Half Point Scoring System Won't Transform Judging Without Competence
by Leland Roling on Jul 11, 2011 4:42 PM EDT
in UFC Editorial
Email
Print
The half-point scoring system, which is currently in an experimental phase in California's amateur ranks, has been heralded by some as a means to revolutionizing the judging aspects of mixed martial arts. As most MMA fans have come to realize, there is a huge disparity between how a fight actually plays out versus what three officials saw unfold. The system, created by veteran MMA judge Nelson "Doc" Hamilton, is supposed to be a solution to the growing problem of incompetent scoring, clearly outlining the scoring criteria and adding significance to damage, near-submissions, and advancement of position. But is it really the answer? Yahoo! Sports' writer Dave Meltzer took a look at how the system works and what we hope to gain from it:
Since the start of 2011, California has experimented with a half-point scoring system on its amateur shows, both to get feedback from its judges, and also to compile statistics. At the end of the year, when the stats are done, the findings will be presented to people like Marc Ratner, the vice-president for regulatory affairs at the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and the Association of Boxing Commissioners, to see if the system has more merit than the one in place.
"I like what they are doing," said Ratner. "Right now the best thing to do is use the system for a year, compile the statistics and see what we can learn."
Instead of always writing 10-9 on a scorecard unless there is a completely dominant round with a near finish, you have more options. A 10-9.5 is for a close round, like rounds one and three in Siver vs. Wiman, and rounds one and two in Jackson vs. Machida - both fights in which the person who ended up losing in the current system would most likely have won with the new system.
A 10-9 would be the score for a round that is competitive, but, you have no doubt who won. That is still the score that comes up most of the time with the new system. A 10-8.5 would be for a round where one fighter dominated, but didn't do enough for a 10-8, notably round two in Wiman vs. Siver, and round three in Machida vs. Jackson.
A 10-8 would be similar to how it is currently used, and you'd even have a 10-7.5 for something more dominant than a normal 10-8 round, but for whatever reason, the fight isn't stopped.
The new system also includes a fourth judge whose lone job is to award points based on criteria. If the three judges come out to a draw, which has happened six times so far this year, a winner is determined based on a points system.
The point system was put together by a panel that included well-known referees and judges "Big" John McCarthy, Herb Dean and Nelson "Doc" Hamilton, as well as Steele and George Dodd, the executive director of the California State Athletic Commission.
The system is four points for a knockdown, two for damaging strikes, one for a takedown, one for a sweep, two for grappling into a dominant position (back, mount or side control), and four for a near submission.
"We're not married to this system," said Steele. "We're working on getting it as good as we can, and it's getting close."
BloodyElbow.com's own Mike Fagan critiqued the system back in December, taking a stance that the existing ten-point must system isn't the problem at all. The idea of damage becoming a significant piece of the puzzle along with some sort of quantifiable measure on how near-submissions and guard advancement could be scored is intriguing, but I'm in agreement with Fagan's original thesis. None of this solves the root problem.
As most of you probably know from my incessant rants on the subject, the scoring criteria in mixed martial arts have issues. There is room for individuals to interpret the criteria in ways that every MMA fan would slam their head off a desk repeatedly if they heard an explanation. Some judges think that Octagon control, or coming forward constantly while having fists blasted off their chin, is a means to winning a fight. Others believe solely in the takedown, and a select few believe in the Airbender, a fighter who possesses the natural gift of whiffing on blow after blow and still winning.
That type of incompetence is the real problem with judging. Half points isn't the answer. In fact, it's a bad solution. Why? If a judge can't determine a winner of a fight from the standpoint of whole integers and basic criteria, how do we expect the ancient veterans of the sport to calculate points for knockdowns, near-submissions, takedowns, and sweeps. Sure, to the average hardcore MMA fan who is watching pay-per-view after pay-per-view with enjoyment, it doesn't seem like a tall task at all. But for some guy sitting cageside who already has a terrible vantage point along with a minimal understanding of what the scoring criteria actually means, it's more "crap" that will convolute their understanding.
