Nelson "Doc" Hamilton on Improving the Ten Point Must System for MMA
by Kid Nate on Dec 26, 2009 6:00 PM EST
in MMA News
Email
Print
Dave Meltzer documents Hamilton's ideas:
Hamilton proposes a scoring system based on breaking the scoring down to half-points, where a close round, a solid win, a dominant win and having the opponent on the verge of defeat could all be differentiated.
Under this system, if a fighter wins a round that's difficult to call, it gets scored 10-9.5. When it's clear that one fighter won the round, it's 10-9. When a fighter dominates the round but doesn't have his opponent in bad shape during the round, or if a fighter does major damage but the opponent gets a degree of offense in, that would be a 10-8.5. A 10-8 round or lower would be similar to how things are scored today.
...
Hamilton noted that in the Nov. 14 main event, where Couture beat Vera on straight 29-28 scores based on squeaking out Rounds 1 and 3 but solidly losing Round 2, his system would have likely judged Vera the winner. He saw it as 10-9.5 for the first and third for Couture, and a 10-8.5 for Vera, adding up to 29-28.5 for Vera, who scored a knockdown and inflicted the most damage in the fight in Round 2.
I've personally never been a fan of the ten point must system for MMA, but I think this is a very workable solution.
127 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like how we start counting at 8 in combat sports.
You belly flop the high dive in the Olympics and your ass is getting a 1.3.
by casey manrique on Dec 26, 2009 6:08 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
This is DUMB.
Half points are NOT needed. The only thing needed are more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds. Doc Hamilton is just basically making it a 20-point must system and cutting the numbers in half.
by TDITZ on Dec 26, 2009 6:12 PM EST reply actions 10 recs
This. Why complicate the system more by adding half points, when it is just as easy to deliver 10-10, 10-9, 10-8, or even 10-7. The 10-9.5 = 10-9, 10-9=10-8, and 10-8.5=10-7.
by Swordslasher on Dec 26, 2009 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Right, the only thing half points is gonna do is produce more draws which I think we can all agree is probably the last thing we want. If a round is too close to call it’s 10-10, if it was an obvious domination by one fighter it’s 10-8 or 10-7, if they just refine the rules that are currently in place everything will run smoother. Not perfect obviously, but smoother.
by ufc4 on Dec 26, 2009 6:30 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Nothing.
Bolts from the Blue // "I have got to be the most boring GM in the league." - A.J. Smith
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Dec 26, 2009 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
Right, that’s why they do their best to encourage ties in all the other major sports. Whether you like it or not draws turn off the casual and new fans, if you want the sport to grow you don’t want more draws.
by ufc4 on Dec 26, 2009 9:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
if that were true, stephan bonnar wouldn’t have a six-figure ultimate fighter contract.
by slantedwindows on Dec 26, 2009 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmmm….I don’t recall that fight being scored a draw.
by ufc4 on Dec 26, 2009 10:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I’d argue that bad decisions, applying inconsistent and arbitrary scoring and judging criteria, turn off casual fans more than draws, where clear and unambiguous scoring and judging criteria is being applied.
I can guarantee that if, instead of employing Sudden Death Overtime at the end of four quarters of football, they had someone “score the game as a whole,” and declare the winner, fans would be pissed.
if a team scored one field goal in three quarters, and the opposing team scored 2 touchdowns in ONE quarter, by your logic, the team who “won” the three quarters should be the winner of the game, not the team who actually scored more points.
by slantedwindows on Dec 26, 2009 9:42 PM EST up reply actions
No, by MY logic, the team that achieved two six-point scores, whether they happened in the first or the fourth quarter, scores 12 points. The team that achieves four 3-point scores, even if equally distributed across four quarters, also scores 12 points. It matters not that one team “won” three quarters, or controlled the “game as a whole.” At the end of the game, we know how the points are allocated, and the one with more points wins.
The difference is this: If a football team scores a field goal in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters, EVERYBODY knows the score, and what the team that is trailing has to do to prevail. If the trailing team only scores a touchdown they lose. But in MMA, a judge can say, "actually, that field goal back in the First Quarter was actually No Good, so the score was actually 6-0, not 9-0. That means, the team that scored a touchdown and two-point conversion won 8-6, instead of losing 9-8. I can guarantee that NOBODY would want that to happen in a football game.
I dont feel comfortable with some CSAC guy having to do math
We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.
by Anthony Pace on Dec 26, 2009 8:01 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Who gives a shit? Why don’t we have a two point system? The ten-point system is completely arbitrary anyway, its not like making it a “20 point system” would really be some offense to nature.
by Michaelthebox on Dec 26, 2009 8:51 PM EST up reply actions
This x 10000
immediately what i thought. You already have ten points, why must there be halves? A close round is 10-9. A dominant round is 10-8 or lower. Simple enough?
Kuwabara Kuwabara
by J. B. Maddox on Dec 26, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions
They will never score more 10-10 rounds. It is seen as an indecision rather than a decision by judges and ACs even though they won’t admit it. You can promote this to green all you want. It is never going to happen.
The 10-8 call is even more difficult because MMA doesn’t have the knockdown rule. Relying on this system to make things right will always fail in MMA. It is not going to work and anyone who thinks differently is living a pipe-dream. But you guys keep greening things that are never going to happen. It reminds me of “Lord Of The Rings: The Untold Stories”.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Dec 26, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions
Hamilton’s idea isn’t bad. It’s kind of silly that it’s to the point where people are proposing the use of decimals when we still have 10 points to make use of, but at least this would give judges a little more precision in their verdicts while ensuring that future match scores are still comparable to historical ones (they certainly wouldn’t be if judges suddenly started making use of 7’s, 6’s 5’s, etc.).
