The New Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts (2017)

I thought octagon control meant winning points for grabbing the fence
 
shonuf said:
I would love to see post fight interviewing of judges by the media be made mandatory. There's a few big fights where you never get to hear anything.
Click to expand...

That would be fun but I feel it would get too accusatory and lead to severe witch-hunting by the fans. Perhaps for controversial fights a review process followed by a public statement regarding which criteria prompted the delivered scoring, and an admission of error if such was found. I realize that an admission of error will never occur in today's litigious society, but it would be great if it could be done without consequence (neither to the judges, nor to change the official result) as I think it would result in an ever-improving judging process.

I think it would be best if judges had general, annual closed-door conferences where they all watched fights and discussed the scoring that was delivered, with the judges who scored the event able to present their arguments, experienced judges discussing the results, and the founding fathers of the unified rules able to present input as to the intention of the rules and if the judges were interpreting them correctly.
 
thatKid said:
But the way that 10-8s are judged hasn't changed, not really. It's going to be more liberal because the language is clearer. Like what would be a "small 10-8" that you're describing here

And if you get beat up badly enough in a single round to deserve a 10-7 (which will probably never happen again in MMA) without being finished, you deserve to lose because the fight probably should have been stopped.
Click to expand...

The Woodley/Wonderboy fight: Uner these new rules, does Woodley do enough in the other round to rate a 10-8, too? Theoretically, in a five round fight, a guy can win with two 10-8 rounds. It seems like Woodley may have won the fight, if it's scored under these new rules, I don't know. I honestly can't remember, but feel like he would've gotten 10-8 for both.

Edit: My post is alluding to the "big" 10-8 and the "small" 10-8. One was easy to score a 10-8, while the other could be viewed as a "small" 10-8, if I'm remembering correctly.
 
They need to allow upkicks to a grounded opponent. That is one of the worst rules in MMA.
 
Lucifer Alpha said:
Good to see the bullshit "octagon control" criteria be relegated to almost nothing.
Click to expand...
It's always been the case where the scoring criteria are in tiers, bu I'm glad that they are now making it obvious: aggression and control don't mean jack shit unless the striking and grappling are judged to be equal.

Can't wait for fighters to start losing points due to the new extended fingers rule<{jackyeah}>
 
Neil'sMagny said:
The Woodley/Wonderboy fight: Uner these new rules, does Woodley do enough in the other round to rate a 10-8, too? Theoretically, in a five round fight, a guy can win with two 10-8 rounds. It seems like Woodley may have won the fight, if it's scored under these new rules, I don't know. I honestly can't remember, but feel like he would've gotten 10-8 for both.

Edit: My post is alluding to the "big" 10-8 and the "small" 10-8. One was easy to score a 10-8, while the other could be viewed as a "small" 10-8, if I'm remembering correctly.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think Woodley deserved at least one 10-8 in that fight, and honestly disregarding the current criteria for a second I think he should have won the fight. He was the only one who showed any chance of finishing that fight, the only one who really hurt their opponent. That is the spirit of fighting IMO, and I'd be glad to see it reflected in the judging.
 
Roca said:
Was there clarification on the fence grabs? If so I missed it. I agree that is something that needs to be implemented but I think mandatory fouls are a dangerous choice. I think the wording should be something along the lines of mandatory if it impacts position.

I'm just envisioning a fighters fingers going into the fence and fans and coaches causing a big stir about there should have been a point deduction when in reality it did nothing to change the fight. Now if a fighter grabs the fence a la Aldo/Mendes where it clearly prevented, or aided in securing a takedown or submission then that is an immediate and mandatory point deduction, no warnings. Obviously there is still some referee judgment required here but that is what we pay them for.
Click to expand...
Of course impact should be a big thing when talking about fouls.