Don't get me wrong. I think the damage aspect has some merit. I also think, with some tweaking, that the scoring of grappling affairs in regards to takedowns versus sweeps, etc. could bloom into a good idea. I'm hopeful that the officials in place stick to what they've said and experiment with the criteria to create an optimal course of action. But the consistency of bad judging brings the curmudgeon out in me.
Fans getting upset over the Dennis Siver vs. Matt Wiman decision should calm down. It was a very tough fight to judge, and a prime example of the ten point must system allowing Siver to win two rounds narrowly while Wiman won one round emphatically. In the end, Wiman did more damage. The same could be said for the Cruz vs. Faber fight, and under the half-point system where stunning blows count for more -- Faber would have made the scoring real interesting. That's where some of the concepts from the half-point system make their mark on the existing system.
Unfortunately, none of this matters if the judges in place are incompetent. And to be perfectly honest, beating the dead horse is all we can do at this point. Commissions need to follow their guidelines strictly. If a system is in place to review judges and punish those who are judging incorrectly based on the criteria, longer demotions need to enforced, if they are even happening at all. I'm sure there are veterans who were relegated to local events, only to show up at another major event one month after demoralizing an entire fanbase with asinine judging. If there isn't a history of bad judging, I'm all for second chances, but as we've learned over the last few years -- there are judges who consistently leave us with our jaws wide open.
141 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
the headline says it all
the bad decisions are not being caused by the 10 point must system, flawed as it is.
stop sucking at judging, then maybe we’ll tinker with the point scoring system.
This is right on point. Changing the numbers used isn’t going to do anything if the judges don’t know what to look for. How about keeping the same full number system but simply assigning different meanings to the numbers? Honestly, right now, what’s the point of numbers 1-7 when they’re literally never used. Nearly every round is viewed as a 10-9, with the occasional 10-8 tossed in there.
by dropkick101 on Jul 11, 2011 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
Point systems don’t matter IMO. The points themselves don’t refer to anything tangible or quantifiable. A 10-9 can be a thousand different types of round. The solution is better judging, i.e. the ability to understand all aspects of a fight, and to score rounds relative to each other within a given fight. If a 10-10 is scored in round one, any round somewhat more dominant is a 10-9, any round better than that is a 10-8.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 4:19 PM EDT reply actions
Judges don't get it now
I fail to see how further complicating the way in which fights are judged is going to solve the problems inherent to judging in MMA.
Half points in my opinion won’t help anything. Judges already are hesitant to give out 10-8 rounds and especially 10-10 rounds unless there’s a point deduction. Better education on the sport of MMA is key here, not the point system.
Check out the C&D Channel on YouTube for MMA reviews, predictions, analysis, and other MMA related content.
MMA scoring has issues
But it doesn’t seem like it’s rampantly corrupt like in boxing. Just watch the Paul Williams vs Erislandy Lara fight from Saturday night and you’ll see one of the greatest boxing travesties of all time. It was so blatant and corrupt that Max Kellerman, Roy Jones & Bob Papa lambasted the entire sport of boxing. It just underscores the need for an entirely new system of judging fights period.
I don’t think a half point scale is going to change anything. Fighters need to be encouraged to finish fights. Perhaps something like a fighter only gets a win bonus if he finishes the fight.
It’s not like traditional sports where you have an overtime period.
For me
by Johnnynumber5 on Jul 11, 2011 4:28 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Whoops....
For me, I still prefer the Japanese style where they simply judge the fight as a whole opposed to round by round.
Unless we get machines to be judges it’s always going to be more art than science. A 10 point must system tries to make judges quantify an artistic rendering with a numerical value. Until we get further from the constraints of a 10 point must system we are going to continue having this debate.
by Johnnynumber5 on Jul 11, 2011 4:32 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Another radical idea would be that any fight that isn’t finished would be considered a draw. I know it’s never going to happen.
