The Way of the Fight: An Analysis of MMA Judging

IF 0.5 Q4 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
T. Feldman
{"title":"The Way of the Fight: An Analysis of MMA Judging","authors":"T. Feldman","doi":"10.7290/JASM120205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Judging is a controversial but rarely studied topic in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). Most MMA scholarship focuses on health (e.g., head trauma) and training (e.g., dieting, strength, and conditioning), with relatively few exploring matters of judging even though judging is of considerable importance to the appeal and integrity of the sport. Thus, the purpose of this study is to fill this research void by analyzing data on MMA judging decisions to determine if MMA judging follows the criteria approved by the ABC MMA Rules Committee. To evaluate MMA judging, FightMetric data were gathered from a period spanning November 17, 2000 to December 19, 2015. Fight promotions used in the data include the UFC, Strikeforce, and WEC. Logit regressions were used to evaluate the research hypotheses. Several key results stemmed from the analysis, including takedowns landed, knockdowns, significant strikes landed, damage, and control significantly increasingly the like-lihood of a fighter winning rounds. However, when a fight is close, judges favor striking as a measure of aggression rather than submission and wrestling attempts. Overall, despite some bias in favor of striking over wrestling and Jiu-Jitsu, MMA judges appear to mostly follow the evaluation criteria provided to them.","PeriodicalId":43607,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Sport Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Sport Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7290/JASM120205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Judging is a controversial but rarely studied topic in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). Most MMA scholarship focuses on health (e.g., head trauma) and training (e.g., dieting, strength, and conditioning), with relatively few exploring matters of judging even though judging is of considerable importance to the appeal and integrity of the sport. Thus, the purpose of this study is to fill this research void by analyzing data on MMA judging decisions to determine if MMA judging follows the criteria approved by the ABC MMA Rules Committee. To evaluate MMA judging, FightMetric data were gathered from a period spanning November 17, 2000 to December 19, 2015. Fight promotions used in the data include the UFC, Strikeforce, and WEC. Logit regressions were used to evaluate the research hypotheses. Several key results stemmed from the analysis, including takedowns landed, knockdowns, significant strikes landed, damage, and control significantly increasingly the like-lihood of a fighter winning rounds. However, when a fight is close, judges favor striking as a measure of aggression rather than submission and wrestling attempts. Overall, despite some bias in favor of striking over wrestling and Jiu-Jitsu, MMA judges appear to mostly follow the evaluation criteria provided to them.
格斗之道:综合格斗裁判分析
在综合格斗(MMA)中,裁判是一个有争议但鲜有研究的话题。大多数综合格斗奖学金关注健康(例如,头部创伤)和训练(例如,节食,力量和调节),相对较少探索裁判问题,尽管裁判对这项运动的吸引力和完整性相当重要。因此,本研究的目的是通过分析MMA评判决策的数据来确定MMA评判是否遵循ABC MMA规则委员会批准的标准来填补这一研究空白。为了评估综合格斗的判断,搏击度量公司收集了2000年11月17日至2015年12月19日期间的数据。数据中使用的战斗促销包括UFC, Strikeforce和WEC。使用Logit回归来评估研究假设。分析得出了几个关键的结果,包括击落、击倒、重大打击、伤害和控制显著增加了战斗机赢得回合的可能性。然而,当战斗接近时,裁判倾向于将攻击作为侵略性的衡量标准,而不是屈服和摔跤尝试。总的来说,尽管在摔跤和柔术方面有一些偏向于击打,但综合格斗裁判似乎大多遵循提供给他们的评估标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Sport Management
Journal of Applied Sport Management HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信