· Judgement Call: A Closer Look At The Pros And Cons Of Open Scoring
Judges announcing their scores between rounds (also known as “open scoring”) has been a matter of increasing debate within mixed martial arts in recent years. Fans and pundits nationwide are divided about whether it would improve or hurt the sport of MMA. Much has been written lately about the possibility of moving toward open scoring, but usually such articles center around frustration concerning a particular bad decision. There have not been many detailed investigations that have explored both the arguments for and against it, while offering a variety of opinions.
In an effort to understand the issue in more depth, we contacted fans, fighters, officials, promoters, and others across the MMA world on this subject to present the findings regarding both the pros and cons of open scoring.
First, let’s start by examining the common arguments and responses to the existing debate.
Open Scoring Could Put Undue Pressure On Judges
Agree: Open scoring could put undue pressure on judges. Judges are under an intense amount of pressure to score rounds correctly. They dedicate all of their concentration to the action that is taking place in front of them, paying careful attention to look for key factors. Having their score broadcast to the arena in between every five-minute round would make their job more difficult due to the possibility of the inevitable boos and distractions from the audience in attendance.
Disagree: There are three parties involved in a prize fight: the two combatants, the referee, and the three judges at ring/cage side. Of that group, the judges are the only party whose work the fans, athletes and trainers are unable to observe every round. Are we to believe that crowd reaction is less likely to distract or negatively affect the fighters (the ones that are involved in the most intense work) or referee? Judges currently go about their job in relative anonymity, a luxury that fighters and even referees do not share. Why should the judges be allowed to avoid the same microscope that the fighters and referee are under?
Open Scoring Would Encourage “Protecting A Lead” By Fighters
Agree: This is the most often-used argument against open scoring in combat sports, and for good reason. Fans pay their hard-earned dollars to watch the best fighters in the world compete at their best. Fans, broadcast teams, promoters, and arena personnel spend large sums of money on an event and they deserve a scoring system that lessens the likelihood that a fighter will attempt to “coast” to victory once an early lead is secured.
Disagree: Most would agree that the former is the strongest case for the status quo in regard to scoring. Admittedly, there are fighters, if given the opportunity to protect a points lead if open scoring is implemented, would do just that.
In countering this point, two things that you likely already know:
---- Fighters already try to protect points leads all the time, even under the current scoring system.
---- Although not all fighters are the same, many fighters tend to play up the positives of their performance in their own mind. This is not a bad thing. It is part of what makes them successful. Successful pro athletes (or business people, etc.) tend to be very confident and mentally downplay lesser performances. This quality is usually beneficial. One negative, however, is that it often causes fighters to view a round which they barely lost as a round that they won. It can also cause them to view a round in which they were dominated as a round that was close. An open scoring system would remove this delusion from the equation.
A fighter will know, unequivocally, that they need to finish their opponent to win. Most can recall times where they have heard fighters that lost a decision claim that they thought they were winning. Many times they are sincere. Contrary to traditional thinking, open scoring could actually enhance the experience of fans in attendance by increasing the urgency of fighters that know they are behind on the scorecards. Such fighters will certainly be more apt to press the action.
Closed Scoring Is A Part Of The Sport’s Charm
Agree: Over the past 10 years, MMA has ascended to a level of popularity that fans never thought was imaginable; and it did so using a traditional, closed scoring system. Decisions (yes, even the controversial ones) are a part of the sport’s intrigue and charm, as well the edge-of-your-seat thrill that many fans have waiting to hear the scores read. Open scoring would take away an important element of the sport’s tradition.
Disagree: If you and I are consultants hired by a company and we see an area that could potentially be improved, it would make sense that we discuss the positives and negatives of improving that area. There are valid arguments that someone could make against the proposed changes, but the “because we’ve just never done it that way” argument should not be one of them. Ideas stand or fall on their own merit.
As a fan of both boxing and MMA, one thing I have noticed in regard to MMA fans is how much more open minded they tend to be when it comes to new ideas. Perhaps this is because they were marginalized early on when it came to the combat sports world, but for whatever reason, the MMA community tends to embrace innovation. Open scoring would be a slight improvement to an already great sport. Well meaning people can disagree on this point but the fact that open scoring has not yet been used in MMA should carry little weight in an argument involving its merit.
