In the couple days since Conor McGregor’s razor-close majority decision victory over Nate Diaz at UFC 202, some of the classiest fan and pro voices in the MMA world have called on the rest of us to not debate the decision. The most compelling messages I’ve read and heard have all gone something like this – That was an amazing, close fight. Both men are warriors, deserving of respect. So, there are no losers in that fight.
The first couple points are certainly well-founded and based on the right sentiment. First and foremost, we should value and respect the incredible efforts put in by guys and gals like Conor and Nate, the peacemakers say.
Certainly, we should.
So, any review of the fight or decision that disparages either fighter is wrong. Evaluating and criticizing the decision is perfectly fine, in this and most cases, however.
In fact, critical review of judges’ decisions is more than fine – it is integral to keep the sport moving in the right directions. Furthermore, it can honor the sacrifices of fighters.
I wish it were true that, in great, close, and gutting fights like Diaz vs. McGregor II, there were no losers. Alas, there was a loser.
The outcomes for fighters deemed loser or winner in any big fight are usually vastly different and can affect the arc of an entire career.
Who gets a decision matters. A lot.
From immediate money to future earnings to leverage for future contract negotiations, all the way down to legacy and place in history, the official W or L mean a great deal to the athletes involved in the battles. That’s why it is so important that we get decisions right.
Close calls are opportunities to examine everything from judging criteria used, to the roles of referees, to the quality and qualification of officiating and judging personnel. As long as we’re careful to treat the competitors with respect when we soberly discuss who deserved to be called the winner of a contest, we as observers have a right and even duty to discuss how things may have gone right or wrong, because it is often the difference between fair and unfair.
Such discussions and debates may not ever achieve consensus on a deserving fighter, but they can at least highlight glaring holes in the sport’s construct. For example, how well does a 10-Point Must system designed for boxing work in a newer sport with many more ways to win, and where knockdowns simply don’t mean what they do in a fisticuffs battle?
After all, McGregor scored multiple knockdowns early in the second round, but got it taken to him in the closing minutes of it. And, though Diaz didn’t score any knockdowns, he seemed moments away from forcing the referee to stop the fight in his favor after battering McGregor like a heavy bag for just about all of the stanza.
Diaz scored big with a late takedown, before McGregor was once again saved before the final horn, but McGregor hasn’t gotten credit for his own earlier takedown. Should it not count towards scoring because Diaz jumped right back up?
A fight like this one also reminds us how the artificial constructs of rounds themselves disrupt the natural flow of a fight and sometimes cloud chances for clear winners. Could Diaz have recovered after the first five minutes of the fight if he hadn’t gotten a minute break before minute six?
Could McGregor have survived another 15 seconds in the third or the fifth if the horn hadn’t sounded and granted him reprieve from Diaz’s assault? These are important questions that arise only from carefully (if obsessively) going over tape and decisions and rules and judging criteria, over and over with one another, in private and in public.
Recognizing and appreciating fighters for their skills and bravery and sacrifice is always paramount. Thoughtfully (even if ceaselessly) debating how a fight went down and who should be considered the victor honors their efforts, not denigrates them.
So, argue on, fight fans. Dig deeper, watch more tape, train more, and understand more.
That’s how things improve. That’s how we get better decisions, and more fairness in an often cruelly unfair sport.
This is the second weekly column that Elias Cepeda has written for The UnderGround.
About the author:
Elias Cepeda has served as a writer and editor covering mixed martial arts and combat sports, as well as public and cultural affairs, since 2005. He began as a staff writer for InsideFighting, and not long thereafter became publisher and editor of the page. Cepeda then went to write for Yahoo! Sports’ boxing and MMA pages, and edited their Cagewriter blog. He was hired away by FOX Sports, but after several years departed over philosophical differences with the executive leadership around important issues of journalism ethics. A student of and sometime competitor in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and MMA since 1999, Elias brings a unique and vibrant presence to reporting, and enjoys trying to highlight shared humanity and connect common experiences from seemingly different worlds.
