Another call for changes in scoring system

The Lyoto Machida vs. Mauricio “Shogun” Rua fight on Saturday has put the focus this past week back on judging.

As someone who has judged mixed martial arts fights in the past, and unofficially keeps running scores during every show, I was against the current 10-point must system when it was first implemented nearly a decade ago. I’d still argue against it now, but recognize we’re stuck with it. However, it does need improvements.

More than just the system itself leading to flawed decisions on occasion, a second weakness is the current mentality of how to score. Unless one person absolutely destroys the other, meaning one fighter dominates the entire round and has the other on the verge of being finished, the rule of thumb is to score the round 10-9.

While a judge can legally score an even round 10-10, it is rarely ever done. There also is almost no such thing as a 10-7. Winning a round solidly or being lucky in an even round ends up being valued the same, and thus it’s not unusual for a judge’s scores to indicate the winner of a fight in which the judge believed the other guy truly won.

The sport needs better-trained judges, and a point system that more accurately determines the fair winner.

I’ve previously advocated a system that is basically identical to the one Nelson “Doc” Hamilton suggested earlier this year when the Association of Boxing Commissioners was looking at MMA rules and regulations in hopes of creating uniformity and making improvements.

Instead of the current implementation, this suggested system would include half-points. If a round is even, it should be scored 10-10. If it’s a close round and someone squeaked it out, go 10-9.5. A 10-9 round would be when there is no doubt who won the round, but the round winner didn’t hurt the other fighter to the point a judge would go 10-8.

Would that system lead to more draws, which everyone hates? Probably. Will it eliminate bad decisions? Well, I’ve seen this system implemented in kickboxing and have seen plenty of bad calls, but it should cut back on them, which is the best you can hope for.

The best system is the one UFC had from late 1995 to early 2000, where at the end of the fight, the judge wrote down the name of the winner on a piece of paper.

Although that system resulted in the Bas Rutten win over Kevin Randleman for the heavyweight title in 1999, perhaps the one title-fight decision in UFC history worse than Machida vs. Rua, it was probably the only eye-rolling decision of that era. There were close fights that could have gone either way. But UFC judging in that era, even though the sport was in its infancy, was far superior to that of boxing or kickboxing during those same years.

Undoubtedly there are flaws. For example, late rounds are going to mean more than early rounds. And the mentality of having to convincingly beat the champion to win a title would come more into play because you don’t have the numbers, in theory, eliminating that. But no matter what the scoring system is, my experience is that the “star” fighter, whether champion or not, seems to benefit when it’s close.

Judging in UFC was implemented in late 1995 when skills started improving and fights were going the time limit. When the sport first started, most matches ended quickly and decisively since fighters’ defensive skills were limited. In time that changed, as it became ridiculous if one person dominated the other but couldn’t finish him, and the fight would be ruled a draw, particularly since there were pay-per-view time constraints and shows were based on tournaments.

The caveat to this was that a fight could not be ruled a draw, no matter how even (however, that didn’t stop judge John Peretti from ruling the 1997 Maurice Smith vs. Randy Couture fight as a draw).

When athletic commissions started rewriting the rules, the 10-point must system was implemented. The problem with the 10-point must system is that it uses a series of numbers to determine the winner, but as happens frequently, the fighter thought to have actually won is not always the fighter the numbers add up for. What often happens in three-round fights is that there are two very close rounds that could go either way, and then a third round where one fighter dominates. In the old system, similar to the system still used in Japan, that fighter would be the clear winner. In the current system, with a little bit of bad luck, that fighter could lose. There have been numerous fights I’ve scored in 10-point must where, after adding up my scores, the deserving winner ended up the loser.

I had Rua winning 49-46 live, and after watching the fight replay, I ended up with the same score. An informal press poll showed 20 of 21 at ringside picked Rua, and a web site poll on Wrestlingobserver.com listed 80.0 percent thinking Rua won, 10.9 percent said Machida won, and 9.2 percent said it was a draw. I’d say the wrong guy won, but Rua wasn’t so dominant that I would call it a robbery.

The first two rounds were close enough that it wasn’t outrageous for a judge to give Machida the first three rounds, as judges Cecil Peoples and Marcos Rosales did. But Rua doubled Machida in strikes landed, 82-42, and landed more clean strikes in all five rounds, with only round three being close. Machida’s third-round strikes were more damaging than Rua’s, which is why I’d have given him that round. Striking totals aren’t the be-all, end-all in MMA. But in this fight, which had no significant action on the ground, they are a pretty darn good indicator.

Peoples, in defending Machida and calling him the clear winner, said, “You have to keep in mind we always favor the fighter who is trying to finish the fight, and leg kicks certainly don’t do that.”

Aside from the fact that most fans can come up with a half-dozen fights where leg kicks ended a fight, you have a judge basically dismissing the value of what ended up being the blows that did the most damage. Machida admitted being hurt by them. He was moving slower as the fight went on because of the leg damage. And he was having to change his stance late in the fight because the front leg was taking so much abuse.

Peoples is constantly under fire, and while he’s not the worst MMA judge, I cringe before his scores are read. But the judge who I historically agree with the most, Hamilton, also judged the fight 48-47 for Machida. I was stunned when the outcome was read, as were fellow reporters, who had already started writing their stories about how Rua had won the championship.

For all the claims by the Machida camp that the announcers led viewers to thinking it was a bad decision, the negative reaction to the decision was much stronger from those who watched live in the arena and never heard the commentary. While television usually gives a better vantage point, TV doesn’t give the viewer the full impact of the power of the blows. In the case of the key weapon of this fight, Rua’s kicks to Machida’s legs, those who watched live, particularly up close, got a better perspective of the damage Rua was doing.

My feeling on judging overall is that the right guy wins most of the time. It’ll never be perfect because there is no such thing, particularly in a sport where the offense is as diverse as MMA. Whenever there is a bad call, the heat ends up coming down the most on the promotion, and, with the exception of UFC shows in the U.K. where they actually pick the judges, it is the commissions who are picking the judges.

As far as UFC goes, as soon as the fight was over, Dana White came out and said the wrong guy won, and that he was going to book a rematch as soon as possible. Hopefully the next fight will rectify the injustice.