Open Scoring Would Be More Fan-Friendly
Agree: In an earlier argument, it was rightly mentioned that fans spend their hard-earned dollars on tickets, merchandise and PPV events. MMA isn’t as easy for working-class people to follow as the “Big 4” mainstream team sports (football, baseball, basketball and hockey). In terms of live events, MMA’s exposure on cable television, although ever increasing, is still limited. Fans can follow the ongoing narrative of a football season on network television at virtually no cost and have access to all of the action. MMA fans shell out close to fifty bucks frequently for the ability to catch the latest fights. This puts a greater responsibility, in my opinion, on the caretakers of the sport to deliver the best possible experience to the fan.
When a fan walks into his friend’s living room to watch a fight and arrives between rounds, it really does little good to ask “Who is winning?” The only honest answer that can be given is “I have no idea. In my opinion, though, it’s ... ” This is a shame. Fans should know what the score is between breaks in the action. It is their dollars that are funding the show and there should be a way for them to follow, with certainty, the ebbs and flows of scoring in a closely contested fight.
Disagree: Part of what makes the sport so endearing is the drama that takes place in the ring/cage, but also the drama that takes place in the moments between the final bell and the reading of the final tallies. The interest of the fan is protected by closed scoring. Neither fans nor fighters can assume anything under this system, and that makes for more exciting fights to watch and attend.
Open Scoring Is Fair To Fighters
Agree: The idea that the proper method for scoring is to deprive athletes of information central to the outcome of their competition is flawed. As covered already in another argument, equipping fighters with more information will just as likely incentivize losing fighters to go for the finish, since it would be their only option for victory. Fighters are some of the only athletes in the sports world to be deprived of this type of information.
Disagree: It is in the best interest of everyone to perpetuate a system that forces fighters to be unaware of a bouts scoring while it is taking place, thus insuring that fighters can never rest on the assumption that they are winning. This incentivizes fighters to go for the finish as the only way to ensure victory.
There Is Precedent For Open Scoring In Other Judged Competitions
Agree: No one would say that we should adopt open scoring because it is already the accepted standard in other athletic competitions. However, open scoring should be strongly considered because there is a reason that it is already the standard. Take a judged athletic competition like gymnastics, for example. From the sport’s onset, the consensus method of competing has been to divide competition up into segments (i.e. “rounds”) and give the athletes their score following each segment so that they know how much they need to improve their aggregate score for victory. The judges do not wait until after the competition is complete to offer feedback. This has not detracted from the enjoyment of the fans or competitors. If anything, it has likely provided more drama and excitement, giving the fans, athletes, officials and trainers more information as opposed to less.
Disagree: Earlier, an argument was made that “but that’s how we’ve always done things” is not a valid argument. Well, neither is “but that’s how other people do it.” Open scoring might work well for other judged athletic competitions, but those sports, like gymnastics, are being contested with ample time to make adjustments and discuss the athlete’s strategy. Without this time and breaks in momentum, closed scoring is best for MMA and boxing.
Compromise?
If there is really such fear over fighters knowing the score during a fight, such information could one day be given to the fans watching the telecast. Of course, this was tried during Muhammad Ali’s fight against Ernie Shavers (shown on closed circuit television) and someone calling from the outside got word to Ali’s corner concerning the score. In today’s age of advanced communications technology, this would no doubt occur as well.
Is open scoring already working elsewhere?
A 2009 article by ScorecardMMA.com showed that less than 30 percent of all MMA fights in recent years had gone to a decision. Also, less than half of all UFC fights (where the consensus is that matchmaking is definitely superior and world class competitors are more routinely matched evenly) went to the scorecards.
In fact, the last five years of world title fights in the UFC (lightweight through heavyweight divisions) and WEC (bantamweight and featherweight divisions), only 37 percent of world title fights have gone to the scorecards. Given that, a question still remains. Would implementing open scoring be an improvement to an already great sport?
In recent years, kickboxing’s leading organization, K-1, has moved to an open scoring model. Their website says the following regarding scoring:
It has been decided that open scoring system is introduced, which is to release judging scores for each round on the monitors or by announcement call. Scores for the first round are announced during an interval after the first round, and scores for the second round are announced during an interval after the second round. This system is introduced so that fighters fully accept the outcome even after the match, and that fighters as well as audiences grasp the situation well.
Despite having adopted this change, I was unable to find an indication that the quality of K-1 fights had plummeted or that judges had suffered in any way from the scoring modification. The only definitive difference was that fans, fighters and trainers were now equipped with more information.
