Courtesy of Rob Tatum from The MMA Corner
Without a doubt, there's no subject in the sport of MMA that is as hotly-debated as judging. After nearly every event, controversy arises due to disagreements with scoring or officiating.
Unfortunately, many of the underlying issues that cause these debates cannot be fixed overnight. Recently, The MMA Corner reached out to Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) certified trainer, referee and judge, Rob Hinds, to discuss a variety of topics, including the current state of officiating and what can be done to correct it.
"The sport has already evolved past most of the officials and a lot of the athletic commissions," Hinds explained. "It's time to at least catch up."
Perhaps the biggest problem with the sport is a lack of consistency from fight to fight, and even round to round.
"Judges seem to be on a different page," said Hinds. "Whether they're up to speed on the current training, or they've been a judge for a long time, there's just a lot of inconsistency. What's being assessed per round, per judge seems to be quite different."
This has never been more prevalent than recently, as a number of high-profile fights have generated widespread discord amongst fans, fighters and even the promoters.
"Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown; none of these things are in the judging criteria," stated Hinds. " The biggest misconception about judging is what is supposed to be assessed, and in what order. People say 'he stole that round at the end with a takedown' -- that doesn't exist in judging."
Elaborating further, Hinds detailed the importance of the prioritized criteria.
"It's actually really simple; people are making this a lot more complicated than it really is," Hinds declared. "Judges don't judge fights, they judge rounds. It's about looking at the right things, in the right order. Things like aggression and cage control are further down the list than effective striking and effective grappling."
The inconsistencies in judging have led to many people criticizing the 10-point must system. Hinds, on the other hand, doesn't believe that the system is contributing to the problems.
"People are confused about what the 10-point must system really is," said Hinds. "It is only the numerical scoring of a round. Whatever system you have, 10- point must, 20-point must, half-point; it is only the scoring of a round. People say it's a boxing system, but the criteria and rules are specific to MMA. That's what the focus needs to be on, not the points per round. The judging criteria needs to be taught to all of the judges. The system itself is only saying who won and who lost."
When asked about how to handle poor-performing judges, Hinds did admit one of the limitations in MMA judging.
"It's subjective, but there definitely should be consequences," proclaimed Hinds. "It's not the numerical score; it's the explanation of the score for those rounds. If they explain the score based on the judging criteria, there really is no right or wrong."
Despite all of Hinds' efforts to spread the up-to-date information about judging criteria, it ultimately is up to the athletic commissions to ensure that officials are properly trained.
"There's not enough things in place to correct the issues," declared Hinds. "The ABC is a great organization; however, they are just a recommending body. They're role is to recommend rules and regulations. It's up to each athletic commission to adopt them and enforce them. If every state does things differently, we're never going to have consistency."
Hinds believes that there are ways to resolve the majority of the current dilemmas. However, many of the athletic commissions do not have the resources -- or the will -- to face the issues head on.
"Athletic commissions need to step up and require proper training for their officials, both old and new," said Hinds. "You don't want officials to develop those same habits that the sport has already evolved past. It's really not the judges' or the referees' fault. A big problem is that people doing the training don't always know what they're doing. Several athletic commissions have told me that they do in-house training once a year, and it's usually just someone who works for the commission that reads off a list of what's expected."
Another roadblock for increasing the quality of MMA officials is pay, or the lack thereof.
"Unless you do a major promotion, where they are willing to pay more money, officials get paid dirt and there's no (pay) scale," revealed Hinds. "You could be Herb Dean or Joe Blow -- working your first event -- you both get paid the same amount of money."
Further hindering the development of a new crop of educated officials is the amount of time and devotion it takes to work through the ranks.
"These days, everyone wants a fast track to become an MMA official," explained Hinds. "People don't want to put the time in. They need training on what is really supposed to happen as an official, but many are trying to shortcut the process. People take my classes and they think that they're ready to judge the UFC tomorrow. You don't take one class in med school and get to go into surgery the next day."
Many have speculated that the end-all solution to judging his former fighters stepping into the judge's chair. However, that may pose an entirely different set of circumstances.
"It's a conflict of interest because fighters are very biased," said Hinds. "Judges and referees are supposed to be 100 percent unbiased. When fighters watch each other fight they always say, 'I would have done this or I would've done that.' If you take that sort of thinking into judging, you're doing a disservice to the athletes because you are going in with a bias or strategy in your mind."
Hinds is not opposed to former fighters becoming officials, but he does not see any reason why it's a necessity. In fact, he feels that anyone can become an MMA official.
"It doesn't matter who you are or what walk of life you come from, if you're truly educated on the technical aspect of the fighting game -- the combination of the different martial arts -- and you are knowledgeable about the judging criteria, you can be a judge or referee."
