- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
I just had a thought about judging in MMA and decided to post it here and not check if anyone else has suggested it already.
I had this idea after watching the Randy Couture vs. Brandon Vera fight a few moments ago.
What if, like, each category that the fight is scored on is given its own, individual 10-point must system?
Striking, Grappling, Aggression, and Octagon Control.
Each category counts for up to 10 points out of the 40 maximum for each round.
If Brandon Vera outstrikes Couture in round one, he gets a 10-9 for Striking for Round 1. If Couture keeps Vera pinned against the cage the entire time, but Vera showed some offense here, like in round 3, give Couture a 10-9 for Grappling in Round 1, putting them at 19-19 for the round. If one could say that Vera was the aggressor since he went for the finish the entire time when not being wall stalled, you'd do him 10-9 for that, putting Vera up 29-28. Then for Octagon Control, Randy would win here definitively, putting him at 10-8 for that and winning him the round 39-36, giving him the round 10-9. If he had won the round by a margin of, say, 40-35 and below (two 10-8 categories or four 10-9's) they would be given the round 10-8.
However, had Vera, say, attempted more submissions in the round, and had won the grappling, like in the round where he full mounted Couture, resulting in less cage control, he could feasibly give himself the round's Grappling and given Randy a 10-9 for cage control, making the fight a draw, or a 10-10.
If each round was scored that way, it would take the guesswork of how much a judge weighs each category in his own mind, by putting it in the same terms they are the most familiar with: a whole bunch of 10-9's.
I can even picture most MMA judges doing something a little like this, only shorthand and in their head to figure out who won the fight. Why not make it an official process?
Edit: I do not at all see this being too much for a judge to handle during a fight. When comparing strictly one category of judging at a time, the choices become much simpler than an overall score. For example, Brandon Vera clearly won the striking in round one, 10-9, while Randy won the cage control 10-9 and the grappling 10-9.
A few extra, but much easier, decisions should take less time and thought than choosing a winner of a close round without weighing things out like that.
____________________________________________________
On another note... to add to the versatility of this kind of judging (there are four categories, so a draw is more than feasible with the Striker gaining the Aggression 10-9 but losing out on grappling and cage control).... why not eliminate Aggression?
Aggression is a very vague concept; either person could be winning the fight in terms of aggression, but not actually be winning the fight at all. This being a judging category would be biased against counter-punching, which is often more effective than being aggressive.
Further, it's vague enough that the Aggression point would go to Vera in some rounds that he was absolutely dominated in terms of being wall stalled.
Removal of this as a judging criteria would result in the guy who dives for takedowns the entire fight but does nothing with the position doesn't win the aggression point, and therefore can't outweigh solid striking using three different categories.
Lastly, it makes it to where, if a judge is using a good formula for deciding the round outcome, there are an uneven number of categories, which has its obvious benefits.
If the fight was judged solely on Striking, Grappling, and Octagon Control, you could see a fight won by a guy who dominates in striking but gets taken down ineffectively still win rounds, and grapplers who go for submissions from the bottom constantly while the person atop them is simply trying to escape their guard.
I don't know, it doesn't seem like much to me upon second reading, but I figure I will leave it up to discuss.
I had this idea after watching the Randy Couture vs. Brandon Vera fight a few moments ago.
What if, like, each category that the fight is scored on is given its own, individual 10-point must system?
Striking, Grappling, Aggression, and Octagon Control.
Each category counts for up to 10 points out of the 40 maximum for each round.
If Brandon Vera outstrikes Couture in round one, he gets a 10-9 for Striking for Round 1. If Couture keeps Vera pinned against the cage the entire time, but Vera showed some offense here, like in round 3, give Couture a 10-9 for Grappling in Round 1, putting them at 19-19 for the round. If one could say that Vera was the aggressor since he went for the finish the entire time when not being wall stalled, you'd do him 10-9 for that, putting Vera up 29-28. Then for Octagon Control, Randy would win here definitively, putting him at 10-8 for that and winning him the round 39-36, giving him the round 10-9. If he had won the round by a margin of, say, 40-35 and below (two 10-8 categories or four 10-9's) they would be given the round 10-8.
However, had Vera, say, attempted more submissions in the round, and had won the grappling, like in the round where he full mounted Couture, resulting in less cage control, he could feasibly give himself the round's Grappling and given Randy a 10-9 for cage control, making the fight a draw, or a 10-10.
If each round was scored that way, it would take the guesswork of how much a judge weighs each category in his own mind, by putting it in the same terms they are the most familiar with: a whole bunch of 10-9's.
I can even picture most MMA judges doing something a little like this, only shorthand and in their head to figure out who won the fight. Why not make it an official process?
Edit: I do not at all see this being too much for a judge to handle during a fight. When comparing strictly one category of judging at a time, the choices become much simpler than an overall score. For example, Brandon Vera clearly won the striking in round one, 10-9, while Randy won the cage control 10-9 and the grappling 10-9.
A few extra, but much easier, decisions should take less time and thought than choosing a winner of a close round without weighing things out like that.
____________________________________________________
On another note... to add to the versatility of this kind of judging (there are four categories, so a draw is more than feasible with the Striker gaining the Aggression 10-9 but losing out on grappling and cage control).... why not eliminate Aggression?
Aggression is a very vague concept; either person could be winning the fight in terms of aggression, but not actually be winning the fight at all. This being a judging category would be biased against counter-punching, which is often more effective than being aggressive.
Further, it's vague enough that the Aggression point would go to Vera in some rounds that he was absolutely dominated in terms of being wall stalled.
Removal of this as a judging criteria would result in the guy who dives for takedowns the entire fight but does nothing with the position doesn't win the aggression point, and therefore can't outweigh solid striking using three different categories.
Lastly, it makes it to where, if a judge is using a good formula for deciding the round outcome, there are an uneven number of categories, which has its obvious benefits.
If the fight was judged solely on Striking, Grappling, and Octagon Control, you could see a fight won by a guy who dominates in striking but gets taken down ineffectively still win rounds, and grapplers who go for submissions from the bottom constantly while the person atop them is simply trying to escape their guard.
I don't know, it doesn't seem like much to me upon second reading, but I figure I will leave it up to discuss.
Last edited:
