Trading Shots: So why can't we leave it in the hands of the judges, anyway?

Benson Henderson and Donald Cerrone

In this week’s Trading Shots, MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC/WEC fighter Danny Downes take a look at some strange scores from the judges at UFC Fight Night 59, and wonder when we’ll finally stop complaining and start doing something about those people whose judgment no one seems to trust.

* * * *

Fowlkes: Danny, I feel like it’s in danger of being overlooked, what with this Conor McGregor fellow capturing the imaginations of the MMA universe with his performances in and just outside of the cage, but did you notice that things got a little weird with the judges in Boston on Sunday night?

I know the most obvious and egregious example was Cathal Pendred somehow getting the nod for blocking Sean Spencer’s punches with his face, but let’s start with Donald Cerrone’s unanimous decision win over Benson Henderson in UFC Fight Night 59’s co-headliner.

It’s tempting to view this as a “live by the sword, die by the sword” scenario, since, come on, Henderson’s been on the other side of that particular sword more than once in his career. At the same time, that’s not how it’s supposed to work, right? I know it was a close fight and all, but what does it tell us if we see judging as essentially a coin flip that, if tempted often enough, will eventually break your heart?

Downes: I’ve never been a fan of the whole, “Don’t leave it in the hands of the judges,” phrasing. Yes, knocking your opponent out or submitting them can save you from a robbery, but that’s ignoring the real issue.

Judges are supposed to be qualified individuals. If surgeons were as unreliable as judges, you wouldn’t say, “Don’t leave it in the hand of the surgeons,” if they botched something. If you’re negligent at your job, the victim shouldn’t be held accountable. The perpetrator should.

Now, Henderson isn’t the most sympathetic of victims. Like you said, he’s been on the winning end of some close decisions. Much like when Lyoto Machida lost to Phil Davis, the schadenfreude was out in full force. But if we break things down, we can see how Henderson was at a systemic disadvantage. First off, MMA judging is not particularly kind to counter-striking. The most egregious example of this was Martin Kampmann vs. Diego Sanchez at UFC on VERSUS 3 in Louisville, Ky.

I was sitting cageside for that fight, and both Pat Barry and I considered quitting and starting a folk singing group after seeing how bad Sanchez got roughed up. Then we considered retiring when Sanchez actually won the fight. It’s what I call “The Leonard Garcia Effect.” Judges seem to think that the fighter who is moving forward must be winning.

I realize that aggression is one of the determining factors, but it’s weighed far too heavily for my preference.

As much as I’d like to sit here and complain about judges with you, I’m a solutions-oriented guy. The only problem is I… uh… don’t really have one. What can we do to fix this? I don’t think an all-day seminar will solve the problem. Anyone who’s watched an athletic commission hearing (though I don’t know why you would) can see that the level of incompetence out there is massive. When are we marching on City Hall?

Fowlkes: I think City Hall is closed today, what with Martin Luther King Jr. Day. And tomorrow I have a thing, so maybe Wednesday? Nope, my sewing circle meets Wednesday. Crap, this is how all my angry riot plans end.

Maybe the better question is, what will we demand of City Hall when we get there? Because Cerrone over Henderson, that was a close enough fight that I don’t feel pitchforks and torches are totally warranted. But Pendred’s win over Spencer? Yeah, that one’s a little torch-worthy.

Cathal Pendred

The thing that always baffles me is how seldom any action is taken when judges screw up. You know how it goes. We’ll get mad for a few days, maybe even post on some forums about that awful Doug Crosby (who, along with judge Eric Colon, scored every round for Pendred), but by tomorrow or the next day we’ll have forgotten all about it.

There’s another UFC event this weekend, so there’s the very strong possibility that we’ll have some fresh outrage to attract our attention by this time next week. Meanwhile, Spencer goes home with his paycheck cut in half and a loss on his record that he doesn’t deserve.

My point is, we love to complain about judging in MMA. What we don’t love is doing anything about it. It seems like a judge has to screw up over and over again (this ain’t Crosby’s first time turning in a surprising scorecard, by the way) before anyone even considers telling him to stay home on fight night. It seems clear that athletic commissions either aren’t paying attention, or don’t care enough to do regular evaluations of their own judges to see who’s doing a good job and who needs a different job. Seems to me that that’s where we should start, no?

