Revisiting the Rewritten Judging Criteria in the MMA Unified Rules
by Mike Fagan on Jun 22, 2011 1:00 PM EDT
in MMA Analysis
Email
Print
Back in November of 2009, I attempted a rewrite of the judging criteria in the Unified Rules. I believed then, and I still believe now, that the current judging criteria complicates what should be a fairly intuitive process.
Mike Goldberg sings his refrain -- effective striking, grappling, aggression, and Oct-a-gon control! -- before every UFC event, but have you ever tried to explain the scoring criteria to an MMA layperson?
"So yeah, those are the four criteria. Now, each category is given importance in that order. Except when there was more grappling than striking, then grappling is the most important. OK, so...what's effective grappling? Well, it's the 'successful execution of takedowns and reversals.' Now, Octagon control..."
Here's what I ended up doing:
1. Remove aggression and cage control. These are superfluous categories. Aggression, the act of coming forward with a legal strike (or offense), is already a part of cage control, which includes a provision for controlling the pace of the bout. And Scott Christ of Bad Left Hook debunked the idea of cage control (or "ring generalship" in boxing) in June of '09:
This is for the boxer who was able to force the other fighter into fighting their fight. This is sort of a BS catch-all, like when people talk about 'intangibles' in other sports. There really isn't a good way of measuring ring generalship, so a lot of folks just ignore it. Unfortunately, I feel like some judges use this as an excuse to score a round a certain way when there really isn't a defensible way of scoring the round the way they score it.
For instance, take the UFC 123 main event between Lyoto Machida and Quinton Jackson. Was Jackson controlling the cage by pressuring Machida and taking the center of the Octagon? Or was Machida in control by making Jackson chase him around the perimeter of the fence?
And why does it matter anyway? If, in the most extreme example possible, two fighters, in lieu of throwing strikes, dance around the cage, do you score the round for the fighter who led the procession? It seems to me that cage control is used as a sort of tiebreaker in close rounds, and if the round is that close, why not score it 10-10?
2. Consolidated striking and grappling into effective offense. If we agree that a fighter's goal should be to end the fight (and I think that's near-universal thinking), then we should reward fighters for actions that have a direct effect on that goal. Positional advances have been removed as effective offense (but not entirely from the criteria). Instead, judges are instructed to reward effective striking, threatening submission attempts, and "slam" takedowns. (Slams were not part of the original rewrite.)
3. Introduced positional control. This comes into play 1) if effective offense is otherwise even and 2) more than half, approximately, of the round takes place on the mat with the offensive fighter in dominant position. (Dominant position being defined as side control, mount, or back control with hooks.)
4. Clarified the ten-point must system. Despite some inherent flaws, the ten-point must is a fine scoring system provided that judges utilize it correctly. By liberalizing the use of non-10-9 rounds, scores should better reflect the action in the cage.
5. Miscellaneous. I included the use of television monitors back in 2009, and that has since be adopted by some (most?) commissions. I amended the first clause to include "three or five judges" to score bouts. Evaluating the guard has also been clarified.
Outside of some grammatical changes and a couple of minor additions to the rules, the document remains largely unchanged from the one that I posted in 2009. Check it out after the jump.
13:46-24A.13 Judging
(a) All bouts will be evaluated by three or five judges.
(b) When applicable, judging stations should be equipped with television monitors. Judges are permitted to watch the monitors during the bout. Between round replays will not be shown to officials for the purpose of judging.
(c) The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for an even round, which is scored (10-10).
(d) Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts contests by effective offense and, in lieu of a distinction in effective offense, positional control.
(e) Effective offense includes clean, effective strikes, threatening submission attempts, and "slam" takedowns.
(1) A threatening submission attempt is any grappling hold in which the threatened fighter must use counter grappling measures to prevent being submitted.
(2) A "slam" is a takedown in which the defending fighter has both legs lifted off the mat and is driven to the mat in one motion.
(f) Positional control should only be utilized in the absence of separation in effective offense and when more than half of the round was contested with at least one fighter on the ground. A fighter may be given a round for positional control if he or she maintained dominant position (defined as side control, mount, or back control with hooks) for a majority of the round.
(g) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;
(1) A 10-10 round is awarded when neither fighter has done enough to separate his or her performance from his or her opponent. If a judge does not feel confident scoring a round for either contestant, a judge should score the round 10-10.
(2) A 10-9 round is any round in which a fighter demonstrates a basic, but clear level of superiority. A 10-9 round may be characterized by a greater amount of effective strikes landed, a knockdown, or threatening submission attempts.
(3) A 10-8 round is any round in which a fighter demonstrates a significant level of superiority. The round winner will typically have put himself in position to finish the bout during the round. A 10-8 round may be characterized by multiple knockdowns, a knockdown followed by effective ground strikes, or a lopsided disparity in effective strikes landed.
(4) A 10-7 round is any round in which a fighter put himself in position to finish the bout multiple times.
(5) A 10-6 round is any round in which a fighter was in position to finish the bout for a majority of the round and the round loser produced no effective offense.
(h) For the purposes of grappling, the guard (defined as a grappling position in which a grounded fighter, on his back, has both legs in between in between his and his opponent's hips) should be considered a neutral position. Strikes delivered from the fighter within the guard should be given more credit than strikes delivered from the fighter on his back.
168 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with chucking aggression and cage control.
Threatening from ANY position should be heavily waited by judges. That includes off-the-back, of course.
You absolutely CANNOT remove aggression and cage control
What do you think would happen when you get two counterstrikers? Two fighters would just stand across from each other without anything happening. If Rampage didn’t attack Machida in the first two rounds of their fight, they would have been two of the worst rounds ever. Whoever lands the first couple strikes can coast to victory by just staying out of range.
This isn’t boxing where fighters are almost always within range of each other. The threat of kicks and takedowns necessitate distance, so you can only get action when someone takes a risk to initiate it.
(BTW, you mean weighted)
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
If neither guy does anything
It’s a draw. Simple as. If one guy keeps staying out of range, that’s what the rule about timidity is for.
"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
Although I would like ot bring back
The purse penalties for stalling.
Sure you can have drawn rounds, but the fight quality goes down the toilet. You have to keep rewarding aggression, because otherwise there will be even more incentive to fight safe than there is today. I don’t know how you can argue that.
The timidity rule is too subjective, and won’t do anything when both guys are doing the same under the belief that they are winning the round.
Given equal skills, in MMA the guy attacking first has a greater probability of taking damage. The reason is simple: distance gives the defender time to react, and the initiator must compromise his defense to start the attack. Therefore, you would only attack if you were clearly losing the round or have some other incentive.
Removing that incentive is just plain foolish.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
If fighter A lands a few strikes to “take the lead”, then fighter B is going to have to come forward and attack to even the score. This is the same in any sport. If we’re playing soccer and my team scores, guess what? The other side has to come back. So the responsibility is now on B to come forward and attack. That’s what A gains from attacking first. If B still chooses to stand around he loses and that’s his problem. While if A now begins to run from B he can be penalised for timidity.
If this fantastical “both guys staring at each other” situation arises, the threat of a double DQ should concentrate minds, to say nothing of what a promoter might do afterwards.
"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
This is the same in any sport. If we’re playing soccer and my team scores, guess what? The other side has to come back.
It’s not the same because you don’t know the score. How often do we see fighters both thinking that they won? How do you distinguish between one solid punch and several jabs?
BTW, soccer is a perfect example of why aggression needs to be rewarded. When one team gets a lead, the other usually goes into a defensive shell and the game loses most of its entertainment value. It used to be a huge problem in hockey, too, until the rule changes helped to limit the effectiveness of the trap and other defense strategies. By rewarding aggression, the guy with a clear but slim lead in the round can’t sit back or else his opponent will get enough of a reward for aggression to even it up or steal it.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I think its a big jump to say fighters won't be aggressive bc judges don't have to score "aggression"
I dont think that scoring criteria plays any part in how a fighter tries to win a fight. A counter striker or BJJ guy is going to fight that way, and I doubt any fighter ever worries about his ‘aggression’ at the end of a round. I think the point is to have judges not score points based on it. Its not a rule its a scoring guideline.
I am Genuinely going to miss Macho Man Randy Savage. RIP
I'm not saying they won't be aggressive, I'm saying there's less incentive for it
It’s a move in the wrong direction.
You really think that scoring criteria doesn’t play any role in fights? Why do you think there are so many accusations of point fighting? The style of a fighter is very much determined by what will win him the fight, and even if you dispute that, the styles of fighters not cut by the UFC is determined largely by who wins and thus by scoring criteria.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Answers please
Sure you can have drawn rounds, but the fight quality goes down the toilet
Slightest shred of evidence for this statement?
You have to keep rewarding aggression, because otherwise there will be even more incentive to fight safe than there is today. I don’t know how you can argue that.
Well, the easiest way to argue that is “Leonard Garcia”. He’s constantly rewarded for aggression, yet the butt of many MMA judging related jokes. It’s this simple: if a fighter is effectively aggressive, it will show in the effectiveness of his output.
Given equal skills, in MMA the guy attacking first has a greater probability of taking damage. The reason is simple: distance gives the defender time to react, and the initiator must compromise his defense to start the attack. Therefore, you would only attack if you were clearly losing the round or have some other incentive.
Removing that incentive is just plain foolish.
What’s with all the preconceived bias and scoring on “probability”?
Why not simply score for whoever is striking better on a case by case basis, no matter what direction they’re moving in or who is initiating? How can you argue against merely prioritizing the more effective offense?
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
What evidence is needed? The proposed scenario is where two fighters think they have a lead in the round (or the fight) and neither feels compelled to do anything to score more points. That’s the definition of a bad fight.
I’m not saying reward aggression so much that Garcia wins rounds while getting picked apart. My beef is with those who say aggression should be eliminated entirely. I’m talking about keeping it around as scoring criteria with lower weight than striking and grappling.
Why not simply score for whoever is striking better on a case by case basis, no matter what direction they’re moving in or who is initiating?
I’ve already explained why not. You’ll get stalemates and lack of action if aggression gets no weight. The winning formula will be to land some jabs and leg kicks and stay away. I would much rather give Rampage the first round against Machida for moving forward, landing more head shots, and initiating the little action that we did see rather than giving it to Machida for landing a few leg kicks and staying out of range.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
How can both fighters be certain they have a lead?
(Cecil Peoples notwithstanding).
"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
It happens all the time
How often do you see dissenting opinions on who won the fight? It’s very normal.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions
How often do you see both fighters staring at each other waiting to win a decision?
"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
About half the time you hear booing
I don’t mean strictly staring, but two guys not getting close enough to do anything significant does indeed happen.
The central point I’m making is that it would happen even more if aggression wasn’t rewarded. It’s a step in the wrong direction.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Dana White will cut them ASAP
Scoring isn’t supposed to push action and make fights exciting; that’s up to the fighters.
See Gerald Harris for the World’s Largest Yellow Card ever given for stalling.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 23, 2011 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions
My beef is with those who say aggression should be eliminated entirely. I’m talking about keeping it around as scoring criteria with lower weight than striking and grappling.
It already has a lower weight, with the order being “effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.”
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 22, 2011 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Hence my use of the word “keeping”. I know that’s how it is, and I want it to stay that way instead of removing it.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions
What evidence is needed? The proposed scenario is where two fighters think they have a lead in the round (or the fight) and neither feels compelled to do anything to score more points. That’s the definition of a bad fight.
OK, well that’s totally different than your statement that “fights go down the toilet” in draw rounds. A draw round is simply equal offense, whether that’s little or a lot, and an even round doesn’t mean it’s a bad fight by any means.
I’ve already explained why not. You’ll get stalemates and lack of action if aggression gets no weight. The winning formula will be to land some jabs and leg kicks and stay away. I would much rather give Rampage the first round against Machida for moving forward, landing more head shots, and initiating the little action that we did see rather than giving it to Machida for landing a few leg kicks and staying out of range.
That’s why I asked for evidence, because there is simply no basis that fighters will just stand there and look at each other if you remove aggression from scoring. That’s quite a shocking conclusion. I’m thinking that fights will be the same, but you simply reward who is actually scoring more offensively.
Fighters still have to be aggressive to land strikes and show grappling dominance, and you still score that, you just wouldn’t subtract aggression from the mix and then re-add it as a separate component.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Even in the case of two counterstrikers, there are only a few cases where there is little activity. For the most part, we tend to see enough activity even when there are two counterstrikers fighting against each other.
Check out the C&D Channel on YouTube for MMA reviews, predictions, analysis, and other MMA related content.
And in either, both, or in any scenario
The actions of the fighters have very little to do with one of the lowest scoring credentials on the totem pole.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that guard passes, dominant positions and submission attempts deserve a lot more credit than what we currently see. A non-damaging takedown into guard which is met with elbows from the bottom and multiple sub attempts (triangle, straight arm, kimura, etc) almost always wins the round for the guy that landed a soft single and hugged up.
I don’t think we’re unfairly punishing American wrestlers by telling them they have to justify the takedown with damage/guard passes. It’s infuriating to see guys laying in guard, tucking no-look ear punches just enough to not get stood up. It’s point-fighting and should be frowned upon by judges. Ditto to takedowns that are immediately negated— should have no baring whatsoever.
"I can be friends with anybody. Man. Woman. Cat. Dog. Fish..... Alien." -Rampage
by Charles Awad on Jun 22, 2011 1:19 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
i have always liked you blackout.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jun 22, 2011 1:24 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Position means nothing without causing damage
or putting attempting a submission. Once the fighter causes damage or attempts a submission, we can judge that on its own merit and do not need positioning.
by MrPants on Jun 22, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You'd think
It seems natural to discredit putting yourself in a non-advantageous position, no? Take a guy down and then have to escape a triangle, and win the round on account of it? Seems like easy logic to negate the act that put you in danger, yet it doesn’t seem to work.
"I can be friends with anybody. Man. Woman. Cat. Dog. Fish..... Alien." -Rampage
by Charles Awad on Jun 22, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
In creating an advantage for position you are makin assumptions about the fighters
You assume fighter A is in a disadvantageous position on the bottom while fighter B is on top. But that really depends on the fighters skill levels. The best way to determine if a position is really advantageous or not is the result of the positioning. In football they don’t look at the number of touchdowns and field goals scored and then add some additional metric of yardage gained. The measurement should be in the ends not the means. Is a fighter causing damage while on top in full guard worth less than a fighter causing damage on top having passed to side control?
by MrPants on Jun 22, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The measurement should be in the ends not the means
You do realize that people use the same reasoning for saying submission attempts are meaningless without the finish, right? Heck, you could say the same about strikes, so basically all decisions should be ties.
It’s difficult to score submission attempts. What is a serious attempt? I, for one, think guillotine attempts shouldn’t count for anything, because so many guys get out of them so easily and don’t care about the attempt when going for a takedown. It’s the grappling equivalent of a wild punch that leaves you in a bad position.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
...
You realize that the guillotine choke is one of the common common submission finishes?
1. Anderson Silva is waiting for you to punch him.
2. That guy is Anderson Silva.
3. Don't fucking punch that guy.
by Chris Barton on Jun 22, 2011 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Not at the highest level. How many guillotine attempts have guys like Fitch, Koscheck, Maynard, Sherk, etc been able to get out of? Hell, even the submission prone Sonnen, who probably sees guillotines attempted on him every fight, hasn’t been caught in one for 7 years.
The probability of success of a guillotine is its own reward. No need to reward them any more than that, just like there’s no need to reward a wild haymaker that misses.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, evidence for your statements?
1. Many high-level fighters finish with guillotines: Pequeno, Stevenson, and in submission tournaments
2. MMA rules aren’t specialized for “the highest level” as the amateur level and smaller shows all fall under their umbrella.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Neither Tibau nor Guillard in 2007 were high level, nor are the guys Pequeno submitted years ago.
For the lower level, I say guillotines are their own reward. Use them wisely, because if you don’t succeed, you get in a bad position. I maintain that they are like wild power punches that make you vulnerable. If you miss, you get no credit.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm losing interest in this debate
So you’re saying some submission attempts, by nature of the hold itself, should be weighed less, AGAIN, rather than just scoring whatever happens in whatever context?
Why on earth wouldn’t you be OK with just scoring what is actually being demonstrated in the fight? Your entire outlook is based on having a preconceived bias, which is the exact opposite of what objective scoring is supposed to do.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I have thought about that
Most submission attempts do not cause damage, however, a fighter should be awarded for attempting to and and getting close to finishing the fight. Positional control does not do that. I don’t find scoring submissions difficult, but I have a grappling background. A lot of guillotine attempts are useless. Are you unable to distinguish between a fighter just grabbing onto a head an a threatening submission?
But if your following the line of this thread, are you arguing that submission attempts shouldn’t be rewarded, but advantageous position should be? Do you think that lay and pray was a stroke of MMA strategic genius?
by MrPants on Jun 22, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Are you unable to distinguish between a fighter just grabbing onto a head an a threatening submission?
It doesn’t matter how good it looks. Even well sunk in guillotine attempts are almost impossible to finish against guys that know how to defend them. A <5% chance of finishing isn’t particularly meaningful in my book.
As for lay and pray, it is almost always the result of the guy on the bottom making no attempt to escape or submit and only trying to prevent damage. Rashad-Rampage is a perfect example of that – Rampage was hugging Rashad or locking up his arms way more than the other way around.
There’s also implicit dominance (similar to why wrestling has the objective of putting a guy on his back to win). 12-6 elbows are a weird rule that if eliminated would really help the guy on top penetrate defenses. It’s even more bizarre that the guy on the bottom is often allowed to use them. The rules prevents a guy from on top using his hands to choke or press with his forearm to choke (which is again a preculiarity given that most chokes use the forearm, just differently). From side control, there’s the implicit dominance of knees to the head.
Positional control needs value. I understand the need for rules, but I don’t want to see fighting where guys are hiding behind them. That’s what makes boxing, muay thai, kickboxing, etc much less appealing to me.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree with lay and pray, it is almost always to result of a fighter being so concerned with maintaining positional control that they do not attempt to do anything else. I also disagree with the likelihood of a deep guillotine being successful.
However, accepting that lay and pray is caused by
the guy on the bottom making no attempt to escape or submitThen my system would create an incentive for an active bottom by rewarding submission attempts, while yours removes any incentive to do anything but stall on the bottom since submissions count as nothing and a position change could harm them.
I do not agree with all of the rules in place, but we should not be using judging to create a situation where we are trying to figure out who would win if the rules were different. Should we just give a win to everyone on top in north south position because they could just rain down knees?
by MrPants on Jun 22, 2011 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I didn’t say submissions count for nothing. I was only addressing guillotine attempts that end up with you on the bottom. Otherwise, solid strikes from the bottom (not the pitter-patter variety), submission attempts, sweeps, etc will all score for the guy on the bottom.
As for north-south, yes, I do believe that the fighter on top should be given points for being in that position. Not a win, because there are ways out (e.g. Fedor-Randleman), but that’s up to the fighter on the bottom to execute.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
get out of them and hurt their neck and ears in the process.
You don’t know much about ground fighting if you are saying this.
I think all judges should have to have 1 year of submission grappling training before being allowed to judge a bout.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jun 22, 2011 3:04 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You don’t know much about ground fighting if you are saying this
Recurring them of his.
1. Anderson Silva is waiting for you to punch him.
2. That guy is Anderson Silva.
3. Don't fucking punch that guy.
by Chris Barton on Jun 22, 2011 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
1) The problem with scoring is that it does not translate to the average fan, why should ground expertise be the deciding factor?
2) Why should BJJ scoring be the deciding factor in fights? Why not wrestling? Should takedowns not count unless there is hip control? Or should throws count more if the person lands flat on their back?
3) I think you use groundfighting experience as an excuse to dismiss those who disagree with you rather than create substantive arguments to support your ideas.
by MrPants on Jun 22, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you use groundfighting experience as an excuse to dismiss those who disagree with you rather than create substantive arguments to support your ideas.
Maybe. I know when not to argue. It’s not worth it with folks who spout uneducated nonsense.
1. Anderson Silva is waiting for you to punch him.
2. That guy is Anderson Silva.
3. Don't fucking punch that guy.
by Chris Barton on Jun 22, 2011 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
hurt their neck and ears?
Are you serious? Judges are supposed to make assumptions about injuries or pain felt?
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Can I require them to have a year of wrestling instruction as well?
"Complacency is your demise." - Kerry King
No because fuck wrestlers
They’re stupid lay and prayers that shouldn’t get credit for take downs while failed submissions are rewarded. I mean, duh.
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
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 22, 2011 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
If you are going to reward takedowns
Then you need to reward pulling guard
No, I don't.
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
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2011 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
So a fighter who feels being on top is stronger for them
Is somehow automatically better than a fighter who feels being on bottom is better?
If you feel being on the bottom is better, then you should be able to a) sweep or b) submit your opponent. If you do neither, then the guy on top clearly had the right idea, and you lose the round.
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
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2011 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions
By the same measure then
The guy who performs the takedown should be able to land blows or submit his opponent. Why the double standard? Why is top position, on its own, inherently better?
Because it is.
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
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 23, 2011 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Again, love ya Subo
But again, your argument always boils down to “because it is”.
You have no idea how unbelievable my social status and overall wealth would be if I could win arguments by that logic.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 23, 2011 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
"Ear/bicep friction" is GROSSLY underscored
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
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 22, 2011 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I with you.. for the most part.
We part on takedowns though. A takedown is a deliberate act of aggression with possible fight-ending consequences, ala Hughes vs. Newton. Certainly it at least looks more dramatic than a good jab.
by E_liminatorjr on Jun 22, 2011 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Without overcomplicating things for feeble minded judges, it has to be devalued in some way. If I had my way, sure, in a perfect world we could tell them that it still counts, but not as much as passing guard, or producing damage after the fact. Do I think many judges will understand this almost too basic premise? Sadly, no.
"I can be friends with anybody. Man. Woman. Cat. Dog. Fish..... Alien." -Rampage
by Charles Awad on Jun 22, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I was struggling with that myself. Asking them to parse so fine a point – well, maybe after we get some turnover to newer, fresher judges.
by E_liminatorjr on Jun 22, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
The "looks" argument is underlooked, IMO
In almost every fight, you hear the same cheer for a takedown as you do for a typical solidly landed punch. It has good entertainment value.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions
subjectivity
the takedown is an act of aggression, but its effectiveness relies on what happens after a fighter has put his opponent in that position. It certainly isn’t scored the same way when someone jumps guard, which is also “a deliberate act of aggression with possible fight ending consequences”. As it is today the judges see A on top of B so A must be winning.
I think people forget that once you are in a guard position, its basically a neutral position (if it stops the top man’s offense & the guard produces no sub attacks, i.e. “possible fight-ending consequences”) or else the ref wouldn’t have the option to stand them up.
Who's the only one here who knows illegal ninja moves from the government?
No holds barred, no time for move fakin,
Gots to get the loot so I can bring home the bacon - Charlie Brown
Voicing my dissent.
Any number of failed Submission attempts should count for less than one successful Takedown. Just like any number of missed Strikes should count for less than one successful Takedown.
I don’t understand where this line of thought originates. If I get taken down in a BJJ tourney, no amount of failed Sub Attempts is going to overcome those 2 points. If I can’t even win like that in my own sport, why would I expect it in MMA?
I agree that they shouldn’t score a negated Takedown; however, a Takedown into an active Guard is not a negated Takedown. A negated Takedown is when the attacker puts the defender on the mat, but the defender pops quickly back to his feet.
I have no problem with encouraging Passes and dominant positions, but scoring failed Sub Attempts is preposterous.
by Kung-Fu Joe on Jun 22, 2011 2:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
What’s truly preposterous is the idea that securing a submission that could possibly lead to the end of the fight holds less value than bringing someone down to the mat. Your comparison is fruitless— it’s not a missed punch. Not all punches end fights. Nor do all subs.
