Luke Thomas
MMA Senior Editor
PHOTO: Nik Lentz's Eye Is A Show At UFC On Fox - Jan 29
Nate Wilcox
MMA Editor
Is The UFC Making All The Right Moves? - Jan 30
Thomas Myers
Feature Writer
UFC 140 Fight Card Breakdown: Jon Jones Vs. Lyoto Machida - Dec 10
Shaun Al-Shatti
Writer
Dana White UFC 143 Video Blog: Day One - Jan 31
Quick opinion, analysis & multimedia from MMA Nation staff
After Saturday's Strikeforce: Rockhold vs. Jardine, both Muhammed Lawal and Trevor Smith publicly made their displeasure known about the refereeing abilities of Kim Winslow. Fighters complaining about referees is nothing new, but what's different is that while Smith might be upset he lost, Lawal was unhappy with how the referee let him win.
Long story short, Lawal thought Winslow let Lorenz Larkin take too many unanswered punches. Looking back at the footage, he's clearly correct. Lawal even asked referee Winslow why she let the fight go as long as she did given her vantage point to see the action was clear and unobstructed. Her response? Lawal describes their short conversation as follows: "She said 'well, I wanted to give him every opportunity to bounce back. If it takes for him to be asleep, that's what it is...She's never taken a punch before, so it's easy for her to say that."
Lawal couldn't possibly be more correct. The most predominant issue with MMA referees are their lack of awareness for rules or improper enforcement of said rules. Winslow case seems to be neither making it more problematic.
The central issue with Winslow's view is there's no command or requirement in the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts that declares a referee's responsibility is to evaluate whether a fight should or should not be stopped based on if the losing fighter has been awarded every conceivable chance to mount a comeback. It's flat not there. It doesn't exist and yet appears to be a popular maxim among referees. Why? It sounds charitable, right?
The problem is since it doesn't legally exist, there are no guidelines explaining how to properly enforce it. That's also precisely where charity turns into savagery. The idea of giving a fighter every opportunity sounds like justice, but it can result in a referee who will be too accommodating of punishment.
What do the Unified Rules actually mention? Not much. Referees' only guidelines appear to be "13:46-24A.12 Stopping a contest: The referee and ringside physician are the sole arbiters of a bout and are the only individuals authorized to enter the fighting area at any time during competition and authorized to stop a contest."
However, we have a sense of what counts for defending yourself: Intelligent defense. That's also a problematic term, but it has at least some measure of explanation: "An intelligent defense minimizes the potential for damage while providing the opportunity for taking back the offense."
No matter how sticky the above definition, there is no serious way to describe what Larkin was doing when being rough up by Lawal as approximating what 'intelligent defense' sets out to be. What kept Larkin in the fight was an invented guideline predicated on detectable consciousness.
It's all right to give fighters every opportunity to win within the parameters 'intelligent defense' - namely, that they're taking steps to minimize damage. That alone won't solve the issues of dubious stoppages, but if a fighter's only sin is to remain conscious enough, do the really charitable thing: worry less about their chances and more about their health.
38 comments
1
Jan 26
4
Jan 17
Luke Thomas:
Is 'Giving A Fighter Every Opportunity' To Fight Back Even Legal?
38
Jan 9
1
Jan 8
2
Jan 8
38
Jan 8
Comments
When there's doubt, there is none
Absolutely agree. I do not agree with Lawal saying you need to get punched in the face to in order to be a capable referee . What if her pain tolerance is really low every time she sees someone gets hit with the same punch she might have been knocked out with she will stop the fight even though the fighter is not that hurt. The key is experience, being close to the action and no hesitation when it comes to fighter’s safety.
by Coeman on Jan 9, 2012 11:53 AM PST reply actions
Getting hit is always a learning experience
I think a referee who has himself/herself competed at a high level will have lots of experience, insight, and an intuitive grasp of rules for ANY sport. For instance, people often claim that Herb Dean is one of the best refs; incidentally, he has fought in MMA promotions. Does Kim Winslow have any experience in combat sports? It doesn’t even have to be MMA events, I’m genuinely curious.
by langoustine on Jan 9, 2012 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
Refs have to be perfect
If they stop it too early they will hear complaints from one side if they leave them too long they’ll hear complaints from the other side. Either they are perfect or they are considered bad referees.
Greatest lover ever during the day, Trainyard Sleeper at night.
by IRodC on Jan 9, 2012 12:14 PM PST reply actions
that'd work if this was the first time she did this.
by Rob Young on Jan 9, 2012 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I can't fault Winslow for this.
If a ref stops a fight too early, we can point to the rules about intelligent defense and show that the ref made a mistake. But, as the article shows, there’s no such ironclad response to a ref who stops the fight too late. Stopping the fight late is a sensible course for a risk-averse ref.
