Brydon on MMA: Judging controversy
Posted July 8, 2011 1:15 pm.
This article is more than 5 years old.
A hot topic in MMA continues to be that of judging controversies. Every week it seems there’s a judges’ decision which makes you wonder whether the wrong guy’s hand got raised, or at least has a score which causes you to raise an eyebrow.
Let’s take a look at a few recent ones from a statistical perspective and see what we might be able to glean from the numbers.
We’ll start with last Saturday’s main event between Dominick Cruz and Urijah Faber.
On the surface, it was certainly a close fight. Many scored it 48-47 or 49-46 for Cruz, including myself. However, my fellow sportsnet.ca writer Showdown Joe Ferraro scored it 48-47 for Faber, believing the multiple times Faber managed to knock Cruz down counted significantly in his favour. And he wasn’t alone.
What really floored most onlookers was that one judge (Sal D’amato) scored it 50-45 for Cruz.
Here’s a look at the fight stats. There are a few interesting things to note after examining them:
1. Cruz outstruck Faber in every round, in all categories (total striking volume, significant striking volume and significant striking percentage).
2. In the round in which the discrepancy was the smallest — the final round — Cruz went 3-of-7 on takedowns with Faber getting none. The first four rounds were a wash in terms of takedowns with each managing 1-of-5 total.
3. Faber was not officially credited with any knockdowns. This is because a knockdown is only awarded statistically if the fighter is able to establish an advantageous position immediately following the significant strike that knocked his opponent down.
The first two points lend to the argument that Cruz could have won every round. What one must remember is the judges do not assign scores at the end of the fight. That is to say, D’amato didn’t watch what was clearly a close, competitive bout and say to himself: “Cruz 50-45.” Judges watch each round and then write down the score at the end of each.
After watching each round, Mr. D’amato felt each belonged to Cruz. While not the be-all and end-all, the pure numbers help support that assessment.
This brings us to the third point — the value of the knockdowns. Yes, Faber knocked Cruz down on a few occasions. Yes, the punches may have momentarily hurt Cruz. And yes, he should score points for this.
However, in every case, Cruz regained his footing almost immediately and Faber never gained a dominant position or followed up with further strikes. Bottom line, the “knockdown” punch was credited as a significant strike in the stats but not more than that and in the end the tallies were still significantly in favour of Cruz.
Should those “knockdown” strikes count for more? Yes, I think they should. But they should also count less than an official knockdown where the fighter then proceeds to gain a dominant position or alter the position of the fight in his favour. Faber did not do that.
FightMetric, the compiler and provider of the statistics used here, also generates in-depth analyses of fights, and in the case of this fight, agreed with the scoring in favour of Cruz, also giving him a higher performance rating and effectiveness score compared to Faber.
Now let’s take a look at a couple other recent fights.
At UFC 131 there were some controversial results, drawing the ire of UFC president Dana White. Among them was a close fight between Mark Munoz and Demian Maia.
All three judges scored it in favour of Munoz, even when a number of media and fans saw it the other way. Of particular note was that of one judge, Nelson (Doc) Hamilton, who scored it 30-27, which in particular baffled White. Here was another case of a fight seemingly in doubt at the final bell, yet in which a judge scored all the rounds in one direction.
The stats show that Maia outstruck Munoz in a first round that was surprisingly entirely spent standing. In the second round Munoz completely dominated the standup and landed the only takedown, with Maia going 0-for-5. That put the fight tied after two, so it came down to the third.
Munoz had a slight edge in volume of strikes and they were virtually even in accuracy. But Munoz was 2-of-5 on takedowns, while Maia was shut out again on two attempts. That swayed the fight in Munoz’ favour and earned him the victory.
On the stats alone, it appears that a 29-28 score was more appropriate. But there are more factors than just the numbers, and perhaps Hamilton felt that Munoz’s strikes were more powerful and/or aggressive than Maia’s. Hence the three-rounds-to-none score.
Having said all that, FightMetric gave the edge to Maia, albeit with a fairly slight edge.
The following week at Strikeforce: Overeem vs. Werdum, the main event between Alistair Overeem and Fabrico Werdum was another close one. But when the judges’ tallies were turned in, two 30-27 scores were read, with one 29-28, all in favour of Overeem.
In the first round, Werdum was much busier with his hands, going 17-of-42 (vs. 10-of-15 for Overeem) in total strikes. But he was hurt by his poor success rates, both in his significant striking accuracy (40 percent vs. 58 percent) and his wrestling (0-for-7 in takedown attempts).
In the second round, the number of strike attempts were roughly the same, but again Overeem was much more efficient. Werdum did manage one takedown but that was it.
The third round again saw Werdum throw almost double the amount of punches and still end up well on the short end of the accuracy meter, with him getting no opportunity to grapple.
In the end Overeem’s superior striking power and technique earned him the nod in hte judges’ minds. However, FightMetric’s in-depth analysis gave the edge to Werdum with a higher effectiveness score, even though Overeem’s performance rating was slightly higher.
What’s interesting is the one judge who scored it 29-28 was Hamilton (the same one who scored the Munoz fight 30-27). Meanwhile, one of the judges who scored the Munoz fight 29-28 was D’amato (who scored the five-round shutout for Cruz).
That suggests that these judges are not biased in scoring all rounds for one fighter. When fights are very close, well-informed and good-intentioned judges can very easily score a round one way or another, leading to seemingly odd scores.
While certification of individual judges will definitely help, the overall judging and scoring system needs addressing as well. Not only to correct bad decision, but to help come up with scoring that is a little more consistent and make fans and fighters feel like the judgments are ones that can be trusted.