"I can be friends with anybody. Man. Woman. Cat. Dog. Fish..... Alien." -Rampage
by Charles Awad on Jun 22, 2011 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
To take the “preposterous” angle one further, what’s truly preposterous is the constant comparison of striking attempts to submission attempts. They’re entirely different and should be treated as such.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
Just a weird comparison all around. I’d hate to think he trains BJJ and doesn’t care when guys are working on finishing with submissions, but that merely being the superior wrestler is doing more to win. I also truly hate when people say “then train more takedown defense!!”, like that’s all we want these guys to do is drill with an Iranian wrestler all day and get pinned against the fence for 15 minutes. I have respect for great wrestlers, but it ain’t greco.
"I can be friends with anybody. Man. Woman. Cat. Dog. Fish..... Alien." -Rampage
by Charles Awad on Jun 22, 2011 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Working on finishing submissions is great. The reward in doing so is self-evident: if you finish, you win. We shouldn’t award failure just because someone’s attempting to end the fight.
A guy throwing big looping haymakers is trying to end the fight. Should we award him for it when he misses?
I am a Purple Belt in BJJ. What’s more, I’m a guard player, by preference. I never wrestled before starting Jiu-Jitsu, so I feel very comfortable fighting off my back. However, if I get taken down, I know I am losing. I don’t pretend that any amount of failed attacks is going to win me the bout. If I spent the whole match on the mat, working for subs but not getting them, I don’t cry when I lose the bout by 2 points. I go back to my coach and try to get better at my attacks.
If you don’t have Takedown defense, you’d better have good sweeps. If you don’t have good sweeps, you’d better have great submissions. If you haven’t got Takedown Defense, Sweeps, or Submissions, why should you win?
by Kung-Fu Joe on Jun 22, 2011 4:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The lets extend the same rules to standing
The fighter who gets better angles should win the standup even if they don’t land a punch. You keep pulling in the sports scoring from BJJ and think thats part of MMA instead of BJJ itself. I am more comfortable on top, you are more comfortable on the bottom. In a sport match, I would be winning, but in reality we would both be playing to our strengths. If anything, you are pointing out a flaw in BJJ scoring rather than making a strong argument for why it should be included into MMA. MMA, in theory, is the incorporation of multiple martial arts, not the sporting version of multiple martial arts.
Again with the striking comparisons
If you’re a purple, you know that throwing a haymaker is not even remotely close to latching a submission.
And a failed submission attempt isn’t “failing”, the only one failing is the defender who allows himself to be put in a position where he could tap. A submission attempt is actually ACHIEVING the effective grappling criteria.
I don’t understand how almost being submitted is not “failing” more than threatening to end the fight. Submission attempts are registered offense and far from “failing”. They just don’t “finish the entire fight” if they’re not successful.
Big difference.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm sorry, I just fundamentally disagree with all of this from an MMA standpoint
While I am no purple belt (congrats on the achievement), I do play BJJ and I do not extol the virtues of BJJ scoring onto MMA, nor vice versa. I don’t agree with the attitude that a submission that doesn’t end with a tap is as fruitless as an errant blow. They are in no way interchangeable and I hate to think this ideal could be passed along to fighters, lest we be tortured by long and terrible wrestling matches instead of fighters doing what it takes to even attempt to stop a fight. The idea escapes me completely, I’m afraid.
"I can be friends with anybody. Man. Woman. Cat. Dog. Fish..... Alien." -Rampage
by Charles Awad on Jun 22, 2011 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
right
a failed sub attempt means someone had to be on the defense, and judges should determine that as ‘effective offense’.
It also fatigues muscle and stretches tendon/ligament, and in the case of a choke allows the defender less oxygen. So even if it isn’t fight ending, there are still repercussions from allowing the opponent to put you in that position…ask Conor Heun.
Who's the only one here who knows illegal ninja moves from the government?
No holds barred, no time for move fakin,
Gots to get the loot so I can bring home the bacon - Charlie Brown
My philosophy on scoring...
is that the primary goal of a fighter should be to finish inside the distance. Thus the scoring system should reward effort toward that end. Ideally it should not be possible to win a decision without trying to finish (unless your opponent was making even less effort to do so). With that in mind, I feel submission attempts – where credible of course – should be well rewarded, better in fact than takedown attempts which only provide an opportunity to attempt to finish, rather than constituting a finishing attempt in their own right.
"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
I think you nailed it. As a Machida fan, I’ve been wanting to throw out control and aggression for some time. Aggression is the only way Lenard Garcia could ever conceivably win a fight. When we look at most of the stupid decisions, aggression and control are usually to blame.
If you can't wow them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.
Mike, do you know anything about that scoring system designed by Doug Crosby? It was supposed to be tested by some commision funded organization right?
by Thomas Benjamin on Jun 22, 2011 1:30 PM EDT reply actions
Mike,
Effective striking can be hard to justify at times also. Why not do over all damage instead.
My example: Machida hits Rampage 15 times in the first round and Rampage connects on 5 power shots. If it were left to the judges they’d have to decide whether Machida’s effective power shots outweighed Rampage’s stronger power shots. If the language used damage instead would it be easier to score?
I hope that’s clear and not too jumbled.
If you can't wow them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.
Damage:
Cuts, abrasions, bruising, swelling, change in use of an area (ie limping), knockdowns, apparent changes in mental state, and cumulative apparent force of landed blows.
The problem is, not all damage is an indication of effectiveness. BJ Penn hardly ever bleeds, for example, and some fighters can display a fantastic chin while getting picked apart on the feet. The “look at the face” test doesn’t really work that well when one fighter marks easily and the other doesn’t.
Exactly
The goal of judging should be that, based on the sample number of rounds available (3-5): Who would win the fight if it went on forever? Fighters who get cut easily or have weak chins are less likely to win over an indefinite frame. If i land 6 punches each round and drop you 6 times each round, while you land 50 punches in each that do not create cuts, bruising, swelling, or any change in my mental status, then I should win the fight.
The goal is to end a fight and to not be finished. Things that evidence your likelihood of being finished or evidence your resistance to punishment should be considered. If I am being picked apart on the feet than it is still considered in the
cumulative apparent force of landed blows.
So If I am simply cabbage, I am not going to win the round, but pillow shots are not the same as haymakers. And if you cannot hurt me, that evidences the damage being done.
No it doesn’t have to be cuts or swelling. If fighter A connects on a huge punch and I see Fighter B fall, try to shake it off, wince, ect then I think that’s also damage. You can hear when a powerful striker hits a solid strike and it usually causes the hit-ee to fold grown, wince, or do something. If you just stand there like nothing happened after Rampage crow hops you then you’re just a bad mofo and if you can also out strike him then the bad mofo would win the round.
If you can't wow them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.
You’re penalizing guys like Fedor and helping out guys like B.J. based on the genetic makeup of the toughness of their skin.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
Yes.
Similarly, since a KO can end a fight Leben is given an advantage for the toughness of his noggin, while Arlovski suffers for it.
A cut can end a fight. A fighter who gets cut easily is more likely to have a disabling cut over the course of an indefinite fight. Based on the sampling available, a fighter who gets cut is more likely to lose over the long run.
Nobody has a problem penalizing guys who have weak chins, why are cuts different? And if they are different, we should allow cut men to completely cover and bandage a cut between rounds, since they are not related to the outcome of a fight.
agreed
It’s not penalizing anyone, except those who can’t defend against their opponent’s offense. Its in the same context as ‘if you’re getting taken down, learn takedown defense’.
It’s the clearest example of ‘effective offense’: a doctor CAN stop a fight on a cut, a giant hematoma, or the inability to see. Likewise a referee can stop the fight when a fighter is clearly disoriented or is choked out before tapping and can’t defend himself.
So a cut, wobbled, wincing fighter is visually displaying signs of the effects of his opponent’s offense.
Who's the only one here who knows illegal ninja moves from the government?
No holds barred, no time for move fakin,
Gots to get the loot so I can bring home the bacon - Charlie Brown
The problem of cuts is often related to an accumulation of scar tissue and is, in any event, generally only superficial.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 22, 2011 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
Does Kenny Florian get bonus points everytime he slices up someone’s scalp from the bottom. I mean, it looks good but rarely has any effect on a guy’s fighting ability.