What I'm saying is that having multiple warnings gives fighters free fouls. Many of them will poke eyes, grab fence or kick the nuts on purpose and get away with just a warning. And they are doing it knowning they won't lose a point right away while at the same time they could disable opponent enough to improve their chances of winning (Faber poking Rivera and other opponents, Jones doing the same)

Accidental fouls are pretty obvious. For example low kick that caugh the cup is accidental. If strike to the cup is intentional it is pretty clear. Extending your fingers while opponent is moving in on you is not accidental. You are told to keep your hands close and if you don't do it then it is your fault. Grabbing fence is not accidental because you made a decision to do it. Simply implementing this and taking a point right away will stop many guys from trying to work the system (like Jon Jones). No more free fauls and guys will think twice before doing something like that. We will still have morons who will try it but with time they will learn that system is working. Until we get instant point dediction new rules mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
Lucifer Alpha said:
They need to allow upkicks to a grounded opponent. That is one of the worst rules in MMA.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's a logistical nightmare though unless they just allow kicks to all grounded opponents.
 
ArtOfDrowning said:
Of course impact should be a big thing when talking about fouls.

What I'm saying is that having multiple warnings gives fighters free fouls. Many of them will poke eyes, grab fence or kick the nuts on purpose and get away with just a warning. And they are doing it known they would lose a point right away while they could disable their opponent enough to improve their chances of winning.

Accidental fouls are pretty obvious. For example low kick that caugh the cup is accidental. If strike to the cup is intentional it is pretty clear. Extending your fingers while opponent is moving in on you is not accidental. You are told to keep your hands close and if you don't do it then it is your fault. Grabbing fence is not accidental because you made a decision to do it. Simply implementing this and takign a point right away will stop many guys from trying to work the system (like Jon Jones).
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm just a little worried about the definition of 'grabbing'. If a fighter's fingers go through the holes in the fence does that constitute 'grabbing'? I agree they need to crack down I was mostly debating the exact wording.
 
Roca said:
Yeah I think Woodley deserved at least one 10-8 in that fight, and honestly disregarding the current criteria for a second I think he should have won the fight. He was the only one who showed any chance of finishing that fight, the only one who really hurt their opponent. That is the spirit of fighting IMO, and I'd be glad to see it reflected in the judging.
Click to expand...

I agree, I was pulling for Thompson, but it was clear that Woodley beat him up, he just didn't do enough it according to how it was being scored at the time.

There's still a lot of gray area, McCarthy used the phrase, "LIKE three-and-a-half minutes" when talking about dominating a round. What does "like" mean? Is that three minutes? Three minutes, fifteen seconds? He wasn't absolutely clear, and still left a lot of wiggle room for shenanigans, but it's a step in the right direction.

Another thing, most of the time, it's easy to see who's winning the stand-up battle, but it isn't always so clear on the ground. I wonder if grapplers/wrestlers find it more difficult to get 10-8s, as opposed to strikers. All-in-all, I'm excited for the changes, especially the eye pokes. They've screwed up way too many good fights over the past five years, it's time to outlaw those for good.
 
As long as striking and grappling become the center focus that is MUCH better than how things currently are.
 
Roca said:
I agree. I'm just a little worried about the definition of 'grabbing'. If a fighter's fingers go through the holes in the fence does that constitute 'grabbing'? I agree they need to crack down I was mostly debating the exact wording.
Click to expand...
I think that shouldn't be faul but the moment fighter grabs the fence with his fighers to stop a TD or uses it to improve his position in any way instant point deduction. That way guys will see it's dangerous to play with that fire and just keep their fingers on the fence, not putting them through.
 
Take a point on fouls. Too much cheating because they know they won't be penalized.

Poke... Lose a point.
Grab the fence...Lose a point.

This is as likely to cause draws as 10 - 8 rounds will.
 
I still fear many judges will favor the fighters who is coming forward. People just like agressive fighters and get impression they are winning by just moving forward. That puts guys who are counter punchers in bad position from the start.
 
chunglii said:
It's always been the case where the scoring criteria are in tiers, bu I'm glad that they are now making it obvious: aggression and control don't mean jack shit unless the striking and grappling are judged to be equal.
Click to expand...
Leonard Garcia and Diego Sanchez owe their opponents hundreds of thousands of dollars under this new criteria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,903
Messages
55,453,835
Members
174,785
Latest member
ljae89

Share this page

Back
Top