I wanted to add a couple of clarifying points to my CompuStrike discussion in yesterday's entry. First, Bob Canobbio, President of CompuBox Inc., sent me the following clarification by email regarding CompuStrike's true purpose in MMA:
"I just want to clarify that the CompuStrike system (like the CompuBox system for boxing) is designed to provide a barometer of a fighter's activity and not designed to score MMA events."
In other words, judges don't use CompuStrike to help score events. The tool's results are unknown to the judges when they are rendering their scores.
Second, CompuStrike is subject to the same sort of human flaws that already make MMA judging controversial -- after all, human beings are responsible for tallying the strikes and takedowns used by the program.
And third, in my opinion, the tool is best served as not only a barometer of fighter activity but also as a way to evaluate a judge's record of scoring fights. If CompuStrike stats consistently show numbers contrary to the way a judge scored those rounds, that judge's competence might rightly be called into question.
As an interesting footnote to the Hamill-Bisping controversy, check out CompuStrike's analysis of that fight. To summarize, Hamill landed more strikes total, he landed a greater percentage of attempted strikes, he landed more arm strikes and ground strikes, and he scored more takedowns. The only category Bisping wins in is number of leg strikes landed. In addition, CompuStrike's round-by-round analysis also favors Hamill.
Canobbio also clarified another point regarding the use of CompuStrike at MMA events:
"UFC 76 was the first time the CompuStrike program was utilized by a media company for live stats of a UFC event. However, it wasn’t the overall debut. The program was used previously for a live telecast of a CFFC event (not UFC). All other uses of the program were done for our own in-house compilation purposes."
With all the recent controversy surrounding MMA judging and the MMA scoring system, I decided to devise a system of my own to determine who the winner of a fight is if that fight goes the full three or five rounds. I call this revolutionary system the "Pramit Club Face Scoring System" (PCFSS for short). The system is simple, it's common sensical, and I believe it gets to the heart of what a fight is all about.
In short, if two fighters fight to a decision, they must stand up in front of a panel of five opposite-sex judges who will then determine which of the two fighters can go straight from the cage to a club. After all, it's a fight. You lose the fight if you have to hide your face for the next week. Plain and simple. If your opponent can shower and hit the clubs and you can't, he/she just beat you.
Now, of course this system will engender its fair share of controversy as well. After all, what happens if one of the fighters is simply a better looking person, such that more damage to that fighter's face still results in that fighter having the better club face? Realistically, it might be tough for our panel of judges -- no matter how objective -- to ever call Georges St. Pierre or Gina Carano losers using PCFSS.
But, I have faith. I know these panels will get it right at least as often as our current judges. I believe that had PCFSS been in place at UFC 58, the panel would have correctly called St. Pierre the loser of this controversial fight against BJ Penn at UFC 58. Trust me, Penn was already at the club when this interview took place...