"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
Right
Even the fights that are stopped due to cuts are stopped because blood flow is interfering with their vision and thus their ability to properly defend themselves. The cuts themselves are all but meaningless in the context of who is winning the fight, as is the majority of swelling.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 22, 2011 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Just returning to this thread
Another reason why it’s dumb to penalise cuts is that a cut only happens in one round. How can a judge determine if a cut which subsequently continues to bleed in later rounds was due to further damage inflcited by the opponent or simply poor repair work by the fighter’s corner? Or what of a cut initally caused by a headbutt but then worsened by legal strikes? How can a judge assess that? The same could be said for swellings, of course.
I personally feel that facial damage already inordinately colours people’s opinions about fights – and I’ll cite St. Pierre-Penn I as exhibit A, I think GSP’s broken nose distracts people from realising that St. Pierre clearly won the last 2 rounds. Officially encouraging judges to use superficial damage to assess a fighter’s performance is only enshrining another ambiguous and potentially misleading criterion in the rules.
"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
(e) Effective offense includes clean, effective strikes, threatening submission attempts, and “slam” takedowns.
This should simply be:
Effective offense consists of damage caused and threatening submission attempts.
Why are looping ugly effective strikes worth less than clean effective strikes? Strikes, slams, elbows, and cuts can all be viewed as an infliction of damage.
If it doesn’t cause any damage it doesn’t matter how clean it is. This distinction is clear with takedowns because of the “slam” qualifier, but not so with striking.
(f) Positional control should only be utilized in the absence of separation in effective offense and when more than half of the round was contested with at least one fighter on the ground. A fighter may be given a round for positional control if he or she maintained dominant position (defined as side control, mount, or back control with hooks) for a majority of the round.
This should be removed entirely. Positional control that does nothing should not be rewarded. A round in which there is no seperation of effective offense should be ruled a draw. If I create great angles standing, but cannot land a punch, I am not rewarded, but for some reason it is rewarded on the ground. Many wrestlers use wrestling to avoid damage, we should not use what is essentially a defensive maneuver to give a fighter any offensive credit. A
by MrPants on Jun 22, 2011 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
So if a fighter gets full mount in a grappling exchange several times
that should not be rewarded?
Again, you realize that “position” standing is entirely different than passing guard and maintaining a dominant position on the ground, right?
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Right
If you get mount and sit on top of me unable to do anything but maintain position for the entire round, then the round should be a draw. I was unable to harm you or attempt a submission and you were unable to harm me or attempt a submission. This would be the same result if we fought the entire round standing, I got you in a Thai plum and held you there the entire round. While a mount is a very advantageous position for many fighters, your offensive game from mount is completely neutralized by my defense while mounted, thus a draw.
But how many times do you see
A dominant position with ZERO attempts at striking or subs?
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but saying position counts for nothing is dangerous.
Just out of curiosity, how did you score R1 of Rocha x Ellenberger?
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
You almost never see mount not used for something, but thats kinda my point. Advantageous positions like mount and side control can be measured in ways other than the position itself. Advantageous positions lend themselves to strikes and submission attempts. If a fighter gets in mount and cannot strike or throw up a submission, then with their skill base, it is not advantageous for them.
I scored the round for Rocha. Under the current system a clear round for Rocha, under my fantasy system, a slight advantage to Rocha.
I take you down, pass your guard all the way to mount, but do not win the round because why? You are still on your back, mounted.
by sadface on Jun 22, 2011 4:24 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I definitely agree with consolidating striking and grappling into effective offense
but it seems counter-intuitive to do that while simultaneously removing cage control AND adding positional control. I think there’s a case to be made that good footwork, angles and positioning in the striking game is just as important as good positional control in the grappling game: they’re both a means to set up an attack.
I would eliminate position (the means) in all phases from the criteria, and rely on effective offense (the ends). If no one mounts any effective offense, it’s a draw.
Fas est et ab hoste doceri. (Right it is to be taught, even by the enemy) ~Ovid
by Damnatio Memoriae on Jun 22, 2011 1:37 PM EDT reply actions
I think it is unfair that counter strikers get punished for eluding their opponents before attacking, whereas aggressive strikers get rewarded for moving towards their opponents before they attack.
Is it really winning a fight to have an aggressive style alone? I think ringmanship should be objectively described as whoever is implementing their style appropriately and more effectively.
Then again it would probably become even more complicated for the judges.
It's just a world, it's just a life.
“I think ringmanship should be objectively described as whoever is implementing their style appropriately and more effectively.”
Judges shouldn’t be expected to know what style a fighter uses.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
Well if you see a fighter backing away and landing strikes and disengaging it should be worth more than the guy who is plodding forward and swinging and not connecting with as many shots.
The direction they are moving in striking exchanges should matter less than who is connecting with the strikes.
It's just a world, it's just a life.
Ringmanship is simply
Controlling the pace and dictating the location. Whoever does that more effectively is winning it. For example, Alistair Overeem utterly dominated in effective control.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it really winning a fight to have an aggressive style alone?
Aggression is defined (by NJSAC) as:
h) Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.More importantly, based on the value of the various scoring criteria, effective striking, effective grappling and “fighting area control” are to be judged first, and only if those are all even does the winner of aggressiveness win the round.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 22, 2011 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions
^Those are the old rules BTW
The current rules add the allusion to takedowns.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That is the version NJ has on their site here.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 23, 2011 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
And thus, New Jersey's rules
Not the unified rules.
http://abcboxing.com/unified_mma_rules.html
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 23, 2011 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike or takedown.
True, it does clarify that takedowns are included.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 23, 2011 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
There are subtle differences in the "unified rules"
In every single state. CA doesn’t prioritize or list the elements, NJ uses the sliding scale to prioritize grappling vs. striking, etc.
So they’re far from “unified” in reality; just a skeleton to build upon.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 23, 2011 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Great post Mike
My thoughts on it and some comments:
DAMAGE: is an extremely risky element to prioritize as highly as many are. You have guys like BJ Penn who can take a 15 minute mauling with no signs, cuts and swelling caused by clashing of heads, etc. Of course, it means something, but it doesn’t mean everything. I’m seeing way too much emphasis on damage. You can be an inch or a moment away from finishing the fight with a submission, which can be done with no damage at all.
CONTROL: was originally instituted to account for a grappler dominating the pace and location of a bout with takedowns and ground control, i.e. “lay n pray”. I did a giant study on how almost every controversial MMA fight has taken place on the feet, and the reason is that the criteria for effective striking is vague and highly subjective and the vast majority of control pertains to grappling. If you have mostly a striking match and remove the elements of grappling from the criteria, you’re left with “volume and effectiveness of strikes” and “creating striking opportunities” as the main credentials. That’s why aggression should be removed, because its voice is amplified in those situations and re-added incorrectly. If the aggression is effective, it will show through effective offense.
TAKEDOWNS: I don’t even think you need to mention the slams, as long as everyone can differentiate the extremely rare exception of Shamrock x Zinoviev and Harris x Branch from a standard double leg. Right now, takedowns count as effective grappling (#1), control (#2) and aggression (#3). That’s what has fostered the “you can’t win from your back without submitting” mentality, which I think is unfair. Sure, a TD should score, but it should not have equal (or more) power than damaging strikes or a pile of near submissions.
IMO, of course. This was a very well written and thought out article though, Mr. Fagan.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
slams need to be addressed. just so its there.
Agreed. Judges hate bjj because they don’t know what they are looking at.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jun 22, 2011 3:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, that's fine
But people can’t equate a vicious, KO-slam that does damage with your standard ankle pick. The massive slams are extremely rare and should be a noted exception to the standard.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Fagan
IDK how much clout you have in the MMAverse but you ever think about petitioning a re-write with this? Or become an advocate or start a campaign to revise the rules? I don’t think the judges will because it’s their job. They judge and go home. I don’t know if they’re under a policy or something but no one has ever talked to any of the judges themselves about how they feel about the system.
I also would prefer the overall Pride judging system UNLESS they get the definition of a 10-8 round correct
aka DJ Enwurd, on the wheels of steel spinnin only the livest shit you've heard on the radio over and over again while shakin his dreds.
@KrimsonTVN
DIA2ill.com coming soon....
