Damage as scoring criteria. Agree or Disagree?

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

Breaking someone’s jaw should be weighed heavily

Damage trumps all

Foolish debate

 

[koquerelle]

Went with 2 because it is superficial but should count to a degree just not as a main criteria. Imho

Exactly. Look at Penn-GSP 1. Penn did a lot of damage, won round 1, but couldn't get near a 10-8. BJ does nothing in round 2 and 3. GSP clearly won these rounds, but was nowhere near what Penn did in round 1. GSp still won the last 2 rounds and the fight.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

Its how the OP specifically defined it in this poll. So in the context of this thread yes, it is just superficial damage like cuts and bruises and swelling.

Most don't read beyond the title.

I don't get your point - the poll asks if damage should be the main scoring criteria and then in his opinion he posits a bunch of stuff that only relates to superficial damage:

*Judges are supposed to score each round individually, but if a fighter looks like they've been through hell from previous rounds, it's difficult to guage a round in which they actually took no new damage, but they're bleeding all over the place.

*Judges are supposed to score rounds in-between rounds. They're not supposed to be looking at the fighters in-between rounds and guessing which one took more damage, based off their memory of how they looked before the previous rounds.

*Some fighters take big hits and don't bruise or cut. Other fighters take the exact same hits and are cut & bleeding all over the place. Its purely genetic.

*It puts asian & other lighter-skinned fighters at an automatic disadvantage because their bruises are far more visible than fighters with darker skin.

His explanation makes no sense because he limits damage to only superficial cuts/bruises/swelling, which is only one composite of damage - it completely overlooks what is happening inside your brain/internal organs/ligaments/tissue when you are getting hit.

We can see fighters get hit and start limping, or their head snap back, or they stumble, or they go from being aggressive to defensive - those are all clear signs of "damage" that don't involve cuts/bruising/swelling, but they are harder to rate/compare because there is no superficial way to gauge it.

If he changed his poll to "Superficial Damage as scoring criteria. Agree or Disagree?" then his explanation would make sense.

But it doesn't, so it doesn't make sense.

 

[FIghtxIQ]

Yes damage is the number one judging criteria for a reason. It's because the point of the fight is to finish your opponent by either KO/TKO or submission. Points is only used if you are unable to finish your opponent. Meaning trying to win with anything else but damage and a finish is viewed as secondary metrics.

 

[FIghtxIQ]

Exactly. Look at Penn-GSP 1. Penn did a lot of damage, won round 1, but couldn't get near a 10-8. BJ does nothing in round 2 and 3. GSP clearly won these rounds, but was nowhere near what Penn did in round 1. GSp still won the last 2 rounds and the fight.

Yes it's still split up in rounds. Meaning the damage in the rounds, not just damage in one round. Unless they switch it up to PRIDE or ONE style scoring where they judge the whole fight and not each individual round. So yes in that fight GSP won since he won 2 of the 3 rounds. Damage is the main criteria to judge in each round.

 

[JBJ was here]

I'd call landing multiple clean blows more damaging than a grazing cut.

That depends. For most cuts, sure, but deliberately trying to cut your opponent on the brow is a legitimate damaging technique. It's common to see fighters target an open wound around, and especially above, the eyes, because that's a good way to make your opponent unable to continue.

 

[Stagger Lee]

The question you should have asked was blood as a scoring criteria? Damage scores itself in a fight.

 

[Rationality]

Damage scores itself in a fight because it permits a fighter to take control of the fight. If what is done isn't that, then it's already covered by significant strikes, TDs, etc

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Depends how you define damage. I'd call landing multiple clean blows more damaging than a grazing cut.

Agreed. Damage should not be viewed superficially, but generally, ie damage is hurting your opponent, not causing small cuts, etc. Wobbling an opponent with strikes should count very heavily. Badly wobbling or knocking down an opponent should be near 10-8 round imo.

 

[Cat Biscuits]

I think a lot of you guys have a misconception about how to define "damage" - it doesn't necessarily mean to cut or bruise someone, it just means to cause physical harm to someone. Hitting someone really hard is going to cause damage regardless if the person cuts or bruises, it just becomes harder to define/perceive.

Now cuts and bruises are tell-tale signs of damage, but so is just the visual of your leg or fist going into their body and then gauging the reaction (how their head/body reacts, do their legs shake or go unsteady, do they back off instead of continuing to pressure). As well as guys that don't cut or bruise , there are also some guys that are just incredibly tough and can "no-sell" damage so they take brutal shots but since they don't stumble or wince it doesn't mean it isn't damaging, it just means the judges will not see it "as damaging" as it really was.

Damage is the only thing that matters in a fight - everything else is just a means to cause damage (i.e. control/position/aggression). The point of a fight is to cause damage, it's literally defined as a "violent struggle" so if you aren't chasing damage where is the violence?

I came here to say exactly this. You beat me to it. Superbly spoken, you truly do understand what so many people on here fail to see.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

It is important but it needs someone who understands what Damage means. Did Leon get the 5th round for beating on Nate for 4 + minutes or did Nate get it for landing 1 punch that knocked Leon's equilibrium out for a few seconds resulting in no further danger or damage? To me what Nate did meant nothing except he missed a possible chance to do something.

GSP beat the tar out of BJ Penn to the point where his corner stopped the fight but BJ didn't look battered and bruised that much. GSP shows bruises. Both Diaz brothers get cuts on their brows easily.

Its something that needs to be understood in context. A fighter getting a TD on Maia =/= a fighter getting a TD on Cro Cop or Alex Pereira.

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

Damage isn't a real scoring criteria. Announcers say it because it's easier to explain.

