Judging Isn't The Main Problem, The Scoring Criteria Is The Main Problem.

[Franc Mittelo]

Till vs Thompson ended as a UD for Till, but compare that to Woodley vs Thompson 1. Woodley took Wonderboy down in the first round and bashed him to a bloody pulp. Woodley almost KO/TKO'd Wonderboy in the 4th round. And yet, the fight was judged a draw. LOL

How the hell can one explain these drastically different results? In one fight, nothing happened, but one guy gets the UD. In the other fight, one fighter had two moments where he was absolutely dominant, and if there was no time limits, he would have finished the fight, and that fight was judged a draw.

This is laughable scoring. The problem is not the judging. For the most part, the judges are only following a protocol and algorithm. However, the problem is with the algorithm. It is way too subjective.

MMA needs to get rid of language like effective striking/grappling, dominant position and blah blah, and replace them with clear language.

For example, if you get a TD, you get a point and that is it. You don't keep scoring just because you are lying on top of the opponent. Once you get an opponent down, you get rewarded once for the TD, and then it becomes a striking game on the ground, and whoever lands the most strikes scores.

This is just an example. The point is the scoring criteria needs to use clear and specific language. Unless you are the one getting kicked and punched, you don't know how hard the opponent is striking, so you are in no position to judge the "effectiveness" of those strikes.

Effective grappling is easier to judge, because the whole point of grappling is to keep the opponent grounded, so if you keep the opponent grounded, you are effectively grappling.

 

[helltoupee]

I agree with your assessment of how tds should be scored, as getting a td and then just laying on someone shouldn't win you a fight. That's a great suggestion.

We saw this in the Knight/Makwan fight. Knight was more active from bottom, and Makwan virtually spent the entirety of his "top control" just defending submissions. I don't think he even threw more than a couple weak punches the entire time. Yet he was awarded the fight based on that, as we've seen countless times over the years.

Effective striking is a little harder to dismiss though. You can't just score one point for one strike (if that's what you are saying). In no universe should a baby leg kick be scored the same as a front kick to the face that visibly stuns/rocks someone.

 

[Nightwish]

I agree with your assessment of how tds should be scored, as getting a td and then just laying on someone shouldn't win you a fight. That's a great suggestion.

We saw this in the Knight/Makwan fight. Knight was more active from bottom, and Makwan virtually spent the entirety of his "top control" just defending submissions. I don't think he even threw more than a couple weak punches the entire time. Yet he was awarded the fight based on that, as we've seen countless times over the years.

Effective striking is a little harder to dismiss though. You can't just score one point for one strike (if that's what you are saying). In no universe should a baby leg kick be scored the same as a front kick to the face that visibly stuns/rocks someone.

No kicks with bad intentions then?

 

[helltoupee]

No kicks with bad intentions then?

I don't know why they weren't just honest about it - those kicks are utilized to maintain distance, not impart any significant damage.

On second thought, since that's what basically won Carlos the fight, I guess they had to go with the narrative that they were something that they were not originally intended to be.

 

[Nightwish]

I don't know why they weren't just honest about it - those kicks are utilized to maintain distance, not impart any significant damage.

On second thought, since that's what basically won Carlos the fight, I guess they had to go with the narrative that they were something that they were not originally intended to be.

Watching that video remains me that im still salty about Lawler KOing Manhoef. No Mercy was beating the shit outta him.

 

[wake_me]

I've always been in favour if an instant .5 point deduction for a foul. No freebies refs are afraid of taking a point away because if how it can impact the fight

 

[HIMBOB]

It's the interpretation of the judging criteria that is the issue.

The rules allow 10-10 to 10-6, but 95% of rounds are scored 10-9, with the occasional 10-8 thrown in randomly.

10-10 if it's debatable who won.
10-9 clear winner.
10-8 one way traffic
10-7 very dominant round
10-6 how the hell did he survive that.

 

[Franc Mittelo]

I agree with your assessment of how tds should be scored, as getting a td and then just laying on someone shouldn't win you a fight. That's a great suggestion.

We saw this in the Knight/Makwan fight. Knight was more active from bottom, and Makwan virtually spent the entirety of his "top control" just defending submissions. I don't think he even threw more than a couple weak punches the entire time. Yet he was awarded the fight based on that, as we've seen countless times over the years.

Effective striking is a little harder to dismiss though. You can't just score one point for one strike (if that's what you are saying). In no universe should a baby leg kick be scored the same as a front kick to the face that visibly stuns/rocks someone.

It is not hard dismiss, when you take the logical position that only the person at the receiving end of those strikes truly knows how much damage is being (in some instances they don't even know).

I am just making suggestions. It doesn't have to be a every strike is the same score thing. It could be a system where a strike to the head is worth more points, because the head is a relatively harder target. A strike to the body comes next, and then strikes to the lower limbs, because they are the easiest to land.

The subjectivity of "effectiveness" and "damage" should be taken out of the equation. People with lighter complexions show bruises more easily, that compromising judging damage.

Also, a strike that results in a knock-down or the chicken dance is an obvious strike to call. These obviously "effective" strikes. However, sometimes a fighter lands an effective strike, which the opponent doesn't show any dramatic reaction to it. However, the strike did a lot of damage, because after the fighter, the opponent had amnesia about everything that happened after that strike, even if he didn't show it during the fight.

The point is get rid of vague subjective language and get people who understand the science of striking and grappling to come up with rules that score every position of the fight.

