If you’ve watched enough MMA, the name Nelson “Doc” Hamilton shouldn’t be new to you. Involved in the martial arts for over 30 years, “Doc” is perhaps best known for serving as a judge for some of the biggest mixed martial arts fights in history.
Throughout his career, “Doc” has served as both a referee and judge for the UFC, Pride, Strikeforce, WEC, and K-1. He has also served as an advisor to the California State Athletic Commission, and has seen the evolution of mixed martial arts firsthand. Consequently, he’s become well aware of the problems that judges face in the present scoring format MMA has adopted.
We were able to speak with him at-length and get his thoughts on the current state of MMA judging, what it’s like to spend a night judging fights, as well as hear him explain the half-point scoring system he has proposed to the UFC and state athletic commissions.
If you’ve ever wondered what it takes to judge an MMA bout, or why a decision came out the way it did, this is a must-read.
BumpyKnuckle.com: Can you tell us about your background in the martial arts?
Doc Hamilton: Well, I started in the martial arts in 1973 and it’s been a natural transition for me. An evolutionary type process whereby I was a student, I got into competing, and then started judging kickboxing and then muay thai, and then refereeing.
When MMA came along, I already had a wrestling background—I wrestled in high school and college—and my first discipline in martial arts was judo, so I felt comfortable. The only thing I really had to do was learn jiu-jitsu. So I went around to different schools here in California and got on the mat working with fighters and learning what it’s all about and what they expected of a referee.
Once I felt comfortable there I started refereeing smaller shows like Gladiator Challenge and King of the Cage and then eventually worked my way up to the big show.
BumpyKnuckle.com: Do referees have to be licensed in each state, or are you able to work in any state once you get licensed?
Doc: It’s a state by state thing. States have jurisdiction over who works in their state. For the most part you have to be licensed, but if we’re going to a state where we may only be there once, sometimes they’ll waive the license and defer to the UFC because the UFC is bringing us in.
For instance in New Jersey—I used to work New Jersey back in the late-90’s, early 2000’s—for the last few years they do not have anyone from out of state come in and work their shows because they feel they have competent enough people. And that’s their prerogative. But not every state is as advanced as New Jersey.
Let’s say the UFC is going to ‘Podunk, Iowa,’ and the UFC says to the Iowa commission, ‘We have a list of people that we would like to have come in,’ or ‘Pick three people from this list because they are experienced and they would help train your people.’ The guy at the commission can pick the people and that’s it. If you don’t get picked you don’t work.
BumpyKnuckle.com: Can you take us through a night of judging?
Doc: Let’s assume there’s going to be a UFC show on a Saturday night. If it’s on the west coast the first fight is usually around 5pm or 5:15pm for the undercard. We usually have to report to ringside about 45 minutes to an hour ahead of time and then the commission will hand us our assignments. We’ll have a list of all the fights scheduled and the fights that you are working will be highlighted and you’ll have scorecards for those particular fights. That’s the first time when we know who we are-and-aren’t judging. And it’s the same thing for the referee. He doesn’t know until he gets there and they hand him an assignment sheet on which bouts he’s going to be doing.
So you sit down and make sure that all the bouts that are highlighted you have scorecards for and they didn’t screw up and forget it. You don’t want to sit down for a fight and not have a scorecard, and that’s happened. So, that’s the first thing.
The second thing is you sign your scorecards. Then you just wait around until the program starts. If you have the second fight, you go down after the first fight, find your seat and get ready. During the fight, you watch the round, put your score down and somebody comes around and picks it up and takes it to the commissioner. The official scorer puts it on the official scoring sheet round-by-round and that’s the process.
BumpyKnuckle.com: So after each round you hand over your score?
Doc: Yes, as soon as the round is over someone comes over and collects it.
BumpyKnuckle.com: There has been a lot of talk about judging in MMA. How do you feel about the scoring system and judging as a whole right now?
Doc: Let me give you an all-encompassing answer. First of all, we have a lot of what I say are quote ‘controversies,’ or so-called ‘controversies.’ Controversies are for the most part, not controversies. A controversy is when a score comes in from the judges totally off-the-wall. Or, it’s an obvious fact at the end of the fight who won and the guy doesn’t win the fight.
