Why not have more judges?

[Scheme]

Everyone is complaining about bad judging ruining MMA, but no one wants to do anything. If you had 7+ judges instead of 3, the chance that the rightful winner is picked increases and the chance of a corrupt/biased judge affecting the outcome of the fight decreases.

 

[Substance Abuse]

We definitely need more people who are inept making bad decisions.

 

[Mr Boogaloo]

haha they are probably trying to prevent the all-too-likely scenario of multiple judges all being shown to be idiots on the same night.

 

[hot carl]

if 3 people can fuck things up, clearly the best answer is to add more.

 

[Admiral Ackbar]

Hard enough finding 3 competent ones.

 

[Scheme]

We definitely need more people who are inept making bad decisions.

if 3 people can fuck things up, clearly the best answer is to add more.

If there are 3 judges, and 75% of people picked fighter A to win, then the cases where the judges choose the wrong fighter is when 2 or 3 judges pick fight B. This happens with a probability of 1/4^2 + 1/4^3 = 8%

If there are 7 judges with the same scenario, the cases are when 4, 5, 6 or 7 judges choose fighter B. This occurs with probability 1/4^4 + 1/4^5 + 1/4^6 + 1/4^7 = 0.5%

With even more judges, the probability of choosing the wrong fight decreases even more significantly.

Also it reduces the effect that bias and corruption can have on fights.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

TS, if someone won a fight 29-28, 29-28, 27-30 with 3 close rounds, do you think there would be less bitching than if the fighter won a fight with 3 close rounds with scores of 29-28, 29-28, 29-28, 27-30, 28-29, 28-29, 30-27?

 

[artisabang]

Judges get paid to judge, more judges - more money out the door.

 

[Steve08]

More eyes = more potential for error, IMO.

Three are more likely to see the same thing than seven, even if they see the wrong thing.

 

[Substance Abuse]

This is a bad idea.

 

[Scheme]

TS, if someone won a fight 29-28, 29-28, 27-30 with 3 close rounds, do you think there would be less bitching than if the fighter won a fight with 3 close rounds with scores of 29-28, 29-28, 29-28, 27-30, 28-29, 28-29, 30-27?

No, I think statistically the chance of the judges getting it wrong is reduced (see above). There can still be bad score cards.

Also, it will reduce the probability of a corrupt/heavily biased judge affecting the outcome of the fight. If two fights go 50-50 equally, and one judge is corrupt/biased towards fighter A, then the probability that fighter A will win is 75% (1-probability of the two other judges choosing fighter B). If you had 7 judges, then the probability is 65% (1-probability of 4 judges choosing B, 5 judges choosing B, 6 judges choosing B).

 

[JAEGERX]

i think we should have at least 15 judges separated by commisions analizing separate aspects of the fight, each of them reporting to other 3 supervising judges acting as judging deleages.

and they all should use colonial style powdered wigs and robes to look cooler, they should submit a post fight report of no less than 100 pages in ye' old english language.

 

[Michael Jordan]

7 may be too many, but I do think that they should either go with 5 judges or put the judges they have currently through training on how to score and such, and reprimand those who suck and cannot rationally explain why they judged a fight for a certain fighter.

 

[Scheme]

More eyes = more potential for error, IMO.

Three are more likely to see the same thing than seven, even if they see the wrong thing.

Yes, there will be more split decisions (as the chance of them all not choosing the same fighter is greater). But if a fighter won a fight, there is a higher probability that he will be chosen to win with more judges (even though there is a higher probability that a single judge will pick the other fighter as a winner, or a split decision will occur).

This is a bad idea.

I'm providing a mathematically based argument that says otherwise. But thanks for your logical explanation.

Why are people so scared to see something new try to come into effect in a sport that is ridden with static fallacies? I made a post before on a more effective scoring system a while back and the only answers I got were in the vein of the above quote. No logical argument, no evidence; just a strong opposition to anything that breathes change.

 

[t00br00tal]

Why stop at 7?

 

[waldywaldy]

What the sport needs is quality not quantity. Having 36 Cecil Peopleses judging a Diego Sanchez fight will still result in 1044-1008 Sanchez.

 

[Rockapotomuses]

This is actually the best idea I have seen on here in a long time. The math is correct, more judges = less chance of error.

 

[fearoth]

get 5

there I fixed MMA for you

 

[Scheme]

What the sport needs is quality not quantity. Having 36 Cecil Peopleses judging a Diego Sanchez fight will still result in 1044-1008 Sanchez.

The chance of getting a bad judge is less than the chance of getting a good judge (IMO). With more judges then, the decision will be more and more skewed towards the good judges' decision rather than the bad ones. Also, a group of 2/3 bad judges is more likely to choose the wrong winner than a group of 2/7. Also, the score wouldn't be 1044-1008... it would still remain the 10-9 system.....

Also, judges make mistakes, and with more judges then these mistakes will be mitigated. If a judge looks at his phone for half the fight, it wont be as significant in a 7+ man team versus a 3 man team.

 

[the can]

No, I think statistically the chance of the judges getting it wrong is reduced (see above). There can still be bad score cards.

Also, it will reduce the probability of a corrupt/heavily biased judge affecting the outcome of the fight. If two fights go 50-50 equally, and one judge is corrupt/biased towards fighter A, then the probability that fighter A will win is 75% (1-probability of the two other judges choosing fighter B). If you had 7 judges, then the probability is 65% (1-probability of 4 judges choosing B, 5 judges choosing B, 6 judges choosing B).

i am guessing you never took statistics in college.