It was a pipe dream at one point, but 1) I have no idea how to go about something like that and 2) the commissions are notorious in their bureaucracy. I’m not interested in spending a lifetime pushing for changes — changes unlikely to be made — in the MMA scoring criteria
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
Sounds horribly arrogant
But I may have some valuable input for #1 that I can share offline.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Fagan,
How does your definition of “effective offense” differ from the PRIDE critera of “effort to finish the fight”? I’m wondering if it’s an emphasis on landed strikes or locked-in submission attempts rather than attempts at them? I’m not sure about the details in the difference.
Well, it’s hard to compare because (as far as I know) there’s no public documentation of the Pride scoring. In spirit, however, I suppose it’s similar.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
This was a post by Pride Judge Matt Hume I saved from the UG
when he came on to explain the nod for Nog over Ricco:
Pride FC Judging Criteria and the Nogueira-Rodriguez Match
By Matt Hume
The judging system used in Pride FC has been developed and refined by experts in the industry over the course of the event’s entire existence. The philosophy behind the criteria is to encourage the fighters to finish the fight. We believe this creates the most exciting fight for the fans and rewards the fighter who is making the necessary effort.
The criteria is as follows:
1. Effort to finish the fight by KO or submission
2. Damage
3. Standing combinations and ground control
4. Takedowns and defense
5. Aggressiveness
6. Weight differences (15 Kilos or more at heavyweight) (10K at middleweight)
These criteria are in order of priority or importance. They are considered in descending order if a fight goes to a decision.
1. Effort to finish by KO or submission:
Fighters who are striking with force and intention that may result in a KO will be awarded in this criteria, that applies both standing and on the ground. "Catch" or near submissions, as well as multiple attempts will score in this criteria.
2. Damage:
Any strike that does damage or accumulations of strikes that result in damage are awarded here. Damage may be visible such as a cut or bruised leg, or it may be shown by an opponent’s reaction to a strike such as favoring a leg that has been kicked or turning away from a body shot. A near submission may also result in damage points.
3. Standing combinations and ground control:
When a fighter lands a skillful combination of strikes while standing, they are awarded this criteria. Ground control is awarded by achieving dominant positions and holding them. Dominant positions are side control, mount, back mount with hooks, knee ride, and north-south. Neutral positions are standing and in guard. Fighters are encouraged to strive for dominant position throughout the fight.
4. Takedown and defense:
A skillfully executed takedown will score in this category, repeatedly stopping your opponent’s takedown will also score in this category. Multiple takedowns, even if not executed skillfully will also score here.
5. Aggressiveness:
The fighter who is pressing the action while standing, seeking dominant position on the ground and working to finish the match, will score here.
6. Weight difference:
If a fighter is more than 15 Kilos lighter at heavyweight or 10 Kilos at middleweight, then he will be given an advantage here. This is only taken into consideration when the higher criteria are even.
Negative points – yellow cards:
When the fighters are fighting as demanded by the criteria, there is no need for interference from referees or judges. However, when a fighter is not fighting in this manner, then he may receive a yellow card penalty. The fighters are encouraged to engage and strike or attempt takedowns when standing, by the referee’s command of "action." When on the ground, fighters are encouraged to seek dominant positions, forced reversals or return to the feet by the referee’s command of "improve position." When in a dominant position, a fighter is encouraged to finish by effective striking or submission by the referee’s command of "work to finish." If either fighter does not obey the command and actively seek dominant positions and finishes, they may receive a yellow card, which will result in a negative point deduction. Any intentional fouls or unsportsmanlike conduct may also result in a yellow card and negative point.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Nog won that fight.
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
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 22, 2011 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the main problem with today’s judging is on top in guard is considered winning no matter the damage dealt. Once you remove that criteria there would be much more room to score a fight correctly.
This is true
It may be a different outcome for fights like Lawal/Mousasi, Pettis/Guida, and Torres/DJ. Maybe even the Sanchez/Guida fight depending on how you look at the 2nd round. Though top control shows dominance, it hinders fighters to pull guard like Aoki and Maia. Pulling guard becomes more of an act of desperation to go for a submission.
aka DJ Enwurd, on the wheels of steel spinnin only the livest shit you've heard on the radio over and over again while shakin his dreds.
@KrimsonTVN
DIA2ill.com coming soon....
I think using the ten point must better is a huge one
There should be way more 10-8 rounds and 10-10 rounds. Things would clear up from just that, so you don’t see a guy win two toss up rounds and then take a beating in the third and still win.
Submission attempts
Are fucking attempts. …unless it works, then it’s a submission, and you don’t have to worry about scoring it.
Why score an ineffective technique? You can attempt lots of shit that doesn’t work: takedowns from 10 feet away (unless you’re fighting James Toney), jumping spinning heel kicks, begging people to jump in your guard… either it works and should score or it doesn’t and shouldn’t score.
Also, aggression should absolutely be required. Not on the score card, but in the form of a penalty for being non-combative. Aggression is the opposite of stalling. Stalling (laying in someone’s guard, stalling against the fence, holding someone in your guard with a kimura attempt, flopping, kalib starnes, eyc.) should be outright illegal in combat sports. In Judo you get a Shito for not attacking and continually feinting (and other fouls), 4 of those and you’re DQ’d. MMA should have something similar, maybe with a set point deduction(s) for a certain number of fouls, and then a DQ.
by d.rok on Jun 22, 2011 2:29 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
You score submission attempts in order to encourage fighters to attempt them
And thereby hopefully create a more exciting fight.
There is a penalty for stalling in the rules, it’s just rarely enforced.
"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
Position before submission
We’d see more finishes if dudes DIDN’T go for reckless submissions they’re not going to get. If you’re in mount, why dive for a sloppy armbar and end up on the bottom? In fact, that should score as a sweep for the other dude rather than an attempted submission. That’s just one example, but you see it happen all the time. Dude gives up a dominant position going for a submission he doesn’t get and all the bjj blue belts get boners over it.
by d.rok on Jun 22, 2011 3:00 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think attacks from mount are the meat of the matter
I think it’s more valuable to encourage a fighter in guard to attack rather than lock up his opponent and wait for a standup.
"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
Submission attempts
Are fucking attempts. …unless it works, then it’s a submission, and you don’t have to worry about scoring it.
I get it. Unless a punch knocks the other guy out, it shouldn’t be scored. Perfect sense.
by gzl5000 on Jun 22, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
you're trying to be a dick
But I’ll bite.
A MISSED punch is the same as a submission attempt. Punches that land aren’t merely punch attempts. They’re punches.
Should we score attempted takedowns too? They’re the same thing as an attempted submission: nothing.
If it doesn’t put you out, break something, or make you tap, it’s temporarily painful at worst. Yeah I get it, you’re TRYING to break my arm or choke me out, but it’s not working, so you didn’t do anything.
by d.rok on Jun 22, 2011 2:55 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
A submission ends a fight
We should award attempts at ending fights. The question judging should answer is: Based on the rounds seen, if the fight went on forever, who would end the fight? Deep submission attempts evidences a likely hood to end a fight, and thus they should be counted. Positional advantage does not infer a similar result. Punches can be classified as KO attempts, by focusing on “attempt” you are stuck on a semantic red herring.
I get your point
And I partly agree. However punches have incremental states between miss and KO. It’s a bludgeon attack that causes accumulative damage. I would also classify throws and slams (but not takedowns) as damaging attacks.
Submissions have 2 states: worked, didn’t work. We can run into scenarios where a fighter didn’t tap, but the hold worked (dislocated joints, broken bones, passed out). It’s not technically a “submission” because the other fight didn’t quit, but the attack worked and went from being attempted to being effective. That should score, but the ref/doctor will stop the fight anyway, so the point is moot.
I know someone will bring up “Yeah but it made him do this different…” That would be true for most attacks. You act and they react. You cause damage or gain an advantage or you don’t. If it’s the latter, it absolutely should not score.
by d.rok on Jun 22, 2011 3:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
A sub is nothing like a punch
You can walk out of your corner and unleash a 6-strike combo with no one even near you. What you can’t do is attack with a multiple submission combo all by yourself.
A strike is a fairly singular, one-sided attack. A submission requires a number of steps to be achieved, or advantages/opportunities capitalized from one fighter to the other. It is also guaranteed to end the fight if it “connects”.
