Point Taken

Before the world exploded following a certain fighter tapping out last Saturday night, much of the talk of the MMA world surrounded two fights: Jardine-Hamill and Varner-Shalorus. Besides being pretty good fights overall and main events for different Zuffa-owned promotions, the two fights shared something in common: in each fight, the referee took a point from a fighter for an infraction.

No big deal, right? It happens all the time. Well, that’s the problem. It does happen frequently, and very few people actually question it as a quick disciplinary action that helps to keep things clean in the cage. However, taking a point in MMA for an infraction is actually a very ill-fitting rule that, like most ill-fitting rules in the sport, was brought over from boxing. Similar to the ten-point “must” system itself, taking a point as a penalty for a foul doesn’t work for MMA, and I’ll gladly explain why.

The first reason that point deductions shouldn’t be happening in MMA is that a point is too huge of a penalty for a three round fight. Besides title fights, the vast majority of MMA fights consist of just three rounds. It doesn’t take a math whiz to point out that if you take a point from a fighter, that essentially costs him or her a round, since most rounds are won by a one-point margin, anyway. A round that would normally have been won by a 10-9 score becomes a 9-9 round, and a lost round with a 10-9 score suddenly becomes a 10-8 round.

Because so many fights are three rounds, and all MMA fights have an odd number of rounds, taking a point just encourages something that no fan really wants to see: draws. As I just pointed out, if you get a point taken while winning a round and split the other two rounds, you have a 28-28 draw on your hands. Without a point deduction, the only way that a draw can even happen in MMA is by a fighter winning a 10-8 round or one of the rounds being scored as a 10-10 round. Both choices are becoming more and more rare in mixed martial arts, and are discouraged in all but the most exceptional cases by athletic commissions.

If you’re sitting there saying, “well, it works in boxing,” I won’t argue with you. But it works in boxing because there are as many as 12 rounds in a boxing match. Even a beginning pro who is fighting in some warehouse in front of 100 people is fighting four rounds, which is more than the standard MMA bout. No matter which way you slice it, a point deduction in boxing is a far less severe penalty than it is in MMA. In a 12-round bout, one point is often no big deal. In a three-round MMA fight, it can be an insurmountable penalty, since you essentially then need to win all three rounds to win the fight.

That’s not the only reason that it is foolish to deduct a point in an MMA fight, though. The other is that the fouls that can result in deductions are much easier to commit than they are in boxing. In boxing, other than repeated headbutts or other very rare infractions, the main reason for a point deduction would be repeated or flagrant low blows. Now, this isn’t exactly unfair, considering that boxers wear shorts that are pulled up higher than Gramps pulls up his trousers, and the waistband of a boxer is often at least 6-8 inches above the old twig and berries. If you’re hitting anywhere near that area, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The cases of a boxer being flat-out unable not to hit another’s groin are extremely rare, just as they are a wonderful source of unintentional comedy. If you don’t believe me, YouTube “Golota vs. Bowe” and see what I mean. (Golota was a head case who literally couldn’t stop hitting Riddick Bowe in the nuts. Couldn’t help himself. His corner even pleaded- pleaded!- with him, “Just don’t hit him in the body at all! You’re winning this fight, just don’t get disqualified,” and he couldn’t do it. He got DQ’ed in his second straight fight with Bowe after unleashing a three-punch combo for the ages, with all three punches landing squarely on Bowe’s boys. He literally had to crouch down to even punch that low.)

Now, I am digressing a bit, but I’m actually making a very important point. In order to hit someone in the balls enough to get a point deduction in boxing, you have to be a headcase, a dirty fighter, or a very uncoordinated individual. This is why taking a point is perfectly fair in that particular sport. In MMA, not so much. See, just about every area on a person’s body is fair game in our beloved sport, including absolutely everything around the groin area. That’s why you get ten times as many groin shots in MMA as you do in boxing (and yes, I made that statistic up)…because you’re often kicking or kneeing your opponent in an area literally right next to the groin.

So, how is it fair to force a fighter to win all three rounds to win a fight for an infraction that ultimately boils down to missing your target by an inch or two? In the Varner-Shalorus bout at the last WEC event, Shalorus was docked for kicking Varner in the groin multiple times. However, kicking the inside of Varner’s lead leg was a big part of Shalorus’ game plan. I’m not saying it’s not a foul, as it clearly is, to kick another man in his goodies. I’m just saying that bringing such a rule (and accompanying point deduction) from boxing without making any changes to how it’s enforced is short-sighted, since the sports are completely different.

Meanwhile, Keith Jardine would have won his fight against Matt Hamill on at least one card if he hadn’t been docked a point for poking Hamill in his eyes during their fight. Jardine was not warned, though referee Herb Dean was heard telling Jardine that he “had to” take the point. I’m not sure what that’s all about, since plenty of eye pokes have happened without a point deduction in the past, but nonetheless, Jardine was put way behind on the judge’s scorecards because of what was likely an accidental infraction. Again, in MMA, it’s too harsh to give a fighter a round deficit in a three-round fight for doing something that is just naturally going to happen from time to time with open-fingered gloves.

Still, it’s not as if I think that rule infractions should go unpunished. I think that deductions are a solid idea, because they level the playing field when a foul hurts another fighter, takes them out of their rhythm, and possibly decreases their chances to win. The problem is that an entire point is just too much. If half points were possible, taking a half point would be much more advisable. However, that wouldn’t mean anything under the current system, since judging is done using whole points.

I once dismissed the idea of having half points utilized in judging, but I’m coming around to the idea. It gives a better range of scores in order to judge bouts effectively, and it could minimize the currently harsh system of taking a point for infractions. Right now, a narrowly-won round is scored the same as an easily-won round, which is not right. Imagine if you could win a round 10-9.5 for squeaking it out barely, 10-9 for clearly winning, and 10-8.5 or less for dominating. Then, you could take a half point from a fighter for repeated groin shots or an eye poke without putting him in a situation where he has to win all three rounds to win, too. Or judges could even it out themselves by more frequently using 10-10 and 10-8 rounds.

Otherwise, refs will just need to reserve the deductions for all but the most flagrant offenses. In the case of Shalorus, I don’t feel as bad because he landed a third low blow after the point was taken, which kind of “earned” him the penalty in a more legitimate way. However, I think a point deduction should be reserved for very rare occurrences, due to the fact that you are almost assuring a fighter that he won’t win a decision by taking the point away.

No matter what, something needs to happen. Everyone admits by now that boxing and MMA are two different sports, so why are we still using so many of boxing’s rules and judging guidelines?

E-Mail Jon Hartley

Tags: Jamie Varner, judging reform, Kamal Shalorus, Keith Jardine, Matt Hamill, MMA, Strikeforce, UFC