The sport of MMA needs to accept some blame for the bad decisions it produces. Judging combat sports is difficult. Extremely. Boxing has had countless bad decisions in it's history and in boxing all you have to look for is whether one guy punches the other. In MMA a judge has to look for striking, grappling, cage control, aggressiveness, ground control, top control, submissions, damage, and probably a dozen more things. And how do you judge all that? What carries the most weight? A takedown or a three strike combo? What if a guy gets two takedowns but is hurt by strikes later in the round, what carries more weight? None of that has been defined in MMA. Or what if nothing happens in a round, who wins the round? The one with center control or the one who's footwork forced the other to have "center" control? Judging is essentially opinion. What do you think happened? So when a round is not clear cut it leaves the judge with all the power to choose what he prefers, including the fighter. Why can Floyd Mayweather use his superior footwork and speed to avoid damage and conflict and win every round while a lesser fighter loses the same type of round because he was inactive? Because everyone loves Mayweather and really, it takes boxing skill to avoid the way he does in the ring. The Masvidal/Iaquinta match is a perfect example of perception. Iaquinta is a fan favorite. He takes the fight to his opponent. Almost a brawler. Masvidal is extremely skilled on his feet. He, in my opinion was picking Iaquinta apart. But viewers felt that Masvidal was coasting and running because Iaquinta kept chasing and throwing bombs that mainly missed. I saw one fighter head and shoulders above the other in the striking department. But what many fans and the judges saw was a lot of effort from Iaquinta and another fighter not engaging. That was the perception. I can see that. Even with me giving the fight to Masvidal in the back of my mind I was thinking they may thinking Iaquinta is the aggressor. And to me, that's the worst of judging or commentating. "Well he was the aggressor" or "He was busier, threw more strikes" That means hey you should win for trying. Now, after the fight stats showed that Masvidal actually was more active and accurate during the rounds 2 & 3 that he "coasted" what other reason do we have to award the rounds to Iaquinta? I personally dislike the use of statistics to prove a fighter won because judges don't have that available. A fight should be judged on what we see, not on generated numbers. But I use them here merely to point out how opinion and perception play a major role in today's MMA judging.
Also, MMA has a lot of blame for it's round system. Choosing the winner of a 3 minute round is difficult enough, extending that to 5 minutes and adding a multitude of criteria makes it almost impossible. The rounds are long and again difficult to put weight on events or worse, remember what happened in the beginning. It sounds like an excuse, but five minutes of MMA live is a long five minutes. Then the bouts are either 3 or 5 rounds. The five minute rounds make it difficult to ask for more rounds. But that leads to judges throwing away rounds. In boxing, the main card bouts are either 10 or 12 rounds. In boxing you can see judges give away the first few rounds. When a big name fights and the opponent does nothing breathtaking the rounds go to the star because, well the star is the star. The rounds are taken for granted. In MMA, a judge takes a round for granted and the outcome of the fight is in peril. Back to Masvidal/Iaquinta. Round 2 I can see maybe going to Iaquinta. He did much better than in round one. Very aggressive, chasing Masvidal. I still counted the round for Masvidal because he controlled the Octagon, struck brilliantly and avoided most of Iaquinta's attack. But in boxing a round like that normally goes to the guy making a comeback because he's making a comeback not necessarily because he won the round. And in boxing mostly that doesn't play a huge role because you have 9 or 11 other rounds to define the outcome. In MMA, you judge a round like that then all you have is one maybe 3 more rounds to decide the winner. That leads you to results like the ones we had at UFC Fight Night.
Lastly, we have to remember that Judges are fans like us too. Yes they receive pay and are supposed to be professionals, but humans still have tastes. Not only will a judge favor a fighter but more importantly he will favor a style. In MMA many judges still do not understand the grappling aspect. They don't understand or give credence to passing guard or side control. Submission attempts as offense. Many don't understand the importance of leg kicks. True cage control as displayed by the likes of Georges St. Pierre and Jon Jones. A judge may not like a style such as Masvidal's that deftly avoids and counters without endangering himself so he will grant the round to Iaquinta who never quit and showed heart. Just as we fans are split on who won, so too may be the judges. Except in the real fight two judges liked what they saw from Al Iaquinta. Only one liked Jorge Masvidal.
Is there a fix? I don't believe change the round length or format will happen or would make that huge of an impact. The five minute rounds are a staple of MMA now. To ask a fighter to now go 7 or 9 five minute rounds would be brutal. MMA is grueling and taxing and even though the Gracie clan may disagree, MMA was not meant to be a marathon. At least not for public consumption. Can Judge's opinions be altered or restrained. That's a definite no. But can judges be trained better and be tested in order to be more prepared and consistent for their judging efforts? I think so. Can exact weight be put on certain actions? For instance, is one takedown worth X amount or so? I don't think so. But I think maybe a hierarchy of events can be created. In boxing, whoever causes the most action, albeit via damage, contact or activity is supposed to win the round. Rarely is ring generalship used to determine the winner of a round, as has been seen in MMA (a la Sanchez v. Kampmann)Also, maybe a point or half point for knockdowns could be instituted. I understand that knockdowns are more common and not as fight ending as in boxing but shouldn't a fighter receive more than just the round for severely damaging his opponent? If something similar had been instituted for the Masvidal/Iaquinta the bout would have been a ruled a draw, slightly more fitting for the fight we witnessed. In the end, a system using men to judge other men will always have a flaw. Man himself. Pride comes before the fall.
No comments:
Post a Comment