Critiquing the Judging Criteria Proposed by Nelson 'Doc' Hamilton
by Mike Fagan on Dec 3, 2010 10:24 AM EST
in MMA Editorial
Email
Print
Chael Sonnen's appeal hearing before the California State Athletic Commission overshadowed a piece by Josh Gross which provided details about the proposed changes to the judging prodcedures for MMA in the state of California. The proposal - written by longtime official Nelson "Doc" Hamilton - would institute half-point scoring gradients to the ten-point must system, the introduction and prominence of damage to the judging criteria, an advantage point system in the event of draws, and specific instructions for judges to identify near submissions.
The CSAC plans to test the proposed rules - deemed Mixed Martial Arts Specific Scoring (MMAS) - through CAMO, a non-profit corporation delegated by the commission to regulate amateur bouts in the state of California. Fights will be scored under both the current judging criteria under the Unified Rules and the MMAS criteria in order to compare the effectiveness of each system.
I think Nelson's proposal has good intentions, but falls short in execution. Let's run through the list.
1. Half-point scoring
The proposed criteria would add half-point gradients to the current ten-point must system. According to Gross:
A close period yields a tally of 10-9.5. A clear winner, 10-9. Rounds delivering damage or domination, 10-8.5. Damage and domination will be scored 10-8.
Introducing non-integers creates an unnecessary and confusing dynamic to round scoring. The same result could be reached by instructing judges to more fully utilize the scoring options provided by the ten-point must system. A "close period" becomes a 10-9. A "clear winner," 10-8. Etc.
2. The reorganization of the judging criteria
The current judging criteria requires judges to score based on effective striking, effective grappling, cage control, and effective aggression. The MMAS proposal would introduce damage as the main criterion, followed by an equal weighting of effective striking and grappling. Cage control would remain as a part of the criteria.
I agree with the concept of "damage" being the most important item in the criteria. However, Hamilton's proposal defines damage as "any visible sign of debilitation" and lists the following as examples:
- A cut or bruise
- Appearing stunned from a blow to the head or body slam
- Wincing from a body blow
- Ceasing forward movement, becoming defensive or hastily retreating after being struck
- Staggering or favoring a leg that has been kicked
- Debilitating results from the efforts required to escape wrestling holds or submission attempts
Two things stand out to me. 1) A fighter who doesn't cut or bruise easily, like B.J. Penn, has a tremendous advantage under this definition. 2) Gassing out could be considered "any visible sign of debilitation" according to the final example.
In addition, the judging criteria continues to include "cage control." The problem with "cage control" is that there is no consensus on what the term actually implies. In addition, there is no metric available to quantify "cage control," and the concept is left up to the subjectivity of each judge.
3. Advantage point system
In the event of a draw - an outcome more likely with increased variance of round scores, the MMAS proposal includes a provision to decide a winner based on an objective point total tallied by a fourth official at ringside. Again, according to Gross:
A flash knockdown would be registered as one point. As would a takedown into the guard or a sweep and escape from the bottom. A takedown into side-control would be worth two, as would be a guard pass. Dominant positions such as mount and back control with hooks or a body triangle: three points. And a full-fledged knockdown tallies four.
I have two issues with this.
First, Hamilton believes that an ultimate winner must be decided:
"That's how you do it in martial arts. There are no draws. Somebody wins, somebody loses. Even in Olympic judo or wrestling, if everything is even down the line, the judges get together, confer and someone gets their hand raised. Period. Well, I don't see why we should be any different."
I don't understand the overwhelming desire to determine a winner. If a fight is even, it's a draw. There's too much riding on the line for fighters to insist that a winner MUST be chosen at all costs. That other combat sports judge a certain way is no reason that MMA should follow suit.
Second, how did Hamilton reach these point values? They seem completely arbitrary. For instance, why is side-control worth twice as much as a flash knockdown and half as much as a "full-fledged" knockdown?
4. Identification of near-submissions
From the proposed rules:
A near-submission is to grappling what a knockdown is to effective striking, and should carry the same weight in scoring.
And what exactly is a "near-submission?"
When a submission is serious and threatening with the potential to end the contest but is ultimately unsuccessful, it is a near-submission.
A near-submission is determined by the referee who then signals to the judges by "raising one arm straight overhead and holding it until the fighter taps-out or until the submission is terminated."
I don't think I agree with any of the wording here. For starters, what leads Hamilton to believe that a near-submission is of equal value to a knockdown?
Second, successful grappling is not dependent on attempting of submission holds. A near-submission is often useless because you often 1) did not correctly apply the hold and 2) find yourself in a disadvantaged position if the opponent defends and escapes.
