Yes, I'm taking another shot at Cecil Peoples for the way he's explaining his method of scoring the fight.
Why?
Because I find it factually incorrect and incongruent with the unified MMA rules.
Why does that matter?
Because we, as avid MMA fans, watch the sport for the fights. Cecil Peoples judged the fight, therefore his correct translation has a huge bearing on the outcome of the fight. I have a big problem with someone who holds so much power in the sport and has one-third of the influence over the determination of the world champion and the best figher in the world for the weight class not being able to properly interpret and implement the judging criteria.
And this latest interview he did really pissed me off.
So if you're over the controversy, or aren't concerned with whether or not the unified MMA rules are being enforced in the biggest and most important MMA fights taking place, or you don't want to read a long article, this one might not be for you.
Posted by Dallas Winston | MMA, UFC | Thursday 29 October 2009 2:45 pm
UFC 104 judge Cecil Peoples has released another round of commentary to MMAWeekly which details the mechanics of his thought process behind his ruling on the Lyoto Machida vs. Mauricio “Shogun” Rua light-heavyweight title fight.
The subject was first analyzed here in a factual comparison of Peoples’ self-stated reasoning behind his conclusions versus the official judging criteria laid out in the unified rules. I attempted to remain somewhat objective and impartial in that first venture, as I understand and respect the precarious nature of both judging a high-level MMA fight and expounding on the premise of the decision to the public. In this second interview, Peoples once again vehemently defends his unique interpretation of the official rules, and denounces anyone insinuating that he’s an unfit judge by closing with: “If you don’t like it, you can go to hell.”
Well, I don’t like it. I now also feel adequately empowered by Peoples’ professionalism and tact to lend a tad more opinion in this piece.
In the sport of mixed martial arts, there is an almighty foundation that judges must understand, adhere to, and implement correctly. This sacred doctrine can be found here under section “13:46-24A.13 Judging”. For an MMA judge, these official guidelines should represent the equivalent of The Holy Bible to a preacher, or The Constitution to law enforcement; he or she must be deeply and intimately familiar with each division and their correlating descriptions, and how to apply them accordingly, as it accounts for 100% of their responsibilities and requirements as a judge. Put frankly, it’s their job.
Zander Crews - Also, I didn't bother reading the dead horse article but I did happen to notice this "The Holy Bible to a preacher, or The Constitution to law enforcement;"If that is being used to show that their is one standard for all judges / fight styles, you need to drive around my town. I have about 1000 churches that all teach what they think the Bible clearly says. Every one is different because people have bias one way or another. I like Machida and I think he won the fight. I have tried to see it the other way but I can't???
So you believe that the unified rules are written with a multitude of different interpretations to be derived from them?
Doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of "scoring criteria"?
I concede to your disparagement of my analogy, however.
Zander Crews - I am a fan and I paid for the fight. I watched the fight and thought that Machida won. My vote negates yours =)
I'm cool with that, and despite your harsh criticism, I respect and appreciate your opinion.
To me, this is black and white: we have rules for scoring fights, and when analyzing the comments from Cecil on how he interpreted these rules, his answers do not correlate with the specifics of the rules themselves.
Do you agree with his interpretation? If so, why? If not, would you see a problem with a judge not enforcing the rules correctly? Isn't that the sole purpose of his existence?
Zander Crews - Also, I do think that Machida was up 2 rounds before the fight started. He has been so amazing and bullet proof until he fought Shogun. Maybe that was the problem???
I don't disagree at all.
That's what I'm trying to narrow down. Was there a bit of favoritism being shown for Machida? Or perhaps are the rules written in a way that they can be deciphered in different ways?
I'm completely open and interested in all of those opinions. However, Cecil has stated his reasoning behind how he scored the fight, and they don't match-up, and in some cases, he blatantly mis-states the scoring criteria (like scoring points for Machida under "effective grappling" for takedown defense, when takedown defense is categorized under "control" and "defense").
i paid for the fight.. and watched it 3 times.. shogun won 3 rounds lyoto 2 .. but what do you do..? hopefully fans will pressure their states AC for more consistant and uniformed scoring... that's the only way.
Zander Crews - I just think that it was a really close fight and 3 judges scored it for Machida. I had 5 people at my house watching it and none of us could even agree on who won each round =)
I agree once again.
I think Rogan's bias played a role in the fan's reactions, and I think the scoring criteria is not understood and implemented correctly by many fans. My biggest point is that I don't think even the judges themselves understand and implement the scoring criteria properly.
This may sound crazy, but if you look at some of the gifs of exchanges between Lyoto and Shogun, I don't know if the human eye could accurately discertain the finite details, such as when Shogun effectively blocked Machida's counter, or when any or one of the blows landed solidly enough in the frenzy of fast attacks and counters we saw.
What I do know is what the unified rules state, and what Peoples has stated as his judging, and they don't match.
madmav - i paid for the fight.. and watched it 3 times.. shogun won 3 rounds lyoto 2 .. but what do you do..? hopefully fans will pressure their states AC for more consistant and uniformed scoring... that's the only way.
So, to clarify your opinion, you're saying that it's the rules that need to be changed to be clearer?
I'm not arguing, but pointing out that there may be a problem with those interpreting the rules instead of the rules themselves.