I think just before the fight happens, when the commission people are checking both fighters, the fighters should submit their game plans to the judges. I think it will help the judges make decisions based on the context of "which fighter is implementing his game plan more effectively?" This is will be helpful for judging fights such as Till vs Thompson.

 

[A.S. Deep]

It's the interpretation of the judging criteria that is the issue.

The rules allow 10-10 to 10-6, but 95% of rounds are scored 10-9, with the occasional 10-8 thrown in randomly.

10-10 if it's debatable who won.
10-9 clear winner.
10-8 one way traffic
10-7 very dominant round
10-6 how the hell did he survive that.

Agreed with this. Till/Wonderboy for me was:

10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-9 Till

No one did enough in R1-R4 to win those.

 

[Franc Mittelo]

It's the interpretation of the judging criteria that is the issue.

The rules allow 10-10 to 10-6, but 95% of rounds are scored 10-9, with the occasional 10-8 thrown in randomly.

10-10 if it's debatable who won.
10-9 clear winner.
10-8 one way traffic
10-7 very dominant round
10-6 how the hell did he survive that.

Again, it is all vague and subjective language. The scoring needs to be more specific. Every aspect of the game needs to be scored.

For example, if you attempt a TD and you are not successful, the opponent gets a point. This will force fighters to be better at TDs and deter lay-n-prayers.

Another example, if you take the opponent's back, that is a 10-8 round, if you can't finish the submission. No elite professional fighter should get his back taken (in my opinion).

The scoring language needs to be more specific, and based on the goals of striking and grappling. For example, if you take the opponent down, you get scored, if you get passed his legs, you get scored, if you take his/her back, you get scored.

If you choose to stay inside the opponents guard to pretend that you are doing work, then whoever lands the most strikes in that position gets the benefit of the scoring. It is very hard to do effective GnP and complete a submission in full guard. So, a fighter who chooses to remain in full guard should be considered to be stalling.

 

[MMAProfessional]

No kicks with bad intentions then?

Made he dislike Condit for the rest of is career. That was the bitchest gameplan I've seen someone pull.

 

[HIMBOB]

Again, it is all vague and subjective language. The scoring needs to be more specific. Every aspect of the game needs to be scored.

For example, if you attempt a TD and you are not successful, the opponent gets a point. This will force fighters to be better at TDs and deter lay-n-prayers.

Another example, if you take the opponent's back, that is a 10-8 round, if you can't finish the submission. No elite professional fighter should get his back taken (in my opinion).

The scoring language needs to be more specific, and based on the goals of striking and grappling. For example, if you take the opponent down, you get scored, if you get passed his legs, you get scored, if you take his/her back, you get scored.

If you choose to stay inside the opponents guard to pretend that you are doing work, then whoever lands the most strikes in that position gets the benefit of the scoring. It is very hard to do effective GnP and complete a submission in full guard. So, a fighter who chooses to remain in full guard should be considered to be stalling.

Totally disagree.

To many seperate scoring events.

 

[RyuHayabusa]

LOL this is hilarious

Its quite simple and a simple question solves everything:

Who won the round - dont know = draw

Theres no such thing as close round etc.... U either know who won clearly or you dont, and if u dont have a clear round winner then its a draw

 

[RyuHayabusa]

Agreed with this. Till/Wonderboy for me was:

10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-9 Till

No one did enough in R1-R4 to win those.

Agreed. True stories

 

[Franc Mittelo]

Totally disagree.

To many seperate scoring events.

MMA is a combination of separate combat sports, so how can anyone possibly score them as one? The scoring system for boxing is incompatible with the scoring system for wrestling and BJJ.

 

[HIMBOB]

MMA is a combination of separate combat sports, so how can anyone possibly score them as one? The scoring system for boxing is incompatible with the scoring system for wrestling and BJJ.

Because it is one event.

 

[Otto!]

Judging will always be part of the problem as you can never remove the subjectivity and personal bias towards certain aspect of the game.

 

[gono btw]

Till vs Thompson ended as a UD for Till, but compare that to Woodley vs Thompson 1. Woodley took Wonderboy down in the first round and bashed him to a bloody pulp. Woodley almost KO/TKO'd Wonderboy in the 4th round. And yet, the fight was judged a draw. LOL

How the hell can one explain these drastically different results? In one fight, nothing happened, but one guy gets the UD. In the other fight, one fighter had two moments where he was absolutely dominant, and if there was no time limits, he would have finished the fight, and that fight was judged a draw.

This is laughable scoring. The problem is not the judging. For the most part, the judges are only following a protocol and algorithm. However, the problem is with the algorithm. It is way too subjective.

MMA needs to get rid of language like effective striking/grappling, dominant position and blah blah, and replace them with clear language.

For example, if you get a TD, you get a point and that is it. You don't keep scoring just because you are lying on top of the opponent. Once you get an opponent down, you get rewarded once for the TD, and then it becomes a striking game on the ground, and whoever lands the most strikes scores.

This is just an example. The point is the scoring criteria needs to use clear and specific language. Unless you are the one getting kicked and punched, you don't know how hard the opponent is striking, so you are in no position to judge the "effectiveness" of those strikes.

Effective grappling is easier to judge, because the whole point of grappling is to keep the opponent grounded, so if you keep the opponent grounded, you are effectively grappling.

 

[The Audience]

Using a scoring system froma completely different sport is so strange. They possibly did it to enable the sport to get fully sanctioned by the ACs, or for familiarity for new fans, but the ufc is so mainstream now that hopefully we will get a bespoke system soon. Judge appointment system needs to be reformed too, so they use judges that actually understand what is going on -that some judges dont know whats happening in fights is farcical.