Triple Take: Could open scoring work in MMA?

Scores being announced after each round for everyone to know: Good or bad idea?

UFC 247 wasn’t without controversy as the scoring was called into question all night, including in the main event, where light heavyweight champion Jon Jones escaped with a unanimous decision win over Dominick Reyes, much to the chagrin of many observers. The outcome has sparked outrage from many in the MMA community, who are looking for answers to the issue of incompetent judges.

One suggestion to gain traction on social media has been open scoring, which would allow everyone – fellow judges, fighters, coaches, fans, etc. – to know the scores of each round as a fight unfolds. But is this really the solution the sport needs? MMA Junkie’s John Morgan, Farah Hannoun and Danny Segura sound off in this latest edition of Triple Take.

****

John Morgan: So many reasons why open scoring is a bad idea

I’ll be honest: I don’t really understand all the clamoring for open scoring. It’s been tested in combat sports, and no one who used it ever elected to keep it as a permanent change. Award-winning combat sports journalist Kevin Iole has covered boxing for more than 40 years, and he is adamantly opposed to the idea, as he expressed on social media Saturday when former UFC champ Max Holloway proposed the idea on Twitter.

Iole doubled down on the notion when UFC broadcaster Jon Anik joined the discussion.

Veteran broadcasters who have utilized the system before didn’t exactly chime in with support, either. GLORY Kickboxing’s Todd Grisham made his position clear.

When Grisham asked for support in his position, veteran journalist and broadcaster Michael Stets was happy to oblige.

 

The arguments against open scoring are plenty. The possibility of judges seeing their round scores differing from their peers and then trying to rectify the error by leaning a different way in subsequent rounds is a real possibility. Ditto for when fan feedback comes in from the posted scores.

While it might seem like a stretch, judge safety is an issue, as well. If the crowd doesn’t like a particular round score, what’s to stop them from hurling objects in the judges’ direction, potentially injuring people cageside or at least delaying the event? Again, that might seem like a stretch on first mention, but we’re only five months removed from Mexico City fans pelting the octagon with debris after Yair Rodriguez vs. Jeremy Stephens was declared a no contest at UFC on ESPN+ 17.

Speaking of fouls, consider how open scoring could conceivably influence how a fighter handles being struck with an illegal blow during a contest. If a fighter knows he’s up 20-18 heading into the final frame of a three-round contest and is hit with a kick to the groin, what motivation is there to carry on fighting? Simply state that you can’t continue while holding your crotch and wincing a lot, and you’ve just guaranteed yourself a victory when it’s directed to the judges’ scorecards.

Look just two months back for a real example of how this could play out, when respected referee Dan Miragliotta told an ailing Stefan Struve, “You’re probably winning both rounds,” as the heavyweight sat frustrated on the canvas after receiving multiple low blows while deciding if he wanted to continue at UFC on ESPN 7. Since it was still in the second round, Struve could have elected to take a no contest. He didn’t, but would knowing the score at that time have changed his approach?

Had it been the third round, Struve would have known exactly where the bout result stood and made his decision accordingly. Down on the cards? Better carry on and try to turn the thing around. Up on the cards? Take the ‘W’ and go put some ice on your little “Skyscraper.”

[lawrence-related id=488748,488458]

How about eye pokes? Everyone in the sport knows if you tell an official you can’t see, the fight is over. How would knowing exactly what result you would receive by saying those words not impact a fighter’s willingness to continue when given the option to walk away with a guaranteed win without additional fighting?

There are more arguments to be had in terms of fighter performance. If an athlete knows without question he or she is ahead on the cards, there could be a considerable temptation to simply cruise, impacting the entertainment value of the fight. The same could be said for the moment the results are read – not much tension or hand-wringing at that moment when the scores have been posted throughout.

But rather than arguing against open scoring, I’d just like to hear someone explain how implementing that policy would improve the accuracy of decisions. If we’re complaining that judges simply aren’t identifying the proper winner of a round, then how does their score being posted live in an arena make that any better?

Short answer: It doesn’t.

If judges’ scores weren’t ever posted, then I would say that open scoring would be a must. But judges’ scores are made available shortly after each bout, leaving them publicly accountable for their decisions. Now, how accountable the commissions are keeping these judges – reconciling scores against expected outcomes and determining judging accuracy, for instance, or requiring continuing education through workshops and bout reviews both in and out of their jurisdiction – that certainly leaves something to be desired.

But until I hear one good argument as to how open scoring could potentially ensure better, more accurate results from judges, then I’ll stand against it.

Next page – Farah Hannoun: It can’t hurt for fighters to know where they stand

[opinary poll=”how-would-you-feel-about-open-scoring-in” customer=”mmajunkie”]

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3