Third, the guidelines for determining a "near-submission" are vague. Is a kimura from guard a "near-submission" once the attacking fighter locks both hands in the figure-four grip? Or once the defending arm clears the hip? At what point of an omoplata is necessary to be considered a "near-submission?"
Overview
The longer I think about the subject, the more I believe that the simpler the judging, the better. Outside of attempting to create some sort of point system, the judging criteria will always be subject to interpretation. I believe that most fans with a solid grasp of the ten-point must system and a serious understanding of the sport can score a bout correctly (or at least defensibly) without having to consider outmoded concepts such as "effective aggression" and "cage control." It's not exactly "I know it when I see it," but it's also not an idea that I can fully articulate either.
The problems with judging in MMA is deeper than the ten-point must sytem. It includes the paradoxal complexity/ambiguity of the current criteria, the lack of knowledge about the sport of MMA possessed by most judges, the lack of accountability for said judges, the three round structure of the majority of bouts, judges not having the option to watch from a television monitor, etc.
Hamilton's proposal leaves me shrugging my shoulders. It may look better cosmetically in some areas compared to the current criteria in the Unified Rules, but I'm unconvinced that it will provide a more effective system.
120 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I completely agree with most of your points...
but I’m still pleased they’re at least looking into another way of scoring. Maybe this one won’t work so well but it shows some kind of progress.
I am also very pleased that they are looking into it...
Mike, the only point I don’t really agee with here is:
I don’t understand the overwhelming desire to determine a winner. If a fight is even, it’s a draw.
While I don’t want Judges arbitrarily picking winners, draws suck. Even after a solid fight a draw leaves everything unresolved and fans don’t like it. From a pure sporting point of view, sure a draw is the right call, but from an entertainment point of view… Draws are aweful.
On another note. Why did one guy all of a sudden come up with a new scoring system? Why was this not a group thing that was done with a group of judges, referees and former fighters? If they are truly looking to make a change for the better, putting together a panel isn’t that hard to do.
I was really excited when i heard about this...
But now i dont know. I wrote a fanpost on here 2 days ago propsing a half point system http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/12/1/1849036/mma-scoring-must-evolve-as-the-sport-changes, but the biggest difference was i wanted a 3 minute extension round in the case of a draw. My reasoning was that too often the winner seems to be arbitrarilly decided, and I want more clarity at the end of a fight.
I also dont know how the system can work when an even fight then goes to a point total from a 4th judge. Acoording to what i just read, if fighter A lands a 3 punch combo and rocks fighter b, but fighter b clinches and gets a takedown, fighter b gets a point, but fighter a gets nothing because he didnt knock him down. Confusing much???
I had a very similar idea, but i dont understand the logic behind this at all.
Jesus Christ, this is a mess
Best case scenario, the judges ignore all the little details like they do with the current system. Expanding the scoring system beyond 10-9’s is the most important thing. I mean, he could’ve just made it whole numbers and added 10-6’s, but whatever.
2) Gassing out could be considered “any visible sign of debilitation” according to the final example
I think it should be. Being gassed out is in some ways worse than getting knocked down and getting back up.
"Burritos are my life." - BJ Penn
If a fighter is going all out trying to finish for 2 rounds and is gassed in the 3rd…I have no problem with that.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 3, 2010 8:18 AM EST up reply actions
That’s a strategic error and it should count against him. I prefer rules that predict the likeliest winner if the fight goes past 3 rounds (or however long).
"Burritos are my life." - BJ Penn
That’s absurd.
If a fighter gasses, the opponent must take advantage.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Dec 3, 2010 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
you have to be doing something right
if your opponent gasses. I agree with Crazybones that some credit should be given to a fighter who could keep fighting. Working your opponent so he’s exhausted makes him less dangerous. To me that is taking advantage of his weaknesses.
Use more judges.
why does it matter if the opponent is gassed if you can’t take advantage of it?
Especially if he gassed beating you up?
by Phildo on Dec 3, 2010 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
or he gassed
Punching your arms, or trying to keep up with your grappling, or because you punched him? If he was beating you up so bad, why are you the fresher fighter?
Use more judges.
Jake Shields gassed in his last fight should he have lost? No. That is worst than cage control and aggression as judging criteria and I think both of those are terrible ways to judge a fight. That article on here a while back about effective offense being the sole arbiter of judging was very good.
I am free because I choose to be so-Me
The gassing theory
comes from the idea of judging where a fight is going if there was no time limit. I think I probably overstated how much I like this theory. I certainly hope I didn’t imply that if somebody gets tired in the course of beating the piss out of someone that the person who did the damage should lose the fight. Of course Bones got tired tossing Bonnar all over the place and he deserves credit for that.