The main reason I’m posting though is because, as a statistician, I swore to myself the next time I saw someone push the notion that 10-10 rounds are a good idea, I was going to point out exactly why it’s actually an absolutely terrible idea.
1st off, the notion that a measure (a judge) should have a neutral point (10-10 rounds) simply because it isn’t precise enough to perfectly discriminate close rounds simply isn’t true. At some level of precision, a winner exists. If you could precisely measure the impact of every punch, etc., out to the billionth decimal place, you could assign a winner. Yes, judges are unreliable indicators of that “score”: The accuracy of dichotomous win-lose verdicts in cases where the rounds are extremely close or are a rare but objective theoretical “tie” will approach 50%, a coin flip. But it won’t be biased in either direction. I.e., in the long run, the error will cancel out, leaving the rounds that weren’t as close as the ones that determine the fights, which is perfectly fine.
(aside – if a goal of any change in scoring criteria is not to improve the overall accuracy of judges’ verdicts – i.e., the “long run” – then whoever proposed the change needs to re-evaluate their goals).
(aside 2 – in cases where the rounds are extremely close, the probability of 10-8 or 10-7 scores is effectively nil, meaning that judges are effectly making dichotomous either-or judgments (either 10-9 or 9-10).
Even worse, there are very good reasons to believe that it would have an enormous negative impact: if judges are told to be more liberal in their use of 10-10 scores, there are two very convincing reasons to think that they will OVERuse them. And this would actually result in LESS reliable verdicts.
The first reason comes from a common finding in the psychometrics literature – which involves creating scales to measure (unreliably, as in our case) latent psychological constructs like intelligence, attitudes, etc – where certain types of formatting in scales used to measure the variable can induce systematic response biases (or more technically, in our case, variance shrinkage, which is just as bad). In particular, the use of a “middle” or “neutral” category. E.g., strongly disagree, disagree, NEUTRAL, agree, strongly agree. The use of a middle, “weasel” category is commonly recognized as bad practice. Why? One reason is that it allows things like cognitive effort effects to creep in. Rather than think deeply in cases where your opinion is close to (but not equal to) indifference, people tend to be lazy and just pick the middle option representing indifference.
The second reason, specific to our case, is that in mma/boxing there would be extra sources of pressure to pick the weasel option. Judges are subject to public scrutiny: they would feel compelled to be “safe” in close situations, whereas if they were less inclined to use the weasel option and were forced to choose a winner, they might be correct 55, 60% of the time, both of which are better than 50%, which is what indifference corresponds to. The net effect of encouraging use of the weasel option would be LESS reliable judgments in the long run.
Hamilton’s idea is a good one and should be implemented. Although, the impact wouldn’t be major … I mean, how often do we see Vera-Couture types of fights? Hands down, the best suggestion ever for improving the accuracy of verdicts – in terms of large immediate impact – is to add additional judges. This also follows directly from the psychometrics literature. The more the better, and because there are diminishing returns on the reliability of an overall measure as you increase the number of (unreliable) “indicators”, as few as two extra ones would have an enormous positive impact on verdict accuracy.
by BorisK on Dec 27, 2009 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
yes this is worth making a fanpost
very good stuff, merits more attention and discussion on its own.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I asked about the idea of more judges in a thread a while back and Brent said that it has been tried in boxing before with less than ideal results, at least from what I can remember.
Thanks guys, I just may. The downsides to adding a couple more judges strike me as more superficial than substantive. 3 judges has a certain dramatic quality to it. Having to sit through 5 or 7 verdicts would dampen that dramatic effect slightly.
And I fully admit my argument in favor of adding more judges is completely abstract, so I will try to find Brent’s real-world example (even better if you could link me!).
As long as people are judging these fights we will have problems and controversy.
"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"
by Warhand on Dec 26, 2009 6:21 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
so you saying fightmetric is the best way to judge a fight?
PSHAW
by slantedwindows on Dec 26, 2009 8:54 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it is, but I wouldn’t mind if there was some quasi-objective, mathematical way of demonstrating domination and/or parity in a fight setting, so that it could be compared to judges subjective scoring of round winners and losers.
but fights aren’t mathematic, fights are about beating the other dude up.
it is my opinion that the best way to go about this is to get some competent judges with extensive history (people like Bas Rutten, Guy Mezger — people who have fought and have trained other fighters) and score the fight in its entirety. subjectivity is less questionable when the people judging are true experts.
by slantedwindows on Dec 26, 2009 9:03 PM EST up reply actions
“Fights” might be about beating people up, but “sports” tend to be about scoring. Hence, MMA even having judges in the first place. Fightsport is about balancing the two notions, so that people can get beat up in such a way that it can be qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed, so that the winner isn’t merely asserting some savage Alpha Male-style dominance, but is applying strategy within the confines of a predetermined rule set and scoring system.
Plus, I challenge your premise that being a fighter or a trainer alone makes you an expert. Scott Smith might know a lot about getting hit in the head, but he can’t properly assess how close an armbar is to being secured. Mark Coleman might be the godfather of ground and pound, but I doubt that he can assess whether an unblocked leg kick is more effective than a partially-blocked elbow strike.
