How would you score these rounds?

[Grijswaarde]

Scoring rounds can lead to a lot of controversy.. the criteria can be interpreted in different ways and personal preferences of the judges often seem to play a big role in scoring.

So let's say we have rounds like described underneath... how would you scrore them?

1 Dominating but getting caught

Fighter A is dominating the full round with standup. Not rocking his opponent but simply outstriking / outpointing him. Never the less, Fighter B seems unaffected and manages to hit fighter A with only one good shot at the end of the round, but rocking him with it and almost finishing him... then te bell goes.

2 Takedown versus takedown defence

Fighter A is taking fighter B down several times. But at the same time, fighter B is defending just as much takedowns while standing. Also, fighter B manages to stand up after every takedown withing 30 seconds. At the same time, he is taken down within 30 seconds everytime he stand up again. No one is really doing damage, not in the standup, not on the ground.

3 Offensive versus defensive BJJ

This round takes place completely on the ground after fighter A pulls guard soon after the round starts. Fighter A and B switch between mount and guard evenly, so no advantage there. The only difference: fighter A keeps trying to submit, but fighter B keeps defending the submissions. No further damage is done.


I understand there are a lot of other factors, but this is all just hypothetical. Just simplified versions of rounds that occur in the MMA and have been scored in different ways. I'm curious to see if we all agree or not.

As always: English is not my native language so please ignore grammar errors etc.

 

[Honestnathaniel]

As for the bjj one, offense should always be scored above defense. If someone is trying to rip your arm off, they get points. You dont get points for surviving getting your arm taken off.

 

[mcclarse]

Scoring rounds can lead to a lot of controversy.. the criteria can be interpreted in different ways and personal preferences of the judges often seem to play a big role in scoring.

So let's say we have rounds like described underneath... how would you scrore them?

1 Dominating but getting caught

Fighter A is dominating the full round with standup. Not rocking his opponent but simply outstriking / outpointing him. Never the less, Fighter B seems unaffected and manages to hit fighter A with only one good shot at the end of the round, but rocking him with it and almost finishing him... then te bell goes.

2 Takedown versus takedown defence

Fighter A is taking fighter B down several times. But at the same time, fighter B is defending just as much takedowns while standing. Also, fighter B manages to stand up after every takedown withing 30 seconds. At the same time, he is taken down within 30 seconds everytime he stand up again. No one is really doing damage, not in the standup, not on the ground.

3 Offensive versus defensive BJJ

This round takes place completely on the ground after fighter A pulls guard soon after the round starts. Fighter A and B switch between mount and guard evenly, so no advantage there. The only difference: fighter A keeps trying to submit, but fighter B keeps defending the submissions. No further damage is done.


I understand there are a lot of other factors, but this is all just hypothetical. Just simplified versions of rounds that occur in the MMA and have been scored in different ways. I'm curious to see if we all agree or not.

As always: English is not my native language so please ignore grammar errors etc.

1. Fighter A 10-9: He is doing everything better than fighter B and I don't think you can give a dominating round away for one clean shot.

2. Fighter A 10-9: Fighter A is controlling where the fight takes place moreso than fighter B and neither of them are doing anything.

3. Fighter A 10-9: He is the one who pulled guard and the one who is 'winning' aggression.

 

[mcclarse]

As for the bjj one, offense should always be scored above defense. If someone is trying to rip your arm off, they get points. You dont get points for surviving getting your arm taken off.

Exactly.

 

[Non]

1. 10-9 fighter A.
2. 10-10.
3. 10-10 or 10-9 fighter A depending on how deep each submission attempt is and how long he held them.

 

[lololboom]

Fighter B wins round 3, if there switching between mount and gaurd, obvs B is doing some good offense from the top

+ you don't win fights from the bottom, don't pull gaurd in the third unless you can finish

 

[van1ty]

1: Herring won round 1 against Nogueira in their third fight. But, Florian won round three of the Nunes fight despite being rockced at the end. Also, I believe Pace won round three against Menjivar, but the judges disagreed, despite the fact that Pace rocked him.

2: Judges favored Diego's aggression against Kampmann, but favored Koch against Brookins.

