How do judges score 'octagon control'?

[ReasonableMMAFan]

You know, I don't even really understand what that is. Is it pushing the pace? Is it being aggressive? Why do judges even consider this completely arbitrary way of scoring? And why does it produce such widely different outcomes? Like Dominick Cruz and Floyd Mayweather, they're both defensive fighters that will often allow themselves to be backed into corners, but the judges rarely hold this against them. So I don't think it's agression. And other one off cases like Condit/Diaz, Thompson/Macdonald and most fights with counter strikers vs aggressive fighters. But sometimes the judges score that shit in the opposite direction, like Silva/Bisping for example. I'm just stuck here wondering why even bother with Octagon Control anymore? That shit doesn't even win fights.

 

[KB Warrior]

We are lucky if the judges don't stare at their phone the whole fight let alone score fights based on the rules.

 

[Jkaylor]

Octagon control (whatever it means) holds absolutely no weight whatsoever if one fighter has a clear advantage in significant strikes landed. It's like a minor tie-breaking thing to consider, to put it simply. If a guy is fighting while moving back the whole time, but landing more strikes and causing more damage, the other guys "octagon control" means fucking jack shit.

 

[touchedbyjab]

wall n stall, lay n pray... all the good stuff.

 

[NotoriousNick]

According to the ABC's MMA judging criteria:

“Cage/Ring Control” is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight".

"Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, effective aggressiveness and Cage/ring control. Scoring evaluations shall be made giving equal weight to effective striking and effective grappling. It will be determined on a sliding scale. If a round is affected more by striking, then striking will be weighed more heavily. If a round is affected more by grappling than grappling will be weighed more heavily. Cage/Ring Control are secondary criteria to be used when effective striking and effective grappling are even. Effective aggression will be weighed more heavily than cage/ring control."

http://abcboxing.com/Unified_Rules_of_MMA_Judging_Criteria.pdf

 

[flurbi**]

I think its been overvalued. Aldo Edgar couldve been a robbery if they only looked at aggression/action, and not at who was actually outclassing the other.

 

[EXOICHO]

I have no idea. You could say that being the aggressor could be viewed as octagon control

but if the aggressor is running wildly through the octagon and being outstruck 2:1, is he really in control of anything?

 

[Captain_Dammitt]

Octagon control means taking the center of the cage and dictating where your opponent goes. Conor is very good at it. If you notice, he keeps his opponent either close to, or behind, the black line that separates the center and the outside.

See how Conor is in the center and Siver is by the MP logo, on the outside of the line. That's taking the center and controlling where your opponent goes. That is "octagon control".

 

[real2124]

TS, do not seek logic when it comes to MMA judging.

 

[Ah Man]

Poorly. They judge it poorly.

 

[ReasonableMMAFan]

Octagon control means taking the center of the cage and dictating where your opponent goes. Conor is very good at it. If you notice, he keeps his opponent either close to, or behind, the black line that separates the center and the outside.

See how Conor is in the center and Siver is by the MP logo, on the outside of the line. That's taking the center and controlling where your opponent goes. That is "octagon control".

If that's truly the case I can name like a dozen counterstrikers who should of lost on that merit alone. Anyways, there's a fine line between bullying your opponent across the cage and generally making then your bitch, with say, Dominick Cruz drawing and baiting in Uriah Faber while giving up the center.

 

[cumafish]

Arbitrarily in most cases.

 

[tdluxon]

You know, I don't even really understand what that is. Is it pushing the pace? Is it being aggressive? Why do judges even consider this completely arbitrary way of scoring? And why does it produce such widely different outcomes? Like Dominick Cruz and Floyd Mayweather, they're both defensive fighters that will often allow themselves to be backed into corners, but the judges rarely hold this against them. So I don't think it's agression. And other one off cases like Condit/Diaz, Thompson/Macdonald and most fights with counter strikers vs aggressive fighters. But sometimes the judges score that shit in the opposite direction, like Silva/Bisping for example. I'm just stuck here wondering why even bother with Octagon Control anymore? That shit doesn't even win fights.

I always thought it was pretty stupid too

 

[Captain_Dammitt]

If that's truly the case I can name like a dozen counterstrikers who should of lost on that merit alone. Anyways, there's a fine line between bullying your opponent across the cage and generally making then your bitch, with say, Dominick Cruz drawing and baiting in Uriah Faber while giving up the center.

Counter strikers win rounds by damage and landing significant shots. If you're not countering well, Gus in the DC fight, you're going to lose. Gus tried to stay on the outside and time some shots but he let DC control the center and use aggression (another criteria).

 

[ExitLUPin]

Its arbitrary and open to interpretation from any biased view.

If it gets to the point where the higher precedent of scoring in effective grappling, striking, aggression are even the round should just be scored 10-10. Giving one guy a 10-9 in an otherwise even round for "octagon control" is fucking retarded.

1. The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
2. The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:
   1. a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;

http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations#14

"Octagon control" most often comes down to when ppl judge, "I like this fighter more so he was controlling more since i was watching the fight through the effectiveness he was showing"

 

[tdluxon]

If that's truly the case I can name like a dozen counterstrikers who should of lost on that merit alone. Anyways, there's a fine line between bullying your opponent across the cage and generally making then your bitch, with say, Dominick Cruz drawing and baiting in Uriah Faber while giving up the center.

Exactly. Chasing around a counter striker while eating their punches is not control even if they are backing up

 

[davisbe]

I have yet to see a fight where a majority of judges, much less all three, score a fight correctly. After more than 15 years, and still no reforms. It's mind-boggling, really.

 

[ShackleMeNot]

I've always assumed it boiled down to moving forward, being on top, or holding someone against the cage

 

[Rod Farva]

It means that if the round is essentially even, one takedown can win you the round

Not sure if that was the original intent of the rule but that's what it has devolved into

 

[DrHouse]

Eenie, meenie, minie.........