For those unfamiliar with Hinds, since 1994 he has refereed over 4,000 fights and judged more than 650. Many of these have been on the big stage with the UFC, Bellator, the International Fight League and promotions in the greater-Chicago area. Additionally, Hinds has competed both professionally and as an amateur in numerous forms of martial arts. He runs Combat Consulting, LLC and offers ABC-approved referee and judge training for all levels. You can reach him on Twitter at @hindsmmareferee
TTT. Rob Hinds is the best. If you have the opportunity to take a seminar of his, I strongly recommend it.
I was expecting another goofy "how to fix judging" threads, but was pleasently surprised by a well informed and reasoned perspective.
Good read. Thanks.
zedlepln - I was expecting another goofy "how to fix judging" threads, but was pleasently surprised by a well informed and reasoned perspective.
Good read. Thanks.
I guess you weren't the only one, lol! Not a single post in 10 hrs!
Immaculata -zedlepln - I was expecting another goofy "how to fix judging" threads, but was pleasently surprised by a well informed and reasoned perspective.
Good read. Thanks.
I guess you weren't the only one, lol! Not a single post in 10 hrs!
I usually click on those threads for, if nothing else, entertainment value. My favorite was one earlier this year that suggested that decisions would be better reached if the judges were split up and not allowed to sit next to each other.
zedlepln -Immaculata -zedlepln - I was expecting another goofy "how to fix judging" threads, but was pleasently surprised by a well informed and reasoned perspective.
Good read. Thanks.
I guess you weren't the only one, lol! Not a single post in 10 hrs!
I usually click on those threads for, if nothing else, entertainment value. My favorite was one earlier this year that suggested that decisions would be better reached if the judges were split up and not allowed to sit next to each other.
Hah. There are a lot of crazy ideas out there, but, the bottom line is this sport has very few people who qualify to Judge. Ideally, you would want someone who has at least some experience in Boxing, Muy Thai, Karate. Wrestling and BJJ. Now you take that person and have them go thru a Robert Hinds seminar to understand the MMA Judging Criteria, and you'll have a qualified Judge.
I might actually attend one at some point. I started training MMA too old to compete.
zedlepln - I might actually attend one at some point. I started training MMA too old to compete.
It'll be nothing but helpful, trust me.
TTT.
ttt
Prioritized criteria!
Immaculata -zedlepln - I might actually attend one at some point. I started training MMA too old to compete.
It'll be nothing but helpful, trust me.
I had been thinking of attending a seminar somewhere last fall or this spring, but I bought an historical home and that's sucked up all my time and resources for the moment. I'll circle back to this idea sometime in the near future.
I have a ton of respect for Rob Hinds and pretty much agree 100% with everything, BUT ... this quote is befuddling:
"Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown; none of these things are in the judging criteria," stated Hinds. " The biggest misconception about judging is what is supposed to be assessed, and in what order. People say 'he stole that round at the end with a takedown' -- that doesn't exist in judging."
Anyone know what that's all about? "Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown" are all quite clearly listed and prioritized in the rules.
Uncle Justice - I have a ton of respect for Rob Hinds and pretty much agree 100% with everything, BUT ... this quote is befuddling:
"Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown; none of these things are in the judging criteria," stated Hinds. " The biggest misconception about judging is what is supposed to be assessed, and in what order. People say 'he stole that round at the end with a takedown' -- that doesn't exist in judging."
Anyone know what that's all about? "Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown" are all quite clearly listed and prioritized in the rules.
Thanks Uncle Justice for the compliment and your response.
My statement in regards to "being active, etc" was paraphrased (probably to not drag on my ramblings :)).
The point of what I was saying is that those reasonings ALONE do not/should not have any merit in rendering the assessment of a round.
1. It is the EFFECTIVENESS of the (legal) action, not just the action itself.
2. Those thoughts MUST be prioritized. At NO time can Effective Aggressiveness out weigh Effective Striking/Grappling.
We see all the time that people are picking and choosing what they feel is most important based on the "action" in the round.
That's absolutely not how it's supposed to be.
I hope this clarifies the statement in which you were referring.
rockethands33 -Uncle Justice - I have a ton of respect for Rob Hinds and pretty much agree 100% with everything, BUT ... this quote is befuddling:
"Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown; none of these things are in the judging criteria," stated Hinds. " The biggest misconception about judging is what is supposed to be assessed, and in what order. People say 'he stole that round at the end with a takedown' -- that doesn't exist in judging."
Anyone know what that's all about? "Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown" are all quite clearly listed and prioritized in the rules.
Thanks Uncle Justice for the compliment and your response.
My statement in regards to "being active, etc" was paraphrased (probably to not drag on my ramblings :)).
The point of what I was saying is that those reasonings ALONE do not/should not have any merit in rendering the assessment of a round.
