So assuming a round is mostly controlled by a fighter, but no ground strikes are thrown, but they are outstruck on the feet. The guy who controls the ground has effective grappling overrides the striking? I thought "damage" was the #1 criteria, then after damage is weighed that you would weight the volume and grappling afterwards. I don't even think it's the commentators who said that, it's repeated on this forum all the time. I have to completely revise the way I score fights if control time can be equal or greater to the strikes thrown.
Also you're saying submission attempts count for points as well?
Yeah. Again, it's basically how fights have always been scored. Ya gotta remember that commissions don't like doing shit, so they're not gonna reinvent the wheel here, they're just creating a funnel for all the stuff they already do.
Again, the reason "damage" came up as a key word was to differentiate, in the context of striking, what part of striking is "
effective striking." So strike total isn't the main consideration and defense is not a consideration at all. It wasn't a "catch all" that even grappling needs to be damaging, cuz the 'effect' of grappling isn't primarily damaging. If they really made "damage" the main and only scoring point across all facets, then there really is no effective grappling, unless a ref lets a limb get damaged and foolishly lets the fighter compete through it.
You don't have to completely revise everything, it's just erase the mistakes that have been drilled into people's heads recently. Again, the scoring is basically the way it's always been, they just tried to define it with some guidelines.
I came off kinda hard, but it's just cuz I get fussy repeating myself. This is no different than when Rogan used to convince everyone that "3 points of contact" was the rule for a grounded fighter, so much so that if you google it today, you'll probably find it worded that way everywhere. But the problem was, that was a handy 'shortcut' to
basically what was true, but that was NEVER the actual rule, and would have been stupid if it was (if a guy was completely leaned forward with their feet in the air and only one knee and one hand down, no person in their right mind would call that 'standing,' but it would be by the "Rogan Rule"). So when the downed fighter rule had a language change that only applied in some states, there was actual fighters who fucked up their fights because they thought the rule was the thing Rogan said. Because the commentary team aren't educated on what the fuck is going on. Hell, even Allen vs Evloev earlier this year had an argument on commentary cuz they had no idea what the rule was where they were, leading to fan outrage for thinking the ref fucked up.
The UFC really needs to do a better job of making sure their mouthpieces aren't fuckin everyone at home up. Leaves us fans confused about all types of shit.
*EDIT* I can tell you exactly where the confusion arose. "Damage" was
technically supposed to be in the rules, but was replaced. The language as it has always appeared in the 'unified' scoring criteria is:
“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact. Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.” It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position. This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.
The word 'impact' is used here a bunch. It was supposed to mean both effect in some cases and damage in others (pretty self explanatory where, since you're not going to have a reversal do "immediate damage"), but there were complaints about using the word "damage" in the rules, so they used impact. But if you use the word "effect," then someone could technically weasel in effective
defense in striking. The scoring still notes the succesful execution of etc etc and advantageous positions, just as it was even before the unified scoring (although it does make a note to try and get judges to stop
over scoring position like they used to), but they wanted to emphasize that it should be things that are doing something now scored over the things that do somethinglater, and not score the things that don't do anything to the opponent.
From what I heard about Garry - MVP, it seems like there was a lot of back control, which is the
best position to have, but should have been getting much more score if there were some actual hand fighting around the neck for a RNC as well, since submission attempts score more than just position.
I think they should just decide who wins beforehand and give all the fighters colorful outfits and bleached hair
And make sure they're all wet as fuck, for some reason
