Danny Segura: Not open to open scoring, and here’s why
The UFC 247 main event between Jon Jones and Dominick Reyes sure was controversial.
The idea of Jones beating Reyes seemed inevitable going into UFC 247. However, leaving the third round and heading into the fourth during Saturday’s UFC light heavyweight title fight, the thought of Jones defeating Reyes certainly was in jeopardy.
Whether you scored it for Jones or Reyes, the sentiment among the combat sports world was the same – it was damn close. That’s why there’s so much outrage on Joe Soliz’s 49-46 scorecard favoring the champion. Since that terrible decision, many have suggested alternate ways to judge and score MMA.
Open scoring has been a popular answer to fix the broken system in MMA. Although there are plenty of benefits, I find it hard to execute. It could make judging more complex than it already is.
[lawrence-related id=488681,488435]
Judges could be influenced by seeing their peers’ scores after each round. A judge who sees his score conflicting with the rest could doubt how they’re seeing and judging the fight, giving an edge – or taking one away – to a fighter in the coming rounds.
It could work in case one judge is scoring poorly, but what if two of them are judging incorrectly? That could possibly make the competent judge doubt what he or she is seeing.
Also, fans can put pressure on judges if they’re not scoring the fight properly, but also not favorably for the fighter they support. Fans are fans. They’re not supposed to be unbiased. And when they have access to the scoring during a fight, fans can taint an official’s view of fights.
We don’t need judges to agree all the time. In fact, they won’t. But we do need judges to score fights appropriately. MMA’s issues with scoring go beyond transparency. Open scoring can give fighters more control of the fight, but it won’t solve bad judging – and could present new problems and issues to the current system.