3: Somehow the judges gave Gomi round two against Danzig despite a near guillotine. Also, see Torres/DJ.


Conclusion: Fuck this sport is hard to judge.

 

[bryank]

1. Fighter A 10-9: He is doing everything better than fighter B and I don't think you can give a dominating round away for one clean shot.

2. Fighter A 10-9: Fighter A is controlling where the fight takes place moreso than fighter B and neither of them are doing anything.

3. Fighter A 10-9: He is the one who pulled guard and the one who is 'winning' aggression.

I agree with these... I think the biggest confusion comes where sporadic takedowns are involved.

As in, scenario 1, but instead of rocking him Fighter B lands a couple TDs but does no damage. This seems to be where judges get mind fucked and hand in ridiculous cards.

 

[wwedanawhite]

i would score them all for the fighter i go for and then give unrealistic explanations as to why i'm right

 

[Elysianwing]

All three rounds for Leonard Garcia, imo.

 

[BrainLeakage]

1. Fighter A 10-9: He is doing everything better than fighter B and I don't think you can give a dominating round away for one clean shot.

2. Fighter A 10-9: Fighter A is controlling where the fight takes place moreso than fighter B and neither of them are doing anything.

3. Fighter A 10-9: He is the one who pulled guard and the one who is 'winning' aggression.

This.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

In every case, offense should be scored higher than defense when even. So the one scoring the takedowns should be favored over the one defending them, and the same when it comes to submissions.

If I clearly outstrike someone for 9/10 of the round and get caught right at the end, I should still win the round because while he was closer to finishing than I was, I still won most of the round.

 

[Grimm911]

Scoring rounds can lead to a lot of controversy.. the criteria can be interpreted in different ways and personal preferences of the judges often seem to play a big role in scoring.

So let's say we have rounds like described underneath... how would you scrore them?

1 Dominating but getting caught


2 Takedown versus takedown defence


3 Offensive versus defensive BJJ




I understand there are a lot of other factors, but this is all just hypothetical. Just simplified versions of rounds that occur in the MMA and have been scored in different ways. I'm curious to see if we all agree or not.

As always: English is not my native language so please ignore grammar errors etc.

1. 10-9 for the fighter that was dominating. Just because you get caught right at the end does not throw out the work you did for the previous 4 minutes and 30 seconds of the fight.

2.I'd call that a 10-10. Both guys basically cancel each other out. One has the ability to constantly takedown the opponent, and the other has the ability to constantly get up. Now here is the other thing. If one fighter dived for takedowns all night long and never got one while the other fighter constantly stuffed them, and the striking was even, id give a 10-9 to the guy defending takedowns.

3. Probably would lean for a 10-9 for the guy trying to submit, because he is making more of an effort to try and finish the fight.

 

[Helfar]

There should be only one judging criteria: who's doing the most to finish the fight by submission or knockout.

1. If fighter A outstrikes fighter B but never comes even close to knocking him out, then he's obviously not doing enough to finish the fight, whereas fighter B almost knocks him out = fighter B should win this round.

2. If neither fighter deals any damage and there are no attempted submissions, then the round could be called even. However, if such a round has fighter A constantly controlling his opponent and yet no damage is done, then fighter A is stalling and should be penalized = fighter B should win this round.

3. The fighter who attempts submissions is trying to finish the fight = fighter A should win this round.

 

[ABC]

Scoring rounds can lead to a lot of controversy.. the criteria can be interpreted in different ways and personal preferences of the judges often seem to play a big role in scoring.

So let's say we have rounds like described underneath... how would you scrore them?

1 Dominating but getting caught

Fighter A is dominating the full round with standup. Not rocking his opponent but simply outstriking / outpointing him. Never the less, Fighter B seems unaffected and manages to hit fighter A with only one good shot at the end of the round, but rocking him with it and almost finishing him... then te bell goes.

2 Takedown versus takedown defence

Fighter A is taking fighter B down several times. But at the same time, fighter B is defending just as much takedowns while standing. Also, fighter B manages to stand up after every takedown withing 30 seconds. At the same time, he is taken down within 30 seconds everytime he stand up again. No one is really doing damage, not in the standup, not on the ground.

