2020 in Review: Bad Judging
While there weren't any real robberies, this year still featured some teachable moments and questionable scorecards
When a fighter comes out and says, “There is no way I won that fight,” it tells you that the scorecards in their favor need closer inspection.
In 2020, I can recall two such instances off the top of my head: Guram Kutateldze following his split decision victory over Mateusz Gamrot in October, and Paul Felder after Chris Lee awarded him three frames (Rounds 2-4) in his five-round split decision loss to Rafael Dos Anjos.
Giving Felder the nod was easily the worst scorecard of the year for me in the UFC, but there were many other head-scratching moments where it felt like one of the judges seated next to the Octagon were watching something entirely different than I was taking in at home, and it felt like it happened far more frequently this year and in previous years.
Whether or not that was true (I’m not doing that research), I wanted to use this space today to dissect some of the issues with judging and clear up some of the misconceptions and unclear elements that contribute to confusion for fans at home.
Before I dive into this, here are a couple top-flight resources anyone interested in MMA judging more absolutely must check out to deepen their knowledge base and overall understanding:
Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts from the Association of Boxing Commissions (2019 edition)
Sean Sheehan of Severe MMA reading through and breaking down said Unified Rules
Severe MMA Podcast with Sean Sheehan and MMA judge Ben Cartlidge
Severe MMA Podcast where Sean speaks with Ben about judging on Fight Island
Do yourself a favor and follow both of these fine gentlemen: Sean (@SeanSheehanBA) and Ben (BenCartlidge80)
Knowledge is Power
The smartest thing I ever did in my career was take John McCarty’s COMMAND course when it was offered in Vancouver a number of years ago. Having one of the people responsible for writing the original Unified Rules break down fights and how to judge them properly, effectively was invaluable, even if it came with a ton of ribbing because I was a no-good journalist.
If you can find a reputable course — and there are tons of officials in different places that offer them — and want to expand your knowledge and understanding of what you’re watching, I can’t recommend going through one of these courses enough.
If taking one of these courses isn’t an option, check out the information above because I can’t speak highly enough about Sean’s commitment to getting accurate information about judging out there and how helpful it is to hear a working official like Ben discuss specific fights and the judging criteria as a whole.
Most importantly, you have to know what you’re looking at, what you’re looking for, and what stuff to just ignore when you’re sitting at home trying to figure out your at-home scorecard for each round, and the only way that happens is through education.
Watching loads of fights is going to give you some understanding, but the only way you’ll really understand why a round was scored the way it was is by ingesting this stuff and building your knowledge base.
As Sean said to me when I reached out to him about this piece, “the biggest problem is understanding the criteria… if everyone understood the criteria, there would be no drama whatsoever.”
He’s dead-on and the only way to understand the criteria is to actually go out, learn it, and let it be your guide as you’re watching and scoring fights.
Consistency
The subjective nature of the venture means there are bound to be times when judges are split and that’s acceptable and understandable — there are close fights, these officials literally have different views of the fights, and they’re making individual value judgments about five-minute rounds; if there weren’t some disagreements, that would be more weird.
The troubling part (to me) is when there is a lack of consistency from fight-to-fight.
Again, it’s understandable because there are different judges scoring different fights, so variation is to be expected, however, there are instances where those differences just don’t make sense and it’s problematic.
Here’s a recent example that illustrates two different issues:
On last weekend’s card, Christos Giagos was awarded a 10-8 first round by two judges, and the same occurred in the third round of Taila Santos’ win over Gillian Robertson.
First Issue: how the third judge didn’t give Giagos a 10-8 in the first is beyond me — he took Carlton Minus down almost immediately, controlled the action throughout, and spent a large portion of the frame in dominant positions, threatening submissions, and generally out-working Minus on the canvas.
If spending four-plus minutes in complete control of the fight, dominating positionally and exhibiting both effective striking and grappling, that feels like a textbook 10-8 round to me.
Second Issue: Santos’ third-round efforts against Robertson didn’t seem nearly as dominant to me as Giagos’ first-round work, yet two officials gave her 10-8 scores.
It didn’t have an impact on the result — Santos won the second and third rounds handily, with the first being close (Robertson did good work off her back), so the Brazilian was always going to win; it’s just the application of the 10-8 score that felt off.
It’s not just a grappling thing either — we see divergent scores in striking-heavy affairs too, with each official setting their own bar for what needs to happen in order to merit a 10-8 round, with some seemingly allergic to scoring rounds anything beyond 10-9, and it makes things difficult and complicated for both the competitors and those trying to understand why a fight was scored a certain way at home.
Again, some of that is always going to happen because all fights are different and judges weigh things differently (and this was three different officials), but there needs to be greater consistency with these things.
Not All Takedowns (or Strikes) Are Created Equal
Last weekend’s final event of the year also offered a tremendous teaching opportunity in Deron Winn’s bout against Antonio Arroyo. Here’s what I said in the moments after the bout:
Michael Bisping did a good job of clarifying this while Daniel Cormier was going on about the number of takedowns his protege Winn was piling up in the first, but it bears repeating:
A takedown doesn’t have much value if there is no impact from the takedown itself (dragging someone down vs. a high amplitude slam), it doesn’t lead to any significant offence (lay and pray vs. legit ground and pound or submission attempts), and it has to be considered alongside whatever else is happening in the round.