Judging gets pretty tough when things like cuts and visible damage are taken into account. Someone on this thread says that it would then give BJ an advantage because he doesn’t cut easily. Hmm. Leben has a chin of granite. So, if someone punches him, he keeps fighting, whereas if they punched me I’d fall over. Did they do an equal amount of damage to both of us? Should they be scored the same? So do we score the punch or the damage? Especially because most of the time the only way we can judge a punch’s effectiveness is how the victim reacts?
Use more judges.
Gassing?
And I thought takedowns were scored too heavily. Now all a fighter has to do is lay and pray and he’ll score for octagon control AND tiring out his opponent! They need to score damage primarily, and effective striking/grappling second.
Jon Jones gassed in his fight against Stephan Bonnar. Gassing doesn’t necessarily mean that your opponent is somehow getting the upperhand. Oftentimes, fighters gas from the ass whooping they’re delivering to their victim. Not to mention, there’s no real way to quantify a fighter’s fatigue, especially if they’re still winning the exchanges.
As far as the new scoring system is concerned. I do like it if for no other reason than two razor thin rounds won’t effectively guarantee a victory, thus permitting the winning fighter the luxury of stalling, running, etc. One clear round can nullify two rounds in which neither fighter clearly distinguished himself from the other. One dominant or damaging round will surpass two razor thin rounds enabling a fighter behind on the scorecards a realistic chance of winning the fight without having to finish his opponent (which is especially difficult when the opponent is fighting conservatively).
Round that out with points (or maybe even just half points) deducted for stalling, and that should help correct both inactivity in the cage as well as the scoring conundrum.
The biggest critique of the new system
The CSAC plans to test the proposed rules – deemed Mixed Martial Arts Specific Scoring (MMAS) – through CAMO, a non-profit corporation delegated by the commission to regulate amateur bouts in the state of California.
Screw that.
Guillotine.
Judging isnt sacred
I not necessarily a fan of this system, but I like that the CASC is willing to try a new judging system out at some level. Seeing some experimentation might be a good thing.
Great write up!
I’d rather see well-trained and accountable judges making their own subjective decision about a fight rather than trying to follow an arbitrary objective criteria for points-per-knockdown or something like that.
Getting bent out of shape over a fight promoter lying is like getting upset that a hooker won't kiss you. It betrays a deep lack of understanding of the nature of the profession.
A cut or bruise
Yeah, you can be cut by a single landed strike. That doesn’t mean the strike was “more effective”
I don’t understand the overwhelming desire to determine a winner. If a fight is even, it’s a draw. There’s too much riding on the line for fighters to insist that a winner MUST be chosen at all costs. That other combat sports judge a certain way is no reason that MMA should follow suit.
I am going to say it and say it and say it. A dramatic increase in fights ruled a draw is going to hurt the sport. Casual sports fans are not going to tune in if they keep paying $45 to not see no payoff. I know that’s not the answer people want to hear from a “sporting context” but it’s true. A bad decision at least delivers emotion, and emotion in the viewer is good…but a draw delivers nothing. From a sporting context it’s nice…but from a viewership perspective it’s a bad idea.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 3, 2010 8:24 AM EST reply actions
Do you think it’d make sense to institute different rules for title fights and/or main events, since they’re the fights that drive viewership? Perhaps something like the 4th judge mentioned above. That would preserve the “sporting integrity” of most fights, but the money fights would always have a winner.
Getting bent out of shape over a fight promoter lying is like getting upset that a hooker won't kiss you. It betrays a deep lack of understanding of the nature of the profession.
I am going to say it and say it and say it. A dramatic increase in fights ruled a draw is going to hurt the sport.
Come on. Dramatic increase? No, there is no way we’d see a dramatic increase. For the most part, we see 10-9 rounds all the time, and maybe a scattered 10-10 round in a fight.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Dec 3, 2010 9:26 AM EST up reply actions
what do you think ?
about a sudden victory round if the judges have it a draw?
Use more judges.
yes
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/12/1/1849036/mma-scoring-must-evolve-as-the-sport-changes. I wrote this 2 days ago, and got all excited when i started to read about something similar happening, but the details dont work with hamiltons proposal.
I still say that in questionable decisions a fighter should be able to go to a commission and ask for a review. This doesn’t mean appealing the decision, but when a review is requested the judge should have to go in front of a panel and explain his judging and how he arrived at the decision he did. If it is clear that he used criteria outside of the established judging guidelines, actions should be taken.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 3, 2010 8:36 AM EST up reply actions
and, of course, the commission should be able to deny certain requests that do not warrant a review (i.e. Bisping’s complaint about how he “beat” Wanderlei)
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 3, 2010 8:38 AM EST up reply actions
i hope this fails
All this half point system is really retarded. I agree w/ fagan that simpler is better & what really needs to change is the understanding of the sport from a judges perspective and also the use of monitors. This new system will not work in my opinion
by liquidation247 on Dec 3, 2010 8:38 AM EST via mobile reply actions
This is a stupid system
People just want change just to have it. Judges are dumb, you think 1/2 points will work?
