Unified scoring system

[Dylan Marlow]

The judging is very bad. And a unified system will def not help. Being that fights that go the distance are opinion based.
Just got to make it thru and hope the universe does us right in the end

 

[Fess]

That

The reality is that MMA does not have an objective scoring system, and as long as that is the case, we need to accept the judges' opinions.

If a judge "feels" like one fighter is winning the fight, then it is what it is. Fighters need to go for the finish and not fight for points.

Judges are not counting every single strike. Sometimes, they don't even care about the impact of the strikes (as we saw between Angela vs Claudia). Judges are going by their opinions of who looks like the winner.

That's exactly the problem which I think the system will solve.
The judges there not to watch fights and earn money for that, but they get paid.
The job should be done right. If they don't like it, I think it's not going to be an issue to find judges that do, and with a system the even not need to be with some kind of education/certification - just work according to strict rules.

 

[qw3rty]

Nah it's too subjective of a sport to quantify.
The current system would work if there was some accountability and review of the judges scores. As it is the judges do a shit job and then we move on.

The scoring last event was fucked, but who will ask the judges to explain their reasoning? Where can we discuss lessons learned and pass those on to future judges. How do we ensure consistency across events?

It's not the criteria that is the problem, it's the system.

That and an unwillingness to score draws. Sometimes fights are close, it's a shame judges need to flip a coin and give a round to someone.

Agree 100%

We have some no-draw purists here in the forum, I don't understand their point of "we need to move forward".

Specially when matchmaking is not based anymore on who won the last fight, it's more like who sells more and how these 2 fighters match up.

 

[Fess]

Too many things to track for it to work.

It it’s only grappling, you could had some sort of scoring system, however when you add in striking it would become a mess.

You have to take into consideration different strikes n their effectiveness.

not all the strikes to the face are the same. Some do almost no damage, some do cosmetic damage, some can rock or stun an opponent...

it wouldn’t make sense to score them all the same.

also this would lead to another problem...

point fighting

it’s already an issue, but the way things are right now n guidelines in place

Being close to finishing a fight is worth more than just point fighting

if you had a point system in place, then fighters would no longer look to finish fights n just just try to “score points”

The point fighting is an issue right now as well, as you've mentioned, but I don't think that it will lead to more, as people who fight cannot count strikes at the same time, they busy with survival and other shit.
I think that those who fights now that way, will probably do the same, and those who aren't won't bother with the new system.

Regarding the kind of strike, I do think that you can qualify the strike to points, but that to be determined. For example it can be decided that a KD is 5 points, otherwise a strike to the head is 2 points, to leg/body - 1 point.
I personally don't think that it is matter how hard the strike was id it did not bring a knokdown, so for me to score it the same, BUT I'm not the one to decide, and that's exactly is my point, that it would be great if someone who is more qualified than myself will decide it, and will point each element,

 

[Tito Tapped]

Someone can slightly edge the first 2 rounds, only to get fucked up in the 3rd relatively badly, and still win. That shouldn't happen.

And it's better if the last 2 minutes can completely overtake the first 13? That doesn't seem right either and isn't very balanced. The argument almost always comes down to damage. You control a fighter in all phases of the fight for 13 minutes but they land a hard strike in the last 2 and people want that to matter more. As if nothing at all happened leading up to the moment of adversity. We should score techniques not feelings.


Now I think we need some contextual weight within the 5 minute round. A takedown in the lats 10 seconds of a round should not be weighed the same as a takedown that happened at the start of the round. T

 

[TheRassler]

All decisions become Draws.

that's the only unified scoring system.

 

[Alphakennybody20]

And it's better if the last 2 minutes can completely overtake the first 13? That doesn't seem right either and isn't very balanced. The argument almost always comes down to damage. You control a fighter in all phases of the fight for 13 minutes but they land a hard strike in the last 2 and people want that to matter more. As if nothing at all happened leading up to the moment of adversity. We should score techniques not feelings.


Now I think we need some contextual weight within the 5 minute round. A takedown in the lats 10 seconds of a round should not be weighed the same as a takedown that happened at the start of the round. T

lol the judge can pick who he wants. You see what I wrote? Fucked up relatively badly, ie dominated in the 3rd like a borderline 10-8 round

If the first two rounds are relatively even w/ one fighter very slightly winning both, but then they proceed to get fucked up for 5 mins at the end of the fight, I feel it would be valid to give it to the other fighter.

 

[grimballer]

The point fighting is an issue right now as well, as you've mentioned, but I don't think that it will lead to more, as people who fight cannot count strikes at the same time, they busy with survival and other shit.
I think that those who fights now that way, will probably do the same, and those who aren't won't bother with the new system.

Regarding the kind of strike, I do think that you can qualify the strike to points, but that to be determined. For example it can be decided that a KD is 5 points, otherwise a strike to the head is 2 points, to leg/body - 1 point.
I personally don't think that it is matter how hard the strike was id it did not bring a knokdown, so for me to score it the same, BUT I'm not the one to decide, and that's exactly is my point, that it would be great if someone who is more qualified than myself will decide it, and will point each element,

let’s put on the side the logistics (who’s gonna be keeping the score, is it gonna be available to the public n fighters or not)

you would still have the issue of the point system not representing what’s going on on the cage

let’s say you give 2 points for the head strike no matter what it is

n fighter a lands 10 weak jabs, while fighter b lands 4 solid hooks n 4 solid uppercuts

If we have strict scoring system fighter a with 10 weak jabs is beating fighter b with solid hooks n uppercuts

does that really represent what’s happening in the fight n represents who’s winning that fight?

also the objective should always be to finish the fight.

if you have strict scoring system then the corner could keep the score (if not available during the fight) n could build a game plan around it which would make point fighting much easier.

If you land 20 weak jabs n your opponent lands 5 or 6 hard hooks n leg kicks you would know you’re up by a lot n wouldn’t engage as much. The way fights are scored right now you can’t be sure those 20 weak jabs is nuff to win you a round.