If it’s a close fight, it’s a close fight. There is going to be people that are upset no matter who the winner is. No matter who the winner is, there is going to be a certain faction that is going to be upset. Maybe because it’s their favorite fighter or if it’s in Vegas they’ve bet on somebody or whatever the case may be.
Our controversies for the most part in MMA are because one fighter wins a round obviously, the other fighter wins a round obviously, and then we have an extremely close round that has to be decided. And no matter what the decision is, there is always a faction that says ‘no, it shouldn’t be that way, the other guy won.’ That’s a difference of opinion, that’s not a controversy.
Another factor that enters into ‘controversies’ that most people don’t even think about is that when the people at home are watching it on TV, they have the best view that you can possibly have. You’ve got five cameras that are always picking up the best angle and they see that. People in the audience and the reporters that have an un-obstructed view of the cage can look at the cage or the big screen and they don’t even have to move their eyes. They are getting a TV feed. The commentators Rogan and Goldberg are watching the fight part of the time, and part of the time they are watching the TV feed that is right in front of them. They’re getting the best possible angles that you can.
As a judge, we don’t see that. All we see is what’s in front of us. We are in a static, stationary position. We can’t look, we can’t go anywhere, and if the action isn’t perpendicular to our line of sight we can’t see what the hell is going on. The only time we get to see the feed is if they go down on the ground, then we can take a look at the screen to see what’s going on. But if they’re standing and throwing punches and kicks, I can’t take my eyes off what’s going on in the ring to look up at the big screen. So, to a certain extent, the judges are watching a different fight than everybody else is watching. And people don’t think about that. I can only see what I see. I don’t have five cameras looking at the best angles for me. I should, but I don’t.
In getting into the scoring system, as far as I’m concerned our present scoring system is adequate for the rounds that are won in obvious fashion. For close rounds, our present scoring system is totally inadequate. And the reason is this: It doesn’t account for how the round was won. In other words, let’s say there is a round that you and I are fighting and during the course of that round nothing happens of significance other than you took me down one time. I get back up, there was no damage or anything. In looking at that round, that was the only significant thing that happened. There was no meaningful strikes landed, no meaningful grappling; there was one takedown. So based upon that, you’re going to win the round 10-9.
Next round we come out and I beat you from pillar to post. Not enough to get a 10-8—10-8 is damage and domination—but I beat you from pillar to post and I get a 10-9. Now, you took me down one time and you get the same score as me! Where is the fairness in that? Where is the equity in that? So, that’s another source of our controversy.
Or better yet, I win two rounds because I took you down twice and the next round you beat me from pillar to post and they announce the winner and I win the fight and the audience is going, ‘how could he win the fight, the other guy just beat the crap out of him?’ But, based on the score, I win by one point. So, that’s one of the areas where our present scoring system sucks.
The other part of it is the criteria has to be changed. The number-one criteria should be damage. This is not a tennis match, this is a fight. It’s a sport, but at its core it is a fight. The number-one sign to who’s winning a fight is usually damage. If you have damage it automatically tells everyone who is doing the effective striking. Now you don’t have to think about what was effective and what wasn’t. Look at the guy and he’s busted up, or say a guy throws a kick into the ribcage like Vera did to Couture and the guy grabs his side or drops to the ground, that’s an obvious sign of effective striking.
BumpyKnuckle.com: Can you tell us about the scoring system that you have created?
Doc: I’ve developed an alternative to what we’ve got at the present time, which is based upon a half-point system. So, rather than a 10-9, it could be 10-9.5. So let’s say it’s an extremely close round like we talked about. In those types of rounds, they would be 10-9.5. In an obvious round, it would be a 10-9 just like we have now. Let’s say that one fighter damages the other fighter that is fairly significant but he really didn’t dominate him, then you give a 10-8.5. Or, if it’s total domination you do a 10-8. There is more latitude and you can really tell the quality of the win in each round that way.
So in our imaginary round where I won the round based on just the takedown, that would be a 10-9.5 round. If I did that for two rounds and got 10-9.5 twice and the last round you come back and really put a whooping on me and get a 10-9, at the end of that fight the score is tied.