I think the best solution is more 10-10 rounds for even exchanges. Judges are forced to pick a winner every round even when there isn’t one.
by Johnnynumber5 on Jul 11, 2011 4:37 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Johnny, they once were going to give bonuses for every fight that was finished at UFC 94. We ended up seeing 8 decisions in a row, before Machida became the first guy on the show to finish someone in the co-main event slot.
"Caol Uno was like Mutoh. He developed into a star overseas and then returned to his home country a much bigger deal. Dokonjonosuke Mishima is like Kobashi because they both do moonsaults. Don Frye is like Stan Hansen because they are both fat dumb rednecks with mustaches." - Jonathan Snowden
by RagingNoodles on Jul 11, 2011 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions
The fact that an MMA judge in Doc Hamilton decided that one of the best ways to fix judging in the sport was to establish a half-point system says everything about what’s wrong with the thought process of most MMA judges.
by dropkick101 on Jul 11, 2011 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 7 recs
This.
They’re scoring so intently, in such intricate detail that they just need more wiggle room, more options to distinguish who won a round? Bullshit. Bullshit and shenanigans.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
All fights that go to decision
Could be marked down as a time limit draw. That’d make things interesting.
Sounds like Penn.
“And there won’t be any belts! Or rounds! People who get draws are paid nothing!”
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Look, here's the thing
if you want MMA getting mainstream recognition, you must make it a sport, not a backyard brawl. Like there are games of soccer, where it’s a draw and not 1 goal is given, there are fights that are dull and go to a decision. It’s part of the sport, if you want this to be a sport.
We are really seeing athletes who train a certain way, who are smart (GSP) and are not trying to go in and (barbarically) tear someone’s head off. These athletes are treating MMA as a sport, and are doing all the right things.
Listen, the days when Cro Cop and his cemetery-legs dominated are over. MMA is becoming a sport, not a “freak show”. Fighters are well rounded. If you have one fighters who can’t defend a takedown (see: Paul Daley, Dan Hardy) and are getting dominated by a wrestler because they have 0 takedown defense, then they perhaps shouldn’t be in MMA, yknow? Perhaps they should do a K1 or boxing or whatever, but you can’t blame fighters -err – athletes for exploiting other very poorly rounded “MMA” fighters.
I still thing best fights are made when two really top-notch MMA fighters collide (see: Edgar – Maynard #2, Cruz – Faber #2).
The point is, I don’t mind seeing a decision, not at all! I welcome it, if it’s between two WELL ROUNDED MMA ATHLETES. That said, I too hate decisions when it’s between a very well rounded MMA athlete and a brawler.
Football and Soccer don't need judges to decide goals or touchdowns
If neither guy gets a win bonus from a draw, or a win on their record, they’ll fight like fuck to get a finish. Too many fighters are risk averse. No risk, no reward, it’s that simple. This is still a full contact combat sport. If GSP only wants to point fight he can fuck off back to Karate.
I'm sorry this is just ignorant
It’s not the Ultimate Finishing Championship. It’s a sport, not a street fight.
If it's a sport, not a street fight
Maybe it should be completely neutered and take all non padded striking out of the game, and maybe fighters should be penalised for striking too hard. Maybe fighters shouldn’t ab allowed to go to the ground because it looks oh so unsanitary. Come on. Let’s not forget what brought MMA to the dance to begin with.
What's that?
Let’s not forget what brought MMA to the dance to begin with.
You mean a fight like Griffin\Bonnar 1 which featured a fight that went to decision?
Finishes aren’t everything.
They both went for it
That’s the whole point. MMA is becoming more about fighters playing a game instead of fighting.
More bullshit
As MMA grows and expands you get a larger variety of fights and styles of fights and paths to victory depending on the fighter.
Yes some fights are boring. Boo hoo.
We need boring fights as much as the exciting ones if only for perspective.
Whaaaaaat? We need boring fights?? Just as much as exciting??? That’s crazy talk my friend. You’re letting the argument run away with you.
I consider myself a softcore fan.
It's all about perspective
It’s like ugly girl syndrome, pretty girls hang out with ugly girls to make themselves look even better.