In the first, Winn was taking Arroyo down to stop from getting pieced up on the feet and did next to nothing when he did put the Brazilian on the deck. Those takedowns — and there were a handful — had little impact and carried little value, especially weighed against Arroyo’s effective striking; 10-9 Arroyo.
In the second and third, Winn continued to drag Arroyo to the canvas, but over the final 10 minutes, the Brazilian offered far less offence of his own and wasn’t getting back up nearly as quickly. Though Winn wasn’t exactly lighting him up on the ground, those takedowns are effective grappling that swings the round in his favor. 10-9 Winn twice, 29-28 Winn overall.
It’s a little harder to differentiate when it comes to strikes, but Sean and Ben have a great conversation about it in the first of their two podcasts listed above, pointing to the impact of individual strikes measured against the cumulative damage, with Ben bringing up the “see-saw” your riding each round, trying to determine if the effort put forth by one fighter is enough to shift a frame into their favor.
It really is a great conversation, and crucial to understanding how to score fights more effectively.
Each Round Stands Alone (And Pride Rules Aren’t In Effect)
The second fight between Alexander Volkanovski and Max Holloway is a perfect example of this very important point because Holloway won two rounds clearly, Volkanovski eked out three rounds, and though “Blessed” likely would have gotten the nod if we were scoring the fight in its totality, the champion deserved to retain his title.
Note 1: it was a close goddamn fight and if you scored it for Holloway, I understand
Note 2: stop saying whomever lost a close fight got robbed — it’s insulting to folks that actually got robbed, like that night Ross Pearson clearly beat Diego Sanchez and left with a loss.
It’s crucial for everyone to understand that scores get turned in after every five-minute round and then you’re essentially wiping the slate clean and starting over. I know that sounds obvious, but some people seem to forget that.
The broadcasts never help because they talk about cumulative stats like total significant strikes, which can easily paint an inaccurate picture of what’s happening in a fight and really have no impact on the fight itself.
If those numbers are going to be referenced, breaking them down by round is the best way to use those totals because at the very least, it presents things the way they’re actually counted and valued. It’s why you can have two very clear and obvious rounds for Holloway (Rounds 1 and 2) and three tight frames where two judges saw them in favor of Volkanovski.
One more thing: stop with the “you have to really beat the champ” and similar ridiculous ideas — you have to win 2/3 or 3/5 rounds, eking them out counts the same as winning by a comfortable margin, and you don’t have to do anything extra special to earn the nod against a defending champion.
Justice for Dominick Reyes! #UFC247
Zero Accountability
This is the part that really sucks.
There doesn’t seem to be any accountability or repercussions for the officials that frequently turn in questionable scorecards. I’m not talking about public shaming or them being permanently removed from their positions or anything like that, but most of us have jobs where our work is scrutinized and we have to address the mistakes we make, and it would be comforting to know the same happens with these officials.
It’s bad when you can make jokes about specific officials when a weird split decision comes in and actually correctly forecast who turned in the suspect card; it’s usually Chris Lee.
We’ve seen a shift in referees over the last couple years, with folks like Jason Herzog and Mark Smith getting more and more assignments as older officials take a step back, and it would probably be helpful if the same happened with judges too because it’s too often the same cast of characters, which produces the same set of issues.
I’ve long advocated for annual recertification through one of the judging programs because the rules have changed over the last couple years and our understanding of fight dynamics have shifted as well, which means a refresher course every year or two would make sure the officials who often have a massive impact on a fighter’s career would be required to be completely up-to-date on how to do their job most effectively.
Tips for Home Judges
If you want to try to sharpen your judging skills when you’re watching from home, here are a couple things to try:
Mute the broadcast
Put away secondary devices
Record the events and score them again the following day
Compare your scores with those submitted to MMA Decisions
Reach out to prominent voices to see if they’ll talk judging with you
Take a judging course
Get certified and judge local fights (once regional MMA ramps back up)
Like I said off the top, taking COMMAND (and passing, thank you very much) was the smartest decision I’ve made because it gave me such a better, more refined understanding of what I was watching and how to properly score fights, which has served me well throughout my career.
While there are still fights I score differently than the judges or my colleagues on Twitter, at the very least, I’m able to articulate my point of view and understand where they’re coming from when we have differences of opinions.
In Closing
It’s weird: there were a lot of awful scorecards — Joe Soliz giving Trevin Giles Round 1 against James Krause chief among them — but no egregiously bad decisions.
There were close fights that lots of people thought the judges got horribly wrong, and more than a couple tight decisions we could likely debate for eternity, but nothing catastrophically awful, and that’s ultimately a good thing.
It’s also what makes the bad cards harder to swallow because it’s clear that we’re getting closer to getting this all sorted and I’m really looking forward to the day when I can sit through a string of events without tweeting about a horrible tally that makes absolutely no sense.
I hope this stuff helps.
Happy Holidays.
Good article.