So while I agree that we want our judges to be experts, I’d rather that expertise be proven through intense exposure to fights of varying styles and durations, so that they can properly and consistently apply different scoring criteria, and assess winners and losers based on that criteria. Training, Supervision, and Scrutiny are what I want to see.
scott smith might know dick about an armbar, but im betting dollars to donuts that he’ll be a lot more knowledgeable than cecil peoples. but again, if the fight was judged on its entirety, whether an elbow-strike was partially blocked wouldn’t have much of an impact as a whole.
let’s see how Big John does as a judge.
by slantedwindows on Dec 26, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
Hamilton is the one who scored the Struve-Buentello fight a 28-28 draw which I found incredibly strange, and made me lose a little faith in him in terms of judging
how so? i am assuming he gave Paul a 10-8 in the second for the knock downs… which is acceptable right?
"I’m not going to stop yelling because that would mean, I lost the fight!"-Kenny Powers
shooter/cutter for AllElbows.com
You mean 10-8 for Struve in the first, because he wad on Paul’s back the whole round looking for submissions. Rounds two and three would have been 10-9 for Paul.
by John Nash on Dec 26, 2009 7:01 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think ekc’s analysis is more likely.
by Michaelthebox on Dec 26, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
Well, considering many sites were calling the first round a 10-8 round for Struve (he was on Paul’s back the whole round with the body triangle, looking for submissions) I would think that was the mostly likely the 10-8 round Hamilton awarded to Struve. But I could be wrong.
I like Meltzer’s other idea: going back to the old days and discarding points entirely. At the end of the fight, the judge writes down who he thinks won the fight on a piece of paper.
Heavy.com -- Lead Staff Writer
Houston Chronicle's Brawl Sports
Really? Don’t you think we need at least some kind of evidence of why a judge thinks someone won?
by ufc4 on Dec 26, 2009 6:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I’d sacrifice knowing how a judge scores a particular round for better decisions overall.
It’s not perfect, but nothing is.
Heavy.com -- Lead Staff Writer
Houston Chronicle's Brawl Sports
What I like about the idea is that it forces judges to view the fight as a whole, in its entirety, instead of relying on round-by-round numbers to tell you who won the fight.
If the judges were capable of using the full spectrum of points currently available to them, we wouldn’t have this problem. But so many score everything 10-9 when 10-8 or less if often needed.
Heavy.com -- Lead Staff Writer
Houston Chronicle's Brawl Sports
But if they can’t apply consistent logic to a five-minute round, and decide winners and losers for those, they’ll most likely have difficulty applying rational criteria to an entire 15- or 25-minute fight.
Like you said, the problem is that they aren’t using the full spectrum of points, and I would add that they have biases and preferences that effect their scoring. Plus, when you’re at ringside, vantage point comes into play much more than it should. Changing the scoring won’t address these structural issues.
Right. The ideal solution would be for judges to use the system that’s currently in place, but to use it in the proper manner so we get a better picture of the fight as a whole.
Heavy.com -- Lead Staff Writer
Houston Chronicle's Brawl Sports
I HATE this idea. In fact, I’d argue that more transparency is needed, not less. Open up the scoring, and have the judges publish their scores after each round publicly. Let them open themselves up to scrutiny sooner, and to more people…because let’s face it, casual fans are currently not paying attention to scorecards.
I’m not trying to say that there should be less transparency, although I can see how it looks that way. I’m simply saying that it’s pretty easy to watch an entire fight and have a gut feeling for who won that fight at the end, even without looking at round by round scoring.
Heavy.com -- Lead Staff Writer
Houston Chronicle's Brawl Sports
But I’m not a fan of “gut feelngs,” because your gut is going to be different from my gut, and I want a system that is more or less replicable, inasmuch as different sets of judges, using the same judging criteria, should reach the same result. That’s what we should be striving for. I think that while judging is inherently subjective, we should be trying to squeeze out the subjectivity, not codify and defend it.
Think about it: One of the things that people hate about boxing is the perception that the sport is corrupt, and that judges pick the “right” fighter to win decisions. If you allow judges to name the winner of title fights, with no real verifiable scoring in place, you make it more likely that when a bad decision happens, it’ll be seen as a screwjob, that judges are INTENTIONALLY favoring one fighter over another…and there will be no basis to challenge that viewpoint.
I think it’s possible to combine Meltzer’s “write down the winner” system with the judging criteria that’s currently in place. I understand why people want verifiable data for each and every fight, and it’s a good point. But people will see screwjobs when they want to see screwjobs, no matter what judging system is in place.
I’m just in favor of a system that gives you a better picture of the entire fight, instead of breaking it down into round-by-round increments.
Heavy.com -- Lead Staff Writer
Houston Chronicle's Brawl Sports
Well, according to Keith Kizer, every round is supposed to be seen as a separate fight, and scored without regard to the round that preceded it.
As for me, I like scoreboards, so I would LOVE it if we knew the actual scores after each round. That way, instead of criticizing a judge (or “the judges”) for a “screwjob,” we’d have a pretty good idea of when a judge got a round wrong, and focus or criticisms on their scoring of one round of the fight. Even if that one call turned the fight, we’d all be on the same page, instead of trying to back-rationalize that a fighter “won the whole fight, without winning any rounds.” The way I see it, the “fight” is 3 or 5 rounds, according to predetermined scoring criteria. If your style is to win every round, based upon the scoring criteria, then you’ve won the fight. If you exploit the limitations of people’s perceptions of the scoring criteria, or capitalize on primacy and recency effects on the part of the judges by “stealing the fight/round,” that undermines MMA as Sport in my eyes, and brings it closer to Spectacle. I personally am not a fan of that approach.
by madiq on Dec 26, 2009 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s also easy to watch a fight and just remember who won the last five minutes instead of the first ten or twenty. I can see a lot of guys losing under this system that would have won 29-28 under the current system.
by ufc4 on Dec 26, 2009 10:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Unfortunatly it's not that simple
Could it help? I guess but different people see fights different ways and that is the problem with the scoring system.