Just a general rule of life that you can’t appreciate the good if you don’t have the bad.
We need boring fights?
What sedative are you on? We’re at a point in human civilization where we can recognize excitement without the constant reminder of boredom as some kind of contrast. Most of us suffer from boredom in our own little mundane lives, we don’t need to be reminded of boredom when shelling out $50 for a FIGHT card. I don’t need to shell out money to get a boring videogame, go see a boring film or listen to a boring album to make me appreciate the good I know is out there and people are capable of. The benefit of that form of entertainment is it can be previewed and reviewed beforehand: you can’t guarantee the success of a live event in terms of how it delivers to its audience. But live events that remain boring build that reputation and that hurts everyone’s bottom line, promoters AND fighters.
by KJ Gould on Jul 11, 2011 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
We’re at a point in human civilization where we can recognize excitement without the constant reminder of boredom
That’s not even remotely true. It’s in the very nature of human cognition that we hold subjective ideas in contrast to one another. We understand good because we have bad and vice versa.
I’m not saying the idea is to encourage boring fights, merely toning down the rhetoric a bit and accepting that boring fights happen now, they’ve happened since the inception of the sport, and they will continue to happen until the sport no longer exists. So rather than bitch and moan about boring fights, a fact which is inevitable, use them as a reminder to appreciate the exciting fights that come our way.
That’s not even remotely true.
Yes, yes it is. This isn’t some yin-yang duality nonsense. I don’t need to see Batman & Robin before I go to see The Dark Knight Rises next year.
I said constant contrast. As in, all the time. Sucky fights should be at the regional level, not the premiere league. There’s going to be the occasional abnormality but with some fighters it’s virtually guaranteed every time out.
I don’t need to see Batman & Robin before I go to see The Dark Knight Rises next year.
Think harder.
Yes, you do judge Dark Knight with other movies/media/books/etc. If the original Star Wars never happened in the 70’s/80’s, they would look like a joke today rather than the landmark movies back then.
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions
read better
We already know fights suck at the lower level. We don’t need them stinking up the higher level for contrast.
by KJ Gould on Jul 11, 2011 9:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Except you’re not talking about quality of fights, you’re talking about finishes. At the lower level (well, not the lowest level), you see more finishes, not less.
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
look
if GSP can jab a guy for 25 minutes and he can’t take him down or return the jab, then that guy should never be fighting GSP.
if GSP can takedown a guy for 25 minutes and hold him there, than that guy should have never fight GSP in the first place.
You see where I’m getting with this?
You can’t blame GSP for being so damn well rounded, but you can blame the other guys who can’t even win a round against GSP.
GSP is a well rounded fighter, he’s a synonym for a MMA athlete. Blame others who are not well rounded, so that GSP can literally toy with them.
by OTAKUSAN on Jul 11, 2011 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I can blame GSP
For not manning up and moving up in weight to test his competitive abilities. GSP’s happy being the big fish in the small pond, and his legacy is going to reflect that as of right now.
For not manning up and moving up in weight to test his competitive abilities.
What a load of crap. Why don’t you “man up” and get in there and fight him then? Since it seems all MMA is to you is a big “who’s is bigger” contest.
Ah the old "Why don't you do it?" ad hominem
Get back to me when you have a valid way to excuse GSP for coasting from paycheck to paycheck other than just the money.
by KJ Gould on Jul 11, 2011 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Again, what a load of crap
You can’t even offer a nuanced or articulate argument for your point, why should I offer you one for mine?
Your argument comes off like this:
“I don’t like GSP therefore everything he does is stupid and wrong and he’s just a pussy who doesn’t want to challenge himself.”
It’s garbage.
I don't like GSP
Because I know he’s capable of much more, but he refuses to explore his own potential. I don’t like GSP when it becomes apparent early on in a fight he completely outclasses his opponent but he doesn’t engage his own creativity choosing to keep a cap on his own in ring performance. He has all the talent in the world, but he’s fighting like Tim Sylvia when he was UFC champion: not to lose.
