How changes in California evaluating judges could negatively impact scoring fights

By Zach Arnold | December 6, 2010

I wanted to point out this discussion with Dave Meltzer, who takes a look at how California’s commission will start evaluating judges in 2011. Take note of what kind of changes are coming and use that template to analyze the judges giving Leonard Garcia a decision win over Nam Phan last Saturday in Las Vegas.

DAVE MELTZER: “I don’t know. You know I mean, it’s Tony Weeks and Adalaide Byrd who gave rounds one and three to (Leonard) Garcia. The other judge, now this is another point, actually, the other judge, the Japanese judge, gave all three rounds to Nam Phan but the key is that, and this is not Nevada so much, but California… this is the point… California’s going to be evaluating judges based on, um, how they fare when you score rounds as compared to the other judges.”

BRYAN ALVAREZ: “Oh God…”

DAVE MELTZER: “So the Japanese judge who probably had it right would actually, if this was California’s evaluation system, he would look really bad because he missed on two of the three rounds based on the consensus and so it would look like he was the bad judge as opposed to the other two judges. So, that’s one of the things where the way they are evaluating judges and the way you evaluate judges’ consistency, it’s uh, you know, compared to the other two judges…”

BRYAN ALVAREZ: “Oh, this is great. So we got a bunch of stupid judges and if the stupid ones are, uh, outnumbering the intelligent ones then we’re just going to have more stupid judges.”

DAVE MELTZER: “Not necessarily that, but in certain cases some guys may look bad. But the point of the evaluation is is that subconsciously what’s going to happen is no one’s going to give 10-8 rounds.”

BRYAN ALVAREZ: “Oh God…”

DAVE MELTZER: “Because they know that the other judges aren’t going to give 10-8 rounds so if they give a 10-8 and the other judges give a 10-9, then it looks like that they were out of sync with the scoring. So, that’s the, um… you know, and this is again not in Nevada but it will be, it is how in 2011 the California judges will be evaluated and to me the end result is is that we’re going to see a lot fewer 10-8 rounds in California because the judges are going to know that I’ve got to, instead of judging how I believe the fight goes, now I have to judge based on how I believe the other judges are going to judge the fight and not be off on that and that’s a completely different mindset. I mean, again, when I, you know, and people who follow my play-by-plays and everything, I always say you know in a lot of these fights, you know, which is often the key on these would be fights where a guy is on top, does nothing on top, the guy on the bottom is threatening submissions, actually gets near submissions and things like that, and I’ll go like, the guy on the bottom won the round but I think the judges are going to give it to the guy on the top. If you are now a judge and you were, you know, wanting to protect your position, if you thought that the guy on the bottom won you might give it to the guy on the top based on the fact that that’s how it’s usually judged, so it’s really um… There’s a lot of issues with the judging, you know, it’s a bad system to begin with and bad judges…”

(snipped to discussion a few minutes later on in the discussion)

DAVE MELTZER: “The problem is not the 10 point must system. The problem is how judges are trained in that they’re going to give everything a 10-9. They won’t give 10-10’s because the commission frowns on 10-10’s which is ridiculous because when no one does anything to either guy, you know, it’s an even round! And someone shouldn’t get credit for, you know, what I call a coin flip round and that’s what it is. … I mean, when there are rounds when nobody does much of anything, it is, you know, essentially a coin flip round, either guy can get it and it creates a situation where, you know, and it’s the same value of beating the [expletive] out of somebody in the other round. So, it’s… and you get these decisions like [Nam Phan losing to Leonard Garcia]. It really wasn’t… uh, an outrageous decision yet I know the people in the UFC were absolutely furious. I know (Joe) Rogan was furious and when Rogan went off, UFC if Rogan had gone off and I can tell you this one, if Rogan had gone off on that and UFC did not agree with it, Rogan would be in hot water and he is not in hot water. In fact, they were really glad he did, which just tells you where, you know, their mentality was is that they believe that, you know, Nam Phan got completely robbed and in a sense he did, but you know again, it’s partially the system. Also at the end, I mean when it was over though it was like you would really I have to stretch I thought to get two rounds for Garcia but um… it was a very good fight up until the decision. I mean, it was what I expected, you know I mean Garcia just, Garcia goes all out. He swings really hard until he gasses out. He gassed out earlier in usual because he wasn’t in the shape he’s usually in which is what happens when you’re called late. Nam Phan, very disciplined, you know, pretty exciting fighter and… in a sense, you know, at the end of the day my feeling is that a lot of people are going to go, he got robbed, and he did but… for your career, honestly, a lot of people don’t realize this is but it’s like with Matt Hamill in a situation or even Evan Dunham recently. It actually benefits you to get robbed because what happens is so many people get behind you for being robbed. Like if Nam Phan were to actually won this decision, nobody would be talking about Nam Phan. They would be a little bit and you know it still would have gotten Best Fight and everything, but Nam Phan will gain a lot more popularity for being robbed and UFC, which is the key to the whole thing, is that the UFC matchmaking and the UFC hierarchy will not hold this loss against him because they consider it a win. So, you know, I mean who people analyze records and go, Oh my God, he’s 16-8 instead of 17-7, oh my God! You know what? It doesn’t mean [expletive] and the reality is like when Matt Hamill lost to (Michael) Bisping. Matt Hamill became so much more popular for losing to Bisping because he got robbed than had he won the fight justly.”

I am sure there are "negative" things on this new system being tested.. but thats exactly what it is being done.. being tested.. on amateur fights in California.. one thing that I know is I do not like the current 10 point must system for MMA.. so I am all for them taking a look at something else.. maybe tweaking it when problems arise .. whatever I am in, at least they are making it look like they are trying.. so thats good enough for me right now

or maybe thats just me.

I'll use my response from the other thread:


But relatively few decisions are bad ones, so for the most part the guy scoring it correctly will not get an unwarranted red mark.

There will be exceptions but I doubt a good judge would be on the wrong side of 2 bad judges on enough occasions for the good one to be punished.


And I'll add:

1)10-8's seem entirely too rare now.

2)Why would one judge assume the other judge would not give a 10-8.

Well they'll be afraid to do it now thinking they'll be in the minority and get graded bad for giving the 10-8 round. I think you'll see even less of them.


Doesn't matter to me either way, I know how I score a fight and I don't care or think about what other judges say. I've given out 10-10, 10-9, and 10-8 rounds and stand by every one I've scored.