MMA Judge: “Randy got his a$$ kicked”

The crew over at The Curtis and Kyle Show came through for us once again.  This time around they got an exclusive with a pro MMA judge that was willing to give this thoughts about the UFC 105 Randy Couture fight, MMA rules, and how to fix the judging problems in the sport!

The entire post can be found at this link

We have permission to share…Here ya go!

Last week Randy Couture won again.  He seemed to control most of the fight and won by decision.  Everyone loves Randy Couture, but an overwhelming amount of people thought he stole this win!  After the fight I had a very interesting chat with a professional MMA judge.  He requested to stay anonymous, so we are going to respect his wishes.  Here is what he had to say about the Randy fight, and judging the sport of MMA.

Again, we aren’t going to say his name for obvious reasons, but he is a pro MMA judge.  I can’t be specific, but you have seen some of the fights he has judged on television.  We are going to call him Mr. Manning.

Mr. Manning “I think I should clarify the scoring system for the “amateur judges” out there. As quoted by the NSAC.”

Judging Criteria
1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it’s full time limit based upon the following criteria:
-Clean Strikes
-Effective Grappling
-Octagon Control
-Effective Aggressiveness

- Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of “higher quality”, than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking.

- Effective Grappling
1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean take down and active guard position.
2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly take down his opponent, is effectively grappling.
3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple, through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous defense from the top fighter.
4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.
5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the preceding situations were met.(items 2-4)
6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored the clean take down deserves the round.
7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean take down in effective grappling

- Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler’s take down attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can take down an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

- Effective Aggressiveness
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring)
2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
5. Shooting take downs and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness.

- Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded. Judges shall recognize that it isn’t how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it
in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

Please remember this is the actual judging criteria, not what the UFC puts out before the event but then again they are not the judges. A Key note is in the “- Criteria Evaluation line 1? it states “Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.” So you can think what ever you want about the fight, based on the actual judging guidelines of the athletic commission Randy(as much as I love him) got his ass kicked.

I also talked to him in depth about the UFC showing preferential treatment to specific fighters (Machida, Couture, Etc).  He felt very strongly that the UFC is doing nothing of the sort, that many of their judges are “just a bunch of boxing judges that don’t know MMA, just boxing.

We also talked about fixing these problems.  He explained that the athletic commissions are one entity for MMA and Boxing.  There are far more Boxing judges than MMA judges in most commissions.  Bad decisions will never completely go away, but one way to greatly reduce the number of them is to separate the two commissions.  Make them two different agencies that control their own sport, letting each expert work in their own area of expertise.

The crew at C and K want to thank Mr. Manning for his time and thoughts.  It is nice to get an unbiased look behind the scenes, and hope to hear more from him in the future.