Meltzer Article: 10 Point Must/MMA
Sept 11, 2007 19:08:29 GMT -5
Post by LWPD on Sept 11, 2007 19:08:29 GMT -5
There is no better journalist covering the world of MMA today than Dave Meltzer. This is a very thought provoking article on the history behind the adoption of the 10 Point Must System by State Athletic Commissions (a relic from boxing)...along with the flaws inherent in using it to reach MMA Judging Decisions (where the action is far more diverse). He also stresses that always and foremost...MMA is a 'for profit business' 'first...and a 'competitive sport' second....something we all should always keep upfront in our minds whenever assessing the big picture.
Courtesy of Fox Sports.com
Ten-point must system has flaws
This probably isn't the time to speak sympathetically about judging Mixed Martial Arts.
Saturday night's decision at the UFC show in London, where Michael Bisping was awarded a split decision over Matt Hamill in the semifinal match, has caused more uproar than any decision in recent memory. I was surprised about the vociferousness of the complaints.
I've seen some crazy decisions over the years, and I saw this as a case where one of the flaws was the system, as opposed to the judges.
The 10-point must system was put in place by the New Jersey Athletic Control Board in 2000 and has become the standard for virtually every MMA promotion in the country. When New Jersey, and later Nevada, chose to regulate the sport, it saved it from near extinction in the process. But the system put in place is kind of like the Electoral College when it comes to presidential elections. It's probably not the best system.
Sometimes the guy who gets the most votes loses.
But most of the time it works fine.
The original UFC judging system from late 1995-2000 was simple. If a fight went the time limit, the judge wrote the name of the person they thought won the fight on a piece of paper. Anyone can watch a fight and decide for themselves who wins. But sometimes when you put numbers into the equation, they don't add up.
In a three-round fight, usually this happens when one guy wins a round dominantly, and the other two rounds are hard to pick. The guy who won the dominant round should win the fight, but a close round can go either way. A guy could have won the fight in the old method, but still lose on the cards 29-28 if judges gave the two close rounds to the opponent. That's largely what happened here.
The fight that sticks out in my mind was last year's fight of the year between Diego Sanchez and Karo Parisyan. Sanchez won the fight, and I believe he deserved to. Yet, if I had to use the 10-point must system, I had Parisyan squeaking by in two rounds and Sanchez winning the other dominantly. Sanchez deserved the win on the overall fight, but my card, based on the scoring system, would not have reflected who won the fight. As it turned out, it wasn't much of an issue since the judges gave it to Sanchez.
That's not what happened in the Bisping vs. Hamill fight. All three judges gave Hamill round one, which he won decisively.
In round two, it was somewhat close. I still had Hamill winning, but judges Jeff Mullen and Cecil Peoples didn't.
In what was the key round when it comes to the decision, from the television vantage point, Hamill landed five punches standing and one elbow, while Bisping landed four. Hamill also hit several punches on the ground after a takedown, and also had an earlier takedown, although didn't really capitalize much on it. Lots of other punches were thrown that largely missed. The key is that, supposedly, and judge Jeff Mullen and others at ringside said the same thing, there were jabs thrown by Bisping that due to Hamill's body position, you didn't see on television, which puffed on Bisping's face. The fact is, ref Mario Yamasaki, who had the best view of anyone, thought Bisping won the round.
There were ringsiders who thought Bisping squeaked it out, and others who were actually vehement it was a bad decision.
Round three was even closer, and could have gone either way. To me, I could conceive of a 30-27, a 30-28 (ruling third round even) or 29-28 for Hamill. The 29-28 for Bisping that two judges had was not out of the realm of possibility, but Bisping was an extremely lucky man.
It's not a robbery as much as maybe an unlucky judgment for Hamill, who was given a 30-27 win by British judge Chris Watts.
A Wrestling Observer poll had it 86 percent for Hamill, and every MMA Web site was filled with people calling it the worst decision in the history of the sport, which seems to show people haven't watched the Japanese version of the sport much, where home town decisions are openly talked about and expected.
