Ricardo Almeida now a pro MMA judge in NJ

Ricardo Almeida, who recently retired from active competition, is now a pro MMA judge in the state of New Jersey, according to Larry Pepe. Is it good for the sport to have a former fighter as a judge? Or is there a potential conflict of interest?

Going off what PT was saying, you can't judge people involved with your camp in any way. But I'm curious, can he judge against someone he has fought against? Or is that also not allowed? I think Ricardo as well as other former fighters are professional enough to not allow that to effect their judging. I'm sure most of them have the sports best interest in mind.

Prime how do you feel about Ricardo being a judge? Besides taking away work.

He'll be a good judge, he knows every aspect very well.

Primetyme199 wrote:

He'll be a good judge, he knows every aspect very well.

So could we see Ricardo at UFC or SF events as a judge next time they roll through NJ?

Yes it's possible.

It will be interesting though because so many fighters have come to his school to train for a week or two. Not sure if that will exclude him from those fights or not. Schaub was there training for a few weeks before the Cro Cop fight, Hammill has been there, Eddie Alvarez is there training with Edgar. The list goes on and on.


He won't be able to work any fights with fighters from his academy or from Renzo's.

Primetyme199 wrote:

Yes it's possible.

It will be interesting though because so many fighters have come to his school to train for a week or two. Not sure if that will exclude him from those fights or not. Schaub was there training for a few weeks before the Cro Cop fight, Hammill has been there, Eddie Alvarez is there training with Edgar. The list goes on and on.


He won't be able to work any fights with fighters from his academy or from Renzo's.

Can he work fights that involve people he has fought against? Like could he judge a Matt Hughes fight?

Honestly I'm not sure.

Primetyme199 wrote:

Honestly I'm not sure.

I was just curious. Also have you ever judged a fight with a fighter on your most hated list? Also on the flip side. Have you judged a fight for a fighter on your favorite list?

No to both. I can easily seperate enjoying watching someone fight and judging a fight. When I judge it's completely different to me then watching for enjoyment.

Primetyme199 wrote:

No to both. I can easily seperate enjoying watching someone fight and judging a fight. When I judge it's completely different to me then watching for enjoyment.

Yeah I imagine most people close to the sport have the sports best interest in mind. Being a fan I imagine you want it to be as fair as possible. As a judge on the big shows do you have any monitor to look at? Do you ever ask eachother questions?

No monitor's to look at. We talk after the show or when we see each other, or after a fight if we don't have the next one, but during a fight you can't talk to anyone because your seperated from the other judges.

Primetyme199 wrote:

No monitor's to look at. We talk after the show or when we see each other, or after a fight if we don't have the next one, but during a fight you can't talk to anyone because your seperated from the other judges.

Are the judges seperated to prevent them from talking or for differnt views? Seems like it having a monitor would be pretty helpful. I'm sure there are moments as a judge were you wish you could see how flush a shot landed or if it was more of a slip. Or sometimes your view might be blocked.
I guess it makes sense not talking to other judges because you might persuade their judging.

Seperated for different views. There are absolutely times your view is blocked for one reason or another. If you don't see it you cannot score it.

Primetyme199 wrote:

Seperated for different views. There are absolutely times your view is blocked for one reason or another. If you don't see it you cannot score it.

I hope over time that is improved. IMO replays can only help. Are there times where you ask yourself "was that a knockdown or a slip?" I know watching from home live there are times I ask that question.

your score card for each round is turned in before you'd ever get a chance to view any replay

Primetyme199 wrote:

your score card for each round is turned in before you'd ever get a chance to view any replay

What do you think about judges being able to watch replays? Should it be allowed? Or do you think they need to make the call live as it happens?

I like it the way it is. If you start watching replays you'll have to make between rounds longer and or it will interupt the fight with delays.

Primetyme199 wrote:

I like it the way it is. If you start watching replays you'll have to make between rounds longer and or it will interupt the fight with delays.

But wouldn't it be more accurate? You can watch replays in 2min or less. Especially if you have a monitor infront of you. More then likely it wouldn't add that much more time between rounds. How long from the time your card is taken until the next round in underway?

Depending on what order the ref collects them, and how long the ref takes to start getting them it's less then 30 seconds. I'm not really a fan of instant replay in any sport.

