The Case for Categorical Scoring in Sport Martial Arts
5 reasons we need to rethink how we judge competitors
While there has been much discussion about legitimizing Sport Martial Arts, one critical issue is often overlooked: scoring. How can we professionalize our sport when our “modern” scoring system has barely evolved beyond its primitive origins? I raise this issue because getting the scoring system right is the most crucial step we must take to ensure the sport’s credibility and future growth.
The Current Scoring System
The North American Sport Karate Association (NASKA) currently leverages relative ranking for scoring. Here is how it works:
- As each competitor performs, you rank them in comparison to those who have already performed (e.g., the first competitor is ranked first, the second competitor is ranked first if better than the first, and so on)
- Once all competitors have performed, scores are assigned based on the final ranking, with the best competitor receiving a 9.99, the second-best a 9.98, and so forth.
- Judges can only assign scores from 9.96 to 9.99 once (though this rule is frequently broken) but may give scores of 9.95 or below multiple times
- If one judge gives a score .02 lower then the next lowest score or higher than the next highest score, then that score is automatically adjusted to bring it within the respective range or scores of the other judges (to prevent wide variations in scoring and ensure consistency)
While this system appears logical, it has significant shortcomings:
- Relative Ranking: Although logical in theory, the relative ranking rule becomes impractical with large division sizes. While it was developed to address the disadvantage faced by early competitors, it falls short in practice. As a judge, I often struggle to recall each competitor’s performance when the division exceeds 10–12 competitors. Consequently, early performers still tend to be less likely to win or place accurately relative to their skill.
- Definition of “Best”: The term “best” is ambiguous. What components are we judging, and how do we weigh them? Currently, much is left to the judges’ interpretation, leading to inconsistent and undesirable outcomes.
- Unique Scoring Rule: This rule is often violated. Additionally, it does not address situations where a deviation forces a judge to give the same score to two competitors. Overuse of the 9.95 or below scores leaves competitors with little feedback on their ranking if they place below fourth.
- Deviation Rule: While this rule adds some consistency, it is problematic when combined with the other rules.
My Proposal
My proposal is general for a reason: these decisions should be made collectively by the community. Instead of a fully-fledged scoring system, I recommend a general framework to replace relative ranking. The arbitrary nature of relative ranking leads to variations among judges, is inadequate for large divisions, and allows undetected bias. Relative ranking should be replaced by absolute scoring with weighted categories. Judges would assign scores in specific categories (e.g., technique, performance, athleticism), which are then weighted and summed. This system, used by other martial arts leagues like the World Karate Federation (WKF), offers several benefits:
1. Community-Derived Prioritization
My primary concern with the current system is its subjective nature. One judge might heavily prioritize stances, while another might disregard them entirely. This inconsistency is exacerbated when tournaments rely on local judges, making it challenging to maintain uniformity across different events and even within the same tournament. Although not perfect, categorizing scores with specific weightings would enable the community to collectively determine the most important aspects of performances, leading to greater consistency and fairness.
2. Concrete Judging Criteria
There has been significant effort over the past year to establish specific criteria for judging sport martial arts performance. This is a challenging task, especially given the variety of styles and types of martial arts on the circuit. However, establishing clear criteria is impossible with relative scoring. In each division, scores are relative to other competitors, making it difficult to assign discrete values to the difficulty of moves or the quality of performances. Absolute scoring would address this issue, allowing for specific weights to be assigned to different techniques on a discrete scale, thus providing clarity and objectivity in the judging process.
3. Rationalizing Point Deductions
There are several ways to receive a point deduction, such as striking a bystander with a weapon or restarting a routine. However, deductions don’t make much sense in the context of relative scoring. If someone restarts their routine, I can’t simply ignore the restart, score them relative to their competitors, and then apply the deduction. Instead, judges often factor the restart into their initial scoring and then apply the deduction, which typically results in a lower score than deserved. Under an absolute and categorical scoring model, the highest score a judge can give in a category could be capped based on the type of mistake. For instance, if the maximum score for performance is 10, a restart could cap the score at 7 or 8. This way, the restart isn’t considered relative to other competitors’ performances; it’s judged on a separate scale, making the process fairer for the competitor.
4. Improved Scoring for Large Divisions
With objective scores and categories, judges can directly provide a score to each competitor immediately after their routine. This approach addresses the issue with large divisions, where judges are expected to remember the routines of over twenty competitors (newsflash, they do not). By scoring immediately, competitors who perform first receive a fairer evaluation, as they won’t be overlooked or lost in the mix. This ensures a more accurate and consistent scoring process.
5. Reduced Favoritism
Yes, it happens, and I am not pointing any fingers; I have certainly benefited from it in my career. However, favoritism needs to be eliminated, and structural changes are necessary to achieve this. Implementing a robust, categorical scoring system will provide more structure around how judges formulate their scores. The more structured the system, the less arbitrary the scoring, making it harder to implement favoritism. Additionally, further developments should aim to create distance between competitors, parents, coaches, and judges to ensure impartiality.
Looking Forward
While the proposed scoring system offers significant improvements in fairness and objectivity, it also presents challenges that we must anticipate. Implementing such a system will require extensive training for judges, and developing standardized criteria across various martial arts styles could be complex. The transition will also surely face resistance from those accustomed to the current system. Despite these potential drawbacks, the proposed system holds the promise of enhancing the overall professionalism of sport martial arts, provided it is implemented thoughtfully and inclusively.
We owe it to our competitors to perfect the scoring system. Failing to do so has likely led to the wrong elements being prioritized, undermining the integrity of our sport. A more optimal scoring system would not only elevate the quality of competition but also bring greater prestige and legitimacy to sport martial arts. Enhancing the objectivity and fairness of our scoring is essential for our sport’s future. To achieve this, we need the collective effort and unwavering commitment of our community. Together, with a shared vision for growth and excellence, we can transform sport martial arts into a platform that truly spotlights our athletes’ greatness, showcasing their skills and dedication with the professionalism and respect they deserve.
