After the fallout of UFC 86, a lot of freelance judges have come out to give their take on how the Rampage-Griffin fight should have been scored. Ive heard about 20 different takes on how it should have been scored. This goes to show you that judging a fight isn't as easy as it sounds, and subjectivity does play a role in how a fight is scored. Rampage fans see the fight going to rampage and Griffin fans see the fight going to Griffin. Judges need to be completely impartial when watching a fight, especially a championship fight.
Judges scoring of the Jackson-Griffin fight:
Adalaide Byrd who scored it 48-46, gave 4 and 5 to Jackson and Griffin 1, 2 and 3 with 2 as 10-8
Nelson Hamilton had it 48-46 with 1 and 4 for Jackson, and Griffin getting 2 10-8
Roy Silbert had it 49-46 with only round 4 for Jackson
If all 3 of these judges saw trhe same fight, shouldn't the scoring be somewhat similar? I think subjectivity and bias play a large role in the outcome of fights. Like i said before, it is essential for the judges to be impartial to the fighters. I also think that a 10- point must scoring system is ridiculous for MMA. The 10-point must scoring system was adopted from boxing, a one dimensional sport (in comparison to MMA). MMA needs a more elaborate, subjectivity proof scoring system, one that takes into consideration all aspects of fighting.
Official guideline for judges:http://mmafever.blogspot.com/2007/10/10-point-must-system-for-mma.html