Sports: Scoring the Unscorable

UFC 104, which featured light heavyweight champion Lyoto Machida's first title defense, was interesting to me because it illustrated the difficulties in judging a UFC fight, and in judging combat sports in general. While most of the controversy came from the result of the title fight (Shogun Rua lost to Machida in a unanimous decision that was widely criticized), I'd like to focus on one of the undercards - a 157 pound catchweight fight between Gleison Tibau vs. Josh Neer.

First, a little about the combatants. Both men are experienced middle-of-the-pack lightweights; decent fighters, but there's essentially zero chance either will ever rise to the top. Gleison Tibau is a wrestler and BJJ submission specialist, while Josh Neer is more of a striker/brawler. Because of these predilections, each man has weaknesses: Tibau has suspect striking power (despite his heavy fighting weight of 180+ pounds), and Neer has trouble defending takedowns (a takedown is when your opponent manages to move you off of your feet and to the mat, where the vast majority of submissions are attempted).

The contrast of styles is the first problem when it comes to judging. Each person is looking to do different things during the fight, and what might look to be a neutral exchange to a casual observer can actually be considered a sort of victory for one of the fighters. For example, if Neer and Tibau exchanged a flurry of punches in a standing position, Neer's inherent knockout strength makes it more likely he'll land a telling blow that'll end the fight. Even if all of the punches Neer throws are near-misses, do we give him points for aggression?

In fact, the opposite occurred. Tibau, by far the better and bigger wrestler, managed to land almost all of his takedown attempts on Neer. The first takedown was the most dramatic; Neer almost cartwheeled on his head when he was taken to the canvas. Subsequent takedowns were much better defended, and Neer usually managed to avoid taking any damage whatsoever. In other words, Tibau could advance the fight to the ground with some effort, but never managed to finish the fight there (Tibau was even able to gain mount at one point but failed to do anything with it).

Does all of that mean that Tibau was more "successful" in executing his strategy? Should he win a fight because of that success? And what if Neer had managed to trap Tibau in a stand-up fight, but Tibau had consistently attacked (but with little effect)? Would Tibau have "won" the bout in any real sense? Or is it crude to determine the winner of a fight by measuring how much damage each fighter has sustained?

It's a pretty messy business, and judging an MMA bout takes a whole bunch of training and experience (and sometimes they still get it wrong). In a real fight, the yardstick is much simpler - victory is whether you and your loved ones get out alive. Whatever you do to make that happen - whether it's something as simple as running away or something as complex as drawing a firearm - is the right strategy, I think.