3 Offensive versus defensive BJJ

This round takes place completely on the ground after fighter A pulls guard soon after the round starts. Fighter A and B switch between mount and guard evenly, so no advantage there. The only difference: fighter A keeps trying to submit, but fighter B keeps defending the submissions. No further damage is done.


I understand there are a lot of other factors, but this is all just hypothetical. Just simplified versions of rounds that occur in the MMA and have been scored in different ways. I'm curious to see if we all agree or not.

As always: English is not my native language so please ignore grammar errors etc.

Scenario 1: you need to give more information. Striking is divided into 2 categories, strikes that do damage and those that don't. Strikes that do damage are counted first (and it doesn't have to be visible damage, just determined by the judge that it landed clean and adversely affected the other fighter) and then total strikes landed are only counted if strikes that did damage were equal.

Scenario 2: Very easy to score. Defense isn't given any weight anymore. Takedowns are considered effective grappling, so the person getting the takedowns easily wins the round.

Scenario 3: Another easy one. You indicating that the person on top was passing guard and the person on bottom appears to have been recovering. Passing of the guard into a dominant position is considered effective grappling. Also, being in a dominant position counts toward control. You didn't say how close the top guy was to getting a submission locked in, but it doesn't matter. Submission defense doesn't count toward anything other than keeping the bottom guy in the fight. The guy on top easily wins the round.

 

[SODACKER]

1: Herring won round 1 against Nogueira in their third fight. But, Florian won round three of the Nunes fight despite being rockced at the end. Also, I believe Pace won round three against Menjivar, but the judges disagreed, despite the fact that Pace rocked him.
The
2: Judges favored Diego's aggression against Kampmann, but favored Koch against Brookins.

3: Somehow the judges gave Gomi round two against Danzig despite a near guillotine. Also, see Torres/DJ.


Conclusion: Fuck this sport is hard to judge.

The mm vs Torres fight was the worst judged fight I've seen in a while. I can usually see why judges do what they do but that fight showed a serious problem with judging.

 

[Grijswaarde]

Scenario 1: you need to give more information. Striking is divided into 2 categories, strikes that do damage and those that don't. Strikes that do damage are counted first (and it doesn't have to be visible damage, just determined by the judge that it landed clean and adversely affected the other fighter) and then total strikes landed are only counted if strikes that did damage were equal.

Scenario 2: Very easy to score. Defense isn't given any weight anymore. Takedowns are considered effective grappling, so the person getting the takedowns easily wins the round.

Scenario 3: Another easy one. You indicating that the person on top was passing guard and the person on bottom appears to have been recovering. Passing of the guard into a dominant position is considered effective grappling. Also, being in a dominant position counts toward control. You didn't say how close the top guy was to getting a submission locked in, but it doesn't matter. Submission defense doesn't count toward anything other than keeping the bottom guy in the fight. The guy on top easily wins the round.

As far as the first scenario goes, i said: "Not rocking his opponent but simply outstriking / outpointing him. Never the less, Fighter B seems unaffected" So the strikes seem to not damage... Think of Bisping with no visual effect on his opponent winning a round (no marks, no wobbling, no stepping back etc.)

 

[ABC]

I can't post the actual memo in regards to the last meeting about judging criteria, but I can tell you this link that somebody else posted is an article that is fairly accurate

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/1...ns-abc-changes-unified-rules-scoring-mma-news

 

[ABC]

As far as the first scenario goes, i said: "Not rocking his opponent but simply outstriking / outpointing him. Never the less, Fighter B seems unaffected" So the strikes seem to not damage... Think of Bisping with no visual effect on his opponent winning a round (no marks, no wobbling, no stepping back etc.)

it's one of those scenarios, that I really can't answer. I would have to be watching the fight, and preferably watching the fight cage side where it is much easier to determine if damage is being done.
Technically 1 damaging punch outweighs 20 or more punches that don't do damage, but if somebody is getting hit almost the entire round, I would find it hard to believe that they didn't land anything that could be considered as having done damage or at least accumulative damage.
But that scenario is one that you can't really answer.

 

[lockon]

all 10-9 in favor of fighter a