Even the Machida/Shogun fight even though there were a lot of people that thought Shogun won there were still quite a bit that made their case for Machida.
A close fight like Couture/Vera isnt even the biggest problem you have in mma judging. Go back to UFC 103 and the JASON BRILZ VS. ELIOT MARSHALL matchup. It was a split decision with 1 judge giving 30-27 Brilz, 1 judge 30-27 Marshall, and 1 judge 30-28 Marshall. So it wouldnt have mattered if there was these little half points or not.
by bigdmmafan on Dec 26, 2009 6:37 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Half points are just confusing
Like many have said before, 10-10, 10-8, and 10-7 rounds need to be given out more.
The precedent for scoring are 2 criteria- Damage & Control. Damage should always be > Control. 10-10 rounds should happen where there is equal damage and equal control exerted by both fighters.
10-9 rounds should happen when A) Control is equal, and 1 fighter does more damage, or B) When damage is equal, but 1 fighter controls the action of the fight more.
10-8 rounds should happen if 1 fighter does a large amount of damage and breaks even in controlling the bout, or when damage is equal or slightly greater for a fighter that completely positionally dominates the opponent and threatens with submissions.
10-7 or less rounds would happen when there were near finishes, complete control, and massive damage inflicted by 1 fighter, where the losing fighter mounts little to no effective offense or defense.
The whole train of thought that 10-10 & 10-8 rounds would create more draws needs to stop, if a fight is a draw, it’s a draw. Better for there to be rightful draw than an unjust split/ majority/ unam decision.
Regarding the Couture/ Vera fight, I thought it should’ve been a draw (using the current scoring system)- Round 1: 10-10; Round 2- 10-9 Vera, Round 3- Randy. Both fighters exhibited control- Randy by taking the action of the fight to the cage, Vera by stuffing Randy’s takedowns. Neither fight did a significantly higher amount of damage in the 1’st, Vera landed the better, more powerful shots in the 2’nd and stuffed Randy, and COuture landed some nice flurries of dirty boxing in round 3.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.
'09 is the year of the FW's.
by ElliotMatheny on Dec 26, 2009 7:14 PM EST reply actions 8 recs
The whole train of thought that 10-10 & 10-8 rounds would create more draws needs to stop, if a fight is a draw, it’s a draw. Better for there to be rightful draw than an unjust split/ majority/ unam decision.
This. I don’t know why people are so afraid of draws, so much so that they’d prefer unjust decisions, which affect rankings, and in extreme cases, can deprive fighters of their livelihood. That’s not fair to the athletes, nor is it good for the sport.
by madiq on Dec 26, 2009 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
The problem is 99% of fights aren’t draws but the judges will just use it as a fall back because they are too afraid to make a call that might be considered controversial if a fight is close.
So you’re saying that a professional judge who can’t properly assess who won a round, and who can’t adequately defend his/her improper assessment, would choose to call a round a draw rather than pick wrongly? Nope, still don’t see a problem.
I understand that a false draw is a wrong decision. I just personally think that false losses and false wins are worse.
The half point system is undoubtedly better. At some point it does become impractical (say 10ths or 100ths of points), and fighters will not enjoy losing by .1. But half points are not confusing.
If it is really that confusing, you could just multiply everything by 2 and make it a 20 point must system.
Half points just puts more room for error, they can’t add the scores the way it is now. Take whatever your half point system is, and just move it down to whole points.
If you take this exact system and make 9.5 a 9, the 9 an 8, the 8.5 a 7, and so on, it’s exactly the same but easier to add up.
Besides that, I have no idea why people think this would work, people don’t use the current system now, why would people expect judges to use this?
Yea yea yea, half-point system is confusing because you want it to be.
Dominant round- 10-9
Close round- 10-9.5
Dominated + almost KO’d or submitted- 10-8.5 or less
This is definitely too hard to comprehend so we should not consider it but rather stick to an antiquated system that no judge uses properly and never will.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Dec 26, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
Why do you think the judges that won’t use the current system properly would use this one properly?
Wouldn’t it just be easier for everyone (including the people who currently have trouble adding up the scores without half points) to just say:
Dominant round 10-8
Close round 10-9
Dominated +almost KO’d or submitted: 10-7 or less.
Using Doc Hamiltons scoring of Couture vera, the scores would be 10-9, 7-10, 10-9, Vera wins 28-27. it’s the same exact thing, but easier to add and for people to understand.
I don't think this is as practical as my idea
If a fight is not stopped by the ref., doctor, or fighter’s corner by the final bell, after another one minute break begin a fourth round of sudden death (sixth in the case of title fights) consisting of a five minute hot-dog eating contest.
That’s result in more fighters working to finish, and removes the ambiguity and subjectivity of the judging system.
I R A JEENZ
by some schmuck in texas on Dec 26, 2009 7:23 PM EST reply actions
As has been said before, this would be completely unnecessary if judges used non-10-9 rounds more often.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Dec 26, 2009 7:40 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
The equivalent of BOTH 10-9.5 and 9.5-10 rounds would be 10-10. If you have to split hairs to determine who won a round, then it’s “too close to call.” Unlike in baseball, where “tie goes to the runner,” a round that is “too close to call” needn’t be.
Actually “tie goes to the runner” is not something that is used by baseball umpires. Either the throw beat the runner or the runner beat the throw. I do agree with the larger point though. If 10-10 and 10-8 rounds are used there is no need for half points. Stick with the simpler system and get more knowledgeable judges and things will get better.
by BilboMcFonzie on Dec 26, 2009 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve noticed a few re-occuring complaint that spring up whenever BE members start talking about judging in mma:
1) That the judges are not sufficently versed enough in mma or the rules to properly judge a fight.