Every time there is a close fight, people who favor the loser are going to call it a robbery. It's the nature of the beast. But the reaction in this case was worse than usual. Perhaps it's because the show aired for free on Spike TV, so it was viewed by more people than would have typically watched it on pay-per-view.
Perhaps it's because if you judge the fight as a whole, as opposed to broken up in three parts, no way does Bisping win. Perhaps it's because the fight was in London. It was an American coming out to "Born in the U.S.A." who is being booed out of the building, taking on a heavily favored Brit, who many felt was overrated to begin with, on his home turf. The American rose to the occasion. Even more so, Hamill is deaf. Not only that, but when it was over, Bisping gloated about the win, while Hamill came across as a good sport even though he had grounds to complain.
Worse, and viewers at home didn't see this, when it was suggested at the post show press conference that Bisping may not have deserved the decision, he flipped out and insulted the writers making the suggestion, saying he felt he decisively won rounds two and three. When the decision was read, the home town crowd cheered like crazy, even though most of the press believed Hamill won 29-28. So you had what appeared to be a home town decision, going against an underdog American in a foreign land for the benefit of an unbeaten fighter who gets to stay that way, and at the expense an opponent who fought at a level nobody expected of him.
But there's also an issue about perspective. The judges see a different fight than the people watching on television see. The perspective isn't necessary better, but it is different. I've judged UFC before, and in the 90s, also went to a lot of shows and was stationed at the table sitting right next to one of the judges, so I saw many shows from the perspective of a judge, and then came home to watch the same fight from the perspective of a television viewer. There were close fights where, because of what you do and don't see, the differences are enough to on rare occasions change my thoughts on an outcome.
The pluses of watching it on television is the ability to see replays, and a better overall feel of a fight when the action is opposite the side you are on. The pluses of watching it at ringside is the perspective of the power of the blows in particular never translates as well to television. I've noticed this in past conversations with people in boxing, where I'd watch a match on television and think one person won, the judges would have it different, and the reporters at ringside would note that the guy who won was hitting with twice the power of the other guy, something you simply can't ascertain from watching on television.
You can also, particularly if it takes place in the part of the cage right in front of you, have a better perspective on what blows are hitting or missing than on television. But it's almost a lock you will weigh more heavily the offense that takes place right in front of you as opposed to the other side. But that's why judges are in different parts of the ring. Generally, but not always, the judge at ringside has a better perspective of seeing the fight, but they also have more pressure because they have to make an immediate decision. There is also the pressure not to judge rounds evenly.
No matter what system you implement, it will be administered inconsistently, because that's the nature of human beings. But the system can be changed and improved. You could make a solid round win a 10-8, which is a score you are only going to get if one person destroys the other and has him on the verge of being stopped, so squeaking by for two rounds wouldn't overcome it in the ten point must system. But that requires a complete reeducation process for judges who are used to the current 10-point system. You could not discourage 10-10 rounds, which are almost never called, even though lots of rounds are almost dead even.
It is a major flaw in scoring that if a judge gave round two to Bisping, it was worth the same in scoring as Hamill's round one.
Changing it back to how it was years ago isn't going to happen, even though the more complicated you make the criteria, the more you risk coming up with mathematical formulas that don't necessarily decide who really won the fight. I argued against the change to 10-point must, but with commission regulation, there is no way you are going back to writing the name of the winner on a piece of paper when the fight ends. And no matter the system, every razor-thin fight is going to wind up with half the people calling robbery, and there will on occasion, be bad decisions.
As for Bisping and Hamill, the one good thing about controversy is it opens people up to wanting a rematch. In the end, it's good for business and Dana White has already confirmed he's working on making it happen.
People who complain Hamill got robbed have by this point missed the much larger point. Fighting is about making stars, and stars are not made on won-loss records. Hamill became a bigger star in losing, because of the post-fight sympathy factor, than he would have had he gotten the decision. And based on the skill levels both men showed in he fight, it's questionable how either man would do against the top light heavyweights. But against each other, a rematch would give both men another high profile fight that there would be great interest in.
