Last year Chuck Liddell, the biggest star in UFC, fought Keith Jardine in the main event at UFC 76. If you missed it, you can watch it on YouTube here and here.Jardine won by split decision, with two judges giving him the fight 29-28 and one judge giving it to Liddell 29-28. I scored the fight live and gave it to Jardine 29-28, and I felt like I was being generous to Liddell by having it that close. Jardine absolutely won the fight, and as I wrote immediately afterward, it's hard to imagine what the judge who scored the fight for Liddell was thinking.
That fight is long past, and maybe there's no reason to even bring it up again. But the great FightMetric.com has done a statistical analysis of the fight, and it raises the question, once again, of what judge Marcos Rosales, who scored it for Liddell, was thinking. Jardine simply dominated the fight, and the more detailed analysis done by Fight Metric only backs up what everyone who watched the fight saw.
So what was Rosales thinking? I wouldn't suggest anything untoward, but I would suggest that there are too many judges -- in all sports where judges exist -- who favor the bigger star in the competition. Whether consciously or subconsciously, there's a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the competitor who has accomplished more in the sport. And that's wrong. Judges need to be impartial, and a judge who can't be impartial shouldn't be a judge.
So was this a one-time lapse by Rosales, or does he always favor the bigger star? I don't know, because in mixed martial arts, we've never had the necessary data to make such an assessment. Thanks to Fight Metric, that data is now being collected.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-13-2008 @ 8:24PM
ufc fan said...
I thought liddell had the upper hand if you ask me.
round 1: liddell
round 2: jardine
round 3: liddell
Just because most people scored in favour of Jardine doesn't mean everyone should score that way... A judge just needs to be consistent in his scoring round to round. Your article is pointless.
Reply
4-13-2008 @ 9:17PM
JoeT said...
I gave the nod to Liddell, but doesn't matter, he's the big name and money maker.
http://www.fromthecage.com
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 1:29AM
Jim Murphy said...
Judging in both boxing and MMA is very subjective. I have a hard time accusing any judge of blatant 'favoritism' unless they've got an envelope full of bribe money in their hand. I heard the same thing about the Pacquaio/Marquez boxing match a few weeks ago--some people thought it was completely obvious that Marquez won. I thought it completely obvious that Pacquaio won. As you're well aware the official instructions for judges are pretty open ended. This allows a judge to set his own criteria which I might not agree with but can't be categorically described as "wrong" if it yields a result that my criteria doesn't. In Pacquaio/Marquez there were a lot of close "tough to score" rounds. My personal criteria is that in an otherwise even round (most athletic commissions discourage scoring a round 'even') I'll give it to the fighter who's most closely fighting the pace and style he wants. Others would say that my approach is wrong--that a judge should be a "tabula rasa" and only evaluate what he sees transpiring in the ring. "Outside" information--like what pace and style has historically favored a particular fighter--is beyond the purview of fight judging.
MMA judging is even less structured--even something as simple as scoring a knockdown becomes difficult. Here's an example I like to give--a powerful striker is fighting a ground fighting/submission master. Round 1 starts, the fighters meet in the center of the ring, striker throws a punch and down goes the ground fighter. Striker pounces on him to finish up only to see GroundFighter gain control and dominate the rest of the round on the ground. Round 2 and 3--same thing: striker knocks groundfighter down right after the opening bell, and after that the groundfighter is in control.
So how do you score this? A judge could score it a lopsided 30-24 striker (giving him an extra point per knockdown) or you could score it 30-27 groundfighter (since he dominated 4:55 seconds of every round) and neither would be "wrong". The bigger story here is that the '10 point must system' is a poor fit for MMA, but that's a different discussion for a different day.
In the Liddell case, I agree that Jardine won but if a judge placed a lower value on leg kicks its no longer a sure thing.
IMO, this is part of the fun of being a fight fan--even when they're doing their job properly you can never be 100% sure of their judging criteria.
And assuming that a judge *did* give a close round to Liddell, so what? That's part of the job--they've got the right to establish their own judging criteria be it concious or subconcious. Perhaps they had the mindset that Jardine had to "take the fight" to Liddell, much as a challenger has to *take* the champions title, and gave him the benefit of the doubt on a close call.
I'm a big fan of your stuff, but IMO there's no story here. I saw the fight pretty much the same way you did, but at the same time as a fight enthusiast I'm glad all judges *don't* think the same way...
Reply