Reppin' the NYMMAI.
Black Lesnar aka Slap ya Favorite MMA Writer
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun . Imma write til the wheels fall off.
This system openly encourages 4 different scores. Right now it’s just 10-9 and fuck everything else. You really think it’s better for MMA to stay like that?
"Burritos are my life." - BJ Penn
Well...
right now it’s not just 10-9. The judges just refuse to use anything else.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 3, 2010 9:07 AM EST up reply actions
My thoughts exactly.
Why not just enforce a more liberal use of the 10-8 scorecard? The 10 point must system stinks because it’s literally always 10-9. There should be more 10-8’s and and the current frequency of 10-8’s should be applied to 10-7 instead.
More 10-8’s, occasional 10-10s, more educated officials, and monitors are what we need.
Yes, but judges won’t do that for whatever reason (would they actually lose their jobs or something if they scored too many 10-8’s?). With a fresh system that clearly distinguished between close rounds and clear rounds, they’ll be more likely to use a wider range of scores.
"Burritos are my life." - BJ Penn
Because Doc Hamilton is crazy. Or because it reduces the stigma of scoring 10-8’s by changing the numbers completely. One of the two.
"Burritos are my life." - BJ Penn
But won’t the same stigma that applies to 10-8s now apply to 10-9s? Or the stigma from 10-10 apply to 10-9? I just don’t get why people think this will work.
Someone commented somewhere that sometimes you need a cosmetic change to facilitate an actual change. I think the judges will get over their retarded aversion to other scores if they’re presented with a new-looking system.
"Burritos are my life." - BJ Penn
Then change it to a system that uses 0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 3-0. Half-points are completely unnecessary.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
I’m fine with that. As long as they get to changing it, I’m not picky about particulars.
"Burritos are my life." - BJ Penn
YEAH CHANGE!!!
Reppin' the NYMMAI.
Black Lesnar aka Slap ya Favorite MMA Writer
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun . Imma write til the wheels fall off.
by S.C. Michaelson on Dec 3, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
More 10-8's
Why not make a 10-8 for a commanding round, not nearly killing the other guy. Give someone that edges out the other fighter a 10-9. No clear cut winner, could go either way score it 10-10. If someone gets waxed for 5 minutes make it a 10-7.
No. This is incorrect. There are several scores a judge can use now
And also, how many decisions are “bad”? Rare
Reppin' the NYMMAI.
Black Lesnar aka Slap ya Favorite MMA Writer
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun . Imma write til the wheels fall off.
by S.C. Michaelson on Dec 3, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
There are far more "bad" scores than decisions.
So in one sense, the three judge system is working. The abundance of bad scored and the semi frequent bad decisions are enough of a concern to warrant discussion. There shouldn’t be a bad call once every two or so events.
PRIDE RULES!!!!!
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
Unintelligent Defense, I bring Cricket bats to fist fights.
Because god knows there were no controversial decisions under those rules. And lord knows it’s not an easier system than any other on earth to allow for illegitimate decisions…
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 3, 2010 9:09 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
There's really no available system out there that would work
Save for having Video Game Style Health Bars on top of the screen.
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
Unintelligent Defense, I bring Cricket bats to fist fights.
There will be close fights and controversy no matter what rules you use.
by Jonathan Snowden on Dec 3, 2010 9:23 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
NO JONATHAN I MUST TRY TO PERFECT HUMAN JUDGMENT
Reppin' the NYMMAI.
Black Lesnar aka Slap ya Favorite MMA Writer
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun . Imma write til the wheels fall off.
by S.C. Michaelson on Dec 3, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
This
I don’t understand the romanticizing of all things PRIDE.
Luke: What was our best moment?
Nate: When I banned Subo?
Luke: That was a good one.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Contributor for WatchKalibRun.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Dec 3, 2010 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
Yes.
Luke: What was our best moment?
Nate: When I banned Subo?
Luke: That was a good one.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Contributor for WatchKalibRun.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Dec 4, 2010 1:32 AM EST up reply actions
Well the one thing I do like is that in pride you saw refs signalling to the judges about a "catch" (near sub in grappling).
And this is something we definitely need right now, because the only person who is close enough to really know is the ref, and from a scoring perspective, a catch should be treated like a knockdown IMO.
