One of the biggest stories following this past weekend’s Bellator 120 was the scorecards in the main event and co-main event fights.
In the main event, Quinton “Rampage” Jackson defeated Muhammed “King Mo” Lawal by unanimous decision (29-28, 29-28, 29-28) and Will Brooks won the interim lightweight title with a split decision (48-46, 47-48, 48-47) over Michael Chandler.
Following the event, TheMMAReport.com reached out to judge Rob Hinds, who was one of the judges for both the main event and co-main event. He scored the main event 29-28 Jackson and he scored the co-main event 48-47 for Brooks.
When it came to the main event, all three judges scored the first round for Lawal, second round for Jackson, and the third round for Jackson. The round that everyone is questioning the judges scorecards is the third round. Hinds explained why he scored the final round for Jackson.
“It all came down to the effective striking over the grappling,” Hinds said. “Mo’s grappling was definitely aggressive and he was trying hard but there was no effect to it. There was no damage done by it. The shots that Rampage was hitting him with all through the round were tremendously effective.”
In the final round of Jackson/Lawal, most people scored the round due to the takedowns of Lawal and his ability to stay away from the power punches of Jackson. As Hinds stated, he saw Jackson’s striking being more effective that the grappling of Lawal. Hinds would go on to say that everyone needs to understand that judges are to assess the result, not to assess the action.
“What people don’t understand is, judges are to assess the result,” Hinds stated. “They are not to assess the action and when we read the media and talk to the fans and those type of things, they are always talking about the action. They are not talking about the actual result. What we look at as judges and what we should look at, is the actual result of the action not the action itself.”
When it came to the co-main event between Brooks and Chandler, there were two rounds that had people wondering about the scoring. The third round was a dominating round by Brooks and people were split on whether it was a 10-9 or 10-8 for Brooks. Only one of the judges (Todd Anderson) scored the third round a 10-8 for Brooks, why Hinds and Larry Ingle scored it 10-9 for Brooks. Hinds gave his reasoning on why he scored the round 10-9 and not 10-8.
“It’s funny because I talked to Todd Anderson, who is an outstanding judge,” Hinds said. “He is the one who scored it 10-8 and when we compared notes, there were things from his seat that he could see very clearly that I could not tell how effective those things were. I had it clearly 10-9 for Brooks. I can definitely see it 10-8 but from where my seat was and where the action happened, I could not justify the recipe for a 10-8.”
When it came to the fifth, Brooks was ahead in the round as the fight approached the final minute. With one minute left in the round, Chandler through a right hand and Brooks went to the mat. On fight night, it appeared that it was a clear right that Chandler landed to drop Brooks from the view from press row.
However, after re-watching the fight, it was clear that it was more of a glancing shot that put Brooks on the mat. Once they were on the mat, Chandler landed several significant strikes, attempted an arm-triangle choke, and ended the fight in the mount position.
Anderson and Hinds scored the round for Brooks, while Ingle scored it for Chandler. According to Mississippi Athletic Commission Chairman Jon Lewis, Ingle was the judge that was right in front of the action when Chandler controlled the final minute of the round. Hinds explained that he noticed it was not a full strike that put Brooks and the mat.
“I saw the shot did not hit him full on and right when that happened, that split decision when that happened, I did not think it’s what buckled Brooks,” he said. “It looked like to me when the shot was thrown, Brooks was halfway trying to avoid it. It was somewhere between a slip and a glancing blow that landed. It definitely did not look like a solid shot to me that wobbled Brooks and put him down.”
Hinds went on to state that the reason he scored the final round for Brooks was due to being the more effective fighter for the full five minutes.
“The reason I scored the fifth round for Brooks is because he was the tremendous effective fighter for the full five minutes. One of the things that is kind of a misconception is because that happened at the end of the round for Chandler. That is the last thing that people see. That is the last thing in their mind and that is what rings solid with some of the myths of boxing in the past.”
“If you flurry at the end of the round, you can steal a round. In MMA, there is no such thing as in stealing the round. It’s the full five minutes and Brooks for at least three and a half minutes to four minutes of that round, he was the more effective fighter and that is why I gave it to him.”
“When you look at the amount damage that was done for the full five minutes, that goes Brooks way. Chandler definitely had a moment in time where he was tremendously effective. He had a submission attempt and all of those things but from my seat, Brooks was clearly the more effective fighter for the full five minutes. No question about it.”
As a journalist, I always like to go back and re-watch a fight to see if I missed anything from my seat on press row. Which I did miss certain aspects of the third and fifth round between Brooks and Chandler. Just like myself, Hinds always goes back to re-watch any fight that he works and assess his work.
“Regardless of whether there is controversy, disagreement, or anything, I constantly review everything I do as a referee, judge, and as an inspector. I assess everything over, over, and over again. Then I will take some time off and I’ll reassess it.”
“I am always looking at my work and it’s very interesting from a judges perspective where you actually sit in the venue, versus what you see on TV, are many times two different things completely. I will sit in the judges seat and I will assess it. I will go over it in my mind and all those other things. Then I will watch it on TV and say you know what, I can completely see why people see it this way that is just not what I saw from my seat at that time.”