Now, we have a solution to solving that draw because nobody likes draws. For each fight, we have a fourth judge. Three of them judge the fight just like they do now. The other judge is called a table judge. All he does is keep track of the technical merits. In other words, who took who down? Who passed guard? Who swept or grabbed the back? You have points based on that. A takedown into guard is two points. Passing the guard is three points. Gaining full mount is four points, and so forth. So at the end of the fight if it ends up a draw, then they look at the total of those scores and whoever has the most point’s wins the fight based on technical merit.
BumpyKnuckle.com: So, are all aspects of judging a fight (striking, aggression, cage control) supposed to be weighed evenly?
Doc: According to our present criteria it’s a sliding scale. It’s supposed to be effective striking is the number one criteria, effective grappling is number two, aggression is number three, and cage control is number four. It’s supposed to be in that manner. So if I have effective striking and you have effective grappling, my striking should counter your grappling.
BumpyKnuckle.com: Sounds like quite a bit to consider.
Doc: The problem with our scoring system at the present time is that the 10-point must system, and the way we’re using it now, was never meant for a sport like MMA. It was meant for boxing. Boxing is a pretty simple sport compared to MMA. In boxing, each guy has two weapons; his right hand and his left hand. That’s all you have to watch and the target 99 percent of the time is the head. That’s it. That’s a far cry from MMA.
BumpyKnuckle.com: It certainly sounds like some changes need to be made.
Doc: Well, that’s what we’re working on right now. If you check out my website you can read about my half-point system that I’ve recommended to the ABC (Association of Boxing Commissions) and the UFC. (Editor’s Note: “Doc’s” official proposal outlining the half-point system can be found here.)
One of the problems we have is the athletic commissions are the ultimate decision makers of what happens. That’s not a good thing because state athletic commissions are not known for their courage in revising anything and they are severely hampered in their ability to see outside the box. So, people that are financially and intricately involved in the sport are the ones that are going to have to make things happen.
But I’ve put a lot of time and effort into this and I’ve submitted it to [athletic commissions]. I don’t know how long it’s going to take but you’re going to hear more and more about it. My total recommendations and the entire scoring system that I recommend is going to be published in Ultimate MMA in either the Feb/March or March/April issue.
Also, right now I am in the process of re-scoring several high profile fights using the half-point system. So, for instance, if you think about the Matt Hamill vs. Michael Bisping fight—a lot of people thought Hamill won that fight no matter what. So I went through it, and using the half-point system, at the end of the three rounds I had it even. So now we go to the technical aspects of the fight. Based on the technical aspects of the fight, Matt Hamill wins a technical decision because he had four or five takedowns during the course of that fight and Bisping didn’t have any.
BumpyKnuckle.com: What other issues do you see in the judging process right now?
Doc: I have the advantage over most people of being in the martial arts for an awful long time. I can tell you for a fact that if you go to a judo tournament, local or national, there are no draws. Somebody wins that fight. They have a way of determining the winner.
If you go to a wrestling match at your local high school or college or whatever; there are no draws. Somebody wins that fight. If you go to a grappling match like Abu Dhabi, there are no draws. All I’m saying is, we should do the same thing. If you’re afraid of draws, then that’s the problem.
Most of the athletic commissions basically don’t come out and tell you not to score a 10-10 round, but they want us to find a difference between the two fighters after five minutes. Which is just a way of saying don’t score it a tie.
Presently, we don’t have any way of resolving a draw and most people don’t want draws. So they want us to find some difference. Well, I think that is not right. There is no way a judge should be placed in a situation where he has to look for a reason to give the round to somebody because you don’t want a 10-10. If it’s a 10-10 then that’s what it should be. So, in other words, don’t look for a scorer to resolve your problems with regards to draws, look for a way to resolve a draw. And that’s basically what I have given them, based upon objective criteria. Unfortunately, we haven’t reached that point yet.
No related posts.
Great Interview; alot of solid content. The half point system could solve alot of problems and would likely reduce a good amount of UFC crybabies at the end of close fights