2) That the current point system often times does not properly award the fighter who actuallywon the whole fight. Instead victors who are dominated for one round but manage to squeek out ahead on the other two rounds receives the nod.
3) That the current sustem does not reward damage or offense enough.
While the first item on my list will only be corrected by the proper training and hiring of competent judges, I believe I have a solution for the other two: A no-must five point scoring system.
How would it work? Every fighter begins a round with no points. You are awarded points based on the amount of offense a fighter mounts and/or damage he inflicts. So the scale would like this:
0 poitns: Fighter does absolutely nothing. Think Kalib Starnes versus Nate.
1 point: fighter mounts little offense, inflicts little damage. Kimbo Slice vs Houston Alexander round 1; Tito against Forrest in round 3; most of Diego Sanchez’s rounds against BJ Penn
2 Points; fighter mounts some offense and some minor damage. Randy Couture against Brock Rd 1.
3 points; Fighter mounts plenty of offense, damage done. Stephan Struve Rd 1 versus Paul Buentello,
4 points:Brock against Heath Herring, Cain Vasquez versus Cheik Congo, Yoshihiro Takayama against Dan Frye
5 poins: Anderson Silva versus Forest Griffith, Don Frye against Yoshiro Takayam
What does this do? It awards fighters for only the offense and damage they inflict on their opponent, prevents a fighter from squeeking out a 2 to 1 round decision when they actually lost, awards the fight on its totality, and makes point deductions serious infractions.
So how would this look? In the Couture vs Big Nog fight I would have scored the fight 2-3, 2-4, 1-3 or 10-5 for Big Nog for inflicting more damage and mounting numerous submission attempt . For Tito and Forest I would have scored the rounds 3-3, 3-2, 1-4 or 9-7 for Forrest. In affect giving Tito a slight nod in the first two rounds but giving Forrest a huge offensive advantage in the third.
by John Nash on Dec 26, 2009 7:48 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
I’m not totally won over by this suggestion, but I’m reccing it because it’s a notable and well-thought out alternative. Good work, sir.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Dec 26, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn’t that mean that winning a round 5-3 is the equivalent of winning it 2-0? And doesn’t the concept of “damage” systematically prejudice submission grapplers, who cause no “damage” per se? It seems like you are double dipping when it comes to strikers, whose “offense” also causes “damage.”
Could that be fixed by changing the word ‘damage’ with the concept of ‘threat’, in terms of threat of the fight being stopped. Thus, offense, which I read to be offensive output, equals quantity of strikes/submissions, while damage or threat is roughly quality of strikes/submissions.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Dec 26, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions
The problem with any kind of volume scoring is that the relevant judging criteria is supposed to be “effective” striking and grappling, hence, a fighter may deliver one blow that is more effective than another fighter’s 15. Volume of strikes, I’d gather, would fall under “aggression.” Volume of submissions could be seen as aggression, but oddly enough, it falls under the umbrella of cage control, according to the Unified Rules.
You’re right, how we define what constitutes offense or damage or threat is going to determine the whole scoring system. I would go with what Michael Rome suggested a few weeks ago.
Remind me what that was, if you wouldn’t mind.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Dec 26, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
That’s actually what I meant by offense, submissions attempts, grappling control to set up the attack, etc. It would obviously need to be fine tuned to figure how much damage versus attacks should be scored.
And you are correct a 5-3 round would be equivalent a 2-0 round or even a 10-8 round, but what I am actually attempting to do with a zero plus point system is break the psychological barrier a 10-point must system places on the judge, or any system that compares how much more a fighter does than the other. In a 10-point must, no matter how bad a fighter does he is awarded 10 points, so what the opponent does is judged against the winner of the round. By awarding points based on what a fighter does and independently of what his opponent does you will see many more evenly scored rounds but also many more rounds with large discrepancies in the scoring between contestants.
Here are some examples: In the third round of the Forest Griffin versus Tito Ortiz fight, Forest dominated the round to the point that you could argue it was a 10-8 round. The same could be said for round one of Diego Sanchez versus BJ Penn. But if you watched those fights, it was obvious that while Tito had as little offense as Diego, BJ was inflicting much more damage. So under this system both Tito and Diego would get 1 point but Forest would get 3 points (for a lot of offense but not a lot of damage) and BJ Penn would get 4 or 5 points.
Another good example would be the 3rd round of Randy Couture versus Big Nog. The round would normally be scored 10-9 for Nog, but under my system of scoring Big Nog would have gotten 3 or 4 points for generating a lot of offense and doing some damage to Randy. Randy in return would have received only 1 or 2 points because he only initiated very little offense and did even less damage.
The system obviously needs work, but I thought it would at least interesting to air in public.
The first problem I can readily identify would be that of establishing ceilings. Would you need nonstop offense for 5 minutes to be awarded 5 points? Or would 4 minutes be enough? And once you established that 4 minutes is enough, what happens when someone brings 4:30? Is 4 minutes of fast and furious bantamweight action equivalent to 4 minutes of the same pace delivered by heavyweights? One could argue that the latter is more impressive.
I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but I am trying to illustrate that without a standard one way or the other, there are pitfalls. Scoring by starting at 10 gives rise to questions about when a fighter has actually “lost” a point, or two, or three, while scoring by racing to 10 (or 5, or whatever) raises questions about what 10 points looks like, and whether it’s possible to, in the words of Spinal Tap, “go to eleven.” For me, the first system, informed by the second, allows us to think of a “lost point” as the relative distance between the two fighters. 10-10 means little to no distance, while 10-9 means one “unit,” 10-8 means two, and 10-7 means three. But how you define a “unit” is pretty much the entire game.