No, I cannot fault Winslow for this. What this does, though, is highlight a need for a change to the rules.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on Jan 9, 2012 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
what should the rule be?
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on Jan 10, 2012 6:16 AM PST up reply actions
I don't really have a suggestion for that.
But given the rules as they are now, Kim WInslow’s behaviour is perfectly rational.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on Jan 10, 2012 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
So is the ref supposed to stop the fight as soon as the first punch lands? Safety of the fighters is paramount and someone could get hurt. So first punch wins.
Was it a late stoppage, I guess. I saw her jump in when the second to last blow cause him to go limp as he was moving. Just cause your dominating someone doesn’t mean they are done fighting. Yes he was getting punched in the head but was still moving and trying to change positions.
I don’t see this as something to have such a big out cry. And BTW its KING LAWAL and his big mouth yapping, does anyone pay attention any more?
by DonkeyOatey on Jan 9, 2012 12:24 PM PST reply actions
"So is the ref supposed to stop the fight as soon as the first punch lands? Safety of the fighters is paramount and someone could get hurt. So first punch wins."
I don’t think anyone is suggesting we take health so seriously that they aren’t even allowed to fight.
Follow @SBNLukeThomas
by Luke Thomas on Jan 9, 2012 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
So let them fight. In this case the fighter lost when he went limp, like every other KO I have seen. I don’t think this fight went on too long at all. Would I have screamed if it was stopped earlier, NO. But I don’t think this was as bad as Lawal and others are saying it is.
by DonkeyOatey on Jan 9, 2012 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
Hey Luke, sorry I missed your call earlier. To answer the question you posed on my machine, yes. RAW is on at 9pm tonight, and it lasts until 11. Enjoy it my man, we will discuss the results of the sporting matches tomorrow. Easy.
by Fausto Geraci on Jan 9, 2012 12:39 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
LOL
I legit LOL’d at this one.
Follow @SBNLukeThomas
by Luke Thomas on Jan 9, 2012 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
It's help if there were majority agreed examples of what constitutes intelligent defense
I don’t think fights should be stopped when an aggressor is mostly hitting blocking arms unless the opponent is fetal / and shows no signs of returning to base or guard to start an attempt to get back in the fight.
Cleanness of strikes has to be taken into account (ie ones that get through) in stopping a fight and can far more accurately be determined than just the possibility of being able to mount a comeback.
Bloody Elbow Grappling Editor.
Follow me on Twitter @KJGould
Like me on Facebook
by KJ Gould on Jan 9, 2012 12:40 PM PST reply actions
The referee has a duty to the fighter
But the rules and I think accepted legal norms give the refs significant leeway, so unless it was gross negligence, which I don’t think this was, then it was fine.
The Carwin-Mir stoppage however…
Cecil People's Champs
Still the head conductor of the Charles Oliveira hype train.
by Stiff Jab on Jan 9, 2012 1:22 PM PST reply actions
That was just Dan trying to make up for stopping James Thompson from taking out the gassed-out money machine that was known as Kimbo.
by Machiel Van on Jan 9, 2012 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
Sure
But that doesn’t address a) the idea that ‘giving every opportunity’ is legal, b) something we necessarily want referees to be following, c) it’s got built in incentives to let fights continue if possible.
And more to the point, do we really want referees to be able to invent criteria to follow? Maybe they’re trying to find a helpful structure for themselves. Still, this stuff needs to be codified to the best extent possible.
Follow @SBNLukeThomas
by Luke Thomas on Jan 9, 2012 1:51 PM PST up reply actions
I think a) is a valid interpretation as long as its reasonable under status quo b) agreed, but thats a different issue, c) I think if we continue to deride these late stoppages worse than early stoppages then we will see those incentives change
Cecil People's Champs
Still the head conductor of the Charles Oliveira hype train.
by Stiff Jab on Jan 9, 2012 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
The referee definitely needs to be more verbally involved
If in that finishing moment, the ref immediately started yelling “fight back or i’m stopping it” after the initial punches, then he/she could step in immediately when the fighter doesn’t do so. As opposed to basically sitting back and waiting, “hmmm let me see how he reacts to a couple more punches.”
"To me, the function and duty of a quality human being is the sincere and honest development of one's potential." - Bruce Lee
by Genki Sudo's Choreographer on Jan 9, 2012 1:29 PM PST reply actions
Great point.
Agreed. The ‘communication’ breakdown/failure between vocal referees and the fighters they are monitoring is a hallmark of proper stoppages.
Follow @SBNLukeThomas
by Luke Thomas on Jan 9, 2012 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
There's a fine line though
I can see referee’s being accused of ‘coaching’ a fighter if they’re too verbal. Stranger things have happened.
