If October 2009 were to be memorialized in the MMA history book, then it might as well garner the dubious honor of “the month of controversial decisions.”
The decisions rendered in the bouts between Donald Cerrone and Ben Henderson at WEC 43 and between Lyoto Machida and Mauricio “Shogun” Rua at UFC 104 have incited a storm of debate.
Though MMA is no stranger to skewered results, Cerrone-Henderson and Machida-Rua have galvanized some in the fighting community to question the existing scoring system under the Unified Rules.
The round-by-round ten-point-must system has come under fire before: Those who call for the reform often point to the system used in Japan by organizations such as DREAM and now defunct PRIDE FC as an alternative.
Contrary to the ten-point “must” system, fights are scored in their entirety by three judges, not on a round-by-round basis, under the system used by DREAM. Also, while the judging criteria include effective striking, effective grappling, overall aggression, and ring control, there is an emphasis on the attempt to finish the fight.
The system used by DREAM has legitimate merits. Scoring the fight as a seamless continuum of action rather than a series of neatly partitioned segments allows for a more holistic evaluation.
Also, valuing submission attempts and doing damage above simply getting takedowns and landing more strikes is consistent with what is truly important in any real fight.
Nevertheless, the advocates of this system must be aware that, as clichéd as it sounds, no judging system is free of flaws and occasional hiccups occur under any system. The DREAM 11 bout between Bibiano Fernandes and Hiroyuki Takaya illustrates this tellingly.
The furor over Fernandes-Takaya, which took place earlier in the month, never reached remotely the same level as Cerrone-Henderson or Machida-Shogun, especially in North America; however, in light of the debates about the current judging system under the unified rules, the outcome of the DREAM bout between Fernandes and Takaya warrants an examination.
At DREAM 11, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu phenom, Bibiano Fernandes met the gritty brawler, Hiroyuki Takaya in the final round of the promotion’s featherweight grand prix.
The fight unfolded as a spirited, fast-paced striking match. Takaya quickly emerged as the aggressor and the more polished striker of the two: He picked apart Fernandes with superior techniques in the exchange of heavy punches.
He also demonstrated sound takedown defense, stuffing Fernandes’ takedown and quickly scrambling back to his feet when the fight hit the mat.
Fernandes had his moments in both round 1 and 2. In the first round, he got a takedown and secured a back mount in the ensuing scramble. While he forced Takaya to fend off chokes, the prolonged lull in action forced the referee to call a break in action.
In the second round, he floored Takaya with an overhand right counterpunch and secured a back mount in the scramble. Again, Takaya defended well and the referee called for the resumption of stand-up action.
After 15 minutes of action, Fernandes won the tournament crown with a split decision victory.
The decision came as a surprise to many: It appears that Fernandes’ spurts of momentum have ultimately swayed the judges in his favor.
While attempts to finish fights are rated highly under the DREAM’s scoring system, they must be weighed in the context of the entire fight. Fernandes showed a few instances of offensive threat, but Takaya undoubtedly inflicted more cumulative damage and controlled the pace of the fight.
Speaking of “cumulative damage,” a fighter can land pitter-patter strikes throughout the fight in an attempt to outpoint his opponent. If such were the case for Takaya, then giving more weight to Fernandes’ flush knockdown and success in securing dominant position than to Takaya’s series of non-threatening punches bears credibility.
As for the strikes Takaya landed throughout the fight, pitter-patter punches they were not.
In fact, Takaya landed heavy, unanswered shots throughout the fight. For example, at the end of the first round, he landed a clean one-two combination and followed up with a huge right hook that opened a sizable cut above Fernandes’ right eye.
While Fernandes swung for the fences without quite finding the target, Takaya picked him apart with crisp punch-kick combinations, weaving powerful punches in the mix.
To Fernandes credit, he demonstrated a rock-solid chin and remained standing and swinging until the very end. Likewise, Fernandes’ perseverance testifies to Takaya’s prevalence in the stand-up battle: Fighters with weaker chins may have crumbled whereas Fernandes survived.
The two occasions in which Fernandes secured a back mount have also reflected favorably on the judges’ score card. Submission attempts are valued under DREAM’s judging system, but Takaya was never in the danger of being submitted. On both occasions, he defended himself well from Fernandes’ choke attempts and a prolonged lull in action prompted the referee to call a break in the action.
Given the inherent subjectivity in judging, the rationale behind giving Fernandes the nod is inscrutable. Yet, if anything can be gleaned from the decision, two judges seem to have shown selective bias by focusing on the few instances in which Fernandes, who was losing the stand-up exchange, turned the tide.
One can only speculate whether the two judges unwittingly let Fernandes’ flashes of momentum override the accumulated damage Takaya inflicted or picked the winner based on “who came closest to finishing the fight at any point during the fight.”
The former demonstrates the fallibility of human judgment. The subjectivity in judging leads to varying degrees of distortion. Efforts can be made to minimize distortion by making the judging criteria as clear and reliable as possible, but subjectivity in judging is inevitable.
It is debatable if the judges are more susceptible to the pitfalls of subjectivity and selective memory when judging the fights in their entirety rather than round by round.
In the case of the latter, there needs to be a clarification or scrutiny of the judging criteria: What purpose do criteria such as accumulated damage and control of the fight, in light of scoring the fight in its entirety, serve if all that matters is who had the moments during which he came closer to finishing?
Whether the decision in the Fernandes-Takaya bout is a result of biased judging or an indictment of DREAM’s judging system, it nonetheless demonstrates that the system is not immune from problematic factors that lead to dubious decisions.
The subjectivity in judging will always be a thorn in the side of fighters who end up on the short end of a contested decision. Also, regardless of the system in use, due diligence must be applied to ensure that the judges, referees, and any other party involved (i.e. athletic commission, fighters) are on the same page with regard to the interpretation of the judging criteria.
The round-by-round ten-points-must system has obvious flaws, as many have rightfully pointed out.
While an improvement to the system is overdue, a replacement with the system used in DREAM and other Japanese organizations must be approached with great caution: It is far from perfect, as evidenced by some of the dubious decisions seen in DREAM and its predecessor, PRIDE. Also, if not properly implemented, it will exacerbate, rather than ameliorate the issues that currently exist with MMA judging.
