Fans Misunderstand Ellenberger Versus Diaz; Change MMA Scoring

If you watched last night's Diego Sanchez / Jake Ellenberger UFC Welterweight fight, you probably came away saying the same thing a lot of other people did: "If that fight was five rounds Diego would have won!"  I have heard this three times today.

It is not the first time a fighter has lost the first two rounds, only to win the third convincingly. Quinton "Rampage" Jackson experienced the same thing against Rashad Evans, only to lose the fight, but then found himself getting pummeled in the final round by Lyoto Machida, wherein he won the fight. What goes around, comes around.

But do not be mistaken in claiming that a fighter who was losing, only to come on late, would have gone on to win if the fight was extended two more rounds. This is not the case, especially last night.

Fighters train specifically for the fight they are going to be in. I have interviewed hundreds of fights and trainers, and this is always the case. If the fight is scheduled for three rounds, they train for a three-round fight. If it's scheduled for five, they train to go five. Unless you are Nick and Nate Diaz, then you just never stop training—but that is a story for another day.  

A major aspect of the training is the mental aspect of what you will encounter in an upcoming fight. If you are prepared for a three-round fight, and you have already won the first two, your mind tells you "don't do something stupid...don't get caught..."

If you're losing the fight, and have no choice but to win by submission, knockout, or secure at least a split decision, you become a wounded animal and do whatever it takes to win. Sanchez, Jackson and Machida all put that on display in the fights they lost.  

The question is: would a fighter who has likely lost the first two rounds of a five round fight go for broke in the third?

The likelihood is "no," the fighter would be more cautious.

In other words, just because Sanchez dominated the final two minutes of a 15-minute fight against Ellenberger, he may have only done so because of the length of the fight. Had it been a five round fight, Ellenberger may have been much more aggressive in the third round, contrasted with the unlikeliness of Sanchez stepping up his aggressiveness to a 'do-or-die' level.  

Up until the point Sanchez hurt Ellenberger in the third round, he had lost the first two and the first half of the third. Essentially, the fight was in the bag for Ellenberger unless something drastic happened. Granted, something almost did, but for Sanchez to get the fight to that point he had to take on risks he would probably would not have assumed had the fight been scheduled for two more rounds.

Considering Ellenberger had dominated the fight up until the point he found himself in trouble, there is no way of knowing who would have imposed their will in the fourth or fifth round. Maybe Ellenberger would have fought less cautiously in the third round had it been scheduled longer? No one knows.  He certainly was not finished, regardless of who won the round.

Point is, a fighter's mindset is a major factor. Since the fight was scheduled for three rounds, that is what the fighter was trained and prepared for. 

I'm of the mind that both Evans and Jackson were in serious trouble in the respective fights they won, but that is only an opinion (one developed over years of attending live UFC events, but still an opinion). I believe both outcomes would have been reversed had the fights gone on longer, but again, my opinion. I'm of the opinion that Ellenberger likely still would have won the fight had it gone on longer, but again...you know the drill.

At the end of the day, fans want to see main events go five rounds, and the UFC President Dana White has assured everyone this will be the case going forward (unless a previous contract states otherwise). In the future, this will be a moot point.In addition to making main events better for fans, it will also make for better championship fights, as contenders will have likely taken part in a five-round fight before fighting for the belt. No longer will the "championship rounds" be reserved for only championship fights.

Speaking of judging fights...

It is high time the UFC, state athletic commissions, and other MMA organizations, began implementing different scoring and judging systems. I am aware this falls mostly on commissions rather than any private company, but the UFC can pressure the various commissions to make change.

Three judges watching a three-round fight, scoring them on a 10 point scale, makes no sense. A fighter can dominate another for 2.5 rounds, and then get dropped by one lucky punch, resulting in a tie. It's an extreme situation, but one I've witnessed before. It needs to change.

The MMA scoring system is based on boxing's "10 Point Must" scale, meaning the winner of a close round usually will get 10, with the loser getting 9. A dominant round may result in a 10-8 round, and then you have various other factors such as point deductions, which could have an effect.  

This makes more sense in boxing because the matches are longer, usually lasting at least 10 rounds. Over the course of a longer fight the dissipated scores will tend to tell a more complete tale between two opponents.

In boxing, the likelihood of one fighter having a great round, or moment, is not going to completely change the tale of a fight.  If a fighter is deducted a point, which happens, it usually will not have a major effect on the end result.  

MMA is a completely different animal. With fights only lasting five rounds at most, more often three, a deducted point completely changes the nature of a fight. The point is also at the discretion of a referee, who sometimes chooses to deduct or not to seemingly on a whim or an emotion.

Should a fighter penalized for "holding the fence," who wins two rounds to one, end up tying because of that? I'm not so sure. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but the truth is the scoring system needs to reflect the fight more clearly.

In the case of the point, maybe you deduct "half a point" so a fight is not tied for a weak foul, and two violations would result in one lost point. Or maybe a referee can choose "half point" or "full point," depending on the nature of the violation.  Whatever the case, something needs to change.

My first suggestion to the UFC is to add more judges: this will create more scores, which will in turn decrease the likelihood of a draw. It will also mitigate the score of a judge who sees a fight differently than most everyone else.

For example, Judge Doug Crosby scoring the first BJ Penn / Frankie Edgar fight 50-45 for Edgar was way off base. He scored the fight based on his opinion that even though Penn may have won rounds, he "could have done more" (I have spoken to him about the fight, and yes, it was merely his opinion).  Adding judges reduces the impact bad judging has on a result.

In addition, the extra judges should be watching the fights in different rooms, on a closed circuit television without commentary from the announcers, or anyone else. This is important for a variety of reasons, but mostly because a fight witnessed cageside/ringside is not the same fight when witnessed on television.  

For example, most everyone I spoke with who watched Forrest Griffin defeat Quinton Jackson on television thought it was a bad decision, and believed Jackson won. Having been there for the fight, literally leaning on the canvas cageside, I thought Griffin won.

Later on I watched it again on television and changed my opinion to Jackson. This is no different from Nick Diaz versus Carlos Condit, where those in attendance seemed to believe Condit won, but those viewing on television tended toward Diaz—hence the uproar over the decision.

Live judges cannot see every angle, and since there are only three of them—sitting against one side of an eight-sided cage (in UFC)—they really are blinded to so much action, especially if it's on the other side of the cage. On numerous occasions I have spoken with judges who have told me, "I look up at the screens half the time."  What does that tell you?  

As a test, the UFC should take three experts, either fighters, referees, or coaches, and have them score fights in this way for comparison purposes. Afterward, they should publish those expert results. The goal is to make sure the end result is as accurate as possible, and not left to the whim of bad angles or bad judging.

Fighters train too hard, give up too much of their lives for every fight.  While a "do over" or "rematch" might be palatable for the fans, it is unfair to fighters who have sacrificed their time and health.

There is no harm in seeing great fights happen again, maybe even a third time, but average fights like Condit versus Diaz? Does that really need to happen again because of what some would call "poor judgement?" I certainly do not think so.

It is up to the UFC, or at the very least the media, to take note of the poor judging. At the very least we should have competent judges, not people who have spent a lifetime scoring boxing, who have no understanding of MMA.

Something needs to change, and it is nice to expect at least five round fights for all main events. It is a good start.