An effective strike with immediate impact to end the fight is the #1 scoring criteria. Now you can't have an immediate impact without causing visible damage it could be cuts and bruises, their head snapping back like rollercoaster, being dropped, hobbling their leg, making them a bambie.

But if you start saying scoring damage, people look at stupid stuff like Islam vs Volkanski's 4th and rightfully say volkanski did more damage there, however there was no immediate impact in anything either guy did.

 

[BFoe]

Depends how you define damage. I'd call landing multiple clean blows more damaging than a grazing cut.

Agreed. Damage should not be viewed superficially, but generally, ie damage is hurting your opponent, not causing small cuts, etc. Wobbling an opponent with strikes should count very heavily. Badly wobbling or knocking down an opponent should be near 10-8 round imo.

I agree with you guys as well, but I don’t really see that as damage per se—that’s just effective striking. The exact point that Hellowhosthat brings up is why damage itself doesn’t make sense as a criteria.

 

[kalabula]

The problem with that is, some guys have a lot of scar tissue on their faces. Other guys just don’t seem to open up as much.

 

[Banana Tree's Nemesis]

IMO the problem isn't so much scoring damage, as damage is reasonably one of the most important factors in a fight, since a human being can only take so much damage.
The problem is HOW exactly to score it. How much is a compromised knee worth versus a broken orbital. Impossible to determine unless the rules specify further.
Yet I think the common sense finds consensus for 99% of fights. The predominant scoring differences in the community seem to come from differing opinions on the scoring of grappling vs striking opposed to scoring rounds that involve striking only.

This comes up over and over again, but it is a misquote that spread like a wildfire. Damage does not trump all!

The order of judging criteria goes as follows:
- score (A) effective striking/grappling
- score (B) effective aggressiveness
- score (C) control of fighting area

IF: Scoring for criterium (A) is not exactly even for both fighters

Then: --> score round only based on criterium (A)​

(Classes)

- effective striking:= Impact/Effect of legal strikes solely based on result of those legal strikes
- effective grappling := successful execution and impactful/effective result coming from takedowns, submission attempts, achievement of advantageous position, reversals​

(subclass)

- Impact :=

- visible evidence (e.g. swelling, lacerations)
- diminishing of opponents:

- energy
- confidence
- abilities
- spirit​

The 'visible evidence' is just one of multiple criterias that go into the term impact. The word 'damage' isn't even mentioned.
Personally I feel like the much bigger issue is that grappling is considered/scored on the same level that striking is scored on.
But there are no metrics to score these very different things on to put them into a relation. It's apples and oranges.

PS: I'm not a coder. This is just random pseudo-code and I hope it's not too offputting. I felt like it made sense for the purpose of understandability.

​

 

[BFoe]

Damage isn't a real scoring criteria. Announcers say it because it's easier to explain.

An effective strike with immediate impact to end the fight is the #1 scoring criteria. Now you can't have an immediate impact without causing visible damage it could be cuts and bruises, their head snapping back like rollercoaster, being dropped, hobbling their leg, making them a bambie.

But if you start saying scoring damage, people look at stupid stuff like Islam vs Volkanski's 4th and rightfully say volkanski did more damage there, however there was no immediate impact in anything either guy did.

Agree with you except for the part about effective striking with immediate impact being the #1 criteria. Effective striking and effective grappling with immediate impact is co-equal criteria. This is an important point.

 

[SkinnyClaw]

What even is damage and how do you measure it, common sense should be used. If a guy eats 10 leg kicks and there is no visible sign of any damage on his leg, but he takes one punch and it opens a cut and there's blood all over his face, the leg kicks should count for more. How hard is it to decide who won a fight anyway, it's either clear who won, or its a fuckin draw. Make more draws maybe, instead of splitting hairs and counting strikes and trying to work out which one did more damage like that fooking Weasel on YouTube

 

[TrueBias]

There's been alot of debate on this over the years, so I thought it'd be an interesting poll. Hopefully with a few hundred votes this will guage Sherdog's opinion.

Go ahead and vote, and the option to change your vote is open if an opinion sways you.

Spoiler: My Opinion

Damage shouldn't be an aspect of scoring... as far as bruising/cuts/bleeding.

*Judges are supposed to score each round individually, but if a fighter looks like they've been through hell from previous rounds, it's difficult to guage a round in which they actually took no new damage, but they're bleeding all over the place.

*Judges are supposed to score rounds in-between rounds. They're not supposed to be looking at the fighters in-between rounds and guessing which one took more damage, based off their memory of how they looked before the previous rounds.

*Some fighters take big hits and don't bruise or cut. Other fighters take the exact same hits and are cut & bleeding all over the place. Its purely genetic.

*It puts asian & other lighter-skinned fighters at an automatic disadvantage because their bruises are far more visible than fighters with darker skin.

I dont know what answer to choose, but ive always thought of it as a high school day after a playground fight. Whomever is most damaged lost.

IF


The fight is a literal coin toss. If its difficult to say who won, then see whos less damaged, and theres your winner.

K.I.S.S. principle.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I agree with you guys as well, but I don’t really see that as damage per se—that’s just effective striking. The exact point that Hellowhosthat brings up is why damage itself doesn’t make sense as a criteria.

I think damage as a criteria is defined in opposition to things like forward motion or positional dominance in grappling. In boxing, damage isn't really a necessary component of scoring, but in MMA it is, because there are a lot of ways to win that don;t hurt your opponent much. With so much variety of action, judges need to focus on the actions that hurt the opponent.

 

[don't ask]

Just put health bars over the fighters heads like this

We can do this by making them insert butt plugs with sensors so we can detect how powerful each blow is internally.