I’m not saying he should go in there reckless – no fighters should. But he won’t even entertain the idea of calculated risk or improvisation. For that reason I can’t root for him because he’s so vanilla. If Jon Jones can get his media training and PR shit together, and not let his management dick around with when or who he’s fighting, he has all the potential to be a bigger star worldwide than GSP is easily especially if he keeps fighting the way he does.
You're entitled to your opinion
Though I do disagree.
I just think you should articulate it better as I take issue with statements like:
Get back to me when you have a valid way to excuse GSP for coasting from paycheck to paycheck
and
GSP’s happy being the big fish in the small pond
as they are either patently false or beyond either of our abilities to judge.
GSP hasn't shown us any different
He hasn’t made any form of declaration that could rationalise his performances. I know Anderson Silva outclasses most of his opponents, and I’ll come down on him when he dicks around like he did against Demian Maia – but at least he’ll show flashes of brilliance like he did against Vitor Belfort. GSP hasn’t done that since his last fight with Matt Hughes.
Please, you don't know shit
You can’t just say that he could do more with any certainty whatsoever. Did you take note of Rampage’s comments after the Hamill fight? There’s a way you have to fight against a grappler, and that’s what he did against Koscheck and Shields.
GSP did more damage to Penn, Fitch, Alves, Koscheck, and arguably Shields than their whole career, while Serra and Hughes got pounded also. Not even a damage machine like Silva can make that claim for his recent fights. What more do you want? How do you know he can do it?
He didn’t once let up trying to finish Fitch, he finished Penn, he pulled his groin trying to finish Alves, he went for multiple finishes against Hardy, and Koscheck should have been a finish (either by the doc or by a normal anatomy that makes you at least get dropped when you take enough blows to crack your skull and get nerve damage). How do presumptive pricks like you ignore this and say he doesn’t try to finish?
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I've listened to mma coaches of ufc world champions talk fighting and strategy
Whose words I’ll take over the inconsistent, hates to train Rampage and some nub commenter on Bloody Elbow.
by KJ Gould on Jul 11, 2011 10:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
And which coach will disagree with what I said? If you don’t keep your distance and focus on positioning for takedown defense against Shields and Koscheck, you wind up on your ass. Shields did it to Condit, Lawler, Daley, and Hendo. How many more guys does he have to beat for you to give him some respect? Koscheck is the only guy to have taken GSP down since when? UFC 50?
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
This is dumb.
You’re turning a discussion on scoring criteria into a rant about why GSP sucks. I don’t like GSP either but this isn’t really the time or place. Pretend for a second that you’re a respected member of the site and quit acting like a child.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn't bring up GSP
Otakusan did. if all of GSP’s decisions were draws he wouldn’t be revered as he is currently.
If GSP wasn't Canadian he wouldn't be as revered as he is currently.
You’re proposing a change to a scoring system that would punish many fighters based on your contempt for one. That’s nonsense.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
The only fighters that'd be punished
Are ones who aren’t complete MMA fighters and have no idea how to finish. If they’re in the UFC they should be at the level where they’ve put it all together, otherwise go learn on the job in some smaller show.
You're fucking kidding right?
Punching power is an attribute completely out of a fighter’s control. You’re basically saying that if they’re not an incredibly high level grappler (which you pretty much have to be to get a submission these days) or a heavy hitter then they should fuck off and do something else for a living? You’re out of your mind.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Punching power is more to do with technique
Then how big your muscles are. Working out how to kinetically link your body into producing power at the end of your strikes is something that can be worked out on the smaller shows, not in the UFC. You don’t put a 5-0 boxer still trying to work out his game on PPV cards 3 times a year, especially as a main event or co-main.
And yeah, being well rounded shouldn’t mean you’re ok at every area but don’t exceed in one. Otherwise that’s the future of MMA: jack of all trades, master of none. That makes for a particularly sucky sport.
No shit.
