How MMA Judging Distorts the Fights We See

Further proof that Cecil Peoples really is blind.

The scoring system is.

Unless you have a truly dominating round where your opponent is on the verge of being finished throughout, you’re not going to get any more credit for a fantastic round than someone winning a round marginally with nothing but a little more control than you. Witness Couture-Vera.

Then within a round we see the same thing. Unless you really come close to finishing and inflict serious damage, 1 minute of solid offense is worth less then 3 minutes of mere control, as we saw in Dunham-Evans.

Aside from boxing, the only other sport that works this way is tennis, where a 7-6 set is worth as much as a 6-0 set. Football, hockey, basketball, judo, wrestling, taekwondo, etc. all use cumulative score.

While it’s clear that the judging system is broken, it’s also clear that there is no easy fix. The lazy answer given is “don’t let it go to the judges.” That is probably the most direct way to fix this problem: reduce the number of decision and you will see a reduction in bad decisions.

The problem is one of behavioral economics. Fighters get paid the same whether they win by stoppage or by decision. We create a performance incentive by giving a win bonus, but because a fighter knows that judging is wonky, even a losing fighter has an incentive to drag out the fight in case he can steal the decision. And why should the winning fighter risk losing by going for a finish if there is no monetary benefit?

The UFC’s payment structure is backwards. Instead of rewarding finishes like KO of the Night, they should penalize decisions. I’m sure a quick behavioral econ study could figure out what the appropriate percentage was, but for arguments sake, if the fight goes to a decision, both fighters lose 25% of their purse. That creates the incentive for both fighters to finish, since a decision, win or lose, affects them both.

Thoughts?

damage is important but who cares about a submission attempt if it didnt produce any damage? Do you wanna also score attempted strikes even though they miss? It’s the same thing.

But for the most part as fighters evolve and as most put it “try to game the system” their counterparts will learn how to defend against it. It’s the fighters and camps that will remedy the situation not the crybabies.

We’ve seen this over and over. Something new comes up and as it starts working counter measures and techniques are emphasized and created against it and life goes on.

Right now the shot or the threat of the takedown is very important. Everyone is realizing spraw and brawl is dead and if you carry a real threat for a takedown you can usually outsrike a better striker.

That is called fighting. People think they need to see k1 for the best strikers in the world… NO. Those are the best strikers in the world when their opponents arent aloud to really fight (takedowns, etc…). The closest thing to the best strikers in the world are in the UFC because that’s where the closest simulation to a REAL FIGHT is occurring at the highest levels.

Good post, fun discussion. Thanks everyone

I love the absolute hypocrisy with which even experienced and respectable grapplers complain about Takedowns in MMA.

Let’s look at some examples.

Let’s say I go to a BJJ tourney. My opponent takes me down, once, but we otherwise compete to a stalemate. Heck, let’s even say I attacked him with a few submission attempts from the bottom, but failed to get the Tap. The guy who scored the takedown wins.

Let’s say I’m in an NCAA Wrestling match. My opponent takes me down, but I escape to my feet. This occurs several times during the bout. At the end, the guy who scored the takedowns wins.

Let’s head to a San Da fight. Our striking is about even, but my opponent executes a successful throw. The guy who scored the takedown wins.

Hell, in Judo, the guy who score the takedown IMMEDIATELY wins the match.

If I can’t win in any of MMA’s constituent sports, giving up takedowns, why should I be able to win in MMA, that way? And I’m a non-wrestler, pajama-wearin’ sub-grappler who feels most comfortable working from his half-guard!

  Those american rules were made to protec wrestlers, no knees to a downed opponent (means you can atack a double leg not worrying about knees) elbows are alowed (meas a boring wrestler can do damage without trying to pass or even posturing up), 5min rounds instead of the 10 min (meas a boring wrestler can recover himsels after fast gassing, and that’s where the jiu-jitsu starts to shine, when fighter are more tired, couse JIU-JITSU does not rely on strength, but pure techinique ! )
  
The truth is that Japan is light years ahead of the US in terms of mma scoring and mma fans!
  
 UFC judging style is killing MMA, they are forgeting Royce Gracie already proved JIU-JITSU is the most efective fight art.

Recently there was a thread on Sherdog discussing how to fix the current judging situation. It’s answer was to simply read the unified rules and apply them. Damage comes first, damage from whichever domain was dominant (ground or standing). Damage (or effectiveness) is the most important element. Followed by control of the fighting area, exhibited via defending takedowns, takedowns, sub attempts, etc. The last two are effective aggression and defense.

I think the best thing would be for the judges to thoroughly read the rules. Damage first, control second, effort third.

Bob Reilly, the NY lawmaker who stands in the way of MMA regulation in that state, often points to Pride’s “damage” criterion to show how violent the sport is.