K-1 is not the lone organization in the combat sports world to try this system out. California-based kickboxing organization I.K.F. has begun using open scoring in recent years. Pro boxing’s WBC sanctioning body has also begun using open scoring in select bouts, and has even been used in world title bouts. There was no data at all that indicated that the quality of fights suffered from this innovation. In fact, one such fight, Samuel Peter vs. Oleg Maskaev, saw the fighter that knew he was winning on the cards remain the aggressor and go on to win by knockout. There was another WBC title fight, much more recently, where the same scenario occurred.
The promoter’s perspective:
North Carolina MMA promoter Marcelo Rodriguez made it clear very early on in our conversation that he was in favor of open scoring. “I definitely think that it would make the event more enjoyable for the fans that come to my shows,” Rodriguez stated.
What about some of the drawbacks that could come with an open scoring system? “No scoring system is perfect. Neither are judges, fighters or anyone. But I think that the positives definitely outweigh any drawbacks. Obviously, continued training and improvement by the judges in this sport would help a lot, but I do think that announcing the scores during the fight could make our product event better,” he continued.
Rodriquez typically puts on several events per year in North Carolina, and the efforts of local and regional promoters like him have helped to grow the popularity of mixed martial arts across the country.
The referee’s perspective:
Referee Bill Clancy is one of the most respected referees in the combat sports world. Mr. Clancy has worked boxing world championship fights, officiated all over the globe and in recent years has refereed many of MMA events (including the UFC).
Regarding open scoring, Clancy mentioned that many in the industry are not inclined to try it, but as for his won opinion, he stated, “I would definitely be in favor of open scoring. You know, in boxing we’re our own worst enemies a lot of times. I think that open scoring is something that lots of fans want, and I definitely think that it would enhance the product overall.”
According to Clancy, an even greater improvement to the sport would be raising the overall competency of judges. However, he views open scoring as something that could be fighter-friendly, fan-friendly, and lend more transparency to the scoring process.
“A lot of times fighters think that they’re winning a fight when they clearly aren’t. I hear cornermen reinforce this all of the time. If I were a fighter I’d want my corner to be honest with me and tell me if I’m losing so that I can make adjustments. Too often the exact opposite happens and you get both fighters coming out tentative in the later rounds because they both think that they are winning. It’s possible that open scoring could be a real improvement.”
What does Clancy think about the possibility of crowd reaction rattling judges at events? “I don’t think that’s a valid concern. Judges in other sports have to make their scores known throughout the competition and they somehow manage. Frankly, if a judge is intimidated by a scenario like that, they don’t need to be in that position at all.”
The judge’s perspective:
You do not have to talk with judge Barry Lindeman long to know that he is extremely knowledgeable about scoring criteria in both MMA and boxing. He was an ideal person to speak with regarding this subject; he recently discussed the pros and cons of open scoring and here are some of the thoughts that he shared with us, at length.
“Knowing that I am a professional judge (boxing and MMA), I am often asked by friends and colleagues how I score a fight. I quickly remind them that as a qualified, certified, professionally trained judge (call it what you want), I do not score a 'fight.' I score a 'round,' as I judge a fight. By that I mean, that as a judge, we are trained to score each round as a separate, new entity. Each fighter begins the round dead even, no matter what might have occurred in any of the previous rounds. We are not influenced by any previous activity in any of the previous rounds.
"That being said, I believe that open scoring could possibly serve to sway a lesser qualified judge if he is allowed to know the current score of the fight or the scores of the other judges. As a judge, we are trained to focus on two things when we score a round: the fighter in the red corner and the fighter in the blue corner. We are not influenced (shouldn't be at least) by any extraneous variables like the crowd, who is the champion, etc. I believe that using open scoring could possibly serve as an unnecessary distraction to a judge who might be easily influenced by things that shouldn't come into play when scoring a round.
"I have always thought of a judge's mindset (mine at least) as being very focused while I'm viewing/scoring a round. I think I can best describe it as 'relaxed concentration' or 'mindless attention.' By these terms, I mean that a man or woman judging a fight/scoring a round should focus on what they need to be focused on (the activity of the fight) and be oblivious to things that are not consequential to doing their job as professionally as possible (crowd noise, boos, fear of not awarding the fight to who the crowd favors, etc.). I believe that open scoring might play a negative factor in a judge's mindset as he or she views the activity of each round.”