1. It is the EFFECTIVENESS of the (legal) action, not just the action itself.
2. Those thoughts MUST be prioritized. At NO time can Effective Aggressiveness out weigh Effective Striking/Grappling.
We see all the time that people are picking and choosing what they feel is most important based on the "action" in the round.
That's absolutely not how it's supposed to be.
I hope this clarifies the statement in which you were referring.
Glad to hear someone talking about this. Too often way too much attention is placed on the action itself (ie takedowns) as opposed to the effectiveness of the actions. If fighter A gets a takedown against fighter B, but fighter B is able to get up without taking any damage or being threatened with any submissions, that takedown should have very little to do with the outcome of the round in regards to judging. It can be argued that fighter A scored "points" for control, but that control criteria should have far less impact than other criteria like effectiveness of technique.
That's also why the compu-strike stats are fairly worthless when they just show total strikes landed... the effectiveness of those strikes is far more important than the volume landed.
TTThank you for the response.
Glad to hear someone talking about this. Too often way too much attention is placed on the action itself (ie takedowns) as opposed to the effectiveness of the actions. If fighter A gets a takedown against fighter B, but fighter B is able to get up without taking any damage or being threatened with any submissions, that takedown should have very little to do with the outcome of the round in regards to judging. It can be argued that fighter A scored "points" for control, but that control criteria should have far less impact than other criteria like effectiveness of technique.
That's also why the compu-strike stats are fairly worthless when they just show total strikes landed... the effectiveness of those strikes is far more important than the volume landed.
Thank you for that. My point exactly. There are MANY other examples that we can go on for days discussing; but you have hit on some of the main trends in "assessment".
To your point:
1. There are no "points scored"
2. NONE of the metrics (Compustrike, etc) can measure the actual effectiveness of the action. The term "Power Strikes landed" offers absolutely nothing to an assessment of effectiveness.
I love seeing the fight metrics for fun; however, they're only a novelty.
GSP broke Koschek's orbital bone with a jab. Simply examining the technique used, it would not get counted under "Power Strikes landed."
The only striking metric statistical systems track is a count, hardly a substitute for effectiveness. Were that the key measure for mma, we could simply record speed bag times to award decisions.
1. There are no "points scored"
WHAT............. how is that?
Does "effectiveness" have a "black/white" result to be able to measure consistantly?
TTT.
rockethands33 -Thanks for clarifying Rob. You should get with the "other Rob" and have him correct that because it really stands out in contrast with the rest of the poignant perspectives.Uncle Justice - I have a ton of respect for Rob Hinds and pretty much agree 100% with everything, BUT ... this quote is befuddling:
"Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown; none of these things are in the judging criteria," stated Hinds. " The biggest misconception about judging is what is supposed to be assessed, and in what order. People say 'he stole that round at the end with a takedown' -- that doesn't exist in judging."
Anyone know what that's all about? "Being active, throwing more strikes, getting a takedown" are all quite clearly listed and prioritized in the rules.
Thanks Uncle Justice for the compliment and your response.
My statement in regards to "being active, etc" was paraphrased (probably to not drag on my ramblings :)).
The point of what I was saying is that those reasonings ALONE do not/should not have any merit in rendering the assessment of a round.
1. It is the EFFECTIVENESS of the (legal) action, not just the action itself.
2. Those thoughts MUST be prioritized. At NO time can Effective Aggressiveness out weigh Effective Striking/Grappling.
We see all the time that people are picking and choosing what they feel is most important based on the "action" in the round.
That's absolutely not how it's supposed to be.
I hope this clarifies the statement in which you were referring.
I'm interested in your feedback on my opinion: I believe everything but grappling and striking should be removed from the criteria entirely. First of all, no one even scores defense (with the one exception of defending a TD, which few acknowledge that it scores for control) and aggression and control are redundant.
Why? Because the only way aggression or control should score if it's EFFECTIVE. How can you know for sure if it's effective? It leads to effective offense (striking and/or grappling). So I propose we cut to the chase and just score effective striking and grappling.
As any sensible fan would do to justify their point, I wrote a poem about this idea from the standpoint of grappling and striking:
"Ode to Aggression"
written by Effective Striking and Effective Grappling
Ay me! Yon aggression, how you foul up the score
And from the dregs of the list! Of the lowest import
With your flailing haymakers, failed takedown attempts
Which don't make the damage, or even ... connect!
Thou art ruthless in spirit, yet empty of threat
Bamboozling yonder judges under the guise of "effective"
If successful you were, then your worth would be shown
By us! Through effective striking and grappling alone
Therefore we, the mighty kings of the scoring guidelines
Have wondered what it'd be like to bid you goodbye
Though inferior and annoying, because of it's role
We've decided we're gonna stick with effective control
No offense intended, but it would just make more sense
To drop you and your stupid friend "effective defense"
Then fisticuffs would be judged by only three elements
Since you last two are useless and just make a mess