And there are some great strikers who will not score big KOs because they aren’t big punchers and some great grapplers who will not score crazy subs every time out. Punishing them simply because they couldn’t finish a fight within a 15 minute period is stupid, particularly at the high level where chances are good that their opponent is sound enough to ably defend themselves long enough to survive. There must be a way to score fights that don’t end in a finish.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
You're a retard
I suppose all soccer players should go home to development leagues for having such low scoring games compared to the minor leagues, right?
News flash: elite fighters have better defense, too.
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't get me started on soccer players
I’ve seen countless teams score a goal and coast to ride the time out and it sucks.
And pro fighters defense ought to have got better from the largely rudimentary and predictable attacks used. Not countering and turning the tables in most instances shows how far the sport has to go.
by KJ Gould on Jul 11, 2011 9:56 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
We don’t know where the sport is headed, but using boxing to superficially judge the headroom remaining in developing countering skills (I assume, as there’s nothing else to compare) is flawed. Everything is so different in MMA.
Consider the recent resurrection of front kicks. If everyone starts picking this up, you may think that we’d start getting more finishes. Sadly, I think the opposite will hold true years from now, as fighters will be standing farther apart. Anyone who tries to be a hero by fighting at a closer distance will get KTFOd.
Anyway, going back to your previous post, the idea that elite fighters have to finish is nonsense. To me, the hallmark of elite striking is defense. I fully expect top level strikers to be unable to finish each other. If Machida stuck with the same elite skills that got him to the top instead of trying to be a finisher, he probably would’ve beat Shogun and he would have a decent chance against Jones too.
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Elite fighters have to try to finish.
That’s been my point from the beginning. The merit of effort. GSP showed no signs of that against shields and not enough against koscheck. Against hardy we saw how grossly overrated GSP’s ground game is for a supposed black belt
by KJ Gould on Jul 12, 2011 7:44 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
well no, not really
GSP is 5.10 and all the other guys in middleweight who mean something are at least 6.0
GSP would be in a great disadvantage in middleweight because that’s not his class, lol. He’s not a middleweight-er, he’s a textbook welterweight-er.
All that GSP vs. Anderson Silva was silly, I don’t want to see that fight. Like I don’t want to see Edgar vs. Velasquez.
He’s a big fish in a big pond, UFC is THE MMA league.
Besides, he’s got Nick Diaz to face now, he’s a strong striker, great jiu jitsu I’m worried though about his wrestling…
and let’s not forget Carlos Condit, that guys is a KO machine.
So, GSP should stay in welterweight, should NEVER go a class higher, because everyone will be bigger than him and that makes absolutely no sense for him and he has a couple of nice challenges in front of him.
On the other hand, Bones and Anderson Silva COULD go a class higher, because they have the right structure, but they don’t want to <- you can call that “not manning up” I suppose.
My big problem with GSP
Is I don’t even get to see him showcase his whole ability when it’s clear he outclasses his opponent. His opponents have nothing for him? Show me something other than jabs, takedowns and the occasional superman punch or turning sidekick. Michael Jordan in his prime outclassed anyone unfortunate enough to be in his path, but he didn’t stick to a defensive game. He mesmorised.
Come on GSP, astonish us.
You're comparing basketball to MMA?
What a joke. Do you know why they installed the shot clock? Because they had to force teams to stop playing defense and simply protecting the ball when they had the lead. You have so many rules hamstringing the defense, like not being able to defend the basket after the ball has hit its apex. Defense in ice hockey wasn’t as bad as that, but it still needed rule changes to stop defense from being too boring. Boxing has a ref to put a halt to defensive schemes like clutching.
The whole point of MMA is to have as few rules as possible. If you fight a defensive guy, then nothing you do can make it exciting.
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Cool
I would much rather there be no rounds or time limits. Since we’re talking realism here.
If you think a fighter can defend everything at once and it’s impossible to break through or force an error you know nothing about sport. Stalling only exists because of the ignorance and inability of the other fighter.
by KJ Gould on Jul 11, 2011 10:04 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I can play that game too
If you think a fighter can always finish a defensive fighter you know nothing about the sport. Stalling can’t be overcome if one fighter has a decent skillset and is only trying to survive.