It’s funny that people advocating more 10-8 and 10-7 share a common goal with people pushing for a half-point system, but don’t even realize it.
Half points create more distinct differences in score. If you don’t believe me, draw a line and draw a few ticks in it. Then draw another tick in between each one of those. Now there are more potential outcomes, and only one of these will be 0 (which is a draw), which means LESS draws. The only reason there aren’t more draws right now is because of a reluctance to call 10-10 rounds, not because a less accurate system is better. The current MMA scoring system is like scoring golf by only counting a golfer’s 1st, 3rd and 5th (etc…) strokes per hole – it will come up with the same winner most of the time, but it can be gamed.
The PRIDE scoring system has had its problems because there is no accountability beyond providing the winner. The 10 point must system has the exact same problem to a lesser degree – no accountability beyond providing the winner of each round.
Forcing judges to be more precise will make judges accountable for awful scores. Instead of a close round tipping from 10-9 to 9-10 based on how a judge saw it as 10-10 is generally not an option, if two judges score it 10-9.0 and the other has it 9.0-10 (which is three half-points away) there is some explaining to do.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but the problem with half points is that it doesn’t address the fundamental problem, which is the too often binary nature of judges’ scoring, that being either a 10-9 win or a 9-10 loss. I understand that you want to add more data points, but by adding data points BETWEEN the consensus points of convergence, you’re making the consequences of error the altering of MORE potential outcomes.
The advantage of encouraging rounds to be scored 10-7, 10-8, 10-9, or 10-10 is that it makes it more likely that the judges will score the rounds consistently. Judges will differ about whether a round was 10-9.5, 10-9.0, or 10-8.5 much more than whether a round is 10-7.5, 10-8.0, or 10-8.5, but the consequences of that variance is that the 10-8 scorecard gets just as diluted as the 10-9 scorecard if judges want to score a fight as 10-8.5. A 10-8 scorecard should be viewed as twice as decisive as a 10-9 scorecard (and a 10-7 round three times as much), not merely two data points away.
Again, the problem is the irrational fear of draws. If a round is too close to call, call it 10-10. If it happens again, call it 10-10 again. If, going into the third, neither fighter has truly won either round, then neither fighter should be winning the fight. We shouldn’t rely on judges’ variance to make the fight artificially close; that’s what gives rise to that inane “this is so close, it should be a Split Decision” nonsense. Let the winners of decisive rounds win fights, an concentrate on getting judges scoring fights consistently. Adding more data points means adding more inconsistency, but cloaking it in under the guise of “preciseness.” If, after we get judges scoring fights competently, consistently, and accurately, we experience a rash of draws, THEN we can consider a half-point-based scoring system.
Well, I agree we could start by making judges call more 10-10 rounds. But I do have a problem with that when we have 3 round fights and a system where 95% of rounds are 10-9.
People calling for 10-8, 10-7 are calling for the same thing as a half point system dependent on how much weight you assign to each half point.
I don’t understand though, your point of altering more outcomes. If the outcomes are already in error (due to rounding error), what is the harm in correcting these? If you have 3 items to measure, wouldn’t you rather use whatever is more precise, regardless of however you USED to measure? You could measure everything with a yardstick, bathroom scale or by the gallon – but if you had the choice to choose something better, I’m not sure why there is resistance. In the 100 meter dash, they now measure in hundreds rather than tenths of a second and there is no uproar.
Judging incompetence has to be addressed no matter the system and is a separate issue.
But using your 100 meter dash example, there is one objective timekeeping measure, the “Official” clock, and one objective measure of runners in relationship to each other, the tape. The runner who crosses the finish line before the others is the winner, first and foremost.
However, imagine that there is no tape. Now the situation is somewhat akin to what happens in MMA. If there’s a clear winner, he’ll cross the finish line before the others, and his official time will be the winning time. But if there are multiple stopwatches, and multiple people determining when to start and stop them, then different stopwatches might determine that different runners won, particularly if there’s the figurative “photo finish.” Plus, if multiple stopwatches are used, the variance between the different stopwatches would be increased if they were using hundredths of a second, rather than tenths of a second. Yes, you’d get what looks to be more “accurate” times, but unless you were going to average those times, you would just get “error” multiplied across different stopwatches. Every new time de-legitimizes the one before it.
And that’s the thing, ideally you want the fighter who clears the finish line Usain Bolt-style, way ahead of the pack, so even if the times have some error built in, the right guy wins. But the closer you get to a “photo finish,” the more you want a standard, one definitive angle, one definitive time, and no discrepancy. A split decision in a fight, or wide variation across scorecards, doesn’t do anything but highlight the limitations of either the system or the judges, and in truth, that’s not good for anybody. Put another way, is a Split Decision of 29.5-29.0, 29.5-29.0, and 29.5-29.0 better than a draw?
“Judges will differ about whether a round was 10-9.5, 10-9.0, or 10-8.5 much more than whether a round is 10-7.5, 10-8.0, or 10-8.5”
I’m not following this.
“Plus, if multiple stopwatches are used, the variance between the different stopwatches would be increased if they were using hundredths of a second, rather than tenths of a second. Yes, you’d get what looks to be more "accurate" times, but unless you were going to average those times, you would just get "error" multiplied across different stopwatches. Every new time de-legitimizes the one before it.”
Judges score cards are summed to arrive at a final verdict.
A sum is just a linear combination of scores. It behaves precisely the same way as does the average, which is also a linear combination of scores.
The notion that more precise indicators of some variable make the overall measure more unreliable simply isn’t true. Sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding your point.
Judges’ scorecards aren’t added in MMA, though.
What I am saying is that False Precision is more intellectually dishonest than True Imprecision. If we acknowledge that X percentage of 10-9 rounds should be scored 10-10 or 9-10, and Y percentage of 10-9 rounds should be scored 10-8, then each 10-9 scorecard is 100-(X+Y)% accurate, or (X+Y)% inaccurate. Over a three-round fight, that means that the probability of an inaccurate scorecard is (3(X+Y))% And that’s with one judge rendering a decision. Even if we assume that every judge is equally competent or incompetent, then the probability of a inaccurate scorecard is still (9(X+Y))% The larger you think X and Y are, the faster that result approaches 1.
In many fights, an incorrect decision doesn’t hinge on more than 50% of the scorecards being wrong; it hinges on more than 50% of CLOSE rounds being wrong, that being a 10-9 round being scored 9-10. Again, the larger you think that X is , the more fights turn on this variable. As you have said earlier, adding judges probably produces more accurate results overall, because it raises the bar to 3, 4 or 5 aberrational judges rather than two.
But harking back to the earlier example, I think that the same level of incompetence that produces 10-9 rounds that should be 10-10, 9-10, or 10-8 will produce 10-9.5 rounds that should be 9.5-10, 10-10 or 10-9, and 10-8.5 rounds that should be 10-9 or 10-8. Whereas you see erroneous scorecards as being a reflection of imprecision, I see them as a reflection of inaccuracy. A 29.5-29.0 loss that should be a 29.5-29.0 win is no more legitimate than a 29-28 loss that should be a 29-28 win (or for that matter, a 30-29 loss that should be a 30-29 win). But the math is easier.
“Judges’ scorecards aren’t added in MMA, though.”
Round scorecards are not summed between judges, but they are summed within judges.
“What I am saying is that False Precision is more intellectually dishonest than True Imprecision. If we acknowledge that X percentage of 10-9 rounds should be scored 10-10 or 9-10, and Y percentage of 10-9 rounds should be scored 10-8, then each 10-9 scorecard is 100-(X+Y)% accurate, or (X+Y)% inaccurate. Over a three-round fight, that means that the probability of an inaccurate scorecard is (3(X+Y))% And that’s with one judge rendering a decision. Even if we assume that every judge is equally competent or incompetent, then the probability of a inaccurate scorecard is still (9(X+Y))% The larger you think X and Y are, the faster that result approaches 1.”
Your estimate of overall verdict inaccuracy is too high, because the 3(x+y) formula is not the correct way to calculate overall inaccuracy. This formula actually corresponds to the probability of being inaccurate on at least one of those three rounds. I.e., it’s a disjunction of (assumed) independent events. If we want to think of it this way, the correct way to calculate the number you’re talking about – the probability of being inaccurate on all three rounds – is the formula for a conjunction of independent events: in this case, (x+y)^3. That number is going to be much, much lower. (E.g., compare .3+.3+.3 with .3*.3*.3).
I don’t think this is quite the right mathematical framework to use though, because it ignores the direction of inaccuracy. There’s no reason to think that error in judgments of close rounds would be systematically too high or too low. As implied in my previous post, this means that over many such judgements, the error cancels out. E.g., every judgement that’s 1 point to high is offset by a roughly equal number of other judgements that are 1 point too low. What’s left when you sum over rounds (or take the mean, doesn’t matter) is an unbiased estimate of the “true” score.
“Whereas you see erroneous scorecards as being a reflection of imprecision, I see them as a reflection of inaccuracy.”
This seems like a semantic distinction. But more generally, I think it’s entirely appropriate to be thinking in terms of imprecision. No matter how skilled a set of judges you find, there is going to be variation in their verdicts. The variation might be smaller with a set of “expert” judges, but it will still be there. There is simply no way to get rid of some sources of error – the moment a heavy punch lands, there are going to be some judges who blink, some who are distracted by Arianny, some who because of a slightly different viewing angle failed to fully appreciate the damage inflicted, etc.
“A 29.5-29.0 loss that should be a 29.5-29.0 win is no more legitimate than a 29-28 loss that should be a 29-28 win (or for that matter, a 30-29 loss that should be a 30-29 win). But the math is easier.”
Agreed, but as someone else noted, this seems to be a question about the scale, which doesn’t really matter. Since 10-10 rounds are rarely used (thankfully), virtually all close rounds are really just a question between 10-9 or 9-10. The issue is whether judges are capable of discriminating the “degree to which a round is won” beyond a simple dichotomous “either-or” judgment. By proposing increments of .5, Hamilton is effectively proposing that two more “notches” be added to a judge’s “ruler.” So instead of having 2 options in these cases, the judge will have 4 (10-9.5, 10-9, 9-10, 9.5-10). As much flak as judges receive, I do believe that they nevertheless know enough that they could make effective use of those 2 extra notches.
So you trust judges’ abilities to assess one 15- or 25-minute period more than you trust their abilities to assess a 5-minute period three or five times?
agreed. you don’t decide a basketball or football game by seeing how many quarters a team won.
by slantedwindows on Dec 26, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
definately. However, a lot of times you see people screwed because people have short memories, and the end of the fight might be scored greater.
I agree though, as i posted below
by Austin Martin on Dec 26, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
There are also well defined ways to score points in those sports whereas MMA is a lot more objective.
by ufc4 on Dec 26, 2009 10:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Then need to have a giant conference for all US MMA judges....
and scream at them that it’s okay to have 10-10 and more 10-8 score cards.
This is just stupid.
If the judges can get fight’s right based on full points, how the hell would they get it right with half points?
I don’t think cecil peoples will know was a fraction is, the decimal will blow his mind
Does anyone think that the fight should be scored on rounds, but an additional category should be scored for the consensus of who was most dominant in the fight. Like a one or two point added for the person who inflicted the most damage or had the most dominant round?
For example, many people saw the sanchez/ guida fight for guida. Personally i saw it for diego because he dominated the fight, and was able to inflict so much damage from his guard.
Say he won the first round 10-8. The second round was 10-9 for either, and the third round was considered guidas. So the split decision came towards diego. However, diego clearly did more in the fight. If an “extra” category was awarded considering how dominant he was, it would prevent the situation of a wrestler making it through a first round, and then laying and praying his way to victory because he humped the next two rounds out.
I’m not saying its perfect, but i think that it would add the dimension of consensus “who won overall”
by Austin Martin on Dec 26, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
You can accomplish the same thing by saying that, instead of scoring Round 2 for “either,” you score it for “neither,” by making it a 10-10 round. Then Diego wins the fight 29-28. No need for “bonus points.”
Again, if a round is “too close to call,” then don’t call it for either fighter. Fairly simple principle.
There is probably no way to get judging something like this perfect, I still think every fight that doesn’t end with a finish should be a draw! but I know that is extreme
I have always wondered why they don’t display the scores after each round. That way the fans and fighters all know the scores going into each round. It might push someone to really go for the finish, even if the other guy is taking it easy trying to coast. Every other sport posts the score as the game progresses, but fights always keep them secret til the end. Who knows, it also might even spur a judge to open his/her eyes if they score one round horribly and see the others score it differently and see how the crowd reacts.
"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." - Jack Dempsey
I am 100% on board with Open Scoring. At the very least, there’d be no question about who the outlier judges were, and they’d be made to answer for their faulty judging criteria. Right now, only hardcore fans pay attention to these things, and even then, only in fights that go to decision. Announce scores after every round, and all of a sudden we see the whole judging system laid bare. I’d actually predict an increase in 10-10 rounds first, as judges would grow increasingly reluctant to just arbitrarily give a fighter a round when it’s too close to call. The increase in 10-8 rounds would come as a result of judges feeling empowered to say, with confidence, that Fighter A got blasted, especially in comparison to their perception of the paradigmatic 10-9 Round.
For reference’s sake:
(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;
1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;
2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
Now ask yourself how often these criteria are applied.
I don’t agree with 10-7. It would be much too hard for a person to come back in a 3 round fight if he was given that score in the first round
by Austin Martin on Dec 26, 2009 9:53 PM EST up reply actions
If a person gets that badly beaten in the first round they probably shouldn’t win the fight unless they can get a stoppage.
by ufc4 on Dec 26, 2009 10:40 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
i think madiq brought up an interesting point when he mentioned :
“Scott Smith might know a lot about getting hit in the head, but he can’t properly assess how close an armbar is to being secured. Mark Coleman might be the godfather of ground and pound, but I doubt that he can assess whether an unblocked leg kick is more effective than a partially-blocked elbow strike.
I believe this idea characterizes not only specific fighters, but of all professional judges. Perhaps, of the of the three judges, one should be assigned to judging striking, another on grappling, and a third on the overall round. It would be easier to find judges with a comprehensive understanding of what they are judging.
cons: most rounds are not 50/50 grappling/striking
pros: the specialized judges would likely be better versed in their specific discipline
I like that idea. I also wouldn’t be upset if they had 5 judges instead of 3. Or even more. Or even if they gave the referee some semblance of a scorecard, since he’s so close to the action
by Austin Martin on Dec 26, 2009 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
pride did it right
score the whole fight instead of by rounds. Pride had it right. Machida might have won 10-9.5 for 3 rounds but he lost the last two 9-10 so Shogun who should have won would have by half a point. Vera would have won by half a point and fighters would go for it more rather than try and control a round, dance and try to win a round they would try to win the fight. I like it. Nothing is perfect but this syste, is better than what we have now. Also judges should have fought at some point in mma at least as an amature. Having a 50 year old woman who has no idea what jiu-jitsu is judge a fight is stupid.
Everyone hates on the half-point system but Nelson is a very respected judge and I have echoed his perspective on this. People say that if the 10-point must system is used correctly then this wouldn’t be necessary.
Guess what…they are never going to use the 10-point must system correctly. This will force them to at least acknowledge that a close round is not the same as a clearly dominant round. Is it perfect? Will judges continue to screw it up? YES! But at least they are not forced to give someone a 10-9 round instead of a 10-10 in a very close round. They will never decide to call it 10-10 BTW. This system is not perfect but it is certainly more accurate than the one we have now that is not, and never will be used properly.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Dec 26, 2009 11:19 PM EST reply actions
Here’s an idea, Doc – feel free to use it as if it were yours:
- instead of your 10-9,5 round, just use 10-9.
- for your 10-9 → 10-8
- 10-8,5 → 10-7
and so on.
Glad to help.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Dec 27, 2009 12:19 AM EST reply actions
Seriously.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Dec 27, 2009 12:26 AM EST up reply actions
Am I in the minority when I ask that they just do away with rounds and judges for that matter? Just have them fight untill one guy gets ko’ed/subed or taps out/throws in the towel? Like the early days.
for all intents and purposes, just consider all my posts as works of satire.
How to improve current MMA judging system
Apply the current 10-9 must system properly. 10-8 an 10-7 exists, use it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
