Statistical Analysis of Questionable Judging in MMA

[BJ@LW&WW]

just glancing at those numbers, they dont seem to say anything.

 

[IloveTHIS]

Who determines which decisions are or aren't questionable?

A highly competitive fight having a decision one way or another doesn't make it questionable.

This article is basically saying "in my opinion your opinion is wrong". What a pointless statement. Decisions aren't objectively quantifiable.

A fight can be competitive or a back and forth war while still having a clear winning imo. Like GSP/Hendricks.

yea, I said it. Johny was robbed.

 

[DJ Deuce Groan]

Interesting article.
This is why I score and log fights at home.
Not because I think I can do a better job, but because it can be interesting to see how I judged a fight as compared to someone whose job it is to score the same fight.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

If 17% of fights are too close to call then perhaps the scoring criteria could be tweaked to change that. That's a lot of fights where some fans are going to be left with a sour taste in their mouth. That can't be good for UFC

Interesting article.
This is why I score and log fights at home.
Not because I think I can do a better job, but because it can be interesting to see how I judged a fight as compared to someone whose job it is to score the same fight.

How often do you find yourself disagreeing with the official scoring?

 

[DJ Deuce Groan]

How often do you find yourself disagreeing with the official scoring?

Honestly, not very often. Usually the judges are on par with how I saw it.

Sometimes all three have it 30-27 for a fighter, whereas I had it 29-28 for the same fighter. Little differences here and there.
The most recent case where my score didn't match theirs was the Jim Miller v Danny Castillo fight. One judge saw it the same as I did: 29-28 Castillo. But the other two scored it for Miller.. One even had it 30-27. So yeah, there are those decisions that leave me scratching my head.

 

[Air Lats]

Not at least 3 judges have to think loser won. No more than 3 judges can think the loser won.

Also the name of the article is "Statistical Analysis of Questionable Judging" not an analysis of robberies.

On your 1st statement: Are you certain it's 'no more than' and not 'at least'?

The more independent media judges that score the loser as winning the more questionable the official decision is right? So that would be 'at least' rather than 'no more than'.

It's kind of complicated and I could be wrong. Just sincerely trying to get clarity here and I still think I had it right but straighten me out if I'm wrong, just explain it to me if you have time.

On your 2nd statement - yeah, it is called questionable and not 'robberies'. I guess I just see the close matches as less of a problem than outright robberies. I would just be far more interested in seeing the data for fights where there is a gross discrepancy between the official decision and independent media's conclusion. You're totally right though, I was bitching about the article not being something that it never even claimed to be in the first place and that's my bad.

Also, many of the issues TS used in the OP related strongly to robberies and not at all (IMO) to close calls. Talking about incompetence and potential conspiracy isn't really relevent to fights that are too close to call clearly. All his talk about corruption got my mind on the track of instances where judges have award the win to guys who have pretty obviously lost the fight.

 

[TheChance]

Asia and Europe are continents

Fixed that for there buddy.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If 17% of fights are too close to call then perhaps the scoring criteria could be tweaked to change that. That's a lot of fights where some fans are going to be left with a sour taste in their mouth. That can't be good for UFC

A sour taste in your mouth is part of the sporting experience. Close matches are always the judges' fault or the refs' fault to the fans of the losing team.

Ask a Lions fan how they felt about the officiating in the game vs the Cowboys. Now ask a Cowboys fan how they felt about the officiating vs the Packers.

 

[AresDesideratus]

Fixed that for there buddy.

Fuck off.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

I seriously doubt these numbers are even accurate.

There have been almost 20 events in Canada. That's around 200 fights. Only 30 went the distance?

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

A sour taste in your mouth is part of the sporting experience. Close matches are always the judges' fault or the refs' fault to the fans of the losing team.

Ask a Lions fan how they felt about the officiating in the game vs the Cowboys. Now ask a Cowboys fan how they felt about the officiating vs the Packers.

Lions fans get to watch their team play 15 times a season or something like that. If they only played twice a year, bad officiating and not getting to see their team play often might turn them off the sport for good though.

They can't eliminate close decisions, though they could score more draws or tweak the scoring criteria to lessen the amount of close decisions.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

Honestly, not very often. Usually the judges are on par with how I saw it.

Sometimes all three have it 30-27 for a fighter, whereas I had it 29-28 for the same fighter. Little differences here and there.
The most recent case where my score didn't match theirs was the Jim Miller v Danny Castillo fight. One judge saw it the same as I did: 29-28 Castillo. But the other two scored it for Miller.. One even had it 30-27. So yeah, there are those decisions that leave me scratching my head.

Do you watch the undercards fights as well?

I thought they scored a couple fights wrong at the last event. I had Hugo and Lil Nog winning. Both were close fights though.

On your 1st statement: Are you certain it's 'no more than' and not 'at least'?

The more independent media judges that score the loser as winning the more questionable the official decision is right? So that would be 'at least' rather than 'no more than'.

It's kind of complicated and I could be wrong. Just sincerely trying to get clarity here and I still think I had it right but straighten me out if I'm wrong, just explain it to me if you have time.

On your 2nd statement - yeah, it is called questionable and not 'robberies'. I guess I just see the close matches as less of a problem than outright robberies. I would just be far more interested in seeing the data for fights where there is a gross discrepancy between the official decision and independent media's conclusion. You're totally right though, I was bitching about the article not being something that it never even claimed to be in the first place and that's my bad.

Also, many of the issues TS used in the OP related strongly to robberies and not at all (IMO) to close calls. Talking about incompetence and potential conspiracy isn't really relevent to fights that are too close to call clearly. All his talk about corruption got my mind on the track of instances where judges have award the win to guys who have pretty obviously lost the fight.

I thought about it more after I posted and it is confusing, I'm not sure either but here it is:

For a decision to make the questionable list, there must be credible media scorecards available for comparison. Of those, the ratio in favor of the winner must be 5:3 or worse

4:4 isn't a worse ratio than 5:3 so the larger the discrepancy the worse the ratio, I think. 4:4 is a tie, 5:3 is a discrepancy

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

I seriously doubt these numbers are even accurate.

There have been almost 20 events in Canada. That's around 200 fights. Only 30 went the distance?

The study looks at UFC events between Jan 1/2014 - May 19/2015 (when it was published)

 

[Magooglie]

There should be 7 judges

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Lions fans get to watch their team play 15 times a season or something like that. If they only played twice a year, bad officiating and not getting to see their team play often might turn them off the sport for good though.

They can't eliminate close decisions, though they could score more draws or tweak the scoring criteria to lessen the amount of close decisions.

The argument against more draws is always that they are anti-climactic and no one wants to see that. I think your argument about embittered fans is a decent counterbalance. Every time a fighter loses a fight he was even in, some fans go home disappointed.

 

[DaveHilly]

Do you know how they picked the sample set? Cause there's no way that those are all the decisions.