An early and pivotal figure in the sport of mixed martial arts, Jeff Blatnick knows MMA regulation better than most. He wasn't just a commentator from UFC 4 to UFC 32 or an Olympic gold medalist in Greco-Roman wrestling, he also played a key role in the development of a codified MMA rule set athletic commissions could use to facilitate regulation of the sport in its earlier years.
I caught up with Blatnick at the Grapple in the Big Apple wrestling event in Times Square. We talked about the U.S. men's performance against the Russians in their exhibition matches, chances for gold in the London games and even discussed the state of college wrestling.
I think this just became the gold standard for all interviews.
Also, have we ever had an honest and straight forward answer from a judge as to why they chose the fighter they did during a controversial decision? How do we get more?
Great interview. More judges should take a lesson from him.
He looks at the fights the way a judge should, imo. I love that he doesn't let a takedown and top control with no significant top control alone outweigh actual damage. Too bad so many judges act like if a guy is on top longer he automatically won.
I wonder if he would change anything now because he was influential in the early rules and the way he talks now, vs the way a lot of judges interpret the rules, seem to be at odds.
Chiron - Great interview. More judges should take a lesson from him.
He looks at the fights the way a judge should, imo. I love that he doesn't let a takedown and top control with no significant top control alone outweigh actual damage. Too bad so many judges act like if a guy is on top longer he automatically won.
So ironic that HE is the one who helped write the terribly TAKEDOWN biased rules in the first place, yet here he is being the rational judge who doesn't follow the scoring to a tee....
It would be nice if Jeff would step up and admit that the original scoring criteria he helped develop is flawed, and work to get it changed on a national/universal level...
Chiron - Great interview. More judges should take a lesson from him.
He looks at the fights the way a judge should, imo.<b> I love that he doesn't let a takedown and top control with no significant top control alone outweigh actual damage</b>. Too bad so many judges act like if a guy is on top longer he automatically won.
So ironic that HE is the one who helped write the terribly TAKEDOWN biased rules in the first place, yet here he is being the rational judge who doesn't follow the scoring to a tee....
It would be nice if Jeff would step up and admit that the original scoring criteria he helped develop is flawed, and work to get it changed on a national/universal level...
I'm in full agreement with you.
Although, in his defense, when reading the rules the judges obviously do not apply the criteria with the proper emphasis considering that the rules clearly give less credit for takedowns and top control than for strikes and sub defense. Judges are supposed to score legal "heavy" strikes landed, not just any tap. The rules also state that stuffed takedowns are supposed to be given credit for too but the judges seldom do. So the judges clearly don't implement the rules as written. The judges generally interpret the rules wrong and the fighters have observed that and changed their strategy and judgement to comply, and now landing a takedown and laying on someone is wrongly viewed as "kicking their ass" or "being dominant".
I agree with you that he should say "You know, we should go over the rules and revamp them, make them clearer, and make sure they emphasize the proper things for fighting." but to do that would be to admit they made mistakes in the first place. He has a point that giving specific criteria would make fighters fight for those criteria, but that happens now under the current rules as well and it's too subjective and emphasizes control over actually threatening. At least with a definitive point system it's more calculated and, done right, you can emphasize clearly the criteria you want with less room for judges to hide behind ambiguous rules. At the very least they should remove control from the scoring criteria.
The most effective system for determining a winner is the one they wont implement - give the fighters 4 or 5 rounds and if it doesn't end in a finish call it a draw. Then, instead of fighters trying to exploit the scoring system as both he and we are concerned about, fighters will have to fight with purity as there's no good way around it.
Chiron - Great interview. More judges should take a lesson from him.
He looks at the fights the way a judge should, imo.<b> I love that he doesn't let a takedown and top control with no significant top control alone outweigh actual damage</b>. Too bad so many judges act like if a guy is on top longer he automatically won.
So ironic that HE is the one who helped write the terribly TAKEDOWN biased rules in the first place, yet here he is being the rational judge who doesn't follow the scoring to a tee....
It would be nice if Jeff would step up and admit that the original scoring criteria he helped develop is flawed, and work to get it changed on a national/universal level...
I'm in full agreement with you.
Although, in his defense, when reading the rules the judges obviously do not apply the criteria with the proper emphasis considering that the rules clearly give less credit for takedowns and top control than for strikes and sub defense.
^ Typed that wrong. Meant to say "sub attempts" not "sub defense".
