Joe Warren won a hugely controversial decision over Andre Galvao the other night at the Bellator event and it has the MMA community up in arms. It got me to thinking how judging could be improved. My concept is this: unless a fight is scored unanimously the same way, ex. 29-28 on all cards, and especially if the scores are split, or if it is scored overwhelmingly in favor of one fighter, ex. 49-46, 49-45, 50-45, the fight is ruled a "decision under review". Live scores are not read out and are kept private by the commission. After the event--possibly the next day--the athletic commission has the same judges review the fight tape (all filmed angles, no commentary). At this point the judges (or new ones) can re-watch the fight, take their time, and score the bout again (or choose to keep their original score). Then the results are posted afterward. This method might lead to more drawn rounds but c'est la vie. I personally prefer to see the judges score a round a draw if it is very close rather than give it to one fighter based on a very slight advantage. I understand that fans want to get the results right away but what is the rush? Isn't it better to get it right? This doesn't eliminate the possibility of a judge scoring the fight poorly but it would seem to give one a chance to see the fight again--stop, rewind, pause, replay, slow-mo, etc.--and make a more precise decision. Judges don't use video monitors right now so action on the other side of the cage or ring can sometimes be obscured. At the very least this would literally give them a new perspective on the fight.
