Do you prefer damage or control based judging?

Rebel_LioN

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
12,102
Reaction score
5,013
If you were given the ability to change the way we score MMA fights, would you do it?

Keep it the same way where tactical control at the end of rounds being awarded, or judge it based on damage regardless of the last 59 seconds?
 
Physical damage means nothing. Some people bleed or bruise more easily, so unless they are at risk of permanent eye, brain, etc. it should have zero impact on fight results. Knock downs and staggering your opponent should obviously give bonus points.

If you can't finish your opponent or get a lot more significant strikes, take downs, submission attempts, etc. then control is very important. Control shows you are trying to put away your opponent rather than running from them.
 
None of those. Just change the judges to more competent ones that knows MMA
 
Would you rather be controlled on ur back for a minute or 2 & eat a few punches, or have your knee ligaments torn?
 
Damage, not necessarily visual but more so actions that significantly effect a fighter should always come first. However control can be the difference when there is not a significant difference in damage. Significant control time where it is the story of the round should also be rewarded. Putting your opponent in a position they don’t want to be in is worth more than nothing and should be rewarded to a degree. However should not override significant offensive attacks.
 
Last edited:
Physical damage means nothing. Some people bleed or bruise more easily, so unless they are at risk of permanent eye, brain, etc. it should have zero impact on fight results. Knock downs and staggering your opponent should obviously give bonus points.

If you can't finish your opponent or get a lot more significant strikes, take downs, submission attempts, etc. then control is very important. Control shows you are trying to put away your opponent rather than running from them.
Well said. The shot that cause the cut which was the most significant visual injury of the fight wasn't even the hardest shot Cory landed. Looks can be deceiving
 
If you were given the ability to change the way we score MMA fights, would you do it?

Keep it the same way where tactical control at the end of rounds being awarded, or judge it based on damage regardless of the last 59 seconds?
Damage usually wins fights.
 
Not damage but the impact on the strike should matter. Statistically cory and tj werent to far away with strikes landed but corys were much more impactful. All the hugging and failed takedown should literally count for nothing.
 
Just an ancillary thought: we're probably quickly approaching the day when sensors in gloves will be able to tell you exactly how often someone hit someone else (with hands anyway) and possibly even the force of impact (regardless of how much the other guy bruises)

I can also imagine the same things for legs being developed using computer vision or perhaps some transparent sleeve that fighters wear on their shins.
 
If you were given the ability to change the way we score MMA fights, would you do it?

Keep it the same way where tactical control at the end of rounds being awarded, or judge it based on damage regardless of the last 59 seconds?

If I had the ability to change the way it is scored, I would give every action a points weight and then total the points for each round. Then the judges job would be to record statistics which would then totaled in a transparent way. This would not only allow people to know exactly what each action was worth but also see exactly how a judge comes to a decision. All we have no is a 10-9, 10-8 (I have never seen 10-7 used in UFC and 9-9 is used rarely, I can't remember a time it was used but I am sure that is has been). This means we have no way to determine why the judge found it 10-9 and we are just guessing.

It would be like a rubric so everybody could judge the same way and coaches could score practice bouts in a way which resembled reality.
 
If you were given the ability to change the way we score MMA fights, would you do it?

Keep it the same way where tactical control at the end of rounds being awarded, or judge it based on damage regardless of the last 59 seconds?
Lol why? So you could feel better about fighters you like losing? No, the scoring criteria is fine, we need better judges though. That doesn’t even include MMA, in boxing as well
 
Physical damage means nothing. Some people bleed or bruise more easily, so unless they are at risk of permanent eye, brain, etc. it should have zero impact on fight results. Knock downs and staggering your opponent should obviously give bonus points.

If you can't finish your opponent or get a lot more significant strikes, take downs, submission attempts, etc. then control is very important. Control shows you are trying to put away your opponent rather than running from them.
Physical damage obviously means something, because the goal of a fight is to hurt your opponent or make him quit.
Bleeding and bruising is evidence of that, alongside things like Body language, changes in cardio, broken bones or joint damage, wobbling your opponent, etc.
If you control without doing any damage, I do not think you are trying to put away your opponent. Unless you are obviously going for subs.
 
If you were given the ability to change the way we score MMA fights, would you do it?

Keep it the same way where tactical control at the end of rounds being awarded, or judge it based on damage regardless of the last 59 seconds?
Add a decimal point. The biggest problem is 95% of rounds receive the same exact score, 10-9.

If a judge thinks a round is incredibly close, he or she should be able to score it 10.0-9.9.

Look at Phillips vs Paiva.

Rd 1: Phillips 10.0, Paiva 8.2
Rd 2: Phillips 9.4, Paiva 10.0
Rd 3: Phillips 9.1, Paiva 10.0

Total: Phillips 28.5, Paiva 28.2
 
I prefer to score the whole round. I have awarded rounds before based on damage, have also awarded rounds based on control.
 
A lot of people still don't get this, but here goes again.

The scoring criteria is:
  1. Fight shall be judged on effective striking and grappling
  2. If that is a tie, the 1st tiebreaker is aggression (shouldn't generally have to use this)
  3. If #2 is a tie, the 2nd tiebreaker is "Octagon control" (should hardly eva have to use this)
Anik and Goldie, by wording don't make this abundantly clear. The scoring criteria is like a page and a half PDF file. It's not long at all. Also, crazy how people here don't judge round by round. They just make up their own criteria and go with that. "Who's face looked worse? That's who lost" etc.

We still get threads about how GSP vs. Hendricks was a robbery, when judged by the OFFICIAL criteria, it's perfectly cromulent. I had it for GSP. Same with Bisping vs. Hamill, etc. The judges' job is to know how to score a round/fight. Yes, they fuck up ALL the time, but they should know how to judge a round.
 
I'd have to say control. A guy can get punched once and look like shit, but if he controls the whole fight he shouldn't win cause he looks like shit off a few well placed shots?
 
I’m a dilly fan, because I hate you assholes, but I think Cory should’ve got the decision. Better shots landed and shots defended. They’ll fight again so nbd
 
Cory didn't do enough damage to win the fight. Stop crying bud.
 
I prefer damage, it's a fight. I understand that octagon control is there to encourage engagement but if taken away I doubt it makes a difference.
 
Back
Top