Bisping, who may be 15-0 with only one match going to a decision, had his stock drop even though he got the decision. So, in the big picture, Bisping was a little lucky the judging went his way, and Hamill was very lucky it didn't.
Courtesy of Fox Sports.com
Ten-point must system has flaws
This probably isn't the time to speak sympathetically about judging Mixed Martial Arts.
Saturday night's decision at the UFC show in London, where Michael Bisping was awarded a split decision over Matt Hamill in the semifinal match, has caused more uproar than any decision in recent memory. I was surprised about the vociferousness of the complaints.
I've seen some crazy decisions over the years, and I saw this as a case where one of the flaws was the system, as opposed to the judges.
The 10-point must system was put in place by the New Jersey Athletic Control Board in 2000 and has become the standard for virtually every MMA promotion in the country. When New Jersey, and later Nevada, chose to regulate the sport, it saved it from near extinction in the process. But the system put in place is kind of like the Electoral College when it comes to presidential elections. It's probably not the best system.
Sometimes the guy who gets the most votes loses.
But most of the time it works fine.
The original UFC judging system from late 1995-2000 was simple. If a fight went the time limit, the judge wrote the name of the person they thought won the fight on a piece of paper. Anyone can watch a fight and decide for themselves who wins. But sometimes when you put numbers into the equation, they don't add up.
In a three-round fight, usually this happens when one guy wins a round dominantly, and the other two rounds are hard to pick. The guy who won the dominant round should win the fight, but a close round can go either way. A guy could have won the fight in the old method, but still lose on the cards 29-28 if judges gave the two close rounds to the opponent. That's largely what happened here.
The fight that sticks out in my mind was last year's fight of the year between Diego Sanchez and Karo Parisyan. Sanchez won the fight, and I believe he deserved to. Yet, if I had to use the 10-point must system, I had Parisyan squeaking by in two rounds and Sanchez winning the other dominantly. Sanchez deserved the win on the overall fight, but my card, based on the scoring system, would not have reflected who won the fight. As it turned out, it wasn't much of an issue since the judges gave it to Sanchez.
That's not what happened in the Bisping vs. Hamill fight. All three judges gave Hamill round one, which he won decisively.
In round two, it was somewhat close. I still had Hamill winning, but judges Jeff Mullen and Cecil Peoples didn't.
In what was the key round when it comes to the decision, from the television vantage point, Hamill landed five punches standing and one elbow, while Bisping landed four. Hamill also hit several punches on the ground after a takedown, and also had an earlier takedown, although didn't really capitalize much on it. Lots of other punches were thrown that largely missed. The key is that, supposedly, and judge Jeff Mullen and others at ringside said the same thing, there were jabs thrown by Bisping that due to Hamill's body position, you didn't see on television, which puffed on Bisping's face. The fact is, ref Mario Yamasaki, who had the best view of anyone, thought Bisping won the round.
There were ringsiders who thought Bisping squeaked it out, and others who were actually vehement it was a bad decision.
Round three was even closer, and could have gone either way. To me, I could conceive of a 30-27, a 30-28 (ruling third round even) or 29-28 for Hamill. The 29-28 for Bisping that two judges had was not out of the realm of possibility, but Bisping was an extremely lucky man.
It's not a robbery as much as maybe an unlucky judgment for Hamill, who was given a 30-27 win by British judge Chris Watts.
A Wrestling Observer poll had it 86 percent for Hamill, and every MMA Web site was filled with people calling it the worst decision in the history of the sport, which seems to show people haven't watched the Japanese version of the sport much, where home town decisions are openly talked about and expected.
Every time there is a close fight, people who favor the loser are going to call it a robbery. It's the nature of the beast. But the reaction in this case was worse than usual. Perhaps it's because the show aired for free on Spike TV, so it was viewed by more people than would have typically watched it on pay-per-view.
