- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 6,715
- Reaction score
- 0
Round scoring is the problem. Fighters don't worry about winning the fight, they just focus on stealing rounds.
the Problem with Judging
- Thread starter JoshR86
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,864
- Reaction score
- 0
I am a judge here in Vegas.
The 10 point system is fine. We just need better educated judges for MMA. One of the simplist ways we score a fight, is by holding a mechanical counter in each hand, one for each fighter. If a fighter lands a clean shot, count it, if they secure a takedown, count it. At the end of a round, you look at the totals. If they are close to each other, its a 10-9 round. If it is a dominate round for one fighter, its a 10-8. This method works just fine.
The 10 point system is fine. We just need better educated judges for MMA. One of the simplist ways we score a fight, is by holding a mechanical counter in each hand, one for each fighter. If a fighter lands a clean shot, count it, if they secure a takedown, count it. At the end of a round, you look at the totals. If they are close to each other, its a 10-9 round. If it is a dominate round for one fighter, its a 10-8. This method works just fine.
"I am a judge here in Vegas.
The 10 point system is fine. We just need better educated judges for MMA. One of the simplist ways we score a fight, is by holding a mechanical counter in each hand, one for each fighter. If a fighter lands a clean shot, count it, if they secure a takedown, count it. At the end of a round, you look at the totals. If they are close to each other, its a 10-9 round. If it is a dominate round for one fighter, its a 10-8. This method works just fine."
It doesn't work fine, it works like crap, and that's how it's always worked in boxing as well. Even if the counting described was adequate to measure so complex a competition as mma (it's not), it isn't used as a rule, and like you said, the education of judges is, and always has been, a huge problem.
Every point a fighter gets should mean something in and of itself. If you're only going to score 10-9 or 10-8 rounds, then that's 8 points each that mean nothing. and the two points scored will always be inadequate to measure the competition. Just to say one fighter was dominant is not specific enough, and so is wide open to subjectivity. One or two points is like splitting hairs, too easily debatable, and too fine to determine mma fights. It's equivalent to a 2-point must system!
But, following an earlier post by me, I think 10 points is too many: I can't even come up with 10 basic gradations of how a fighter's advantage could be. I don't think judges could be schooled in 10 separate levels of mma advantage. But 4 or 5 could work: people would have definitions simple enough to use, but specific enough to provide valid, at least somewhat objective, evaluations.
So, even though it sounds like I'm advocating less specificity, moving from 10 points to 5, it actually would be moving from 2 (or very rarely, 3) points to 5. Not just subjective points with definitions left to the individual judges: defined points. Controversies still, but I think it would be a clearer system, easier to learn, and easier to either appreciate or effectively critique.
The 10 point system is fine. We just need better educated judges for MMA. One of the simplist ways we score a fight, is by holding a mechanical counter in each hand, one for each fighter. If a fighter lands a clean shot, count it, if they secure a takedown, count it. At the end of a round, you look at the totals. If they are close to each other, its a 10-9 round. If it is a dominate round for one fighter, its a 10-8. This method works just fine."
It doesn't work fine, it works like crap, and that's how it's always worked in boxing as well. Even if the counting described was adequate to measure so complex a competition as mma (it's not), it isn't used as a rule, and like you said, the education of judges is, and always has been, a huge problem.
Every point a fighter gets should mean something in and of itself. If you're only going to score 10-9 or 10-8 rounds, then that's 8 points each that mean nothing. and the two points scored will always be inadequate to measure the competition. Just to say one fighter was dominant is not specific enough, and so is wide open to subjectivity. One or two points is like splitting hairs, too easily debatable, and too fine to determine mma fights. It's equivalent to a 2-point must system!
But, following an earlier post by me, I think 10 points is too many: I can't even come up with 10 basic gradations of how a fighter's advantage could be. I don't think judges could be schooled in 10 separate levels of mma advantage. But 4 or 5 could work: people would have definitions simple enough to use, but specific enough to provide valid, at least somewhat objective, evaluations.
So, even though it sounds like I'm advocating less specificity, moving from 10 points to 5, it actually would be moving from 2 (or very rarely, 3) points to 5. Not just subjective points with definitions left to the individual judges: defined points. Controversies still, but I think it would be a clearer system, easier to learn, and easier to either appreciate or effectively critique.
