Would five judges make a difference?
Tthousands of fans booed on Saturday night when two out of three judges awarded Antonio Rogerio Nogueira a split decision…
Tthousands of fans booed on Saturday night when two out of three judges awarded Antonio Rogerio Nogueira a split decision win over Jason Brilz at UFC 114. Few if any of those fans knew that a few hours earlier in Amsterdam, a different fight promotion, the It’s Showtime kickboxing organization, had used a different system of judging that might have given Brilz the victory – the show used five judges instead of three.
Bryan Alvarez and Dave Meltzer discussed the matter on Wrestling Observer Radio (via FightOpinion.com):
Alvarez: “Do you think three judges are enough in an MMA fight in an Octagon or cage? Given the shape and size of the area, are judges able to see enough of the action if it’s on the other side to be accurately judge the action? The action is on the ground and up against the cage, I’d imagine it might be difficult to see exactly what is going on. Maybe five might be the answer.”
Meltzer: “I think three comes from boxing, just like everything that they do is fricking comes from boxing as opposed to like coming up with something that’s more conducive to the sport. … Five judges is probably better than three.”
Criticism of MMA judging reached its crescendo in the fall of 2009, when three straight Zuffa main events were decided by questionable decisions: Ben Henderson over Donald Cerrone at WEC 43, Lyoto Machida over Shogun Rua at UFC 104 and Randy Couture over Brandon Vera at UFC 105. All three of those decisions were unanimous, however, which means that having five judges wouldn’t have made any difference.
Ultimately, I think what we need isn’t more judges per fight, it’s a larger pool of qualified, competent judges for the athletic commissions to draw from.
