Tapping Out With TBerg 06.26.09: Episode XXXVII: Split Decisions

Posted by Todd Bergman on 06.26.2009

As of late, MMA judging has earned itself a Split Decision in the eyes of 411’s Todd Bergman. From a complex rulebook to overzealous judges, Bergman lays down his plans to fix judging in MMA and how he would handle bad judges along the way in this edition of Tapping out with TBerg.

The recent outbreak of Split Decisions and overall bad decisions in MMA leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to judging in MMA. Personally, I can think of at least three bad decisions in just the last month. I'm most certain that many of you can probably think of more as well. Who's really to blame for all of the nonsense known as judging in MMA? Certain fighters will point the finger at different judges (I'm looking at you, Cecil Peoples) while some will blame the actual judging criteria, claiming that, for the most part, the aspect of judging winning over losing is outdated. Who's right and who's wrong with their claims? While I'm certain that there are changes that need to be made when it comes to MMA judging, I'm not certain if they will ever be made. So in this edition of Tapping out with TBerg. I'm going to take a closer look at how fights are scored and how that process can be updated along with other changes that could be made to keep MMA up-to-date.

How It's Scored
As you watch an MMA event, the announcers are always quick to bring you abreast of the rules of MMA and how fights are generally being scored by the judges. While I could bore you the simple lingo, I'm going in depth with what Marc Ratner actually had to say when it came to how judges are suppose to score fights. Brace yourself for what he says versus what actually happens with the judging of a fight. Caution: His explanation is extremely long and boring.

VIII. JUDGES

A. No judge will have a financial interest in any fighter he judges.

B. No judge will be a manager/trainer of any fighter he judges.

C. In a bout goes to it's full time limit, the outcome will be decided by a majority decision of three, (3), MMAC judges.

D. A judge is accredited, sanctioned and selected based upon his character, experience, stature in the MMA world, knowledge of MMA systems and impartiality.

E. Judging Criteria
1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it's full time limit based upon the following criteria:
-Clean Strikes
-Effective Grappling
-Octagon Control
-Effective Aggressiveness

F. Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient) -the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking.

I. Effective Grappling
1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean takedown and active guard position.
2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly takedown his opponent, is effectively grappling.
3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple, through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous defense from the top fighter.
4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.
5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the preceding situations were met.(items 2-4) 6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored the clean takedown deserves the round.
7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling

J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

K. Effective Aggressiveness
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring) 2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness.

L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded.
Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective) -clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching) -octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
-octagon control
-effective aggressiveness

M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the
following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike -by submission attempt -from a throw -from clean strikes either standing or grounded.

N. Judge's Scorecard Procedures
After each round:
1. each Judge will determine and record a score each round 2. a MMAC official will collect the scorecard after each round 3. the MMAC official will track and add each Judges score by round 4. If the fight goes the time limit, the MMAC official will add each Judge's scorecard and double check total 5. the fighter with the greater number of points wins the fight on each Judges scorecard 6. the fighter who won on the majority of the Judges Scorecards, wins the fight 7. the MMAC official will hand the decision to the PA announcer

O. Types of Judge's Decisions
1. If all three scorecards agree Unanimous 2. If two of three scorecards agree Split 3. Two scorecards agree and one draw Majority 4. two scorecards agree on draw Draw 5. all scorecards different Draw

IX SCORING SYSTEM

A. The MMAC and UFC have adopted a 10 point must system.
The Judge will use the criteria to determine a winner each round. The three step procedure per round is as follows:
-determine winner of round (can be draw) -determine if winner dominated round -fouls then factored in (subtract one point per foul from fighter)

B. Draws are again acceptable in MMAC events

C. Point Totals
1. two fighters who draw are given a score of 10-10 2. the fighter who wins a round is given a score of 10-9 3.The fighter who dominates a round is given a score of 10-8 (a score of 10-7 is possible for a dominant round) 4.For each foul a fighter commits, a point is subtracted. This deduction can change a winning round to a draw. 9-9

