The Hierarchy of MMA's Judging Criteria Should Be Emphasized

There are a couple of epic threads on the UG from MMA judge Douglas Crosby. Highly recommended if you’re interested in getting further insight from one of the better judges out there:
http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum.posts&forum=1&thread=1418802&page=1
http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum.posts&forum=1&thread=1511755&page=1

You need to filter through quite a bit, but there’s some excellent insight buried in there.

Octagon control should only be used as a factor when all other factors are equal. The goal of any fight should be to end the fight prior to a decision. This can occur by a single act (submission or KTFO) or by cumulative damage (see Cain Velasquez). Octagon control is meaningless if the fight is not damaging his opponent. Look at Clay Guida v. Diego Sanchez, at one point during that fight Guida had taken Sanchez down, but Sanchez was causing more damage from the bottom than Guida was from the top. Additionally, a skilled bjj practitioner who prefers to fight off of his back should not be penalized for giving up "octagon control" if in winning an opening striking flurry gets taken down and spends the rest of the round on his back.

If anything, in establishing octagon control a fighter receives more damage it should further indicate the strength of the opposing fighter. Which would have been more impressive: Vera damaging Couture standing or Vera damaging Couture from within Couture’s Greco-roman clinch? Clearly the second. Causing damage from an opponents chosen position should be further rewarded.

The fighters performance within a round should be assed individually and then judges should compare the fighters performance in determining the round’s victor. I propose that a fighter’s performance within a round assessed and scored by the following criteria:

1) Proximity to finishing the fight (0-15 points)
2) The number of times within a round the fighter was reasonably close to finishing the fight (5 points for each occurrence)
3) The cumulative damage a fighter inflicted upon his opponent (0-10 points)
4) Overall activity and aggression (0-5 points)
5) If, in the consideration of the above factors, the winner of a round cannot be determined then the round should be awarded to the fighter who had the greatest success, as determined from the above factors from disadvantageous positions.

This style of judgment would help alleviate the problems of assessing the value of submission attempts and help alleviate the problem of the lay and pray. Criterion 1 & 2 would equally benefit stand up and ground fighters. Criteria 3 would benefit strikers, but justifiably so in that a fighter throwing strikes has a more detrimental effect on his opponent than does a fighter merely positioning for a submission. Criterion 4 would help dissuade what I call the Bernard Hopkins effect, creating a punishment for pure counter strikers who rely on an opponent’s aggression to do anything at all during a fight. Initiating action should be benefited as the initial actor is generally in a weaker position immediately. Criteria 5 recognizes the necessity of awarding a victor in a round due to the overall shortness of an MMA fight and acknowledges the greater skill of a fighter who can fight successfully from an area of the opponents choosing.

This model could fit within the current 10 point must system whereby a fighter would be awarded the round 10-9 for a round determined by criteria 5, 10-8 for a round determined by the first four criterion, or 10-7 for a round for where a fighter’s round score is 50% or more than his opponent’s, 10-6 four a round where a fighter’s round score was 100% or more than his opponent’s. This scoring system could also be easily adjusted by removing criteria 5 for a cumulative fight assessment. While this remains reliant on the subjectivity of the judges, it would create a more standardized assessment process.

What I like most about this article is that it argues for clear judging criteria. Quite frankly the standard guidance of effective striking, grappling and octagon control isn’t enough. We need more clear guidance on judging. This guidance should be open so it can be debated and fans can better judge for themselves.

To me, however, I would rather a system that values key moments in fights more than consistent but rather meaningless positional work. When I watch a fight there are often a few key important moments where the fight is in the balance.
1. A fighter achieves a dominant position (mount, back control).
2. A fighter lands big strikes either standing, clinch of GNP.
3. A fighter has a threatening finish.

These are the critical moments and I’d like to reward them over more insignificant action that tips one way.

There are two main reasons to support this view.
1. Judging exists because its impractical and dangerous to have every fight go to the finish. We should disproportionately reward techniques that come close to achieving the true point of the contest.
2. Rules should be designed to enhance the fan experience. Football has done this quite successfully with rules protecting the offense (roughing the passer, illegal contact)

If we too closely follow the criteria advanced in the piece we reward lay and pray or vertical lay and pray (i.e. coutures strategy).

While Vera’s first round strikes were not sufficient to negate coutures Control. I would reward the decisive moments more heavily.