UFC 247 wasn’t without controversy as the scoring was called into question all night, including in the main event, where light heavyweight champion Jon Jones escaped with a unanimous decision win over Dominick Reyes, much to the chagrin of many observers. The outcome has sparked outrage from many in the MMA community, who are looking for answers to the issue of incompetent judges.
One suggestion to gain traction on social media has been open scoring, which would allow everyone – fellow judges, fighters, coaches, fans, etc. – to know the scores of each round as a fight unfolds. But is this really the solution the sport needs? MMA Junkie’s John Morgan, Farah Hannoun and Danny Segura sound off in this latest edition of Triple Take.
****
John Morgan: So many reasons why open scoring is a bad idea
I’ll be honest: I don’t really understand all the clamoring for open scoring. It’s been tested in combat sports, and no one who used it ever elected to keep it as a permanent change. Award-winning combat sports journalist Kevin Iole has covered boxing for more than 40 years, and he is adamantly opposed to the idea, as he expressed on social media Saturday when former UFC champ Max Holloway proposed the idea on Twitter.
Iole doubled down on the notion when UFC broadcaster Jon Anik joined the discussion.
Veteran broadcasters who have utilized the system before didn’t exactly chime in with support, either. GLORY Kickboxing’s Todd Grisham made his position clear.
When Grisham asked for support in his position, veteran journalist and broadcaster Michael Stets was happy to oblige.
The arguments against open scoring are plenty. The possibility of judges seeing their round scores differing from their peers and then trying to rectify the error by leaning a different way in subsequent rounds is a real possibility. Ditto for when fan feedback comes in from the posted scores.
While it might seem like a stretch, judge safety is an issue, as well. If the crowd doesn’t like a particular round score, what’s to stop them from hurling objects in the judges’ direction, potentially injuring people cageside or at least delaying the event? Again, that might seem like a stretch on first mention, but we’re only five months removed from Mexico City fans pelting the octagon with debris after Yair Rodriguez vs. Jeremy Stephens was declared a no contest at UFC on ESPN+ 17.
Speaking of fouls, consider how open scoring could conceivably influence how a fighter handles being struck with an illegal blow during a contest. If a fighter knows he’s up 20-18 heading into the final frame of a three-round contest and is hit with a kick to the groin, what motivation is there to carry on fighting? Simply state that you can’t continue while holding your crotch and wincing a lot, and you’ve just guaranteed yourself a victory when it’s directed to the judges’ scorecards.
Look just two months back for a real example of how this could play out, when respected referee Dan Miragliotta told an ailing Stefan Struve, “You’re probably winning both rounds,” as the heavyweight sat frustrated on the canvas after receiving multiple low blows while deciding if he wanted to continue at UFC on ESPN 7. Since it was still in the second round, Struve could have elected to take a no contest. He didn’t, but would knowing the score at that time have changed his approach?
Had it been the third round, Struve would have known exactly where the bout result stood and made his decision accordingly. Down on the cards? Better carry on and try to turn the thing around. Up on the cards? Take the ‘W’ and go put some ice on your little “Skyscraper.”
How about eye pokes? Everyone in the sport knows if you tell an official you can’t see, the fight is over. How would knowing exactly what result you would receive by saying those words not impact a fighter’s willingness to continue when given the option to walk away with a guaranteed win without additional fighting?
There are more arguments to be had in terms of fighter performance. If an athlete knows without question he or she is ahead on the cards, there could be a considerable temptation to simply cruise, impacting the entertainment value of the fight. The same could be said for the moment the results are read – not much tension or hand-wringing at that moment when the scores have been posted throughout.
But rather than arguing against open scoring, I’d just like to hear someone explain how implementing that policy would improve the accuracy of decisions. If we’re complaining that judges simply aren’t identifying the proper winner of a round, then how does their score being posted live in an arena make that any better?
Short answer: It doesn’t.
If judges’ scores weren’t ever posted, then I would say that open scoring would be a must. But judges’ scores are made available shortly after each bout, leaving them publicly accountable for their decisions. Now, how accountable the commissions are keeping these judges – reconciling scores against expected outcomes and determining judging accuracy, for instance, or requiring continuing education through workshops and bout reviews both in and out of their jurisdiction – that certainly leaves something to be desired.
But until I hear one good argument as to how open scoring could potentially ensure better, more accurate results from judges, then I’ll stand against it.
Next page – Farah Hannoun: It can’t hurt for fighters to know where they stand
Farah Hannoun: It can’t hurt for fighters to know where they stand
We often see controversy during the scoring of MMA fights, but UFC 247 was one of the worst in recent memory.
It was a night filled with questionable decisions, but none came at a larger cost than the headliner between UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones and challenger Dominick Reyes.
Jones defeated Reyes via unanimous decision on all three judges’ scorecards in a fight that many believed Reyes should have won. The biggest outrage was how one of the three judges scored the fight 49-46 (4-1 in terms of rounds) for Jones.
So how can we prevent such an outcome? Open scoring might cause some inconsistencies and fighters to coast, but at least it will allow them to know where they stand. Close rounds can be tough to score. Does a takedown outweigh the strikes thrown by the other fighter? Were the strikes damaging? Was it a 10-8 or 10-9 round? These are all subject to opinion, but if a fighter knew going into the later rounds whether or not they were winning, at least they could do something about it.
Now, of course, that’s easier said than done, and you can only understand how it feels if you’re in there, but at least you can come out with a sense of urgency knowing, for example, that you might have to finish the fight to win. Fighters’ corners often try to provide opinions on how the fight is being scored, which ends up being detrimental to their fighters at times.
While you can’t control the judges’ opinions, you can control how you fight, so if you’re aware of how the fight is being scored, it’s not too late to adjust your gameplan. It could be reckless, and it won’t solve a potential ludicrous scorecard from a judge, but at least a fighter will know where they stand and can take matters into their own hands while the fight is still unfolding.
That counts for something.
Next page – Danny Segura: Not open to open scoring, and here’s why
Danny Segura: Not open to open scoring, and here’s why
The UFC 247 main event between Jon Jones and Dominick Reyes sure was controversial.
The idea of Jones beating Reyes seemed inevitable going into UFC 247. However, leaving the third round and heading into the fourth during Saturday’s UFC light heavyweight title fight, the thought of Jones defeating Reyes certainly was in jeopardy.
Whether you scored it for Jones or Reyes, the sentiment among the combat sports world was the same – it was damn close. That’s why there’s so much outrage on Joe Soliz’s 49-46 scorecard favoring the champion. Since that terrible decision, many have suggested alternate ways to judge and score MMA.
Open scoring has been a popular answer to fix the broken system in MMA. Although there are plenty of benefits, I find it hard to execute. It could make judging more complex than it already is.
Judges could be influenced by seeing their peers’ scores after each round. A judge who sees his score conflicting with the rest could doubt how they’re seeing and judging the fight, giving an edge – or taking one away – to a fighter in the coming rounds.
It could work in case one judge is scoring poorly, but what if two of them are judging incorrectly? That could possibly make the competent judge doubt what he or she is seeing.
Also, fans can put pressure on judges if they’re not scoring the fight properly, but also not favorably for the fighter they support. Fans are fans. They’re not supposed to be unbiased. And when they have access to the scoring during a fight, fans can taint an official’s view of fights.
We don’t need judges to agree all the time. In fact, they won’t. But we do need judges to score fights appropriately. MMA’s issues with scoring go beyond transparency. Open scoring can give fighters more control of the fight, but it won’t solve bad judging – and could present new problems and issues to the current system.
