Three judges are not enough. Fighters continuously blame themselves for letting the fight go to the judges or not finishing the fight themselves. Why? If a fighter executes his game plan and all the fans in attendance and the millions watching at home know he has outperformed his opponent why should he not be granted the victory? This is not a problem that happens with great frequency, but when it does happen it can be career changing. Unlike professional baseball or basketball every fight has a significant impact on a fighter’s career. Even more so now with top prospects getting UFC contracts only 5 fights into their mixed martial arts career. There are not a lot Jeremy Horn (over 100 professional fights) left in the sport. The good thing is that there is an easy solution to this problem; add two judges.
With only two more people they can help eliminate the Matt Hamill/Michael Bisping decisions of the world. Before I begin my argument I want to make two obvious and necessary statements. I am an idiot. Not really (I hope), but I am definitely not an expert. While I work in sports, baseball, I do not know the intricacies of the governing bodies or organizations that put together fights. I am sure there are many reasons that make an extra two judges difficult. My only hope is that the “slippery slope” argument is not one of them. If 5 judges become the norm and someone (meeeee!!!) makes the argument for 7 judges later on then you deal with that later on.
Statement number two: this is not a huge problem. There are definitely more pressing issues in mixed martial arts, but this problem appears to have an easy solution. If a patient comes into a hospital with a broken arm the doctor will still give him Advil for his headache. Horrible analogy granted, but the point remains valid. Even with 5 judges things will not be perfect, but it will be better.
Channeling my research statistics I know that if a study increases its sample size then the rate of error is lowered. For all you mathematicians, I know that is not always the case and if there is a strong representative sample then increasing the sample size does not matter, but who cares what you have to say. Everyone hates your classes anyways; take that Mr. Swatt. However, when dealing with something completely subjective such as judging martial arts fights increasing the sample size will reduce the error. Olympic/Amateur boxing is a great example of why 5 judges are necessary and why 5 judges work. They have a specific set of rules on how to award to points (less subjective) and they still use more judges. And points are not awarded unless three of five judges agree on the issue. Apparently the Olympics believe that a 2/3 majority is not enough to validate a point, but MMA thinks it is enough to validate a victory. Another reason they use 5 judges, I arrogantly presume, is because the fights are shorter.
Professional boxing fights can go 12 rounds at the highest level (WBO, IBF, etc…) while amateur fights go 3 or 4 rounds. I am not positive of the amateur round lengths since I watch boxing twice a year. The day I feel nostalgic for Punch Out and the day I throw Fight Night Round 3 in. Dodge, uppercut, dodge, uppercut, dodge, KO, what what! Back to the point, when you have 12 rounds the fighters have more time to separate themselves. When there are only 3 or 4 rounds the scores are obviously going to be closer. This is the same when it comes to judges; the more you have the less likely there will be mistakes. Similar to the amateur boxing matches, mixed martial arts at their highest level (UFC title fights) can go 5 rounds. With the majority of decisions not even going five rounds there is very little time for the fighters to separate. With the rounds of MMA fights being closer to amateur boxing as opposed to professional boxing the amount of judges should relate.
I know this is not a huge dilemma, but I feel for the fighters who clearly won the fight and lose on a garbage split decision. To be honest, I think it is more important to fix the problem of how fights are judged, but this would be an easier fix. Consider this a band aid solution when we eventually need stitches. Anyone can put on a band aid (simple) to slow the bleeding, but a doctor needs to place stitches (more difficult) to heel the wound. The band aid helps, but is not the final solution. Apparently you should get used to bad analogies, but I promise the medical subject will not be a reoccurring theme.
I am also sure that someone with more extensive knowledge will squash and critique my opinion in about 5 seconds. I could care less because I was either going to write this as I watch a 50-1 horse win the derby or lay on my couch with my hand gently nestled between my pants and boxers as I watch a 50-1 horse win the derby. What, it isn’t touching. Anyways, here is to less frustrating decisions and career changing crimes. Good thing this problem will not affect the best pound for pound fighter in the world from destroying Rashad Evans at UFC 98.
No comments:
Post a Comment