Equating submission attempts with missed punches is just short-sighted.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 22, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Ook then what about takedown attempts?
Should those score positively if they’re not completed.
Also this" A strike is a fairly singular, one-sided attack." is wrong. For a lot of guys it may be a singular, one-sided attack, but it’s not just limited to that, anymore than submissions are limited to rear-naked chokes and armbars.
Nah
Like I said, you can’t just come out of your corner and attempt 6 submissions all on your own. It takes achieving position(s), specific manipulation of your opponent, etc.
And stuffed TDs are already scored under control; but a takedown is not the same as a sub. If you don’t get it, we’ll have to part ways. I’m spent.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 23, 2011 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes you can.
If you’re going to be a dick and say a dude throwing rabbit punches in the air for no reason is the same as someone trying their hardest to punch someone in the face… you could do the same thing about submissions: diving for leg locks with no positioning, keep going for guillotines without controlling the body. go for arm bars without having control over the elbow, so on and so forth. In fact, I could attempt all of those things without touching anyone. Ok, now let’s stop being fucking dumbasses and have a real discussion….
If the attempt isn’t earnest, it doesn’t mean much. Submission, punch, takedown, whatever. It’s a feint at best (you use it to set up something else), it’s stalling at worst. I’m of the opinion, only techniques that do damage should score. It doesn’t matter the technique. If it does damage it scores, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t score. Unfortunately, most “submission attempts” aren’t threatening whatsoever. Does it make the other dude react? Probably. But so does everything, including throw the phantom punches you’re talking about.
I enjoy the ground game. I’m all for setting up position to do something, anything. Throwing up your legs from the bottom for fruitless armbar and triangle attempts doesn’t count. Get back on your feet or actually sink something in. Stop going for the same technique over and over again and expecting to win the round. If it’s not working, it’s not working, and it shouldn’t score.
And yes, an attempted takedown is the same as an attempted sub. It’s an attempt that didn’t work. So how do you score an attempted takedown? For the person who initiated or the person who stuffed it?
If a punch lands, it is a successful punch. You wouldn’t score a punch that doesn’t land, would you?
Submissions are different than strikes. Much lower percentage, much higher reward. A failure shouldn’t be scored any more than a failed Takedown or a whiffed head-kick.
The prerogative is on the fighter to turn his failure into something useful. Many failed subs can be turned into sweeps. Just like in Striking, you use your misses to set up angles for your next attacks. That is the benefit of a failed sub. You shouldn’t get pity points from the judges, as well, just because you tried real hard.
by Kung-Fu Joe on Jun 22, 2011 3:06 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Lets stop calling them submission attempts then. Lets start calling them joint manipulation and oxygen deprivation techniques. They may, or may not result in the opponent tapping out, but they almost always cause some amount of damage to the opponents fight effectiveness.
I don't think "almost always" is accurate
I’d say the vast majority of failed submission attempts result in no meaningful lasting effect whatsoever.
This is not to say that I agree with d.rok (aside from guillotines). We should score submission attempts, but the reason is to encourage action in fights, not to reward the minimal damage they do.
by paythefighters on Jun 22, 2011 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions
The opinion that submission attempts shouldn't count for anything and aggression should is baffling to me
since attempting a submission is an aggressive act to finish your opponent.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
aggression shouldn't score
I’m pretty sure I explicitly stated that. I said non-aggression should be penalized.
Attempting a submission you don’t get is certainly aggression, but as I don’t think mere aggression should score positively on score cards, so missed submissions shouldn’t either. Unless you get a sweep or a pass out of it, then it was somewhat effective. But the attempt itself is just an attempt.
by d.rok on Jun 22, 2011 3:25 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You're trying too hard to define your terms…
Yes, having strictly understood definitions makes fight determinations easier. However, in a sport as dynamic as ours, any attempt to create a system of overarching definitions is going to fail.
Here are some examples. You define a “threatening submission attempt” as one from which the defender must employ counter-grappling techniques to escape. How does that differ from a non-threatening attempt? If my opponent throws a triangle attempt, but I’m postured up, I still need to counter his maneuver to escape the hold regardless of the fact that he was not yet choking me. According to your system, such a lame attack should be scored as effective offense.
Or how about Slams? You say a slam requires the fighter to be lifted off the mat and delivered back down to it in one motion. What about a fighter who double-legs, lifts his opponent onto his shoulder, carries him back to the other side of the cage, and only then delivers him— with force— to the mat. Since it didn’t occur in one motion, your ruleset would not deem this an effective offense.
Your definition of a dominant position is inadequate. Most prominently, does North-South not count as being dominant under your rules?
Your definition of the guard is preposterous. It doesn’t account for Half-Guards and many types of Open Guards.
I understand that you are trying to remove the subjectivity from scoring. Unfortunately, I think it is a misguided effort.
by Kung-Fu Joe on Jun 22, 2011 2:48 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
An MMA fight is something we want to measure
We want to measure the relative success of fighters in the octagon. In order to do that we must first operationalize aspects of the fight. Many of us have issues with the current way fights are measured. Is this attempt perfect? No. However, it does improve upon flaws in the current system.
With respect, it most certainly does not.
I am not denying that MMA judging is flawed. However, I will certainly disagree with the assertion that these rules improve upon the current system.
These rules place inordinately large weight on failed submissions, while penalizing successful takedowns.
These rules oversimplify the dynamism involved in all stages of the combat.
These rules all but ignore positional fighting, which is the real heart of all grappling fighting styles.
These rules try to remove some subjectivity in scoring, but then add that abstraction back in, tenfold, in its encouragement of awarding 10-8, 10-7, and preposterously low 10-6 scores.
The Unified Rules may have their problems, but these rules are worse, not better.
by Kung-Fu Joe on Jun 22, 2011 3:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
How does position alone win a fight?
If a fighter gets into a dominant position, but cannot achieve anything with it how does the position alone evidence an advantage? Why should a takedown count at all? If I were to takedown Aoki, how would that help me? In order to judge the relevant strengths of fighters in different positions judges would have to know every fighter in great detail, and that is incredibly unlikely. Judges should look for actual damage an fight ending techniques not positions which infer benefit.
The great range judges use in score the better it is. A 5 point scale would be drastically better than what currently amounts to a 2 or 3 point scale. The greater precision a judge can measure a round the better rounds can be compared to each other. A building is measured more accurately with a ruler than a yardstick. The smaller the interval the greater the precision.
Position alone doesn’t win a fight. To that matter, neither does footwork alone, punching alone, or submission-attempting alone.
Position IS a part of the fight. Winning positional battles isn’t just something that happens. Maintaining a dominant position over an experienced grappler trying to escape is not an easy task.
If you take Aoki down, you’re likely doing so because you think you can win on the mat. Aoki’s job is to prove you wrong. If you don’t think you can win on the mat, it’s pretty stupid to take Aoki down, wouldn’t you say?
As to the scoring system, in a 3 round bout, a larger variance in points doesn’t increase precision. It decreases it, vastly. Let’s say, round 1, Miguel scores a knockdown early, gets back control, and rides it for the round while fighting for subs. By these rules, that may very well be a 10-6 round. Johnny would need two 10-8 rounds just to score a Draw. All Miguel has to do is fight two very boring, safe rounds to win.
How is that better than the Unified Rules?
by Kung-Fu Joe on Jun 22, 2011 4:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I see your point with a giant round allowing fighters to coast
But it would create a better measurement of the fight as a whole. I am in favor of the pay check penalties for boring fighters. If a fighter is in a better position they should be able to do something with it, being in side control and not being able to attempt a submission or throw a punch means that you are a better tackdown artist, but we are equal on the ground. If you try to take me down, and I stuff it and keep the fight standing, but don’t do any damage, should I be awarded for positional control? Better grappling is a means to achieving a position to end a fight or cause damage and should be measured by the outcome.
Strikes delivered from the fighter within the guard should be given more credit than strikes delivered from the fighter on his back.
Why? Why not jut use the standard of effectiveness? (Normally, strikes delivered from the top are more effective, and so they would be ‘given more credit’ naturally. But when strikes from one’s back are cleaner and more effective, they should be given more credit.)
