The Nevada Athletic Commission (NAC) found itself in the spotlight recently after a judging controversy at the Noche UFC event, particularly during the Alexa Grasso vs. Valentina Shevchenko 2 fight. This controversy arose due to judge Mike Bell’s surprising 10-8 score in favor of Grasso, ultimately leading to a draw decision and Grasso retaining the flyweight belt. The NAC, led by executive director Jeff Mullen, conducted a video teleconference to review these rounds and shed light on the criteria for a 10-8 score.
Mullen expressed the commission’s aim to establish clear guidelines for scoring rounds in mixed martial arts (MMA). He emphasized that every round has a correct and an incorrect answer in terms of scoring, and their goal is to create a definitive standard for judging. This is particularly important in ensuring fairness and consistency in MMA matches.
Two of the three judges who scored the Grasso vs. Shevchenko 2 fight, Sal D’Amato and Junichiro Kamijo, were present during the meeting and provided insights into their scoring decisions. D’Amato scored the bout 48-47 for Shevchenko, while Kamijo scored it 48-47 for Grasso. Mike Bell, the controversial judge in question, was not present due to a scheduling conflict. Despite defending Bell’s overall judging record, Mullen made it clear that he disagreed with his 10-8 score for Grasso in this particular round.
The controversy surrounding Grasso vs. Shevchenko 2 was not the only focus of the NAC’s review. They also examined other fights from Noche UFC, including the opener where Josefine Knutsson dominated Marnic Mann, and the first round of Loopy Godinez vs. Elise Reed. These reviews aimed to ensure that judges consistently apply the criteria for a 10-8 round, which involves considering factors like dominance, damage, and duration.
One key point stressed during the review was that if a fighter displays “little to no offensive output” compared to their opponent and at least two of the three criteria (dominance, damage, and duration) are met, judges should consider awarding the losing fighter an 8 instead of a 9. This underscores the importance of evaluating a fighter’s performance comprehensively, even in rounds where there might not be a clear winner.
In the case of the fifth round of Shevchenko vs. Grasso 2, the momentum swung dramatically when Shevchenko found herself on her back, and Grasso took control on the ground. While it was acknowledged that Shevchenko was leading the round before this shift, Mullen clarified that this didn’t automatically warrant a 10-8 score in Grasso’s favor. He explained that for a comfortable lead to be overturned and a 10-8 awarded, an extraordinary amount of damage would need to occur.
Mullen’s words shed light on the intricacies of MMA scoring, emphasizing that clarity and consensus among judges are crucial. UFC CEO Dana White also weighed in on the controversy, calling for an investigation into judge Mike Bell’s scoring and expressing his intention to rebook the flyweight title fight between Grasso and Shevchenko.
In the world of MMA, where split-second decisions can change the course of a match, establishing precise scoring guidelines becomes increasingly important to ensure fairness and avoid controversies like the one at Noche UFC. The future trilogy between Grasso and Shevchenko will likely be closely watched not only for the action inside the octagon but also for the judges’ decisions outside of it.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about MMA Judging
What prompted the Nevada Athletic Commission (NAC) to review MMA judging?
The NAC decided to review MMA judging following a controversial judging decision during the Alexa Grasso vs. Valentina Shevchenko 2 fight at Noche UFC, where judge Mike Bell’s 10-8 score for Grasso led to a draw.
Who led the NAC’s review of the judging controversy?
The review was led by Nevada Athletic Commission executive director Jeff Mullen, who convened a video teleconference to address the issue and clarify the criteria for scoring rounds in MMA.
What criteria were discussed during the NAC’s review of a 10-8 round?
The NAC emphasized that a 10-8 round in MMA should consider factors such as dominance, damage, and duration. Judges are required to give a 10-8 score when all three factors are present and may include damage even if only one other factor is present.
What was the controversy surrounding the fifth round of Grasso vs. Shevchenko 2?
The controversy arose when there was a sudden shift in momentum in the fifth round, with Grasso taking control on the ground. While it was acknowledged that Shevchenko was leading before the shift, the debate centered on whether this warranted a 10-8 score in Grasso’s favor.
How did NAC address the issue of overturning a clear lead for a 10-8 score?
NAC’s Jeff Mullen clarified that for a comfortable lead to be overturned and a 10-8 score awarded, an extraordinary amount of damage would need to occur. The aim was to provide clarity on this aspect of MMA scoring.
What was UFC CEO Dana White’s response to the controversy?
Dana White criticized judge Mike Bell’s scoring and called for an investigation. He also expressed his intention to rebook the flyweight title fight between Grasso and Shevchenko.
What is the significance of establishing clear judging criteria in MMA?
Clear judging criteria are essential in MMA to ensure fairness, consistency, and transparency in scoring fights. This helps avoid controversies and ensures that fighters are awarded points based on a standardized set of criteria.
More about MMA Judging
- NAC Review of MMA Judging – Details on the NAC’s review of MMA judging criteria.
- Noche UFC Controversy – Coverage of the controversy surrounding the Grasso vs. Shevchenko 2 fight at Noche UFC.
- Dana White’s Reaction – Dana White’s comments on judge Mike Bell’s scoring and his intention to rebook the flyweight title fight.
- Importance of Clear MMA Judging Criteria – Explains the significance of having clear judging criteria in MMA.