Learning from the master, part 2: MMA judge certification with Big John McCarthy

It’s Sunday morning at the 2016 ABC conference, time to learn how to properly score the efforts of the men and women who walk into a cage to judo kick their opponent’s head into submission.

I’d previously been involved with two California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) Media Days shadow judging at Bellator events, but nothing beats full-fledged judge training from MMA legend “Big” John McCarthy.

I entered the same room as yesterday, now packed with what seemed to be 100 or more people. Some were already standing in the back. Worried there wouldn’t even be a seat, I scanned the front rows I wanted to sit in anyway – it helps to have a good view of the screen on judging day. Thankfully there was an empty spot in the second row so I pulled up a seat next to my buddies for the day, “Jiu-Jitsu” John Richmond, a long, lanky, lifetime MMA fan wanting to officiate in Colorado, and Hadi Moh’d Ali, one of our farthest travelers looking to use his training in Bahrain and other parts of the Middle East.

“There’s not one 10/10 fighter I’ve ever met who says, ‘I’m making $10,000,’ McCarthy said to start the day. “They’re all making $20,000 and they’ve already mentally spent that money.”

It’s a sad but true moment straight from the jump and all I could think of was putting on a Suze Orman-style financial management seminar for the 10/10 = 20 fighters who need a dose of “Denied girlfriend!”

But McCarthy’s point is well taken. All fighters walk in expecting to win, believing they’re going to win. They put blood, sweat, and tears into their craft and the job of judges at its most basic level is to not screw it up. Score each round for whoever deserves to win according to the judging criteria, end of story.

A judge is to be impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, and nonpartisan, to judge on the facts of a round. When the inevitable errors are made, the media and fight fans might blow up at them but they need to break down why they got it wrong, talk with peers, have discussions, and get better.

The sport is evolving and judges have to keep up with it and grow their knowledge base. That’s why days like these are so very important, and their lessons need to filter through to all of a commission’s officials.

Training participants were sent to different sides of the room based on their scores. Sometimes scores were lopsided (as pictured), other times evenly split.

10-8 Isn’t Murder

The first fight of the day was Dennis Bermudez vs. Matt Grice from UFC 157. Little scorecards were passed out just as if we were actual judges. Lesson one: Fill it out correctly. Lesson two: Always sign your scorecard.

Judging was easy… so far.

Round 2 was pretty close. There was a debate in the room as to whether Grice knocked Bermudez down, which I didn’t see at the time nor upon re-watching. I went with Grice but the tone and tenor after seemed to be leaning Bermudez. “His leg strikes were doing damage,” “there was a cut,” “Bermudez had the guillotine tight,” were all heard in the follow-up discussion.

Esther Lin

McCarthy agreed that the guillotine was tight and Grice’s flip and give-up of position was the reveal, leading Valel to drop one of the key elements of judging: While we can’t see inside a fighter’s brain to know the effect of strikes or submission attempts, we get information on the effect by how fighters react.

I’d later revisit this round and ask about a problem I sometimes have while judging. We’re taught to have a running score in our head so that at any moment, if a round stops we can immediately assign a score to it. In rounds like Bermudez-Grice round 2 when Grice is ahead early and Bermudez possibly comes back at the end, I sometimes have trouble deciding exactly when the score flips. Was it this elbow? That knee? That tight guillotine attempt?

“It’s not the case that you have to murder your opponent to get a 10-8.” – John McCarthy

McCarthy and Valel both keep a running total of effective damage in their head. Valel’s method is to imagine himself walking forward for fighter A’s damage and backward for fighter B’s, making bigger movements for greater damage. When it comes time to score the round, the only question is where he’s standing relative to his starting point. Score appropriately.

McCarthy emphasized what fighters deserve. Track the damage and give them what they earned, no matter the outcome. While the act of tracking damage may be somewhat subjective, the final evaluation should be objectively based on your running totals.

The few participants who scored this round 10-10 were greeted by McCarthy with a “You know where I want the 10-10 to go? Outside.” While many media folks argue for the use of 10-10 scores to expand, the clear emphasis in McCarthy’s training is that a competent judge should be able to focus, know what’s going on, and score the round for whoever was more effective, even if just by one technique. From this perspective, 10-10 scores are predominantly in existence for partial rounds that sometimes have to be scored even though pretty much nothing happened.

In the 3rd round of Bermudez-Grice, all but seven of us went 10-8 Bermudez. “Did he damage him?” McCarthy asked to the seven 10-9 scorers. “Did he dominate him in the round?” Bermudez pretty much pulverized Grice for five minutes.

In 2012, the judging criteria for a 10-8 score changed from “when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates” to “when a contestant wins by a large margin.” Dominance and Damage are the key factors for a 10-8 score (with Duration coming soon) and Bermudez easily had both in the 3rd.

“It’s not the case that you have to murder your opponent to get a 10-8,” McCarthy explained.

The Fan Hat

When we judged the 1st round of Rousey-Holm, I thought it would be an exercise in futility. It’s a pretty easy round to score and on top of that it’s famous. Everyone had surely heard the stories of Rousey’s performance and trainer Edmond Tarverdyan’s “beautiful” coaching.

My guesstimate is 20% of the room scored it for Rousey.

Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images

We can’t let our preconceived notions of Rousey or any other fighter cloud our judgment, Valel told the room. A judge does not care who wins, who’s famous, or who the champ is, only who deserved to win that round based on effectiveness, and 10-9 Rousey is flat wrong.

“A lot of you are still wearing the fan hat,” said Valel. “It’s hard to take off [the entertainment hat] and apply the criteria.”

What Was That?

After a break, we’re shown a picture of Kenny Robertson tapping out Brock Jardine at UFC 157.

What submission is it? “If you don’t know the submission, how do you know how to judge it?” McCarthy asked. After asking a handful of people who didn’t know, it came to me. “Suloev Stretch,” I replied. Sometimes needing to watch every single fight for no other reason than to not come off as a dumbass in print has its advantages.

But jiu-jitsu is always adapting and new moves are being developed every year. Hell, I had no idea what an Eviscerator was. While all judges don’t necessarily have to be practicing black belts or EBI junkies, they must be able to instantly identify what part of the body any submission is attacking. No one should think the uncomfortable-looking hold above attacks the ankle.

Damage A.K.A. Impact

What is damage (also known as “impact” in the new scoring criteria starting next year)? McCarthy defines damage as “An impairment in fighting ability as a result of the opponent’s actions. The debilitation of a fighter. A reduction in capacity to effectively compete. A diminishing of spirit, energy, and skill.”

Can a submission do damage by affecting cardio? Try getting out of a tight triangle or McCarthy’s side control and see for yourself. Causing physical pain is damaging but so is sapping an opponent’s energy or will to compete.

“Always ask the ‘and what?’ If nothing …

continue reading in source www.bloodyelbow.com