First and foremost, that's a hell of a lot of information for a judge to remember when he (or she) is actually sitting there trying to score a fight. The way that I view judging is that anyone off the street should be able to determine a winner when it comes to a fight. The problem with that theory, of course, is the same that happens in MMA right now. Certain people look for different things when it comes to naming a victor. I, myself, look for a guy who pushes the pace no matter what position he is in. I'm not afraid to score someone a winner if they have been taken down and basically laid on, just as long as they (the person in guard) have been active with elbows and movement. Getting a dominant position is nice but should hurt you if you don't capitalize on it. Case in point would the recent Diego Sanchez/Clay Guida fight. Guida scored a takedown but did little to nothing with it while Sanchez bloodied up his opponent with scary elbows from the bottom. Anyone else notice a problem with #7 in criteria? It states that aggressiveness should be viewed as the third most important factor when it comes to judging a fight. Really? I see that as a problem in itself. When reading through the list, it really starts to bleed together, but the one thing that holds commonplace is the fact that most of the scoring and rulings are very similar to boxing. I know that this might be late-breaking news to some of you, but MMA is a completely different sport than boxing, and the rules should reflect this. The rules also, for the most part, benefit guys who basically stall on the ground for the vast majority of the fight because takedowns and octagon control are judged before aggressiveness. All of this comes down to how everyone takes their own flavor to the rules, which shouldn't be the case. The criteria should be more simplified and clear-cut, much like traffic laws. Of course, those can get pretty fuzzy as well, including why I'm stopped by an officer while going 60 in a 55 as my door panels are being blown off by other cars which are obviously going much faster. However, that argument is for another day.

What To Improve
So we took a look at the very complex rules and now it's time to look at some of the improvements that I would like to see in MMA judging.

1.) By the rules, a knockdown from the standing position by fighter A over fighter B should warrant domination thus scoring a 10-8 round. Recently, Diego Sanchez did this to Clay Guida and only one Judge scored it a 10-8 round. If they were following the guidelines then it would've been a 10-8 round across the board and not warranted a Split Decision. Point being that I believe judges are scared, or just too lazy, when it comes to their jobs. All too often, judges will just mail in the mandatory 10-9 round instead of actually looking at the fight. For the most part, 10-9 rounds should be more common, but I would like to see more training going on so that judges aren't afraid to score a 10-8 round.

2.) This change has a lot to do with the previous change but with the basic boxing rules of a mandatory winner getting 10 and the loser getting 9 or lower. This hurts close fights that feature rounds that could be more close to a 10-10 score than a 10-9 score. This isn't the judges' fault, however, because this is a basic flaw in the ruling criteria more than anything. However, I do remember a few fights in the IFL having a 10-10 scoring. Not every round has a clear-cut winner and some are actually ties, so why not warrant it on the cards?

3.) It is a tricky situation, but I think that the criteria should reflect points awarded for actually trying to finish a fight. This could figure into the aggressiveness aspect of judging, but there is something to be said for a fighter trying to actively finish and a fighter simply trying to take advantage of the terribly flawed system. I know that I'm more than willing to score a round to a fighter who is being active and landing strikes as opposed to a guy who just takes someone down and lays on top of him (or her) without being aggressive and looking for positions.

4.) The awarding of being aggressive would also allow judges to deduct points to fighters who aren't being active in a fight. Gaining position is one thing, and I'm not asking fighters to secure a takedown and rush positioning just for the sake of losing a point, but in PRIDE the judges and referees controlled the fights with yellow and red cards. I don't want to see cards, or the terrible EliteXC time clock, put into play, but I do want to see extra measures taken against guys who do nothing but lay and clinch without doing anything productive.

5.) The ground game in MMA has no effective way to be scored outside of takedowns and strikes. I know in previous statements, I've said that I want more stand ups and less laying, but some fighters are extremely effective on the ground and they are not being rewarded with the proper scoring. For instance in ADCC, they score fights as it follows.

Securing Points :

Mount position = 2 points
Back mount with hooks = 3 points
Passing the guard = 3 points
Knee on stomach = 2 points
Clean Sweeps = 4 points
Sweeps = 4 Points
Clean Take down (Ends passed the guard)= 4 points
Take down (Ends Guard or Half Guard)= 2 points

* Each position must be established for 3 seconds or more in orderfor points to be awarded.
* When changing multiple positions points will be awarded only for the position that has been established for 3 seconds or more.
* Reversals are considered Sweeps as well.

Obviously, this is much more clear and defined when it comes to scoring, but I wouldn't expect something like this to already be added to the existing, and very confusing, criteria. Since MMA is billed as a fight that can ultimately take place anywhere, why not reward it? A guy should be able to win a round on his back and trying for submissions just as easy as a guy throwing strikes and securing takedowns. For this to happen, there would have to be a reeducation of the majority of American fans who just want to see a bar room brawl. At the end of the day, there is a lot to consider when it comes to adding new aspects to MMA judging. I'm positive that you, as MMA fans, all have something to add that would simplify the scoring in MMA, and I'm curious to read your thoughts down below.

What The Fighters Are Saying
I once again decided to take fate into my own hands and send out a question to some MMA fighters. Only three responded, and I'm greatly appreciative for it. Here's the question that was presented to them. What is one thing that you would change about judging in MMA and why?