Perhaps it's because if you judge the fight as a whole, as opposed to broken up in three parts, no way does Bisping win. Perhaps it's because the fight was in London. It was an American coming out to "Born in the U.S.A." who is being booed out of the building, taking on a heavily favored Brit, who many felt was overrated to begin with, on his home turf. The American rose to the occasion. Even more so, Hamill is deaf. Not only that, but when it was over, Bisping gloated about the win, while Hamill came across as a good sport even though he had grounds to complain.
Worse, and viewers at home didn't see this, when it was suggested at the post show press conference that Bisping may not have deserved the decision, he flipped out and insulted the writers making the suggestion, saying he felt he decisively won rounds two and three. When the decision was read, the home town crowd cheered like crazy, even though most of the press believed Hamill won 29-28. So you had what appeared to be a home town decision, going against an underdog American in a foreign land for the benefit of an unbeaten fighter who gets to stay that way, and at the expense an opponent who fought at a level nobody expected of him.
But there's also an issue about perspective. The judges see a different fight than the people watching on television see. The perspective isn't necessary better, but it is different. I've judged UFC before, and in the 90s, also went to a lot of shows and was stationed at the table sitting right next to one of the judges, so I saw many shows from the perspective of a judge, and then came home to watch the same fight from the perspective of a television viewer. There were close fights where, because of what you do and don't see, the differences are enough to on rare occasions change my thoughts on an outcome.
The pluses of watching it on television is the ability to see replays, and a better overall feel of a fight when the action is opposite the side you are on. The pluses of watching it at ringside is the perspective of the power of the blows in particular never translates as well to television. I've noticed this in past conversations with people in boxing, where I'd watch a match on television and think one person won, the judges would have it different, and the reporters at ringside would note that the guy who won was hitting with twice the power of the other guy, something you simply can't ascertain from watching on television.
You can also, particularly if it takes place in the part of the cage right in front of you, have a better perspective on what blows are hitting or missing than on television. But it's almost a lock you will weigh more heavily the offense that takes place right in front of you as opposed to the other side. But that's why judges are in different parts of the ring. Generally, but not always, the judge at ringside has a better perspective of seeing the fight, but they also have more pressure because they have to make an immediate decision. There is also the pressure not to judge rounds evenly.
No matter what system you implement, it will be administered inconsistently, because that's the nature of human beings. But the system can be changed and improved. You could make a solid round win a 10-8, which is a score you are only going to get if one person destroys the other and has him on the verge of being stopped, so squeaking by for two rounds wouldn't overcome it in the ten point must system. But that requires a complete reeducation process for judges who are used to the current 10-point system. You could not discourage 10-10 rounds, which are almost never called, even though lots of rounds are almost dead even.
It is a major flaw in scoring that if a judge gave round two to Bisping, it was worth the same in scoring as Hamill's round one.
Changing it back to how it was years ago isn't going to happen, even though the more complicated you make the criteria, the more you risk coming up with mathematical formulas that don't necessarily decide who really won the fight. I argued against the change to 10-point must, but with commission regulation, there is no way you are going back to writing the name of the winner on a piece of paper when the fight ends. And no matter the system, every razor-thin fight is going to wind up with half the people calling robbery, and there will on occasion, be bad decisions.
As for Bisping and Hamill, the one good thing about controversy is it opens people up to wanting a rematch. In the end, it's good for business and Dana White has already confirmed he's working on making it happen.
People who complain Hamill got robbed have by this point missed the much larger point. Fighting is about making stars, and stars are not made on won-loss records. Hamill became a bigger star in losing, because of the post-fight sympathy factor, than he would have had he gotten the decision. And based on the skill levels both men showed in he fight, it's questionable how either man would do against the top light heavyweights. But against each other, a rematch would give both men another high profile fight that there would be great interest in.
Bisping, who may be 15-0 with only one match going to a decision, had his stock drop even though he got the decision. So, in the big picture, Bisping was a little lucky the judging went his way, and Hamill was very lucky it didn't.
