From my chair alongside judge Mike Beltran, the only two things I was supposed to focus on were the men inside the cage in front of me. In my left hand was a scorecard and a notepad. In my right was a pen. My lap held my iPhone, glowing white and blue with the Twitter app open.
Right before the first bell, I felt a tap on my shoulder. It was Cory Schafer, Bellator's director of regulatory affairs. He didn't look happy.
"I thought you were here to judge," Schafer said, looking down at my phone disapprovingly. "I can give someone else your seat if you're not ready to do it."
Schafer was mostly busting my chops. But his point hit home. Judging fights? This is serious business. There's no time to mess around on social media when the difference between a win and a loss -- and a fighter's finances -- are at stake.
Slipping my phone into my pocket, I felt alone. Beltran was next to me and there were thousands of screaming fans inside the Bren Events Center. But really, it was just me and the fighters. And I was the one -- or at least one of the ones -- deciding who would be the winner based solely on my observations in real time.
That's a massive responsibility and a daunting feeling. You miss something in a close round and that could be the difference of five figures for a fighter.
It might look easy sitting at home watching on Spike TV or FOX Sports 1 or pay-per-view. It's not. It's easier to screw up than you think. Believe me, I did it.
On Friday night, California State Athletic Commission executive director Andy Foster opened up his government organization's fight-night procedures to media. Foster explained in depth the CSAC's drug-testing protocols and reporters were given a walk-through of what doctors and EMTs do during MMA events.
The most enlightening moments came, though, during a judging seminar run by John McCarthy and the practice of actually judging the fights ourselves.
McCarthy, the godfather of MMA refereeing and one of the men who helped write the unified rules of the sport, explained the process differently than most fans have been led to believe. Effective striking and effective grappling are the two most important things in every round, McCarthy said. Only if those two things are equal do you take into account details like cage control and aggression.
In other words, the fighter who does the most damage or attempts to finish the fight with submission attempts should win the round -- not the fighter who spends the most time in top position or pushing his opponent against the fence.
"It's not who lands the most strikes," McCarthy told us. "Where do they land and what effect do they have on the fight?"
Sounds like a simple and easy theory to apply, right? Not so much. On a TV screen, McCarthy showed us the third round of the fight between Gilbert Melendez and Diego Sanchez from UFC 166 in October 2013 without commentary or crowd noise. Melendez lands more and seems to do more damage, but Sanchez has a major flurry in the middle of the round when he drops Melendez with a big uppercut and takes Melendez's back.
Of the five journalists in attendance during the McCarthy judging crash course, three scored the round for Melendez and two scored it for Sanchez. I was one of the latter and McCarthy explained to me why I was wrong. Sanchez had the best strike of the round, but Melendez never lost any of his faculties -- he braced his fall on the knockdown -- and Sanchez never came close to finishing on the ground.
Melendez landed more and opened up a nasty cut over Sanchez's eye. He should have won that round. But two judges, presumably interpreting it like I did, scored the round for Sanchez at UFC 166. Melendez won the fight, winning the first two rounds, but he should have won them all.
There's a reason why it's called "judging." There is some subjectivity to it. But it's the judge's job to know what to look for, be educated on the sport and understand how to score certain things. And there's no time to mull it over. Your scorecard is collected immediately after the round is over. You have to be judging as the round goes.
Bellator 136 could not have been a better event for this exercise. There were an incredible amount of close rounds and even what should have been a 10-8 -- Joey Beltran's near finish of Brian Rogers in the second round of their fight.
None of the journalists present could pull the trigger on the 10-8, and we should have. As McCarthy explained it, a 10-8 must have a combination of dominance (a lack of offense from the fighter on the losing end) and damage. There are cases when there is so much damage -- like with Beltran on Rogers -- or dominance that a 10-8 is warranted even when the other one is not present.
Read more...
Judge not, lest ye be judged: My night with the California State Athletic Commission - MMA Fighting
Right before the first bell, I felt a tap on my shoulder. It was Cory Schafer, Bellator's director of regulatory affairs. He didn't look happy.
"I thought you were here to judge," Schafer said, looking down at my phone disapprovingly. "I can give someone else your seat if you're not ready to do it."
Schafer was mostly busting my chops. But his point hit home. Judging fights? This is serious business. There's no time to mess around on social media when the difference between a win and a loss -- and a fighter's finances -- are at stake.
Slipping my phone into my pocket, I felt alone. Beltran was next to me and there were thousands of screaming fans inside the Bren Events Center. But really, it was just me and the fighters. And I was the one -- or at least one of the ones -- deciding who would be the winner based solely on my observations in real time.
That's a massive responsibility and a daunting feeling. You miss something in a close round and that could be the difference of five figures for a fighter.
It might look easy sitting at home watching on Spike TV or FOX Sports 1 or pay-per-view. It's not. It's easier to screw up than you think. Believe me, I did it.
On Friday night, California State Athletic Commission executive director Andy Foster opened up his government organization's fight-night procedures to media. Foster explained in depth the CSAC's drug-testing protocols and reporters were given a walk-through of what doctors and EMTs do during MMA events.
The most enlightening moments came, though, during a judging seminar run by John McCarthy and the practice of actually judging the fights ourselves.
McCarthy, the godfather of MMA refereeing and one of the men who helped write the unified rules of the sport, explained the process differently than most fans have been led to believe. Effective striking and effective grappling are the two most important things in every round, McCarthy said. Only if those two things are equal do you take into account details like cage control and aggression.
In other words, the fighter who does the most damage or attempts to finish the fight with submission attempts should win the round -- not the fighter who spends the most time in top position or pushing his opponent against the fence.
"It's not who lands the most strikes," McCarthy told us. "Where do they land and what effect do they have on the fight?"
Sounds like a simple and easy theory to apply, right? Not so much. On a TV screen, McCarthy showed us the third round of the fight between Gilbert Melendez and Diego Sanchez from UFC 166 in October 2013 without commentary or crowd noise. Melendez lands more and seems to do more damage, but Sanchez has a major flurry in the middle of the round when he drops Melendez with a big uppercut and takes Melendez's back.
Of the five journalists in attendance during the McCarthy judging crash course, three scored the round for Melendez and two scored it for Sanchez. I was one of the latter and McCarthy explained to me why I was wrong. Sanchez had the best strike of the round, but Melendez never lost any of his faculties -- he braced his fall on the knockdown -- and Sanchez never came close to finishing on the ground.
Melendez landed more and opened up a nasty cut over Sanchez's eye. He should have won that round. But two judges, presumably interpreting it like I did, scored the round for Sanchez at UFC 166. Melendez won the fight, winning the first two rounds, but he should have won them all.
There's a reason why it's called "judging." There is some subjectivity to it. But it's the judge's job to know what to look for, be educated on the sport and understand how to score certain things. And there's no time to mull it over. Your scorecard is collected immediately after the round is over. You have to be judging as the round goes.
Bellator 136 could not have been a better event for this exercise. There were an incredible amount of close rounds and even what should have been a 10-8 -- Joey Beltran's near finish of Brian Rogers in the second round of their fight.
None of the journalists present could pull the trigger on the 10-8, and we should have. As McCarthy explained it, a 10-8 must have a combination of dominance (a lack of offense from the fighter on the losing end) and damage. There are cases when there is so much damage -- like with Beltran on Rogers -- or dominance that a 10-8 is warranted even when the other one is not present.
Read more...
Judge not, lest ye be judged: My night with the California State Athletic Commission - MMA Fighting