Downes: That seems like a reasonable place to begin. Maybe your buddies in the so-called media can lend a helping hand, too. We like to complain about judges, we even like writing about incompetent judges, but how many of them are interviewed? How often are they taken to task beyond 140 characters or less? That Bloody Elbow article you link to isn’t an interview, but at least it shines light on Doug Crosby’s, well, let’s call them peculiarities. Maybe you could even write a #lifestyle piece about him and how well he gets along with Rover Gracie, his seeing eye dog.

I know you don’t like it when UFC President Dana White passes the buck by blaming “the government,” but he does have a point. The larger promotions may have some leverage, but don’t have the authority (certain international events excluded) to change judges, nor should they.

The fact of the matter is, if there is no pressure, there’s no reason to act. Yelling on the Internet is not a form of pressure. Maybe a good public shaming is in order. You love doing that kind of stuff anyway. It should be right in your wheelhouse.

As long as we’re changing things, we can we please deemphasize the importance of takedowns? If you look at the Cerrone-Henderson fight, Henderson landed more strikes, threw more strikes, and connected on more significant strikes. The only statistic in Cerrone’s favor was a 1/7 on takedown attempts.

We always hear coaches tell their guy to “steal the round” with a takedown at the end, but is a flash takedown like Cerrone had in the second round really that much more valuable than a couple of strikes? What about you, Ben? What other changes would you like to make? And no, San-do is not going to be a thing. Let it go.

Fowlkes: The point about takedowns is well made. A friend and I were having a conversation recently about whether judges have taught fighters that, all other things being even sort of close to equal, a takedown in the last minute seals it, or whether it’s the fighters who have gradually gotten the judges to believe it, thereby making it into an unstated rule. I’m not sure which it is, but it is a weird thing.

So is “octagon control,” now that I’m making a list. I know that being able to dictate where the fight takes place is important and all, but doesn’t the cage control argument seem like it’s usually the first refuge of a scoundrel? To me, it’s become shorthand for “I don’t know why I think that dude won, but I refuse to be talked out of it.” It’s one of those phrases that’s so difficult to clearly define, so who can say for sure when it doesn’t apply?

It’s stuff like this, like octagon control, like takedowns to “steal” a round (note to coaches: maybe don’t shout out for a guy to do something to steal a round, because it implies that even you believe he doesn’t deserve to win it as is), like the refusal to issue a 10-8 score for anything less than a near-decapitation, these are the big philosophical problems with MMA judging. They aren’t written down anywhere, but the handful of judges we see over and over again have all come to believe in this imaginary code, and the fighters then fight with that code in mind.

The actual people screwing up the scores? Yeah, they’re an issue too. We should be taking harder, more frequent looks at the repeat offenders. We should also decide how we actually want the sport to be scored, rather than mindlessly accepting how judges have decided to do it.

Downes: I think we should view judges the way we view referees. Some are good, some are bad, and some are downright terrible. Both are very difficult jobs, but the level of difficulty should not be a sanctuary for incompetence.

The big difference between the two, though, is recognizability. We all know who Herb Dean is. We could pick Steve Mazzagatti out in a crowd. Who’s Doug Crosby? I could be sitting next to Adelaide Bird right now and wouldn’t know it. Maybe that’s a problem. The only reason I know what Cecil Peoples looks like is because of this picture.

I’m not saying we should start harassing these people, but their relative anonymity provides them with protection. Perhaps that’s a good thing. We don’t want judges to be influenced by fans and coaches. At the same time, we don’t want them to be free from criticism. If I ever made mistakes, I’d want to be called out on them. On the rare occasions when I hear a valid critique, I even consider modifying my behavior.

Judging will never be perfect. We can’t let the ideal be a barrier to the better, though. There are a lot of large-scale issues that need improvement, but we can start out small. I think that we’re in agreement that the first thing to fix is accountability. We say we don’t want to leave it in the hands of the judges. Maybe it’s about time we put it in our hands.

For complete coverage of UFC Fight Night 59, check out the UFC Events section of the site.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.