In anticipation of July's landmark UFC 100 event, CBSSports.com is running a weekly, eight-part UFC retrospective series, looking back at some of the pivotal moments, events and figures that shaped the sport. This is Part 6. Next week will focus on the most notable cameo appearances in UFC history.
A lifelong fan of martial arts and a successful comedian, Joe Rogan has become one of the popular hallmarks of UFC events. He spoke with CBSSports.com for an in-depth interview, discussing a wide variety of topics on his career and the sport. Rogan's new standup special, Talking Monkeys in Space, debuts on Spike TV this week.
TM: You've seen a lot of good judging and a lot of bad judging over the years, and a lot of good refereeing and bad refereeing. What's your natural reaction when you see a judging or refereeing decision you disagree with? Is it pretty much what we get on the air, or do you try to temper it a little bit because you don't want to pile on?
JR: The problem with the referees when we go to a place like Nashville is we have to use local referees and a lot of these guys just aren't prepared for the big show. They're not good enough, and they're nervous and some are real trigger happy. They want to step in and stop the action or tell the guys what to do. They make mistakes and don't know what to do. Then you get guys like Herb Dean, who's the best in the business and he knows what he's doing. As far as scoring, we have a 10-point must system that works for boxing when you have one attack, with hands. But when you have to evaluate punches vs. takedowns or knees vs. elbows you have to figure out some way to quantify attacking, effective aggressiveness, defense, how you score things. I think we need to come up with our own system. I think MMA needs something more. If we're going to use a 10-point must system, we need to be clear on what counts for what. It's frustrating when one guy is beating the other in the standup but the other guy takes him down and does nothing. The judges will sometimes give it to the guy who scored the takedown, but I think you've got to give it to the guy who's beating him up. And it's so subjective. You have two judges who see the same fight and have different reasons for scoring it different ways. If it's close like Caol Uno-Spencer Fisher, I don't say anything. I could see how someone would see Fisher won or Uno won. If something is ridiculous, I'll speak out on it. Especially when we had boxing judges. I remember Darby Shirley did some judging for UFC and his scores were (expletive) wacky. It has to be pretty bad. I think it all goes back to the scoring and we need to revamp that.
TM: What do you think about implementing some ideas from Pride, like scoring the fight in its entirety or rewarding effort to finish the fight?
read full interview....
MMA gear now available at the UG Store