It needs to be clarified after I declare the guard a neutral grappling position.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
But what you’ve written suggests that strikes from within someone’s guard are automatically ‘worth’ more than strikes from one’s back. And that is (and ought to be) false within the rules. What matters is clean, effective strikes, period. (It just also happens to be true that, given circumstances, strikes from one’s back are most often less clean and effective than strikes from top position.)
Submission attempts should be a tiebreaker
Rather than part of the damage category. In the Mighty Mouse vs Torres fight, it could be argued that damage and positional control was similar (Demetrious got takedowns, Torres hit sweeps) but given that Torres made more attempts to finish the fight, he should be awarded the W.
I’m also not a big fan of positional control. Many have already mentioned rewarding the end rather than the means and I’m in full agreement with that. Mount is a dominant position because it enables you to land more effective strikes; however, achieving mount should at the very best be a tiebreaker if you do absolutely nothing with it. Similarly, having back control with hooks/body triangle for an entire round shouldn’t be a 10-8 round, but presumably the fighter in control would be attempting RNC’s and thus winning the round by attempting to finish (given that the damage category would likely be negligible).
As for takedowns, I would neither reward successful attempts nor successful sprawls. The fighter attempting the takedown will do so because he feels he can do more damage/end the fight than if he kept it standing. If someone goes 0-for-20 in takedowns but lands the cleaner/harder/more effective strikes, I’d still award him the round. In the end, the takedown attempts might’ve set up the strikes and thus the strategy was still successful.
The obvious benefit of focusing on the end product is the simplicity; judges would have to judge fights as if they were (kick)boxing matches that also happen to take place on the ground. The fighter’s objective is to win the fight, ie. finish his opponent, and the judges should simply score the fight based on who came closer. Damage is accumulative whereas submission attempts generally do not hurt the threatened fighter going forward (the ones that do should of course be part of the damage category).
I would only have two scoring criteria:
a) Damage (strikes & slams (and possibly throws))
b) In case damage is even and/or negligible, attempts to finish the fight. This includes (in the following order);
i) submission attempts
ii) achieving dominant positions but running out of time
The problem is defining at which point damage stops being negligible; if fighter A outlands fighter B 5 strikes to 1 but fighter B attempts 10 submissions, I’d call damage negligible and award the round to fighter B for attempting to finish. At some point it gets harder, though, but I’d still argue that damage is more or less the only thing that really matters whereas submission attempts should be a secondary factor.
I agree with your reasoning, but
disagree somewhat with your results. I think a round should be decided by:
1) Proximity to finishing the fight
2) The number of times within a round the fighter was reasonably close to finishing the fight
3) The cumulative damage a fighter inflicted upon his opponent
4) Overall activity and aggression
Submission attempts that aren’t reasonably close to finishing the fight are meaningless (i.e. nate diaz’s standing Kimura). However, I think a deep submission that almost finishes a fights should count more than damage.
I agree, at least on principle, with regards to scoring rounds according to proximity to finishing the fight. If fighter A outlands fighter B but fighter B scores a knockdown (eg. by clipping fighter A behind the ear) the round could go either way depending on how heavily fighter A outlanded fighter B. Similarly, a close submission attempt should score.
The problem arises when trying to assess whether a submission attempt was close. Ideally the judges would be well-trained and able to spot the difference between a sloppy leg lock and one that will lead to post-fight surgery but I’d rather go with a judging system that left as little as possible up to interpretation. In the case of near-submissions, though, I guess we’d have to trust the judges.
Anyway, I was mainly trying to argue that failed submission attempts (ie. non-near submissions) are mostly meaningless in the grand scheme of things and that positional control & takedowns are merely means to an end and as such shouldn’t be scored.
by wonderfulspam on Jun 22, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Yup
And that’s why I’d generally like to take submissions out of the equation. Would you agree with the following scoring?
Example 1: Fighter A outlands fighter B significantly (without putting him in trouble) but towards the end of the round, fighter B hits a toe hold that has fighter A grimacing in pain but not tapping.
Fighter A gets the nod in terms of damage, fighter B scores in terms of proximity to finishing the fight. 10-10
Example 2: Fighter A takes fighter B down but is unable to do anything significant. Fighter B attempts a couple of armbars without coming close and fighter A briefly achieves mount but gets bucked off. Damage is negligible and both fighters show intent to finish (submission attempts vs. advancing position). 10-10.
Example 3: Fighter A scores an early knockdown and follows fighter B down. Fighter B reverses instantly and spends the rest of the round with back control w/hooks but fails to really threaten with his numerous RNC attempts. 10-9 fighter A because of damage (would be a 10-8 if fighter A landed follow-up strikes and/or came close to finishing the fight by submission). Damage takes precedence over any no. of RNC attempts.
by wonderfulspam on Jun 22, 2011 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I agree
I might give Example 3: 10-8 even as is, but i think we are on the same page.
I like the 5 judges thing, especially for main event/title fights that go 5 rounds.
I mean, i would put 7 judges in there if possible, but 5 seems like it should be enough.
And i dont know if i agree with your emphasis on slams, while they can often be impressive looking, it seems that they dont often do much towards finishing a fight. If someone slams their opponent into side control, or dazes them i think that should be scored well, but if someone is slammed and immediately regains full guard while remaining unfazed, should the slam be awarded much more than a regular takedown? I’m not so sure.
by Pride Never Cry on Jun 22, 2011 6:00 PM EDT reply actions
Why not make it simpler
Award the round as a win or draw, without the ten point system. If there is nothing substantially differing them apart, award it as a draw. If the judges scorecard ends up as a draw, he should confirm it as being a draw or award it to a fighter (again, is there is nothing substancially differing them apart, it should be a draw).
In case all judge cards put together point to a draw, check to see if the judges awarded it majorly to a fighter, if not, draw it.
The comments about improving the criteria of judging the round are fine. I just think judging should be more objective and clearcut… it’s always easier to pick the round winner when there is one. when it’s close, then it should be a draw.
If the fight ends up as a draw, have the judges a
The biggest thing I am afraid of with these kind of changes is seeing how everyone jumps to credit submission attempts that were really no where close to finishing. The pettis v guida fight is a good example of that. I believe it is mainly due to people’s hate of LnP but they are over compensating.
I also find it very surprising how many of these people have trained BJJ, and still try to credit the subs that were not close, they should know better.
The "new" rules look pretty good with 2 exceptions...
1) We don’t need to introduce positional control
2) We don’t need to introduce a misc.
Actions that directly lead to finishes (i.e. strikes & submissions) are all judges should need to score a bout. If that leads to more 10-10 rounds, so-be-it.
Personally, I really like the idea of having 2-ten minute rounds, followed by a five minute tie breaker round.
Faber, Florian, Diaz, 'Mayhem', Mousasi, Fedor
This is bullshit
The system is perfect the way it is. Now excuse me while I head to Jackson’s camp to work on some TDs and shoulder punches.
BOOSH
Shoulder punches are brutal. They’re like a reverse massage.
"I can be friends with anybody. Man. Woman. Cat. Dog. Fish..... Alien." -Rampage
by Charles Awad on Jun 23, 2011 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
BJJ marks aren’t going to be happy until guard is treated as a neutral position, and that’s never ever ever going to happen in MMA judging.
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
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 22, 2011 7:44 PM EDT reply actions
I think "effective cage control" is often misconstrued
From the NJSAC:
(g) 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.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 22, 2011 7:44 PM EDT reply actions
That could almost be a description of “effective grappling”.
"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
It does seem to be treated that way by many
Again from NJSAC:
(f) Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 23, 2011 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I KNEW I wasn’t crazy for punishing failed take down attempts/rewarding the guy doing the stuffing.
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
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jun 22, 2011 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions
You may yet be crazy,
but you are right about that… ;p
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jun 23, 2011 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Check this diagram
I did a whole article on how everything under control pertains to grappling, which is why the most controversial fights are all striking. When you look at the unified rules for an all striking match, and remove all the notations to grappling (because there isn’t any), it only leaves: volume/effectiveness of strikes, dictating the pace/creating striking opportunities, and aggression.
That’s why aggression gets so much attention in all-striking fights, and why all-striking fights make up most of MMA’s controversial fights.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Jun 23, 2011 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
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