Bloody Elbow Grappling Editor.
Follow me on Twitter @KJGould
Like me on Facebook
by KJ Gould on Jan 9, 2012 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
You can get around this...
…by broaching the subject in the pre-fight meeting. In one of the earlier scenes in the Reem, there is a clip of Big John explaining how he’s going to handle the fighters before Alistair fights Brett Rogers. It’s must watch.
If you tell the fighters beforehand:
“Okay, if you get hit by a strike and you are covering up, either on the ground or on the feet, I’m going to give you a command to improve your position. I’m going to give you a chance to do this and if you do not, I’m going to tell you to fight back. If you have not made a move to improve your position or fight back, I’m going to stop the fight.”
As long as the ref adheres to what he/she said, there should be no debate about coaching a fighter. The corner is there and hears the speech given to the fighters in the pre-fight. Any complaining about this would be simply sour grapes and should be dismissed outright.
As for Kim Winslow, she just doesn’t seem like she does well handling the moment. Inconsistent stoppages suggest to me that she is getting caught up in the individual situations, instead of using pre-established benchmarks to help her determine when to stop a fight.
If you are going to lie to me, then we are going to box
by Luke Nelson on Jan 9, 2012 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
The way John McCarthy explained the rules on The Reem was very interesting.
I also like it because it allows the ref to see if the fighter is responding. If the ref says “Defend yourself” or “I’m going to stop it” and the fighter responds and is trying to improve their position, then they are defending themselves. If they don’t respond at all, then the ref is justified in jumping in.
by discoandherpes on Jan 9, 2012 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely.
Herb Dean comes to mind. I like how he tells a fighter in trouble “I’m gonna stop it! I’m gonna stop it!” The fighter then knows they’ve got to do something major to escape the position they’re in: no excuses. He also tries to look into fighters’ eyes as much as possible, which is another good technique.
by Machiel Van on Jan 9, 2012 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
This is a good idea that can sometimes become impractical due to the language barrier.
Even if someone’s english is ok when he or she is not being punched in the face, don’t expect them to be so capable when losing a fight. Then there’s a Matt Hamill situation – he’s retired now, but doesn’t everyone remember Yves Levigne wanting him to lip-read with his eyes covered with blood?
This is an oule.
by some schmuck in texas on Jan 9, 2012 3:40 PM PST up reply actions
While I agree with Hamill, that's the exception not the rule
and it isn’t indicative of the entire staff of fighters. It’s not like there’s going to be a huge influx of deaf fighters entering MMA for it to be a valid point of discussion. As for the language barrier, the refs confer with the fighters and their team beforehand, and as Luke Nelson pointed out about 3 posts up, it can be thoroughly explained to them. Besides, the ref isn’t going ot be discussing American literature in there, I’m sure even the most native speaker can understand “fight back!” and “stop!” or can have it be easily explained to them at any point before the fight.
"To me, the function and duty of a quality human being is the sincere and honest development of one's potential." - Bruce Lee
by Genki Sudo's Choreographer on Jan 9, 2012 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
yeah, there's maybe ten things a fighter needs to understand
That’s still going to be a lot to ask of someone whose ears are ringing, who is flinching away from blows while trying to stand up, and the fence mushed up in his/her face and crowd noise and etc.
I’ve often seen foreign fighters confused by their instructions from the ref at the face off, nodding yes for ‘do you have any questions’ or no for ‘are you ready.’ In the heat of battle it’s not going to get any better.
None of which is to say that striving for communication isn’t a good idea – it’s completely necessary, it’s just not always as easy as we’d like.
The Hamill thing just occurred to me as a special related case, it’s obviously not going to be a serious concern going forward.
This is an oule.
by some schmuck in texas on Jan 9, 2012 7:13 PM PST up reply actions
Yes but we have historical evidence
Namely 20 years of MMA with foreign fighters who don’t speak english that are bloody and mashed up against cages with loud crowds. Yet when’s the last time we saw a controversial call based on misunderstood english? Name me some? There really is no debating point here, we’ve gone 20 years and no one has misunderstood “fight back” or “improve your positions.”
"To me, the function and duty of a quality human being is the sincere and honest development of one's potential." - Bruce Lee
by Genki Sudo's Choreographer on Jan 10, 2012 8:32 AM PST up reply actions
I bet there has been some confusion
but it’s been dismissed as minor and unavoidable under the circumstances, plus sore-loser behavior is actually pretty rare – fights are almost never stopped when there’s some doubt about the outcome.
Which is to say – yeah, it basically works fine. Fighters know what they’re getting into, and if occasionally someone (hi, Toqinho!) doesn’t really know what’s going on it’s very seldom and probably a personal issue, not a procedural one.