And as far as this system being suggested, I dont have a problem with the guidelines, I do have a problem with the fact that its still basically the 10 point system. What they should really be doing is taking the criteria for that fourth official and making 5 judges score a bout that way, and whoever has more points wins. nice and simple.
by destructivist on Dec 3, 2010 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
oh and the reason I chose 5 judges is because it is not very easy to keep track of all those things, guard passes, escapes, etc.,
You can have the most educated judges in the world and monitors and everything else but there is always room for human error and I dont want that margin to be 3 people large.
by destructivist on Dec 3, 2010 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
I think there are lots of options that are better than this proposed solution for draws, if you want to avoid draws.
You can steal the must decisions from Sengoku. You can ask each judge to score the fight as a whole (also) and only look at it if the round by round scores end up a draw. You can have the 4th judge just pick a winner (although that is a lot of power for 1 person, especially if they are one of the current crop of judges). An interesting one I saw in the comments was pick the person who had more dominant rounds, because they came closer to winning the fight (so 10-9, 10-9, 8-10, the win goes to the guy who won the 10-8 round). You could do the opposite and award the win to the person who won the most rounds (but that is a lot like the current system we are trying to get away from.)
There are ways to get rid of the draws, but I don’t really like one that is based on scoring it like a wrestling/bjj match. There are too many things going on and too much open to interpretation.
yea, let’s be real. This is coming up a lot lately because people are upset about “boring” fights or lay and pray.
Well, if the tiebreaker is point fighting, and you get a point for a takedown, wrestlers will just get a takedown, wait for the standup, repeat. there is no reason to do anything on the ground. Ground strikes will rarely count for points, and every time you attempt to improve your position, you are opening a window for a sweep, so why on earth would you try to pass guard?
i dont want to see a lot of draws, but i also dont want sengoku's system
All i can think is we will end up with fights like Sandro/Omigawa where Sandro won on one judges scorecard, it was a draw on the other 2, but omigawa won a decision because the 2 judges that scored it a draw said Omigawa was more aggressive. It leaves the scoring even more open to bias than the current system.
I say 3 minute extension round at the end of a drawn fight. Imagine the excitement of 3 extra minutes at the end of a too close to call fight. Its better than just flipping a coin cause someone has to win.
It isn't surprising...
That a judge who has been incompetent in the past has come up with a ridiculous system like this. The ten point must system works if you have competent judges who understand the criteria and objectively score based on similar assessments of that criteria.
Instead of being manipulated into scoring EVERYTHING 10-9, they should do their fucking jobs. 10-8 is a pretty easy thing to see unfold as well, and many judges rarely use it. This half point system is basically the 10 point must system for idiots. It just gives you more options. Why not use those SAME options and adhere it to the 10 point must system as you SHOULD have been doing the entire time?
I also don’t understand the whole idea of avoiding draws. If two guys didn’t do enough to win, they don’t deserve it. Plain and simple.
Everyone knows my stance. Get rid of significant scoring of Octagon control and other tough to calculate bullshit criteria, and get new judges in who understand what is happening. Stop limiting judges to cageside seats and give them monitors. Give them the best viewpoints.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Dec 3, 2010 9:21 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I see no problem with the half point system. If you were using a ruler, would you prefer one which had markings only every inch, or one which had them at a smaller interval? Would you tell someone that something 1.5 inches long is 2 inches because your tool is integers?
I’m for more 10-8 and 10-10 rounds, but only with the half point system to help mitigate what would become an unpleasant spike in the amount of draws. In that scenario, I would imagine an uptick in the amount of draws which is fine. But people will not enjoy 20% of fights going to draws.
Then, you also have to be fair to the fighters.
“If two guys didn’t do enough to win, they don’t deserve it. Plain and simple.”
You make it seem like winning is a goal you can reach like running a certain distance. Obviously, fighters train extremely hard and saying that fighter X didn’t do enough to win after getting in the cage and performing after an 8 week training camp is a little callous. This is similar to Dana saying “Keep it out of the hands of the judges” because of bad judging. It’s not a fighter’s fault if a gorilla math 3 round scoring system isn’t designed to detect a small edge in a fight.
But we aren’t measuring inches. We are using a ruler that has our own made up units of measure, so why don’t we use whole numbers?
Basically, to keep a 10-9 round similar to what it currently is. Why even use a 10 point system? Why not just give people 0, 1, 2, 3, etc points per round?
but you aren’t keeping it similar to what it currently is. There are rounds that are currently scored 10-9 that need to be changed to 10-9.5. I don’t get why people think that people are going to have an easier time switching those rounds to 10-9.5 than changing the one’s that would be switched to 10-8. It’s the same exact thing.
Your assumption is that a close round is 10-9, mine is that a clearly won round is 10-9. If you want to multiply out that half point by 2, that is fine and beside the point. Personally, I prefer a clearly won round to be 10-9.
What is important is breaking the round scoring into smaller ranges which is more accurate and further serves to identify poor judging performances. As it is now, the margin between 10-9 and 9-10 is far too slim and causes scores to swing too wildly in muddy cases like when one fighter does something to “steal the round”.
But mathematically, there is no difference as long as everyone is playing by the same rules.
The example was Machida Jackson, Gross said he would have scored it. 10-9 machida, 10-9.5 Jackson, 10-8.5 Machida. So Machida has 29.5 and Jackson has 27.5. Machida wins by 4 of the smallest unit of measure.
If you change it to 10-8 Machida, 10-9 Jackson, 10-7 Machida. The scare is 29-25 Machida. Machida wins by 4 of the smallest unit of measure.
The only difference is that the second way is easier to add, explain, and understand. Why would we choose the top choice? If you make a “clear round” 10-8, and a “stolen round” 10-9, it’s the same exact thing as making a “clear round” 10-9 and a “stolen round” 10-9.5. Same exact thing.
Yes, we have already established that we both want the same thing.
I like clear rounds to be 10-9 not 10-8 and domination to be 10-8 not 10-6 – both of which are more in line with current scoring conventions.
You dislike decimals.
End of conversation.
I don’t like that.
Let’s make it, You like a system that is overly complicated, and I like a system that is easy to understand.
End of conversation.
yes, it’s simple.
But we are dealing with the general population of the US.
Would football be as popular if touchdowns were 1 point, field goals were .5, and extra points are 1/3?
We are also dealing with people that have trouble adding whole numbers.
Also, your argument of “i want to keep the clear rounds in line with current scoring” is easily countered by “i want to keep the close rounds in line with current scoring.”
Yes, but how do you counter keeping dominant rounds in line with current scoring (10-8)?
I also think more people would imagine a clear round win when 10-9 is mentioned than a close round win.
I don’t know. I don’t know why “keeping things in line” matters. If we are changing the system, change the system to something that works and is easy to understand. I was just making a counterpoint to you.
I don’t get why changing some rounds to 9.5 is ok, but changing some rounds to 9 and 8 isn’t. It all ends up with the same result. If you have to options that give the same result, and one is easier to understand, why pick the more complicated version?
or if lines are really that important, you also need to take something “out of line” to define an 8.5 round.
The difference between 8, 8.5 and 9 is just degree. There is a difference between absolutely blasting someone (10-8) and a clear but typical round win (10-9).
Possibly like when Forrest sat on Rampage’s face for a few minutes.
Theoretically, we have a system that distinguishes between 10 different values, yet in practice it’s a binary system. Instead of dividing the system further into 20 different theoretical values, why not simply start using the existing but rarely used values further along the scale?
Besides, I think scoring is way too subjective for people to be able to accurately detect that one fighter is 1/20 better than the other, anyway.
Besides, I think scoring is way too subjective for people to be able to accurately detect that one fighter is 1/20 better than the other, anyway.
I’m hypothesizing, but I really don’t think the point of the 10 point must system is to say that a 10-9 round winner was ~10% better in a round than his opponent.
What actually matters is the difference in scores in relevant judging units, 10-9 rounds could be revised to be scored 100-99 and no decisions would be affected.
My point is that as long as we aren’t trying to figure out who’s got the edge by five measly percent, we don’t need a scoring system that allows for twenty different values. It should be fine with one that allows for ten, which is at least twice as many different values as any of the suggestions people have thrown out would use in practice.
I agree with the part about limiting judges to cageside seats
They should come to WKR instead
Reppin' the NYMMAI.
Black Lesnar aka Slap ya Favorite MMA Writer
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun . Imma write til the wheels fall off.
by S.C. Michaelson on Dec 3, 2010 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
the half point thing is a little silly
And certainly the same thing could be achieved by making judges fully use the current scoring system, however, some times in order to change the behavior of individuals you have to make a cosmetic change like that.
The idea isn’t to completely change the current system, but to encourage the current judges to start scoring better.
I’m personally still torn as to whether it would work or not… it does seem terribly unnecessary.
I find it so strange that in almost all of these bad judging situations the fans and commentariat online tend to get it right over the judges. With that in mind one has to come to the conclusion that there is something about the judges (either incompetence or a poor perspective for the fights, or.. something) that is causing the failure here.
raising one arm straight overhead and holding it until the fighter taps-out or until the submission is terminated
When a submission is being applied, the ref should not be raising his arm overhead. He should be down on his knee to check if a fighter is getting choked out, or ready to step in to prevent a limb from breaking. Maybe I misinterpreted the rule but that sounds like a very bad idea to me.
weird rule
we’ll have fighters looking at the ref to see if they’ve impressed him/her enough to get the hand raised. bah, should be the ref’s job.
Use more judges.
"shouldn't be the ref's job"
oops.
Use more judges.
It’s just the SHOOTO catch rule. Most ref’s can’t even tell when someone is tapping. I shudder to think about them executing the catch rule.
by Jonathan Snowden on Dec 3, 2010 9:43 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
"Damage" = political suicide
Bob Reilly, the MMA opponent in the New York legislature, loves to harp on “damage” being part of Pride’s old criteria. But he has to concede that “damage” isn’t in modern rules.
Why put it back in and give MMA opponents more ammunition?
eventually...
Bob Reilly is going to get steamrolled. the guy is a dinosaur and MMA will find it to New York in the next few years.
Ultimately, ‘damage’ is a good criterion to include in the rules, IMO.
No
Reppin' the NYMMAI.
Black Lesnar aka Slap ya Favorite MMA Writer
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun . Imma write til the wheels fall off.
by S.C. Michaelson on Dec 3, 2010 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
I Have An Idea:
I think we could communicate, “Damage,” more eloquently with a simple phrase: “Effective Striking/Grappling.”
by falufalump on Dec 3, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Mike, I always like your view on MMA rules.
The piece you did a while back on a revised criteria was one of my favorites. That said:
You don’t think there’s a benefit to something in between a “close period” and a “clear winner” such as a “slight edge”?
Either way I think the real problem is the lack of clarity in defining the scoring options as well as the criteria itself. I wrote about it recently here: http://bit.ly/10PtMust
Where did you get the information about how Hamilton’s proposal defines damage? I hadn’t seen that before.
I completely agree with you about precluding the possibility of a draw. That’s bad! Ideally in the event that the rounds result in a draw the table judge that scores the fight as a whole can still return a draw.
While I agree that some of the Hamilton’s system are arbitrary, I think they are better than what we have today, but like I said, the real issue is clarity. The current system CAN work fine, but its hard to educate the judges with the rules as ambiguous as they are.
-----------------
@MMRating
MMA Ratings
No, I do think there’s a benefit in an increased palette of scores. Judges should just expand their use of the ten-point must though, instead of adding complicated half-points. (I should note that I personally don’t find half-points confusing or complicated, but 1) fans will and 2) judges will inevitably add wrong, they already do this with integers.)
And here’s the PDF of the proposal: http://www.mmarefs.com/blog/pdf/advancingthesportRevisedScoring.pdf
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
Regarding the Definition of Fighting Area Control:
“Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.”
-MMA Unified Rules.
I honestly feel the judges should read, and perhaps have to pass an accreditation process, dealing specifically with the rules. I think we still aren’t applying the rules accurately and strictly.
A cut or bruise
A cut or bruise
Here is another problem with this part. You can see damage to some ones face but not necessarily to the body. Take a look at the Frausto vs Megumi finally in Bellator. Megumi did most of her damage putting her fist in Zoila’s face and Zoila is one of those whose face shows damage easy. But Zoila did most of her damage with leg kicks to the body which are hidden because the women wear tops. (Yes I know what your thinking). Cracked ribs can show them selves by bruising and swelling so it isn’t just cosmetic.
If you think that is just women look at Faber vs Aldo. What if Faber was wearing the really long shorts, the big knee brace, the knee high ankle thing that grappler dude wears. Then all that bruising on the legs wouldn’t show. So now every one is wearing as much clothing as possible to hide damage.
I think
that judging damage by knockdowns or hits that visibly hurt the oponent is an ok criterion, but cuts are bruises is a horrible one. I don’t know how many fights I’ve seen were the clear loser had a baby face but the winner looked like he’d been mauled by a bear. Some people can take a major hit…this is a skill/talent for fighting that should be utilizied when it can. Rather then cuts and bruises being a modifer for the damage category I think “effective takedowns” should be instead.
“Effective Takedowns”
For example, if fighter A takes fighter B down lets just say that’s only worth “1/4 a point”. To get a full point he has to do some type of damage in a certain time limit. We could say he has to advance posistion and attempt submissions within 45 seconds, or that he has to land three clean and damaging strikes within 20 seconds. The specifics would have to be agreed on by some sort of panel…not just one guy…but I think this type of scoring could produce some clearer and more balanced results.
This
scoring system would also force fighters to fight. Laying and praying would be a thing of the past and offensive (and exciting) grappling and wrestling would be a must. Trainers would spend more time perfecting those weapons and less teaching their fighters to just control their oponent.
by Malachi Holder on Dec 3, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
nothing at all
nothing at all
nothing at all
nothing at all
by M.Sphinx on Dec 3, 2010 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Second, successful grappling is not dependent on attempting of submission holds. A near-submission is often useless because you often 1) did not correctly apply the hold and 2) find yourself in a disadvantaged position if the opponent defends and escapes.
Third, the guidelines for determining a “near-submission” are vague. Is a kimura from guard a “near-submission” once the attacking fighter locks both hands in the figure-four grip? Or once the defending arm clears the hip? At what point of an omoplata is necessary to be considered a “near-submission?”
You’re right about all this. It’s definitely tough to devise a system for scoring near-submissions.
Still, I can’t help but think that it’s important to include them in the judging criteria. I shudder a bit to think of what might become of the grappling aspect of MMA if fighters knew that if they didn’t complete a submission, even if it was close, attempting it was just a waste of time in the judge’s eyes.
Plus, it seems to me that some submissions attempts should just obviously count. They clearly swing the momentum of the fight in a serious way. A paradigm example would be Kendall Grove’s near-armbar on Ricardo Almeida.
But capturing this in a systematic way is hard, maybe impossible. I don’t know what the answer is, besides maybe enrolling all the judges in mandatory BJJ classes so that they have first-hand knowledge and experience. (No, I’m not serious.) But the Shooto-style catch rule ain’t it.
Actually now that i think about it, all these systems are stupid. After the fight, the 3 judges just need to ask themselves one question, “who kicked who’s ass?” and then write a name down or draw. No points, no lay n pray wins, no BS!
They have judges for real world fights?
Luke: What was our best moment?
Nate: When I banned Subo?
Luke: That was a good one.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Contributor for WatchKalibRun.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Dec 4, 2010 1:34 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with most of your points.
I know people are frustrated with the 10 point must system, but honestly, it’s not that bad. The judges are the problem more than the system.
The whole point of changing to half points is to re-educate judges. It’s easy to say “Just use 10-8’s & 10-7’s” but the 10 point must comes from Boxing. Boxing only uses those scores when something decisive happens such as a knockdown. That same criteria does not apply to MMA. A fighter can be knocked down, but then sweep the opponent and spend the next 4’30 on the clock on top spamming keylocks. A judge will then apply a 10-9 one way or the other.
By using a brand new system, it encourages judges to be more liberal with the scoring. They aren’t hounded by years of dogmatic approach to the scores. There won’t be any established canon for what “constitutes a 10-8.5 score”. It opens up scoring allowing for more representative scores.
The goal is to have a better representative score of the “fight”. If a guy goes out there and absolutely destroys an opponent, he can get a 10-8.5. The next round, the opponent comes back and wins it 10-9. Now all of a sudden a single half point separates the two in what has been a very close fight heading into round three.
The commissions should stop using judges who come from boxing then. We shouldn’t design a system in order to reeducate the old guard of officials. In the next 5, 10, 20 years, we’re going to have judges who grew up on MMA and not boxing.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
That’s how you do it in martial arts. There are no draws. Somebody wins, somebody loses. Even in Olympic judo or wrestling, if everything is even down the line, the judges get together, confer and someone gets their hand raised.
Yes, because judo and wrestling in the Olympics are both contested in a bracketed tournament format… not because they’re martial arts.
Why overcomplicate things with 10-9.5 and 10-8.5 rounds? Why not make it a 5 point must system and have 5-4 rounds for close rounds, 5-3 for dominant rounds, 5-2 for clear and damaging rounds and 5-1 for rounds damaging and dominant rounds. Its the same difference, it’s just a lot cleaner and easier to add up. Then if you have a fight where one guy edges a round, but gets dominated in the other two a score of 14-10 or 14-11 is a lot clearer and more indicative of the fight then scoring it 29.5-27.5 or 29-28 as it would currently look under the current system.
The cut/bruise thing for damage is stupid. Cuts can be caused from glancing blows, head clashes, thumbs in the eye etc and Doc is proposing to score these as damage when it wasn’t deliberate damage. Cuts should NEVER be scored as damage as its usually unclear where the cut came from without the use of a replay. The judges should be taught to beter look at whats being landed etc on the feet then being given the luxury of just writing it off as one guy winning based on cuts without actually having to do their job and see who is really landing the better strikes.
The advantage thing is just plain stupid.
Great article. I don’t, however, completely agree with the writer about near submissions. The idea that a referee should signal a full catch is just common sense, particularly when the judges don’t have monitors. A full catch or near submission should mean both (a) the technique is being correctly applied and (b) the submission has progressed to the point where the victim might reasonably tap. The fact that Hamilton likens a near submission to a knockdown—a “full-fledged” knockdown, I imagine—is revealing; it probably means that, to Hamilton, near submissions are fairly rare occurrences (e.g. Falcao’s 2nd round RNC of Harris). In other words, simply locking both hands in the figure-four grip from guard would not be categorized as a near sub.
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
