MMA Gospel - After Couture vs. Vera UD at UFC 105, It's Clear MMA Judging is Arbitrary

After watching the main event between “The Natural” Randy Couture (17-10) and “Truth” Brandon Vera (11-4) at UFC 105 in Manchester Saturday, I realized that MMA judging is clearly arbitrary.

Randy won a unanimous decision with scores of 29-28, 30-27, and 30-27.  This decision, along with the fight between Fighters.com and UFC Light Heavyweight Champion “Dragon” Lyoto Machida (16-0) and third-ranked “Shogun” Mauricio Rua (18-4) made me wonder just what the judges are looking for and scoring during a fight.

The criteria for judging a mixed martial arts fight, according to the Nevada State Athletic Commission is as follows: Clean Strikes, effective grappling, Octagon control, and effective aggressiveness.

What jumped out at me at first was the term “effective” Randy Couture did not have effective grappling in the fight. He used a clinch to push Vera against the cage (an argument can be made that he had Octagon control, but more on that later) but was never able to get him to the mat, whereas, in the third round, Vera managed to effectively take down Randy and pass to full mount.

How about effective aggressiveness you may ask?  This, per the NSAC, is defined as: “Who is moving forward and finding success. (scoring)  Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended-off is not effective aggressiveness.”

So, using the proper criteria, did Randy do enough to win two, let alone all three rounds? He did move forward and clinch against the cage, but never scored much from that position. He attempted take downs, but got countered, thus giving Vera the edge in effective aggressiveness according to the strict NSAC guidelines.

The next criteria is Octagon control which is: “The fighter who is dictating the pace, place, and position of the fight. A striker who fends off a grappler’s takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is Octagon control. A grappler who can take down an effective standing striker to ground fight is Octagon control. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount, or clean striking opportunities.”

Many believe Randy to have won this category. He did dictate where the fight took place by using the clinch against the cage. However, Brandon fended off his take down attempts, he took Randy down and went to mount. So, of the four parts that make up Octagon control, Randy owned one while Brandon was better at three of them. Thus giving Vera the edge in octagon control as well. Brandon Vera has now won three of the four criteria used in judging a fight per the NSAC.

However, we heard Cecil Peoples say he scores on who’s trying to finish a fight, not on number of strikes landed. I may have missed the part in the NSAC regulations that I have in front of me that states anything about trying to finish a fight. This is what leads me to believe scoring is arbitrary. There is a clear definition of what to look for and the order of importance with effective aggressiveness factored in last. It is the criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is imperative for the judges to look at the scoring first. Trying to finish a fight is effective aggressiveness as I have come to understand it. Landing leg kicks that essentially take away your opponents ability to strike and score effectively, as Mauricio Rua did to Lyoto Machida at UFC 104, is the essence of clean strikes. The leg kicks were both effective and efficient as per the NSAC guidelines.

After listening to Mr. Peoples and watching the two fights I have discussed, it is clear to me the judges are using their own criteria for scoring fights and not strictly following the guidelines laid out very clearly to them. In combat sports we have always had and will continue to have close decisions that people will argue about. As fans, journalists, and fighters, we need to speak loud and clear to the athletic commisions. Judges need to be held to a higher standard and someone needs to ensure they are scoring based on the correct guidelines and not based on the fact that it is Randy Couture in the cage or the fact that it is a title fight. Cecil Peoples proves by his comments that he is not scoring based on the proper criteria.

As the host of MMA Gospel Radio I did a segment called “Save MMA” where I discussed a few things we need to see in mixed martial arts to ensure a bright future for a sport instead of the dim situation we currently see in boxing. One of those ideas is to make the judges get a national certification rather than state-to-state certification. Included in this idea was that, in order to keep said certification, all judges must attend an evaluation course three times a year. The evaluation will consist of watching a fight and all judges will score the fight. The the scores will need to be defended in front of their colleagues using the guidelines they are to be following. This would help to eliminate a judge using his or her own criteria. If a judge is found to be scoring incorrect, that judge would be put on a probation period. If they continue to fights outside of the confines of the rules and regulations then their certification is revoked until they can demonstrate appropriate knowledge of the scoring system.

In the end, we can eliminate the arbitrary scoring we are currently seeing in mixed martial arts today. Then and only then can MMA step-up to take it’s place as the best sport in the world.

Reverend Turk Vangel, Gary Friedman, and Drew Hall will welcome Zack Mickelwright (9-1) to Saturday’s MMA Gospel Radio broadcast.  Listen live and join us in the chat room at www.blogtalkradio.com/mmagospel Saturday between 6:00 and 8:00 PM.