Benji Radach- Nothing at all. I believe each round should be judged as they are. This allows a guy with no cardio, but is really strong in the first few rounds, to win and a guy that has more cardio to win the later. I don't think there are too many problems with judging. I do think that certain people as judges can make bad decisions though.

Leonard Garcia- I would like to change the takedowns counting for so much. It makes for boring fights, but most people think if they take guys down they will win the fight.

Phil Baroni- They should judge the whole fight. If a guy barely edges out four rounds in a super close fight and gets smashed the last round he should win the fight. Its an MMA fight, not a boxing match. The scoring is stupid. The 10 point must for MMA is really a poor system. The only reason, I believe it was implemented was to get the sport sanctioned in New Jersey and Las Vegas. That's the only reason. The fight should be judged in whole. My record would sure be a lot different if the scoring system was not ten point mush. I would have beat Lindland twice easy, no question, and Evan Tanner. I think its time for a change, and it lays upon the UFC's shoulders to something about it.

If Dana and Zuffa agree with my position on the scoring then I believe it will get handled. Its only fair to the fighters. We work hard and to lose because of an unfair system is more than unjust. Dana does not like a lot of the refs and he does have some merit. But a lot of the judges really suck and should be fired. The scoring system needs to be changed, it really does. A lot of guys dedicate their lives to this sport, and their livelihood depends on it. A change needs to be made. It will be a tough battle and a very hard task but if Dana, Joe Silva, [and] Lorenzo agree with me they can do something about it. I hope they can read this and somehow this could get to them and they make a change.

For example in my first fight against Matt Lindland at the MGM in Las Vegas, the UFC's second time in Nevada, the ten point must system beat me. I definitely won the last round 10-8 even 10 -7 because he had a point deducted for a foul, and I was pounding the shit out of him in the fights last minute. He barely survived.. He clearly won the second round. Two takedowns and ground control although I had my moments in the round, a sweep and a flash knock down and a few other hard shots You give that to him ten-nine. The first round was close and back and forth. But I dropped him in the last few seconds of the first round and ended the round kicking him in the ass telling him to get back up. 10-8 me? 10-9 me at the very least?

The score ended up being 28- 27 28-28 29- 28. Where the fuck did they pull those numbers from? The judges still suck and so does the system. Something needs to be done ASAP. Its not fair to the fighters and its not just the system, it's the judges. I beat Misaki in the Grand Prix, but they gave him the nod. He went on to beat Henderson and Denis Kang. I feel that should have been me if the judges were fair. I would be in the position Dan is in now if I would have won the GP. Instead I'm basically a journey man trying to fight my way back into title contention, but the difference is I'm a little older and time is not on my side. My career would have went totally different if I would have won those 2 fights without question.


Knowing Is Half the Battle
While the complex rules are a huge part of the problem, there seems to be a lack of proper training and accountability when it comes to the judges' themselves. When was the last time you saw the judges announced and Cecil Peoples' name popped up and you instantly thought that he was a quality Judge? I, along with you, am not so sure that a straight-faced answer could come out of my mouth. While he is a terrible judge, who apparently takes the judging criteria into his own hands and doesn't inform anyone, Cecil will always be a half-assed referee to me as well. Why do I think that, you ask? Well, check out KOTC-Stand Off show and watch Peoples miss a blatant tap out by Joe Voisin in his fight against Matt Jaggers. From there, watch as Cecil lets the fight go way too long as well. My point is this: there needs to be a separate commission that overseas the judging aspect of MMA. Sure, each states' Athletic Commission does overlook and appoint the judges to each event, but there needs to be some accountability for the actions of the judges. Each time there is a Split Decision or a Decision that is deemed questionable by the Commission, the Judge should be brought in to explain why he or she scored for the winning fighter.


The Source Of Most Frustration

From there the Commission can make the justification of a clean verdict or a suspension from active judging. I would also think that for each state that sanctions MMA, there should be schools set up just for judging. I realize that now there is a standardized test for people to qualify to become an MMA judge. But, if MMA is to become the next big sport, then judging can't be the one thing that holds it down. Let the fact that maybe MMA can't product big enough stars hold it down and not something like bad judging become its Achilles' heel. While I do have grand dreams for the outlook of MMA judging, right now we, as fans, are stuck with a broken system until the people in charge finally get the hint.

I'm curious as to what changes you would make to the MMA Judging Criteria. Please make your voice heard below. Also, special thanks to: Benji Radach, Leonard Garcia, and Phil Baroni for leading their voice to this article. Don't forget that 411mania.com is a great website and you should make it your homepage as well. If you can't part with the porn homepage, then at least bookmark the site for easy internet accessibility. Remember to support your local MMA and keep your tapping hand strong.