Instant replay is already available for use in NJ and Nevada. These are the circumstances it could be used.

– a knockdown versus a slip
– accidental versus intentional fouls
– if a cut was the result of a legal strike
– if a fighter beat the count
– low blows
– whether or not a strike landed before the bell rang

I think that is a great idea for the replay and all the circumstances make sense to me.
I'm a fan of replay, but not for everything. I don't like how college football has every play is reviewable. I like it more like how baseball has it. Very limited use. Strikes and balls should never, ever be reviewable.
But there is so much time,effort and money on the line for these guys. IMO we need to do what we can to get it right. Slight delays might be annoying, but you have to look at the whole picture and what is better for the sport.

I'm in the chat now, sorry for all the questions lol

I like the idea of more former fighters becoming judges, Ricardo is very intelligent, he should be a great judge.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/5/7/2968580/ufc-on-fox-3-ricardo-almeida-mma-judging-josh-koscheck-vs-johny-hendricks
Going into UFC on Fox 3, there was a tiny little bit of buzz amongst the MMA cognoscenti that UFC veteran Ricardo Almeida would be one of the judges chosen by the New Jersey Athletic Control Board to score the fights. Notably both Josh Koscheck and Johny Hendricks expressed their pleasure that Almeida would be judging their bout.

MMA Fighting's Ariel Helwani got quotes from both fighters about Almeida:

Quote :

"I think that's cool because he's going to know a little bit more about the sport and he's going to know what positions really mean," Hendricks said on a Thursday conference call. "He'll know when a strike actually lands. I think that's what we need is some people like that stepping in there and start doing that kind of stuff because they know what it's like to jump in the cage. They know what's like to do all this stuff. I think he'll be a great judge."

...

"I think it's good for the sport," Koscheck said. "It gets a perspective of a fighter, someone who's been in the Octagon and knows Jiu-Jitsu and knows wrestling and understands this sport. I think that as this sport grows we're going to see more ex-UFC fighters become judges, so I think it's a good start."

So imagine the irony when Almeida was the lone judge to score the fight for Koscheck in a split decision that went Hendricks' way. Fight Metric says Hendricks outscored Koscheck by a wide margin.

More from Luke Thomas and Almeida responds after the jump...

Luke Thomas pointed out the ironies at MMA Fighting:

Quote :

Hendricks was ultimately declared the winner, but only by split decision. Judges Jeff Blatnick and Cardo Urso scored the bout 29-28 for Hendricks. The dissenting judge who scored it 29-28 for Koscheck? Former UFC middleweight and welterweight contender and now retired fighter Ricardo Almeida.

It'd be a stretch to call scoring the fight for Koscheck irresponsible or evidence of poor judging, although there's not much of a quantitative defense for Koscheck. Still, judging is a qualitative endeavor and one hampered by vantage point, biases both ingrained or innocuous and the limits of one's ability to draw defensible conclusions about athletic performance. By the very nature of how judging is administered, a difference of opinion in close contests among those qualified to score MMA at the highest professional levels is inevitable. A score for Koscheck isn't bad even if it isn't ultimately the most defensible position to take.

Almeida spoke to Brazilian media outlet Globo Sport TV (translation by Orcus):

Quote :

The fight was very even. But I don't think (the result) was absurd. Koscheck was upset, but it was a tough fight. I don't see any injustice. I still think he did more to win even though Hendricks connected with more strikes standing, but I didn't think it was absurd.

The first two rounds could have gone either way. In the first round Koscheck had two combinations that were interesting. Hendricks stood against the fence and let in at least eight strikes. And when Hendricks took Koscheck down he couldn't do much. Koscheck was able to connect with cleaner strikes. In the second round, Hendricks was starting to connect more and I think he got two takedowns, I can't remember, I don't have the paper in front of me.

There was pressure (on me) for the fact that I used to be a UFC fighter. Everyone there came to talk to me, Lorenzo Fertitta, the people the work behind the scene, and even a guy from the Nevada Athletic Commission. I liked (being a judge), it was really cool, but there was that pressure, even more so because I knew the fight between Koscheck and Hendricks would be a tough one.

So was this former UFC fighter the only one to get it right? Or was he in the wrong?