If these guys can fuck up a 3 point system, how is a 6 point system going to work? Train the judges how to judge MMA....that would be a great start.
This is true. I was reading Mr Meltzer's newsletter and he had good views on the scoring. Under the UFC judging Rampage beat Machida but under Pride scoring Machida would have won (assuming he did not get yellow carded)
Here is his views
An overall lackluster fight saw the first round even, the second round close with Jackson winning, and the third round Machida winning by a good margin. It came down to round one, which was a coin flip, and Jackson was the recipient of the coin flip based on two of the three judges in round one. Machida landed more solid strikes in the round, but Jackson was the aggressor. You could reasonably argue either way and I had it scored 29-28 for Jackson.
Jackson deservedly won the fight based on the rules they were playing under, even if he himself said after the fight that he was the one who got his ass kicked, was surprised he won and immediately said that Machida deserved a rematch. Machida accepted the rematch, but after the fight, Dana White said there wouldn?t be a rematch, since Jackson had in his mind won two of the three rounds and the fight, without any controversy. Plus, the fight was not particularly exciting.
In theory, Machida would have won under Pride rules. If I was scoring based on the system in place where you aren?t supposed to give 10-10s (which the first round was close to being), I did give Jackson the first round based on being the aggressor even though Machida landed more clean shots. Thus I?d have 29-28 for Jackson. After the show in the media room, the consensus seemed to be Jackson won based on how fights are judged right now, but that Machida actually won ?the fight.?
Under Pride rules, where you judge the fight as a whole, and given priority to the closest to finish, Machida wins easily, although it would have been a different fight under those rules because Pride had more frequent stalling penalties and Machida would have gotten carded in the first round and maybe again based on his being the one dancing around looking for counters. Using the half-point system, and with even rounds allowed to be judged, I?d have gone 10-10, 9.5-10 and 10-9, giving Machida the win. If they had a stigma about 10-10 rounds, using the half-point system, I?ve have had it a draw. In post-show discussion, it was clear that the company doesn?t want draws in main events, and that has been used as an argument against half-point scoring is that in theory there would be more draws.
The crowd, heavily pro-Jackson, with Machida being booed more than anyone on the show (except for Nik Lentz when he won his fight), had no problem with the decision. Fightmetric had the fight a draw, with the first round a 10-10 (which really would have been the fairest score of that round, but judges don?t have that option). For the fight as a whole, while Jackson landed more actual strikes (70-53), most were insignificant busy work in the clinch. Significant strikes saw Machida have a 33-16 edge for the fight, 12-5 in round one for Machida, 8-7 in round two for Machida and 13-4 in round three for Machida. However, Jackson was the aggressor in the first two rounds with Machida often backpedaling and avoiding action. Both scored a takedown, Jackson in round two and Machida in round three. Our poll had 65% for Jackson and 35% for Machida, but that?s probably based on the ten point must system where as fights are judged now, Jackson in my mind deserved the win. But to me there is a big problem with the system when the guy who won the fight overall loses based on the limitations of the current scoring system.
The timing of these two bouts leads once again to discussions of the judging system because of the obvious flaw in the system that most judges talk openly about. Not every judge agrees with the change to the half-point system, but the majority do, and it?s judges themselves trying to spearhead the change. It won?t eliminate the problem the current system has, but will significantly reduce it. The only system that eliminates the problem of the person who the judge thinks wins the fight getting the most points on their scorecard is the old UFC system of judges picking the winner at the end based on the overall fight, which Pride used and which will never be accepted by athletic commissions because of boxing and a tradition of point totals in decisions.
The flaw here is if you have the equivalent of in collegiate wrestling a 0-0 first period, a 1-1 second period, and a 9-1 third period, instead of the guy winning on points, 10-2, winning the fight, the judges, who are strongly pushed not to vote for tie rounds, could give one guy the 10-9 score in both the first two periods, and with the reluctance of giving 10-8s, the guy who wins 10-2 in the third could overall lose 29-28 by this ten point must method of scoring. That?s an admittedly extreme example of what could happen. And international wrestling has actually changed to a version of two of three rounds instead of overall points, although it can?t get as extreme as MMA because it still has tech falls. Usually in MMA it?s also not going to be that extreme, but the system does allow for it to happen, and the same situation could have happened in a situation exactly as extreme in last year?s Tito Ortiz vs. Forrest Griffin fight.
But in Tyson Griffin-Lentz, you would have to give Lentz every benefit of the doubt to make those first two rounds any better than even. Really, if you scored significant moves, takedowns, major damage, etc. they?d be equivalent to Griffin 4-2 in round one, Griffin 2-1 in the second and Griffin 7-3 in the third, so essentially it?s a 13-6 score based on takedowns, knockdowns, near submissions and effective flurries. Somehow out of all that, Griffin lost the fight. By the same standard, Jackson-Machida was an 0-0 first round, 2-1 for Jackson in round two and 4-1 Machida in round three. Not a robbery by any means, but still the guy who had the most successful offense lost the fight.