This is an oule.
by some schmuck in texas on Jan 10, 2012 8:50 AM PST up reply actions
The problem is attaching a difinitive structure to an ambiguous concept. For example, the rules can’t state that a fight should be stopped after 3 unanswered strikes, because what if it only takes one? What if it takes five?
So, where do you draw the line? How would you define what constitutes intelligent defense? There are plenty of fights where a fighter in top-position just starts throwin bombs but not a single one lands cleanly, yet the fight is stopped. One could argue that defending rather than attempting a sweep in that situation is in fact intelligent defense. It’s all (mostly) subjective.
I got yogurt meat-loaf spread all over my ass
stick my weiner in two buns and then give it the gas
sour cream from my spleen into Levi jeans
gonna burst the seams with my re-fried beans!
by OmoPlata on Jan 9, 2012 1:48 PM PST reply actions
It’s very tough. Something tells me there will always be some early/late stoppages, just like there will always be some poor decisions. The goal is to educate the officials as much as possible to keep incidents like these to a minimum. If I were the NSAC, I would question her about the “If it takes for him to go to sleep” (bizarrely worded “quote”) statement. If she believes that to be true, I’d tell her that attitude is quite frankly unacceptable. There should be interviews with the commission after stoppages like this; it might help them to “get inside the refs’ heads” so to speak and clear up any confusion. I’m not saying Winslow should be outright punished, just that the ACs need to examine these kinds of incidents.
by Machiel Van on Jan 9, 2012 2:18 PM PST up reply actions
Hrm
I believe the ‘go to sleep’ part was King Mo’s quote, not Winslow’s.
"I am going to punch faces." --Wanderlei Silva
War Miller Bros.
by Jay Bittner on Jan 9, 2012 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
We all remember Dakota Cochrane..right? Upset Jamie Varner at Titan FC.
Well here is the fight with him and my good friend Corey Simpson attached. You can skip forward to the 9 minute mark if you’d like..The “stoppage” occurs 9:09-9:10 into the video. She stopped it due to a RNC, although you can clearly see there was NO tap, he WAS defending himself and he didn’t even have the choke completely applied. Take a look for yourself I believe this is one of her worst calls and bad thing is it has got swept under the radar.
http://www.purefight.org/video/334448-Cory-Simpson-vs-Dakota-Cochrane
by Bwills23 on Jan 9, 2012 4:18 PM PST reply actions
I'd rather a stoppage be a little late than a little early
Just so we have a definitive winner. Imagine if Edgar/Maynard II was stopped, or if Kongo/Barry was stopped early. We would rob a fighter of the opportunity to come back.
Although the Kongo/Barry fight was stopped late and Barry took some extra punches.
by discoandherpes on Jan 9, 2012 4:25 PM PST reply actions
you and the rest of the just bleeders
Like Herb said: you can undo a loss, you can’t undo brain damage
¬_¬
by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ on Jan 9, 2012 8:33 PM PST up reply actions
The stoppage was fine, even King Mo agreed after being ask about it after the fight.
I am free because I choose to be so-Me
by Kefka on Jan 9, 2012 5:46 PM PST reply actions
Ok, so you didn’t read this post.
Follow @SBNLukeThomas
by Luke Thomas on Jan 9, 2012 6:05 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
King Mo was fine with it?
Uhh..where did you hear or read that? Here are Mo’s words: ‘The commission, they need to do something with her. Let her take a fight or something and give her a bad ref. Let her fight Cyborg or something. Let her fight ’Cyborg’ and then let’s do a late stoppage of her. Because I watched her almost get Jan Finney killed by ‘Cyborg.’ I think the tables need to be turned. Put me in there as a ref and I’ll just do a terrible job like her. I heard people from the crowd yelling to stop it and she jumps in all late. I told her, ‘Hey you should have stopped the fight earlier.’ And she’s like, ‘Well, I wanted to give him every opportunity to bounce back, so if it takes for him to be asleep. That’s what it is.’ She never took a punch before so it’s easy for her to say that."
by Bwills23 on Jan 9, 2012 5:55 PM PST reply actions
pretty bad stoppage
im shocked though at how much attention it is getting compared to lets say Tan Dan’s stoppage of Carwin vs Mir, that was disgustingly late.
Her reason is pretty BAD, i dont think she should uh fight cyborg but maybe train mma to atleast grasp what is going on in the fighters mind?
I am willing to test myself against the toughest fighters in the world, in front of hundreds of thousands or even millions of fans, over and over again. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but I always come to fight. I've been doing this for the past fourteen years, and I have at least a few more strong years left in me. What have you done in the past fourteen years other than act like a moron on this forum and hang on Anderson's nuts? - Dan Henderson.
by elmojo on Jan 10, 2012 3:48 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed