Does Diego Sanchez vs Clay Guida Show That It's Time to End the 10 Points Must System in MMA Judging?

by Kid Nate on Jun 22, 2009 10:24 AM EDT in News Comment 66 comments

Judging the whole fight objectively and determining who was better is not precisely what MMA judges do, but maybe it should be. If the 10-point must system can lead to Guida winning a fight in which Sanchez was clearly the better fighter, maybe it's time to scrap the 10-point must system.

...

Some people who want to change MMA judging think MMA should get rid of round-by-round scoring and simply judge the whole fight, as some Japanese MMA promotions do. Others think the round-by-round scoring is OK, but the 10-point must system should be replaced with another scoring method. Still others think the 10-point must system is OK but the problem is that judges score rounds 10-9 too often and should feel free less inhibited about scoring close rounds 10-10 and one-sided rounds 10-8, or even 10-7.

Personally, I'm sympathetic to the latter point of view. I'd like to see MMA move more toward the K-1 style of scoring, where judges use the 10-point must system but feel much more freedom to score rounds 10-10 or 10-8. In American MMA, almost every round is a 10-9 round. That's what leads to scores like 29-28 for Guida and 29-28 for Villasenor.

I've always felt the 10 point must system is an unnatural bolt-on for MMA added by boxing commissions who simply transferred a system they were familiar with rather than taking the time and effort to develop a judging system appropriate to the sport.

This weekend's fights clearly show the problematic nature of the 10 point must system for MMA.

MMA fighters work too hard to be subject to a judging system that is just flat out not right for the sport. The point of a fight is to determine who is the better fighter, not who can manipulate an artificial scoring regimen to eek out a technical win by the letter of the rules.

Any judging system will inherently be somewhat arbitrary. That's just human nature and fighters know that if they leave it up to the judges that they've put themselves at risk. But that doesn't mean an improved set of scoring criteria isn't needed.

NOTE: The Cecil Peoples image is just there because its the best MMA Judging graphic in existence. Mr. Peoples isn't relevant to this story.

0 recs | Comment 66 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"Clearly show the problem"?

Does it, though?

I scored the Sanchez/Guida fight 30-26 for Sanchez. But even if the current system led to one judge giving that fight to Guida, Sanchez got the win. Nearly everyone seems to acknowledge that Sanchez won that fight, whether scoring by the 10 point must system or by scoring the “entirety” of the fight. And he did. So debating how much he should have won by on the scorecards aside, does it really “clearly” show there’s a problem? The guy most people think won, got the win.

I’m not necessarily a big proponent of the 10 point must system. But I’m not sure that this is the fight to use to show that the system is clearly broken.

by Kierkegaard on Jun 22, 2009 10:28 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs

Hit the nail on the head

Perfect response right there. What a great ‘first’!

I love to hate

by fightlinker on Jun 22, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

recd

by Riney on Jun 22, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. The problem isn’t the 10 point must – which though flawed is better than the alternatives. The problem is the lack of a standard definition of 10-8 and 10-10 rounds.

by jhf884 on Jun 22, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m roughly in line with Breen (I know, shock): it ain’t a problem of the ten-point must system. It’s a problem of bad judging. Judges routinely don’t know who should have won a round and aren’t willing to use 10-10’s, 10-7’s, and they’re barely willing to use 10-8’s.

"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR

by Rundownloser on Jun 22, 2009 10:42 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

This. The only other alternative to a more liberal use of 10-10 and 10-8 rounds is judging the fight as a whole. I really couldn’t care less between those two.

For all the detracting of the ten-point must system that goes on, I have yet to hear a valid alternative brought up in its place.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Jun 22, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how is a scoring system that looks at the fight in total

not a valid alternative?

Follow me on Twitter @KidNate

by Kid Nate on Jun 22, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read that as a valid alternative point system within the confines of the round-by-round framework, which would make sense. Clarification, Fagan?

"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."

by AJB on Jun 22, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If judges are scoring rounds properly and are more liberal with non 10-9 rounds, there wouldn’t be any appreciable difference between the two systems.

"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR

by Rundownloser on Jun 22, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Because people would put too much effort on what happened at the end of the fight.

Breen mentioned it on after the bell, and it clicked for me. The reason everyone doesn’t think that Diego won round 1 10-8 was because guida got the takedown after he got demolished on the feet and before he almost got his head kicked off.

If Guida’s takedown happens before the flurry of punches, everyone scores that round 10-8.

Look at the comments now, when discussing the whole fight, people forget how dominant Diego was at the beginning of the fight. I think you need to break the judging down into smaller increments because people are stupid, and are influenced by later events.

by Phildo on Jun 23, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with saying there should be more 10-10 10-8 and 10-7 rounds..

But I never would agree to the japanese way of judging.

Judging a fight as a whole is good in theory, but that gives more room for paid off judges to get away with cheating.

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Jun 22, 2009 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Definitely agree. A great example is the Nate Quarry-Kalib Starnes fight . Someone actually scored all 3 rounds 10-9 Quarry. How did Starnes get 9 points a round? IMO he should have gotten 0, there is no rule that says you have to give the losing fighter any points.If you want to be generous maybe it should have been 10-6 or 10-7 but definitely not 10-9.

Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot

by ufc4 on Jun 22, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No matter what the system, close fights will be hard to judge. MMA has too many variables to make it cut and dry.

The 10 point must system is fine. A fighter, in general, must win 2 of the 3 rounds. That is a very simplistic method.

If they make it more complicated then that, MMA will turn into point fighting. That is what happened in Karate. Even Amateur Wrestling and BJJ are like that now too. It ruins the sports.

by AlwaysRelaxing on Jun 22, 2009 11:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm actually advocating a return to the simpler system

where judges just write the winner of the fight on a card. No scoring. No points. Just an overall winner of the entire fight.

Follow me on Twitter @KidNate

by Kid Nate on Jun 22, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't that more prone to cheating?

If people can debate and argue over who won the round, how easy would it be for a paid of judge excuse himself and give a lame reason on why fighter A won over his opponent.

At least in a 10 pt must, if someone cheats we can break down the fight and easily see if he could validly argue a fighter winning majority of the rounds.

I think more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds would be a better and more realistic solution.

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Jun 22, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would think so. Both cheating and silly decisions.

“Even tho Badass Billy thrashed Handsome Hank for 5 rounds, Hank hit Billy with a elbow in round 4 that opened up a very bloody cut. It was his only strike of the fight, but based on the damage, I awarded the fight to Hank.”

You are right, Weo, the debates would be non-stop for just about every fight.

by mythbuster on Jun 22, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scoring the entire fight has been done and it failed miserably.

The problem I see isn’t in the current system. It is just that the athletes are so good it’s hard to determine what should count more. A takedown? A good flurry? A submission attempt? And to try and add value to each move only makes it like point fighting (as I have said before). So that isn’t the solution. There needs to room for judges to determine what is going on, which they have. So if anything, the current system is good.

I might be in the minority here, but I don’t want to see any changes. The really great fighters find a way to win no matter what. So these judges decisions aren’t really effecting the #1 guys in the world. And for a bad judges decision like Uno/Fisher…. If Uno can’t easily beat Fisher on the judges cards, then no matter who was the winner in the judges eyes, it is safe to assume Uno isn’t going much further in his career.

Lastly, i have always thought it is much easier to judge a fight in TV. Or at least there is a perception that it is easier. Being live at events, I find it much harder. The crowd effects your ears. The cage gets in the way. It’s not very easy, even for a very trained eye. Changing the system will never resolve that.

by AlwaysRelaxing on Jun 22, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boo.

Check’s in the mail, Cecil.

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cecil takes cash.

by Riney on Jun 22, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cecil will take coupons to Sizzler if you have enough of ’em.

by subo on Jun 23, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think that will ever fly in the US, especially in Vegas.

Too easy to fix fights, too easy for it to look like fights are fixed. Too hard to criticize/critique judges because you’re looking at a bigger time period.

People can attempt to make the argument that Guida won the fight, but if someone tries to argue that he won round 1 you can realize that you are dealing with someone who is delusional and not use them as a judge or hit them in the head with a hammer, whichever is more appropriate.

by Phildo on Jun 23, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever system is used there will always be bad calls by judges, their only human after all. I guess that’s why there are 3 of them…. You could add more judges? The reff could be 1 and then have 2 or 3 more that watch the fight on screens showing the TV footage.

But if you have 3 well trained judges then the best fighter should win most of the time….

by Cut-Paste on Jun 22, 2009 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The best way to solve this problem would be to have judges that KNOW MMA! I’m so sick of seeing wrestlers lay on people and push them up against the fence. If thats what you do fine. But let me see some offense. If a fighter is on top but spends half the time defending sub attempts then who was REALLY in the dominant position. If a fighter isn’t trying to finish the fight then they aren’t in a dominant position in my opinion. I’m so sick of seeing guys like Guida get handed fights because they have good cardio and have the gas tank to hump a guy for 3 rounds.

by Madskillz on Jun 22, 2009 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

As Joe Rogan would say, “If you don’t want the guy on top of you, get him off.”

by mythbuster on Jun 22, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

He’s not calling for stand ups. He’s just saying that judges need to not overvalue laying in someone’s guard or holding them against the fence if it doesn’t lead to any sort of damage.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Jun 22, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

/\ This

If the stand up sucks, they don’t make fights go to the ground – the way the fight starts and is set up is already slanted against grapplers. Now we want to remove the advantage they get from maintaining superior position? I disagree.

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If a guy is on top and is struggling to defend subs or eating elbows, then why would the bottom guy neccesarily want to get them off of them? So in your opinion is a guy with an active guard losing because the other guy is on top of him?

by Madskillz on Jun 22, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It has to be a) a really active guard and b) a really lazy guy on top – but unless it’s dominant, you’re throwing failed sub attempts and strikes instead of trying to improve your position (which is not neutral – two guys standing is neutral, one guy atop another is not). It can be done – most people seem think Diego did it in round two (I and all three judges disagree, among others) – but it’s hard.

And it should be hard to win a round from your back.

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but what if you want the guy on top? or dont care.

"I’m not going to stop yelling because that would mean, I lost the fight!"-Kenny Powers
shooter/cutter for AllElbows.com

by ekc on Jun 22, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then ya get what ya get.

What if I like tossing knives in the air? Well…

by mythbuster on Jun 22, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think MMA in the U.S. is deathly afraid of having draws. I really do and I think it is because the culture demands a winner. Judges don’t wanna hand out 10-10 rounds and they don’t wanna hand out 10-8 rounds. There has to be differentials set between barely winning a round(or not really winning it at all) and dominating a round. Values have to be set for things like takedowns, top control, strikes from the bottom, sub attempts, knockdowns, more effective striking etc.

One thing that drives me crazy in MMA is the lack of acknowledgment of knockdowns. In boxing, if you get a knockdown, you can still lose the rest of the round and be up on the scorecards 10-9. Not really the case in MMA. You get a knockdown and the judges are like"ok, he might be up 10-9". You basically have to brutalize a guy in every way for the entire round to get a 10-8 but you can score one more legkick and get a 10-9 round.

It just doesn’t add up.

"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday

by MyFistYourFace on Jun 22, 2009 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Open scoring would absolutely fuck up MMA.

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 12:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Have we all forgotten the way it worked in Japan?

“Well, he may have spent 15 minutes being beaten half to death by that American, but we’re giving him the win because he really showed the ~~hometown judging~~Japanese fighting spirit.”

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 22, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

“And/or he’s Dan Henderson.”

"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."

by AJB on Jun 22, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a good point – it was biased voting, but not necessarily racist. Well, not always racist. Just often.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 22, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, that worked out great for Kid

"I’m not going to stop yelling because that would mean, I lost the fight!"-Kenny Powers
shooter/cutter for AllElbows.com

by ekc on Jun 22, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would seem so.

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you bet on MMA, there’s nothing worse than hearing Cecil Peoples’ name announced as one of the judges. The dude is the worst judge in the history of the sport. He always gives the fight to the loser, which I guess is a good thing if you bet on underdogs. Ban Cecil Peoples from MMA!

by Josh H. on Jun 22, 2009 12:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

NOTE: The Cecil Peoples image is just there because its the best MMA Judging graphic in existence. Mr. Peoples isn’t relevant to this story.

Or “worst MMA Judging graphic”, depending on how you look at it.

Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot

by ufc4 on Jun 22, 2009 1:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It doubles as a “worst MMA Reffing graphic”

by szucconi on Jun 22, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And one of Fightlinker’s greatest creations, right? (Or was it from the UG?)

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 22, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suggest 5 point rounds, where a winner could get 5-0, 4-1, or 3-2 rounds. If this was the case, a first round would have been 5-0 for Sanchez, and even if the subsequent rounds went 3-2 to guida, the final total would have been 9-6 in favor of Sanchez.

by hustle80 on Jun 22, 2009 1:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Along those same lines....

I haven’t really thought this through, it just popped into my head.

How about a system where there is a pool of points to be divided between the two fighters? You could use the same starting criteria as with the 10-point must system: Effective striking, grappling, aggression & octagon control.

For each round there would be 10 points to be divided between the fighters. 2 points awarded for each of the 4 criteria. If it is an even round then for a given criteria then it’s scored 1-1. If one fighter dominates in a given area then it would be 2-0 (or 0-2).

The final 2 points would be discretionary. They could be added to the score for any individual criteria.

So you could end up with two criteria that were 2-1 or 3-0 or one critera 2-2, 3-1 or 4-0 (in the case of absolute dominance in one area of the fight.

by thekiltedwonder on Jun 22, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

^^^

Would need to think this through, but at first glance that seems like a very good idea.

Tho honestly, I’m not sure the scoring is the problem right now as much as very different definitions of what constitutes “points”. The debate seems to be (this time) over top control and bottom damage.

by mythbuster on Jun 22, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My New Judging Technique Is Unstoppable

This is so awesome that I ought to be filing some kind of patent or whatever, but instead – because I LOVE THE COMMUNITY – I’m giving this away:

Brain-scan both fighters before and after the bout. The one with less reduction in brain function wins.

What? You don’t like? Okay – how about this: get rid of time limits.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 22, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

After three rounds, we hang a briefcase with scorecards showing you won fifteen feet over the Octagon and put a ladder on the side of the cage. First guy to the briefcase wins.

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

And let’s have them fight 12 at a time!

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 22, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My New Filing Technique is Unstoppable

"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."

by AJB on Jun 22, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Fighting! Also: Get Your War On!

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 22, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All great works of literature.

"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."

by AJB on Jun 22, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forget national unity and the invasion of Iraq- GYWO was the best thing to come out of 9/11.

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

by mythbuster on Jun 22, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t LOL! REC! :-P

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 22, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs

yessuh

by mythbuster on Jun 22, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yessum

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, you jerks. :-P

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 22, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please watch UFC 5, and 7 and never mention no time limits again, thank you.

by Phildo on Jun 23, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know, I know! But it does solve the judging problem, yes?

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Jun 24, 2009 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is Smith saying that Cybory should've beaten Joey?

Because that’s just ridiculous.

by subo on Jun 22, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Judging the whole fight objectively and determining who was better is not precisely what MMA judges do, but maybe it should be. If the 10-point must system can lead to Guida winning a fight in which Sanchez was clearly the better fighter, maybe it’s time to scrap the 10-point must system.

In what way was Diego clearly the better fighter?, because aside from round 1 the rest of the fight was controlled and won by Guida. There is nothing wrong with the 10 point must system the problem is that alot of judges have no clue how to score fights and are fooled by blood and damage instead of actually scoring what happened in the round.

by Raker on Jun 22, 2009 5:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

In my opinion, if a takedown is scored but no damage is dealt, and in fact the fighter on his/her back does two to three times the amount of damage from the bottom, that takedown didn’t mean shit. In a fight, damage counts.

by mictlantechutli on Jun 22, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This fight actually rejuvenated my trust in the 10 Points Must System. However, I would definitely agree that judges should feel free to give more 10-10 & 10-8 rounds when warranted. I was just glad in this case that the judges weren’t blind enough to make their standard assumption that because the guy is on top he is winning, when clearly Diego was bettering Clay in more areas of MMA.

by MMAussie on Jun 22, 2009 6:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Judging the fight as a whole is just too damn vague. The problem isn’t w/ the 10 point must system per se, but w/ unclear standards (and bad judges). Judging the fight by the whole would only worsen the problem, 9 times out of 10. We’d still have the bad judges. And it would be that much harder to pin point what it is that we disagree with in the decision. Furthermore, if we are gonna judge the fight as a whole, why have rounds at all? Why not just let them fight for 15 or 25 minutes?
What needs to happen, imo, is more clarification on what 10-8 and 10-10 rounds are. I know I’m never sure on just what a 10-8 or 10-10 round looks like.

by jhf884 on Jun 22, 2009 11:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

25 minutes kills the

number of (televised) fights per card.

by Riney on Jun 22, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you think a boring 3 or five round fight is boring now, watch UFC 9 and see how much more you want to shoot yourself in the face when it’s only 1 long round.

by Phildo on Jun 23, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think the unclear standards is the problem.

If you look at the way fightmetric scores/rates fights, you get points for doing something that ends the fight, can end the fight, or can lead to the fight ending. For them, the goal is to end the fight, either by KO or Submission.

That brings up the big question, which I think needs to be addressed by the UFC and the commission. Is the goal of an MMA match to win? or is the goal to stop your opponent. If the goal is stopping your opponent, then getting a takedown and being on top are good, but they are not perfect. If you are on top and don’t pass guard/attempt to pass guard, don’t attempt a submission, don’t land many strikes, get his a lot, you really haven’t done anything to help you end the fight after getting the takedown, so you shouldn’t just get points/win the round for being on top for a while.

At UFC 1 the goal was to stop your opponent, the way it’s going now, I’m not sure that’s the goal anymore, but I think it should be. I’m not saying go back to no rules and stuff, but I think it needs to be emphasized (the UFC does this with their bonuses) in the rules and in the judging standards, that the goal of an MMA match is to stop the fight.

by Phildo on Jun 23, 2009 11:06 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs