Would Olympic Boxing Style Judging Work in MMA?
by jmjinks on Mar 29, 2011 10:36 AM EDT
Email
Print
One of the biggest issues fans (as well as some of MMA's biggest advocates) have about the sport, is in its judging and its use of 10-point must system. While the system was brought in due to its use in boxing circles, it has not been without its controversies in both sports. Amateur boxing at the highest levels (in particular the Olympics) was concerned that such a method of judging was causing corrupt judges to score a bout a certain way. The system introduced in 1992 not only solved some of that problem, but would help pick out the troublemakers and more fairly score the fight. This is something we should consider when looking at making changes to the Unified Rules.
Computer scoring was introduced to the Olympics in 1992. Each of the five judges has a keypad with a red and a blue button. The judges had to press a button for which ever fighter they felt landed a scoring blow. Three out of the five judges have to press the button for the same boxer within a one-second window in order for the point to score.
The first thing that comes to mind is the improvement made by having 5 judges. When dealing with only 3 judges, one lopsided scorecard can ruin what appears to be a close fight. With five judges, no one judge would have such a dramatic impact.
Computer scoring would also help rid the sport of its antiquated point-system. Points could be awarded for takedowns, effective striking, and submission attempts. If three of the five judges score a headkick, the fighter is awarded a point. If a fighter was agressive and scored well during the first round, there would be little chance his opponent would win the fight during the last two rounds using a lay-and-pray approach. They would need to be active on the ground, and trying to fish the fight.
While this type of system may never see the light of day during a UFC PPV, it should shed some light on ways we can improve the sport we all love.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Really?
I take it you disagree with making changes to how MMA is judged?
I actually like the idea.
You would have to get the judges into a room with only the sounds of the cage, with high quality monitors with multiple camera angles.
I’m against giving out points just for takedowns, but it would certainly be nice if the judges kept track of how many clean, hard shots each competitor lands, and made that the most important criteria in scoring. Quantity & Quality of landed strikes, slams, & occasionally- damaging submission attempts (think Dos Anjos’ calf slicer on Tyson Griffin).
http://www.headkicklegend.com/
"I swear it upon Zeus an outstanding runner cannot be the equal of an average wrestler."
-Socrates
by ElliotMatheny on Mar 30, 2011 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow, that’s the worst idea ever.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 29, 2011 10:53 AM EDT reply actions 7 recs
This
Olympic boxing-style judging doesn’t work in Olympic boxing.
"With gold thou boughtest Gýmir's daughter,
and so gavest away thy sword:
but when Muspell's sons through the dark forest ride,
thou, unhappy, wilt not have wherewith to fight."
~ Lokasenna
by VenusBlue on Mar 29, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
When writing this, I knew I would not be without criticism, but I also suspected that I might see some debate as to how this type of system would fail, and not simply a “ït sucks”.
If fans and journalists argue that statistically Fighter A should have won since he had landed so many more strikes than Fighter B, shouldn’t he be awarded points based on that rather than giving him 10 points and his opponent 9?
The thing is, we’ve seen Olympic boxing. It’s ruined that sport.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 29, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
And is pro boxing is in any better shape? The old standard scoring has marred the sport.
When is see scorecards for a 12-round title fight with such lopsided scoring cards it is any wonder that the sports isn’t the draw it used to be.
The ten-point system leaves a lot of room for a judge to favor the last 10 seconds of a round and not always the entirety of the round.
Its sad when pro boxing can be compared to figure skating since there is a such a disparage is scoring.
Isn’t any form of scoring a fight more honorable than the 10-point must?
Really?
And is pro boxing is in any better shape? The old standard scoring has marred the sport.
You honestly think boxing is in the position it’s in because of the scoring system?
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
Well there is the barrage of match-makers who pad fighters records with wins over guys with less than stellar opponents(you know the 3 wins and 25 losses journeymen fighters). The 5-million lettered organizations that claim to have a world champion. The shifty promoters who run off without paying their fighters (although there are a growing number of MMA fighers who know that feeling as well). Fight fixing.
I realize the scoring system is actually one of pro boxing’’s lesser problems, but it is still highly flawed.
Look at the robberies that occur in every Olympic boxing tournament
Every one looks like Leonard Garcia’s recent career.
"With gold thou boughtest Gýmir's daughter,
and so gavest away thy sword:
but when Muspell's sons through the dark forest ride,
thou, unhappy, wilt not have wherewith to fight."
~ Lokasenna
limited
This style of judging has two flows, firstly there is no place for the significance of a strike. A common problem with Olympic boxing as is, it encourages many weaker blows, not KO’s. Secondly how many points should be awarded for a take-down? 2, 3, 5. Is a take-down worth more than 3 arm punches, or 5 clean head kicks? Or is it not that simple. For me the takedown is only as good as what you do with it, if the takedown does no damage, what if it does though? You have the issue of control on the ground? How do we score the positions and transitions? I think this type of scoring system only worked because boxing is a linear sport with many restrictions, and although MMA is similar on the outside, with how it is promoted (fighters fighting) I think it is vary much more varied. To be blunt nether striking sports nor grappling sports have a system that will work well with MMA. I think we need to think outside the box in general for an answer as opposed to looking into other boxes.
No. No. A thousand times no.
Olympic-style boxing judging is terrible. Who ends up winning often has little actual relation to who landed more clean, effective punches. It rewards throwing lots of pitty-pat jabs instead of throwing with power, in combination, or to the body. It counts all strikes as equal, when it’s plainly obvious that some strikes are far more significant than others. In Olympic boxing, a crushing haymaker counts the same as a flicked jab. There’s a reason that pro boxers who fight too much in the amateur style are derisively called “point fighters”.
And how would you even apply it to grappling?
In short, it’s terrible, and you’re a terrible person for even considering it.
by Verklemptomaniac on Mar 29, 2011 11:22 AM EDT reply actions
Worst.Idea.Ever
http://unintelligentdefense.blogspot.com
by MattParker117 on Mar 29, 2011 11:22 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
In regards to grappling, points would be awarded for takedowns, submission attempts and transitions.
Everyone seems to argue that some fighters win a fight by winning the last two rounds by using the ""lay-and-pray" approach. If he’s not attempting to improve position or trying to finish the fight, he will not score points.
My other point was in awarding point for “effective striking”. You are not scoring points for every little punch or kick thrown or landed, but for effective kicks and hits.
But you’re still making no differentiations. Slams count the same as dragging a guy to the mat? A transition from full guard to half guard counts the same as one to mount? A half-completed kimura attempt counts the same as a locked-in triangle that the opponent manages to ride out until the end of the round.
And “effective striking” doesn’t improve matters any. A jab is an effective strike, just a less effective one. So is a headkick. You’re gonna count those the same?
by Verklemptomaniac on Mar 29, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
You could make things more complicated and say a jab is worth a point, a leg kick that wobbles his opponent is worth 5 points, a takedown is worth 10 points, and a knockdown due to a strike is worth 20 points. But then the wrestler will complain that the striker has an unfair advantage, because his takedown is worth less than the striker’s knockdown. I don’t know if it makes more sense to award for a lucky punch then strong work ethic.
Except no one would have the time to make those differentiations in a real-time.
Do you have a separate button for each technique? That’s a ridiculous idea.
None more gangster.
Tweeter!
It wasn't my suggestion to give Cecil Peoples a friggin Simon game.
My argument was for one button – one point.
It was others that insist that certain activities are worth more points.
I am just saying that by giving the judge some method of scoring the fight during the fight increases the chances of a fair scoring system.
If I told you something five minutes ago, and asked you to repeat it, chances are you would have forgotten about it.
So why do we expect a judge to remember everything that occurs during a five-minute round, and give it a trivial 10-9 score? Or should he score the fight as its happening, so that you take out the guesswork later?
So you’re supposed to score kicks (to the legs, body, and head), punches (jabs, power punches, body punches), elbows, takedowns (slams included), ground transitions, submission attempts, and more all with… one button?
So by your scoring system, ten light jabs would be worth more than one almost-KO punch?
None more gangster.
Tweeter!
Isn't This What CompuStrike and the like do?
Everytime I hear how a fighter got robbed, someone point to CompuStrike or one of the other analytic sites and point out all the statistics during the fight. How do they track every takedown or jab? Don’t they have someone pressing a friggin button everytime something happens?
I don’t know what the light jab to power punch conversion rate should be, but maybe that’s the path we need to take.
"A lucky punch"
vs “Strong work ethic.” Interesting comparison there. You could just as easily use “a well time, well placed, damaging strike” vs “a brute-force tackle”. Or, y’know, some sort of balanced comparison.
Also, if we’re doing it with buttons like Olympic judging, will you need a different button for each different point value? What happens if different judges disagree on the point value of a particular strike? How do you score combination without turning judging into a game of Simon?
by Verklemptomaniac on Mar 29, 2011 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah....
Olympic boxing judging wouldn’t work in MMA. Hell it doesn’t work in boxing. I remember watching boxing at that last summer Olympics it was like a weird type of fencing. I remember listening to Teddy Atlas every other fight trashing the system and making himself a sad panda just talking about it. Having entire combinations go unscored simply because the reaction time of a judge was a bit off is just…well…horrible.
The 10-9 must system is fine. It’s the incompetence of the people judging the fights that’s the problem.
Everyone seems to argue that some fighters win a fight by winning the last two rounds by using the ""lay-and-pray" approach. If he’s not attempting to improve position or trying to finish the fight, he will not score points.
My other point was in awarding point for "effective striking". You are not scoring points for every little punch or kick thrown or landed, but for effective kicks and hits.
In other words, the Unified Rules but with arbitrary point values and reaction times of people who think that Leonard Garcia is landing punches because he grunts and throws hard. No thanks.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
Dammit
The 10-9 must system is fine.
10-point must I mean…
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
It might as well be 10-9 must the way most judges score rounds.
"With gold thou boughtest Gýmir's daughter,
and so gavest away thy sword:
but when Muspell's sons through the dark forest ride,
thou, unhappy, wilt not have wherewith to fight."
~ Lokasenna
True.
Which just reinforces the point. It’s the judging, not the judging system.
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
But can you improve judging without fixing the judging system.
Judging is based on effective striking, grappling, aggression and octagon/cage/ring control.
After a five-minute round is over, the judge is expected to recall all that they witnessed and award 10 points to the winner (the fighter who exemplified those four criteria) and nine or less to the loser.
The nine of less issue was debated to death after Fitch/Penn with no clear answer in sight.
Does it make sense to judge a 5-minute round after its completed or rather score the fight during? Even if you don’t use points based on 3 out of five judges, there must be a better way to score the fight.
But there are so many techniques in MMA
How does the judge actually watch the fight when he’s trying to decide which button to press?
"With gold thou boughtest Gýmir's daughter,
and so gavest away thy sword:
but when Muspell's sons through the dark forest ride,
thou, unhappy, wilt not have wherewith to fight."
~ Lokasenna
“Oh shit, I pressed ‘leg kick’ when I meant to press ‘slam’! Ah, fuck it, I’m just counting everything as a leg kick from now on.”
And what happens when Cecil Peoples spills his nacho cheese sauce in his keypad?
None more gangster.
Tweeter!
Its that Nacho Cheese That Gets Us In Trouble
I have no clue how old Cecil Peoples is (but he certainly is no spring chicken), but some form of electronic scoring device may be better for him then a pen and paper. I think he’s probably missed watching a few rounds because of nacho cheese getting spilled on the scorecard and looking over at one of the other judges cards to score the fight. Of course, in his rush, he scored the round 29-27 for the other guy.
That’s a terrible proposition. You know the elderly are terrified by computers.
None more gangster.
Tweeter!
Cecil will have an appointed assistant with him
Someone tech-savvy yet ugly, so that they don’t distract him from the fight.
But there are so many techniques in MMA
How does the judge remember what he’s seen in the last 5 minutes and correctly judge the fight based on those 4 criteria?
Agreed
How does a judge watch a five minute round and decide that Fighter A gets 10 points and fighter B gets 8?
While the beauty in MMA is with its varied transitions, techniques and possibilities. No rational human being can absorb 300 seconds of action, and properly gauge all the criteria they must without bias or error.
If you don’t provide a judge with some method of registering what he has seen, what is to say he isn’t compelled to score based on the last 30 seconds of what he saw, and negate the first 4 and 1/2 minutes.
That has nothing to do with the number of techniques.
But MMA can’t be scored – even with an Olympic boxing style system – with one single button to score every attack. But if the judge has to look down to find the appropriate button he’s not watching the fight.
"With gold thou boughtest Gýmir's daughter,
and so gavest away thy sword:
but when Muspell's sons through the dark forest ride,
thou, unhappy, wilt not have wherewith to fight."
~ Lokasenna
Reply fail
"With gold thou boughtest Gýmir's daughter,
and so gavest away thy sword:
but when Muspell's sons through the dark forest ride,
thou, unhappy, wilt not have wherewith to fight."
~ Lokasenna
One simple change, let’s start using the full range of the ten-point system… I want to see 10-0 rounds, as well as 10-10 rounds. What they’re currently doing is basically a 2 point must system, it’s not enough to accurately describe how each round compares to the others .
Well, if a guy does nothing in a wrong, he deserves 0 points.
Right now, we decide how to score a round based on how dominant a fighter was over the other. How about we reverse this and judge how poorly the loser of the round did compared to the winner of the round? The winner gets 10 points as it’s a ten-point-must system, then the loser gets 0 if he did nothing, 5 if he did okay, and 9 if he came close to win it, etc.
Please god no
I am actually a licensed USA Boxing amateur official, and man the system sucks, at the Olympic level you have 5 judges pressing a button, if they dont all simultaneously click the button at damn near the same time a punch is not registered.
The Roy Jones robbery at South Korea ruined amateur boxing forever.
Go watch Aaron Pryor vs Thomas Hearns for an amateur title, it looks like an actual boxing match, go watch Luis Yanes or any other boxer from the 2008 Olympics, its horrible to watch and produces bad fighters destined to fail in the pro’s unless your name is Andre Ward.
How Can You Fix Judging If You Can't Place a Value on Strikes or Transitions
The biggest problem people have had with the notion of Olympic-style point judging is in how much weight is placed on what occur during the fight. You would need more points given for power strikes compared to light jabs, or ground transitions versus failed . It doesn’t appear fair that all would be graded the same.
Then I hear the 10-9 system isn’t flawed, the judging is. How do you propose we fix the judging?
During one five-minute round, Fighter A outboxed his opponent for 3 minutes with light, but mostly ineffective jabs, and Fighter B took him to the ground and laid on him for the rest of the round, minus 4 or 5 powerful head strikes. Judge A awards the round to Fighter A as he was in control for most of the round, Judge B awards fighter B the round because of the takedown and the more effective striking. Judge C calls it an even round as she felt neither had the upper hand.
Who’s right? They all are based on what was mandated.
Unless you place actual value on what the fighters did, you will continue to see this type of scoring. Award Fighter A x amount of points for each of his jabs, and award Fighter B x amount of points for his takedown, and some other amount of points for his transitions and strikes.
Forget about the 3 out 5 judges, but at least place value on what the fighters have done instead of this needless 10-9 crap.
Unless you place actual value on what the fighters did, you will continue to see this type of scoring.
You’re trying to objectify something that’s completely subjective. No matter what judging system is used, there will be flaws. MMA can not be broken down into straight numbers.
Example: It’s nearly impossible to quantify a “power punch”. Let’s take two fighters – Bisping and Henderson. Could you consider their “power” punches equal? What’s considered a “power” punch for one fighter could be little more than a jab for another. Even if you want to go to the numbers for it: Sport Science tagged Rampage’s hardest punch at 1800 lbs. of force. Shogun came in at 1169 lbs. So do you take that into consideration when you’re counting power strikes? Would Rampage get more points for his power punches since they’re stronger?
And for an extreme and stupid example, let’s do this: we’ll award one point for jabs and five points for power strikes. I’ll let you get in six jabs, then I’ll kick you in the head as hard as I can. Sound fair?
None more gangster.
Tweeter!
I'm not a fan of this idea,
but I am a big fan of adding monitors for judges (IIRC, this has only been done a few times) and have some sort of accountability for the judges, like showing the scores during a fight. Other than that- education, education education.
I have to say, for the most part, this idea is terrible.
The buzzer system and point fighting are bad ideas. But 5 judges is an idea I can get behind. Dilutes the 50-45 Frankie Edgar scores.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
