Is Judging Ruining MMA? 3 Ways to Improve the Quality of Judging in MMA

MMA is not a sport for the faint-hearted. It requires an immense level of skill, discipline, respect and years of hard work and training. 

MMA has its origins in Ancient Greece and since then, it has evolved into a very popular sport with a strong following and the sport continues to evolve. For example, it has only been eighteen years since UFC 1, when dirty tactics were allowed (with the exception of biting, eye gouging and small joint manipulation). Since then, the UFC has evolved significantly to ensure the protection of fighters and to make the sport a more enjoyable spectacle to watch.

As the sport has evolved, we have seen legends produced in numerous promotions. For example, Wanderlei Silva, Randy Couture and Mirko Cro Cop are three of the biggest names in the world of MMA.

Sold out arenas, beautiful ringside girls and a legion of loyal fans and many more are all associated with this sport.

However, there is one aspect of this great sport that has the potential to ruin careers and affect how much we fans enjoy this sport. Judging.

I have one word for the state of judging in MMA. Abysmal. Many talented fighters are having their records and reputations destroyed at the hands of judges. The judging in UFC 131 was a prime example of absolutely terrible judging. Michihiro Omigawa lost a decision that many, including the president of the UFC, believed Omigawa to have won. In fact, the judging in that fight was so bad that Dana White actually awarded Omigawa a win bonus.

As a fan, I think that the sport of MMA is being tarnished by judges who don't know the sport and I know I speak for all of us when I say that we want to see a change. Here are three ways that the judging of this great sport can be improved.

Also, this is my first article, so any feedback is welcome.

1. Make the Referee the Third Judge

Who better can determine which fighter is executing the most effective strikes, which fighter is displaying effective grappling, which fighter is controlling the octagon the best and which fighter is the most aggressive than the only person in the ring with the fighters?

One suggestion could be that we have two judges observing the action from monitors outside of the cage and the referee then effectively becomes the third judge. 

Advantage: More accurate judging as one of the scores is from the only person that can see every detail of the fight.

Disadvantage: Herb Dean can't referee every fight...

The major flaw with this solution is that not every ref has the same extensive knowledge that experienced officials like Herb Dean have. This means fights that use certain referees, not to mention any names, may still have lopsided and surprising decisions.

2. Introduce a "Sudden Death" Round

If the fight goes to the judges scorecards, the fighters should have one last chance to see if they can finish their opponents in an additional round with a shorter time period, maybe half the length of a "normal" round, before the final result is announced. This extra round should take place if the decision after three rounds is a draw or a split decision. If the fight still doesn't end in a finish, then the initial judges' decision stands.

Advantage: If the fight is finished in the "sudden death" round, there can be no argument to who won the fight.

Disadvantage: The welfare of the fighters will be affected in the sense that fighters will be more susceptible to injuries and increased exhaustion.

3. Introduce More Criteria for Judging a Fight

The judging criteria so far consists of effective grappling, octagon control, aggressiveness and clean strikes. I think that more criteria should be introduced to give a more accurate representation of the fight. Such criteria can include damage inflicted and received and the level of skill and technique displayed. This ensures that the referees take more "details" into account before deciding the score.

Advantage: A more accurate result is conveyed because more aspects of the fight are considered. For example, a fighter that inflicts more damage to an opponent but landed less effective strikes than the opponent would be commended rather than being disregarded like he would under current judging criteria.

Disadvantage: The judges would have to be taught a whole new system and this would then take a considerable amount of time for the judges to become comfortable with. Decisions will be lopsided in the initial stages if this idea is introduced.

Conclusion

I understand that the ideas that I have mentioned may seem crazy or outlandish, but these are just the opinions of a frustrated fan. I would love to hear what fellow fans think about judging in MMA in the comments section.

The bottom line is something needs to be done about judging in MMA. Too many fighters have lost fights that they should have won and this fact is damaging their careers and the development of the sport. The continued problems with judging in MMA are a knee in the face to the fighters and the fans of this brilliant sport.

Thanks for reading.