishes strong or comes close to a stoppage.

 

[Cygnus-X]

scoring rounds separately sucks, period.

Judges can't even remember a whole 5-minute round, would you really trust them with judging a 25-minute fight as a whole?

 

[Cygnus-X]

In Pride, the judges would pick who they thought won the fight overall. The guy who was the most busted up lost. There was no "stealing round". There were no score cards read.

Let's not act like there weren't any major robberies going on in Pride.

 

[JD Harmeyer]

sure. Let's make the fighters wait an additional 25 minutes after their fight to find out if they won. I'm sure all the fans would love that.

 

[JD Harmeyer]

because it can lead to one fighter winning 2 even and uneventful rounds that could essentially be draws just as well, then his opponent totally dominates the 3rd round just short of a 10-8 score, maybe even on his way to a stoppage when the bell rings and he will lose the fight... that's not right.

especially the way takedowns that lead to absolutely nothing whatsoever get overrated by many judges. Takedowns like both Gus and Jones had, completely irrelevant but probably the biggest factor in who won round 1 and 5...
.

well then maybe that fighter shouldn't have lost 2 rounds and let the other guy control him with takedowns. Maybe learn some TDD???

IF Gus vs Jones blows your mind DO NOT WATCH GSP vs Penn 1. You'll end up in a mental institution.

 

[Break Brick]

Ultimately, even though it would make for more accurate scoring, I'm going to have to say no.

Other sports, it's much easier to implement instant replay to change a call but I don't know if I like instant replay to help judging unless they were going to clearly deduct a point based on a illegal move.

The judges need to get better and fighters have to remember when they leave it in the hands of the judges, it can be a toss up. Though there are many times, I've seen decisions scored that I have disagreed with, I feel like it's rare that there is a decisions that's completely bullshit where one fighter got cheated.

For instance, the Machida/Shogun 1 match: I thought Shogun won but I went back and rewatched the match and could see how you could make an argument for Machida winning.

I feel I could make an argument either way for who won the Jones/Gus fight (I initially gave Gus the first 3 rounds) but the outcome to me is more than fair.

Same analysis goes for the last few Machida fights. If the judging was on the point where people kept getting gifted decisions, maybe I would be more inclined to go instant replay but it would really hurt the sport waiting for the judges to rewatch a 25 minute match.

That's a fair argument. I think with regards to Jones/Gus it entirely could be scored both ways so although a recount could result in a different decision, we would ultimately have another outcome that can be questioned and debated. Perhaps in circumstances such as these (using the model I purposed) the best outcome would be to declare it a draw

 

[hto63]

Judges can't even remember a whole 5-minute round, would you really trust them with judging a 25-minute fight as a whole?

the problem is nobody is held responsible and the bad apples are never thrown out!

And many judges are probably not even interested in MMA unless they have to go to work...

 

[Cygnus-X]

the problem is nobody is held responsible and the bad apples are never thrown out!

And many judges are probably not even interested in MMA unless they have to go to work...

If we got rid of the incompetent judges there wouldn't be any major problems with the current scoring system either.

 

[hto63]

well then maybe that fighter shouldn't have lost 2 rounds and let the other guy control him with takedowns. Maybe learn some TDD???

IF Gus vs Jones blows your mind DO NOT WATCH GSP vs Penn 1. You'll end up in a mental institution.

it's not about takedowns, irrelevant takedowns that lead to nothing are the worst offenders but how can you even try to argue against the stupidity of two razor thin rounds being worth more than finishing dominantly in the last round.

Actually you don't even have to take 3 rounds, just the fact a close round is the same value as a round that is not close at all without being 10-8 is weird and doesn't reflect who won "the fight"...

This isn't about Gus and Jones, which I assume you haven't gotten over yet so I won't hold that BS argument against you...

If we got rid of the incompetent judges there wouldn't be any major problems with the current scoring system either.

it would still give a razor thin round the exact same value as a total domination as long as it's not 10-8. That's still a problem...

 

[Bargey]

Judging fights is an intuitive process as well as technical.

They get the most out of seeing and hearing what's happening and immediately scoring rounds based on that.

In other words - terrible idea TS.

 

[JD Harmeyer]

the problem is nobody is held responsible and the bad apples are never thrown out!

And many judges are probably not even interested in MMA unless they have to go to work...

you clearly have little to no knowledge on what you're talking about and I find it rather hilarious.

it's not about takedowns..

but it is about takedowns. Takedowns score points. All MMA fans know this and have known this since the beginning of NJAC sanctioned fights using the Unified Rules. Go cry in your milk some more about it.

 

[SSJ16]

That's a fair argument. I think with regards to Jones/Gus it entirely could be scored both ways so although a recount could result in a different decision, we would ultimately have another outcome that can be questioned and debated. Perhaps in circumstances such as these (using the model I purposed) the best outcome would be to declare it a draw

It's tough either way because a draw as fitting as it is is very unsatisfying and ties up the division (see LW a few years back).

Even though this fight was close (even controversial in some eyes), because there was a decided winner, Dana and friends have options in what to do for both fighters next matches. If it was a draw, the matchmaker's hands are tied.

Judging will always be subjective and I'm ok with that. I just want the criteria to be as transparent as possible, good judges to be instated and judges to be reviewed and held responsible. I'm ok with close fights going either way as opposed to a draw.

 

[hto63]

you clearly have little to no knowledge on what you're talking about and I find it rather hilarious.

You clearly are stupid and should stop talking cryptically if you want me to understand what you are even talking about.

wrong decisions don't get judges fired (unless it's a Mayweather fight obviously)

a lot of MMA judges are not interested in MMA, I'd take Big John's opinion on this matter over random morons on the internet, but thanks for your input bro

but it is about takedowns. Takedowns score points. All MMA fans know this and have known this since the beginning of NJAC sanctioned fights using the Unified Rules. Go cry in your milk some more about it.

It's not about takedowns because there doesn't even have to be a single takedown involved in the fight for my argument to still hold true.

 

[JD Harmeyer]

You clearly are stupid and should stop talking cryptically if you want me to understand what you are even talking about.



It's not about takedowns because there doesn't even have to be a single takedown involved in the fight for my argument to still hold true.

If you're so pissed about MMA judging why don't you become a Judge since you're obviously Judge Dredd of MMA knowledge and know exactly how to score close fights????? It's not like you have to be Dana White's cousin to become a MMA judge

It's not about takedowns because there doesn't even have to be a single takedown involved in the fight for my argument to still hold true.

clearly you forgot about Fitch vs Penn. It happens in MMA, but just because it didn't happen to Gus doesn't mean the judging was bad.