The fighter’s perspective:
Since fighters are the focal point of the sport, their perspectives are integral to this dicussion. Five active professional MMA fighters were randomly selected, ranging from local to international competition, and asked them if they would be in favor of open scoring. Four out of the five said they favored it.
One fighter that has competed at the professional level in multiple combat sports had this to say, “Frankly, I think it’s shitty that we’re even having to discuss this. Open scoring should have been instituted a long time ago. We’re pushing ourselves constantly in training and any good fighter is out there giving his all in every fight. I know that I’d definitely be in favor of having some idea of how the judges are viewing the action. I’m sure all of the guys I train would also. And the fans would eat that up. The excitement in the arena when two guys are tied going into the third and final round would be electric.”
Most of the fighters indicated that they thought the positives would outweigh the negatives, although one successful pro fighter did mention that he prefers the current system.
Keith Kizer’s perspective:
It would be difficult to find a more well respected sanctioning body than the Nevada State Athletic Commission. This long-time industry leader, led by Executive Vice President Keith Kizer, remains the flagship commission in America. Mr. Kizer was kind enough to give us several minutes of his time to discuss his thoughts on open scoring.
“In my opinion, open scoring is not a good idea for combat sports,” stated Kizer.
And just what are Kizer’s objections? We were prepared for a laundry list of arguments but he surprised us. According to Kizer, he doesn’t worry about fighters protecting a lead under open scoring (although this was the main objection of his predecessor Marc Ratner). Because the losing fighter would have incentive to push the action more, he is not sure that protecting leads would be such a problem. He points out that some instances of protecting leads take place in many popular team sports.
Kizer summed up his chief concern with open scoring the following way. "Combat sports are the only sports where you can be injured during the competition, declared unable to continue, and still win. My fear is that you’ll have scenarios where fighters will know that they are ahead on the scorecards and be injured by a foul (ex: a head-butt). It would be a real temptation for these fighters to claim that they are unable to continue and the decision would go to the cards, where they already know that they’ve secured the win.” This is a legitimate and real concern. There are several instances where this has happened under the current system, based on speculation by a fighter that they are winning.
“My fear is that we’ll see an increase of instances like these. Also, a guy might actually be unable to continue but the fans or media could condemn him, thinking that he only quit because he knew that he was ahead,” he added.
Kizer was asked if he knew, statistically speaking, how often technical decisions like this occur. On this, he was unsure. Through our own research efforts, the estimation is that such instances occur less than two percent of the time in combat sports. It is interesting that his chief objection to open scoring, while very valid and well thought out, would pertain to such a small percentage of the bouts that occur.
“What about the claim that the open market would take care of instances like you described? If fans are forking over $50 or more to watch fighter A compete and he pulls a stunt like the one you described, how much drawing power will that fighter have going forward?” Kizer conceded that the free market would likely discourage many fighters from quitting in such instances, but he maintained that he would still worry about an increase in these scenarios.
We wanted to investigate this concern further so we decided to check results from many of the WBC bouts that have been openly scored in recent years. We we unable to find any increased activity of technical decisions where a leading fighter was unable to continue. Regardless, Kizer’s perspective and willingness to discuss the issue is appreciated; he’s a very personable and approachable figure in this sport and his knowledge about the fight game is obvious. One additional tidbit he shared with us was that boxing promoter Bob Arum has lobbied for testing of open scoring in Nevada on multiple occasions.
Final thoughts:
The sport of MMA has grown at a rapid pace in recent years. Led by the industry’s dominant leader, the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the sport of MMA has grown far past the heights previously ever imagined for it. The product, as it exists today, is great. Fans the world over enjoy it, and the live gate and PPV revenues indicate that fans like what they see. There is very little to change about the sport. The unified rules and weight classes that currently exist are without argument adequate. The implementation of an open scoring is the one thing that would definitely be enjoyable to see MMA adopt, and the hunch is that the majority of fans would agree. For the most part, fighters (both professional and amateur), promoters and trainers would also prefer an open scoring system. However, fans and media are divided on this subject.
Ultimately, it isn't expected that we will see open scoring implemented any time soon, although some athletic commissions have begun experimenting with it for boxing in recent years. So, with a busy MMA schedule on television and PPV, will there be continued calls for open scoring? If so, will the movement gain any traction? Perhaps the issue has already been settled to the satisfaction of most. If so, then I guess it’s good that we (as the old saying goes) know the score.
