Changes need to be made. ASAP. Sunday’s co-main event in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil was yet another case of the wrong fighter getting the nod as a result of ambiguous judging criteria.
Despite (in my opinion) landing the more telling strikes and showing a far more effective offence, Lyoto Machida found himself on the losing end to Phil Davis at UFC 163.
I had Machida winning the first round (it was close) and the third round (by a landslide) for a total of 29-28.
Davis was the busier fighter in round two and was rewarded accordingly.
In July 2012, the Associate of Boxing Commissioners released a revision of MMA’s judging criteria.
While I believe that the changes were very positive, it seems that Sunday’s judges had missed the memo.
I believe that there were three main problems with the judging in Rio:
1. ‘Octagon control’ wasn’t given its due
One of the judging criteria that Mike Goldberg outlines at the beginning of every card is ‘Octagon control’.
Simply put, the fighter that dictates the fight’s pace and placement should be awarded points. Aside from getting taken down at the end of the first two rounds, Machida dictated the fight’s rhythm and pace during the striking phases.
His footwork and counter attacks had Davis missing, in addition to the stuffed takedowns in Round 3.
While effective defence is not a criterion for scoring, coupled with effective offense it is a good indication of who is controlling the fight.
2. Takedowns were given too much credit
After the first round, Davis’ game plan became obvious: steal the round with a final-minute takedown.
While the concept of stealing a round is nothing new in combat sports (see: Hagler versus Leonard), one takedown shouldn’t negate the previous four and half minutes.
I believe that for a takedown to be deemed effective, the fighter has to either land in a dominant position or follow up with some damage.
Davis accomplished neither, and therefore his takedowns should not have counted as much as they did. Simply landing a takedown to win a round takes away from the fighting aspect. If a fighter isn’t looking to do damage/finish, then it becomes a mere points game.
3. Judges don’t understand the striking game
While it is true that Davis landed more total strikes, it was Machida who landed the more telling/significant shots.
Striking isn’t a numbers game – it’s a matter of hitting, not getting hit and doing more damage than the other guy all at once.
Yes, Machida didn’t do himself any favours with his back-pedalling but he was counter-attacking and doing more damage.
Hence, his retreating aggression was far more effective in comparison to Davis’more visually appealing attempts.
I am not a fight judge and I know that scoring from my couch is easier than doing it cage-side. Still, I believe that the core of the problem lies with the athletic commissions’ vague criteria and the amount of training that they give their judges.
Yes, MMA is a relatively new sport but the judging is still far from ideal. At the end of the day, the old fighter’s adage still rings true – never leave it in the hands of the judges.
What’s your best bet? For great odds on all your favourite sports check out PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
It’s a pretty good time to be a Tasmanian sports fan right now. After years in the sporting wilderness with not much to celebrate,…
Olympic swimming legend and Australian Sports Commission boss Kieren Perkins has warned that "someone will die" if a multi-sport event that allows athletes to…
In 2015 when heavyweight boxer Tyson Fury beat Wladimir Klitschko, the fighter regarded by many as the ‘Greatest of all time’ in the sport,…
Join Australia's most vibrant online sports community and you have the chance to win $1000. The Roar is the perfect blend of sports reporting,…
Here is a review of our boxers who made a splash in the world rankings over the past year.
After intense debate at Roar HQ, we’ve selected the 23 most controversial moments for 2023.
