I scored the fight between Diego Sanchez and Martin Kampmann last night as the main event at UFC on Versus 3.
Martin Kampmann: Whored By Bad Judges Or Human Predilection?
After the decision of Diego Sanchez vs. Martin Kampmann at UFC on Versus 3, it’s time to evaluate how limited a judges perspective can be cage side.
Our friends over at FightMetric.com give clarity to the picture with some stats:
FightMetric deemed Kampmann the winner, 29-28 according to the 10-point must system. In terms of their effectiveness scoring system, Kampmann out-pointed Sanchez 475-333.
Kampmann stuffed 14 of 15 takedown attempts from Sanchez.
In terms of significant strikes, Kampmann out landed Sanchez 77 to 51. The Dane also out landed Sanchez in terms of overall strikes and head strikes. Sanchez, however, connected with 8 body shots to Kampmann's five and two leg kicks to Kampmann's one.
Compustrike also adds this nugget to the controversial third-round debate:
In 3: Kamp 34-19 edge in total strikes landed but Sanchez had 17-14 edge in power strikes landed
Compustrike
Compustrike
I’m not going to rehash the same, exhausted memes about what does and doesn’t produce judging problems. Do the judges deserve monitors? Sure. Are there judges grandfathered in from boxing who are clearly incompetent? Sure. Could there be a more rigorous enforcement of removing and placing judges based on job performance? Sure. And is the 10-point must system the ideal instrument to decide winners and losers? No, probably not.
But at some point, one just becomes fatigued with this entire process. Judging problems aren’t as concentrated in places with experienced commissions, but problems crop up there as well and all that tells me is there has to be massive curation just to avoid disaster.
I’m not calling for an abandonment of improvement. Getting better officiating is important for all the right reasons. But problems seem to be an omnipresent, kudzu of a disease. It’s a consistent cancer no matter the risk factors.
Rather than deriding judges as thoroughly incompetent, and many likely are, we’re going to have to come to terms with the epistemic limits of live judging. Put in simpler terms: fights look different in person and we must begin to quantify if there’s a pattern to those differences.
I've been fortunate enough to sit cage side for fights. Believe it or not, you miss a lot. I never saw the nervousness on Chase Beebe's face when he fought Mike Easton, The modern TV experience is such a viewing treat, we often lose perspective of what we're getting. Multiple cameras, multiple angles all brought to you in high definition with two experts providing context is something the silence of your own mind can't match. Without the assistance of technology plus an expert's human interpretation, trying to distill a fast-moving, fixed position experience is deeply difficult.
This isn’t a cheap call for video monitors for judges. Again, the at-home TV experience is more than just a video transmission. There’s commentators to lean on in addition to the network of online audiences many fans engage as part of their viewing experience. That also helps with context, information and analysis often to the point where home viewers fail to take account of what that added element provides.
We need to inventory, as specifically as we can, how limited the fixed-position, mostly technology-free perspective of a judge actually is. Some of these judges are sub-humanoids, many are not. Many are limited by the epistemic limits of a fixed position and the human ability to absorb and process information.
Frankly, it’s just lazy to blithely chalk up the problems with judges to officials who coincidentally lack mammalian brains no matter where fights take place. Maybe judging in person is more difficult than we imagine and maybe it’s time to come to grips that we can’t really move forward with solutions until we fully understand those limitations.
See More:
