decisions in mixed martial arts: you can leave it to the hands of the judges - some of the time
DESCRIPTION
We have utilized the extensive online resources to analyse the outcomes of selected contests from the premium pay-per-view UFC events. For various fights, we compared the scoring allocated for the actual judges to those awarded by experts from various MMA websites in real-time. Although this data-set is quite modest and data is easily available for more extensive analyses by experts, we can conclude that at the best case there is on average currently one controversial decision for every two events. Overall, by careful consideration of the data, it can be determined that for the most part judging in MMA is competent. However, there are certain contests that are inherently difficult to judge accurately leading to controversy. Therefore, the rate of controversial decisions is significant. In looking forward, by comparing the discrepancies between the scores allocated by the judges with those of the experts consulted in this work, it is difficult to expect that an average of approximately 5% in controversial decisions can be easily improved.TRANSCRIPT
2
Decisions in mixed martial arts: You can leave it to the hands of
the judges - some of the time
Tom Karagiannis
Dedicated to the memory of Shihan John L Watkins (1923-1993)
Founder Australian Yoshin Ryu Karate
Summary
The mainstream popularity of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) has been growing rapidly in recent
years, predominantly due to the success of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).
judging fights is important and the quality of judging in MMA has been the subject of heated
discussions and much debate. In summary, MMA contests are scored by three judges using
the 10-point must system where 10 points are allocated to the winner of a round and nine or
less points are awarded to the loser, depending on the level of domination. Here, we have
utilized the extensive online resources to analyse the outcomes of selected contests from the
premium pay-per-view UFC events. For various fights, we compared the scoring allocated for
the actual judges to those awarded by experts from various MMA websites in real-time.
Although this data-set is quite modest and data is easily available for more extensive analyses
by experts, we can conclude that at the best case there is on average currently one
controversial decision for every two events. Overall, by careful consideration of the data, it
can be determined that for the most part judging in MMA is competent. However, there are
certain contests that are inherently difficult to judge accurately leading to controversy.
Therefore, the rate of controversial decisions is significant. In looking forward, by
comparing the discrepancies between the scores allocated by the judges with those of the
experts consulted in this work, it is difficult to expect that an average of approximately 5% in
controversial decisions can be easily improved.
Introduction
The mainstream popularity of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) has been growing rapidly in recent
years, predominantly due to the success of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). In
particular, since 2009 accompanying the rise in popularity there has been a rapid increase in
the number of UFC events per year including widely viewed televised events and online
coverage and analysis programs. The success of the UFC can be attributed to a number of
factors (analysed in "The Rise of Mixed Martial Arts: 20 Years of the Ultimate Fighting
Championship"; Scribd), an important one of which is that there is no hint of pre-determined
fight outcomes. In this context, judging fights is important and the quality of judging in
MMA has been the subject of heated discussions and much debate. In summary, MMA
contests are scored by three judges using the 10-point must system where 10 points are
allocated to the winner of a round and nine or less points are awarded to the loser, depending
on the level of domination. Most typically, scores of 10-9 are awarded to the winner and
loser of the round, respectively. In rare cases a round maybe scored 10-10, if the judge
3
deemed it to be a draw. Similarly, scores of 10-8 and 10-7 are not as common and are
awarded when one contestant clearly dominates the opponent.
Essentially, the criteria for judging involve scoring on the basis of effective striking, effective
grappling, control of the ring/fighting area, effective aggressiveness and effective defence.
The complete rules are widely available online. Inherently, judging cannot be completely
error-free, particularly in very close contests and honest variations in opinion can arise from
time to time. Here, we have utilized the extensive online resources to analyse the outcomes
of selected contests from the premium pay-per-view UFC events. For various fights, we
compared the scoring allocated for the actual judges to those awarded by experts from
various MMA websites in real-time. To represent, the view of learned fans, the real-time
scoring of a semi-expert (over 10 years Martial Arts experience) was also included in the
analysis. The raw data and the websites consulted are included in this work. It is important
to note that here we have only analysed a tiny fraction of the total fights and the work is
amenable to a thorough expansion by dedicated experts. The website MMA decisions
(mmadecisions.com) is an outstanding up-to-date resource which would allow for a more
comprehensive analysis of the judging in MMA.
UFC 143 - Nick Diaz vs Carlos Condit
The event that drew the attention of the author to the issues associated with judging in MMA
was UFC 143 - Nick Diaz vs Carlos Condit (February 4, 2012 @ the Mandalay Bay Events
Center in Las Vegas, Nevada). As can be observed from the data in this event there were a
number of controversial decisions.
