from cagepotatoe
Good news for fans of competent scoring — according to Marc Ratner, the UFC has formally submitted a request to the Nevada State Athletic Commission to provide monitors for the judges assigned to score the bouts at UFC 130: Edgar vs. Maynard 3 (May 28th, Las Vegas). Up until now, California has been the only state to ever provide monitors for judges while scoring MMA bouts. I love this part:
When MMA Fighting asked NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer if he would be open to the idea, Kizer replied, “Maybe.”
Great, Keith. As long as it doesn’t inconvenience you. The use of monitors in MMA judging is a common-sense addition that we’ve been whining about since Machida/Rua 1. It seems that the availability of multiple angles and close-ups would help judges evaluate action that they might otherwise miss from the fixed position and sight-line that their seat affords. However, not all judges agree that watching a fight on a screen is better than watching it play out in front of their eyes…
Gim Jenia at MMAConvert recently shadowed former UFC commentator Jeff Blatnick during a judging gig in New Jersey, where Blatnick discussed the subtle details that judges might miss by watching a fight on a screen. For example: “If a fighter winces from a landed punch, that means it scored. If I hear the whoosh of a foot dragging on a takedown, it’s a legitimate attempt at a takedown.”
Then again, he also had this to say: “People will score based on what they know. If a judge has a jiu-jitsu background, they’re going to say, ‘Did you see that close submission attempt? He was six inches from getting that kimura!’ No, but I did see those punches the other guy landed. Those scored.”
In other words, it doesn’t really matter how a judge watches a fight — if he doesn’t know what a kimura is, he’s probably still going to fuck up the result.
Good news for fans of competent scoring — according to Marc Ratner, the UFC has formally submitted a request to the Nevada State Athletic Commission to provide monitors for the judges assigned to score the bouts at UFC 130: Edgar vs. Maynard 3 (May 28th, Las Vegas). Up until now, California has been the only state to ever provide monitors for judges while scoring MMA bouts. I love this part:
When MMA Fighting asked NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer if he would be open to the idea, Kizer replied, “Maybe.”
Great, Keith. As long as it doesn’t inconvenience you. The use of monitors in MMA judging is a common-sense addition that we’ve been whining about since Machida/Rua 1. It seems that the availability of multiple angles and close-ups would help judges evaluate action that they might otherwise miss from the fixed position and sight-line that their seat affords. However, not all judges agree that watching a fight on a screen is better than watching it play out in front of their eyes…
Gim Jenia at MMAConvert recently shadowed former UFC commentator Jeff Blatnick during a judging gig in New Jersey, where Blatnick discussed the subtle details that judges might miss by watching a fight on a screen. For example: “If a fighter winces from a landed punch, that means it scored. If I hear the whoosh of a foot dragging on a takedown, it’s a legitimate attempt at a takedown.”
Then again, he also had this to say: “People will score based on what they know. If a judge has a jiu-jitsu background, they’re going to say, ‘Did you see that close submission attempt? He was six inches from getting that kimura!’ No, but I did see those punches the other guy landed. Those scored.”
In other words, it doesn’t really matter how a judge watches a fight — if he doesn’t know what a kimura is, he’s probably still going to fuck up the result.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Freddy Chavez