4
In this event there were a total of 11 fights with three split decisions (two judges the fight to
one fighter and one judge awards the fight to the other) and the main event resulted in a
highly controversial unanimous decision (all three judges awarded the fight to one of the
fighters. Firstly, the main event was a unanimous decision to Carlos Condit, a decision which
created much controversy within the greater MMA community. This fight was out of the
ordinary as can be seen by the variability in real-time scoring by the experts consulted.
Exactly 50% (4/8) scored the fight for Nick Diaz and the others for Carlos Condit. This fact
highlights the subjective nature of judging, which becomes most evident in fights without an
obvious winner. When carefully analysing the round-by-round judging, it is clear that Round
1 and to a lesser extent Round 4 were the most difficult to judge. To reach a conclusion,
those particular rounds were re-visited by the author, who viewed without volume at least
three times. Indeed, it was close to impossible to be completely objective and accurate in
deciding which fighter to allocate those Rounds - an element of subjectivity could not be
eliminated. As can be seen from further analysis below, this fight really represents the
5
exception with the vast majority of fights ending in a unanimous decision being in agreement
with the scoring allocated by the experts consulted.
Split decisions are expectedly more difficult to score, with agreement more difficult to
achieve. At UFC 143 there were three split decisions. One of these was between Matthew
Riddle and Henry Martinez. Matthew Riddle was given the split decision. However, in this
case, all three of the experts consulted agreed with the dissenting judge. Therefore, we may
conclude that the general consensus is that Henry Martinez should have been awarded the
decision. In another split decision in the same event, Josh Koscheck was awarded a split
decision which is agreeable with three of the four expert opinions consulted. Therefore, in
this case was may conclude that Josh Koscheck was correctly awarded the decision. In the
final split decision of this event, matters were complicated since one of the fighters (Alex
Caceres) was deducted two points for low blows. Edwin Figueroa was given the split
decision and for this particular contest there was little correlation between the scores awarded
by the judges with those awarded by the experts consulted. As mentioned this was an extra-
ordinarily difficult event to judge and highlights the discrepancies between the judges and
other MMA experts. To determine whether this event represents the norm, we analysed the
data in a similar way from the first eight UFC pay-per-view events in 2013, with a focus on
the main card.
Analysis of eight UFC pay-per-view events in 2013
As can be observed from the data, unanimous decisions do not typically represent problems
with judging and in the vast majority of cases the scores awarded by judges are either in
perfect or very close agreement with those of the experts. Apart from some very rare
exceptions, a notable one of which is the Phil Davis vs Lyoto Machida fight at UFC 163, the
decisions rendered by the judges agree with the general consensus. Similarly, for split
decisions most typically the fighter who is ultimately awarded the decision (despite the
dissenting judge), is the one who corresponds to having won the contest with the general
consensus. This is typified in UFC 156 where in two separate contests, Isaac Vallie-Flagg
and Evan Dunham where awarded victories by split decision and in both cases, the result
corresponded with the scoring awarded by the experts consulted - the scores by dissenting
judges were the only non-correlating scores and the correct fighter was awarded the decision.
The raw data for the eight UFC events are shown below.
14
Conclusions
Overall, in this modest data-set 103 fights were analysed. Of those fights 15 resulted in a
split decision and of those nine were controversial; i.e. the decision rendered by the
dissenting judge correlated with one or more of the experts consulted. At the worst case
scenario and if we include the two controversial unanimous decisions from this data set, we
calculate that a controversial decision would be rendered on 10.7% of occasions (in other
words about four controversial decisions for every three events on average assuming 12
fights per event). If we calculate on the basis of controversial split decisions only, this
corresponds to a controversial decision in 8.7% of fights on average (or approximately one
controversial decision per event). At the best case, if we assume that a controversial decision
corresponds to decisions where the majority or all of the experts are in line with the
dissenting judge a controversial decision can be expected on 4.8% of occasions (or on
average one controversial decision for every two events). Although this data-set is quite
modest and data is easily available for more extensive analyses by experts, we can conclude
that at the best case there is on average currently one controversial decision for every two
events. Overall, by careful consideration of the data, it can be determined that for the most
part judging in MMA is competent. However, there are certain contests that are inherently
difficult to judge accurately leading to controversy. Therefore, the rate of controversial
decisions is significant. In looking forward, by comparing the discrepancies between the
scores allocated by the judges with those of the experts consulted in this work, it is difficult to
expect that an improved to an average of approximately 5% in controversial decisions can be
easily improved.