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Defensive fighters can be finished
Unless they’re just running away the whole time. In which case, DQ them.
Jones has a whopping zero title defenses so I wouldn’t want him already moving to heavyweight. Then Silva still has viable challengers in his division like okami sonnen stann and munoz. Who does gsp have after diaz? Maybe fitch but nobody wants that again
"I knew I hurt him cause when I throw the elbow he went ugghh" - GSP
by Baby Wads on Jul 11, 2011 7:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
thats idiotic right there
you are blaming GSP for winning basically
This is a sport winning is ALL that matters and if some guy has a strategy that works or the best def where he shuts you down well good on him
Twitter @MaZZM
http://www.mazzznet.com/
How often have we heard a great loss is better than a shitty win?
If winning was really all that matters, boring fighters wouldn’t get low balled in new contracts or cut after one loss. Merit and quality counts for a lot more than just results in the long run since we’re dealing with a PPV business. Nobody would give a shit about tyson or even Ali if they played it safe and went to decision all the time. Boxers with better records won’t be remembered like those two for that reason.
by KJ Gould on Jul 11, 2011 10:14 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Right...
I suppose Halil Mutlu is a pussy for doing a 3x bodyweight clean and jerk, right? He should have manned up and competed with guys at higher weight classes?
Shields and Diaz are as legit contenders as you can get in MMA. It would be stupid to leave WW after fighting Hardy and Koscheck while the two biggest challenges of his career (as determined by MMA hardcores, not GSP) and the WW record for defenses was on the line. If he doesn’t go up sometime in 2012, then you can start talking about GSP hurting his legacy.
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Even though you're comparing weight lifting to fighting
And how bad a comparison that is, I’ll bite. If he plays it safe and does it easy consistently people stop caring. Those kind of events only draw interest with the prospect of records being broken. If That stops happening due to athletes no longer trying, their sport dies
by KJ Gould on Jul 11, 2011 10:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You mean like the WW defense record that GSP is about to break? The one that will cement him as the WW GOAT?
Yeah, I’ve wrong all this time. Why should he care about breaking that?
by paythefighters on Jul 11, 2011 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
If he breaks it like a bording turd
He ought to be called on it. Anderson Silva broke the record of any title defense and number of consecutive fights won in the UFC and only a handful of fights have sucked. Silva > GSP in legacy by a mile.
It’s like Joe Calzaghe went undefeated his boxing career and got KOs early on, but wound up his career largely with decisions and when he finally faced Roy Jones Jr RJJ was a shell of himself having tasted defeat badly a couple of times already. GSP is basically the same and if he ever does face Silva, Silva will need a zimmer-frame to get to the Octagon. GSP’s fighting doesn’t currently warrant his absurd popularity and I can only imagine it’s down to Canadians having no other top fighter in the sport. It’s Bisping syndrome for Canada.
what the fuck
This is ridiculous.
"Who are you and how the hell did you get in here?"
"I'm a locksmith... and i'm a locksmith."
I mean really, you would have to work hard to say something more idiotic
Not testing his competitive abilities? Big fish in a small pond? The guy has one of if not the most impressive resumes in the whole history of the GD sport. I’m honestly a bit flabbergasted that someone in your position could be so ridiculous.
"Who are you and how the hell did you get in here?"
"I'm a locksmith... and i'm a locksmith."
If you can't tell which guy won a round when it was clear as day... what does more variety in scoring help?
Some fights are close fights. There will be debate afterwards. That is fine. It is the judges who miss the blatant are the problem. I have seen some decisions where I can’t help but wonder if the judge got up and went to the bathroom because of how blatantly wrong the card was. How is that possible?
Ok this is stupid
Instead of 10:9 make it 10:8 and instead of 10:9,5 make it 10:9
why the hell do we have these points if nobody gives 10:8, like almost ever. 10:7, that’s not even real.
why not use scoring from 1 to 3? I mean what’s the point of having 10 points if nobody ever got lower than 8? Or perhaps on rare occasion a 7, but I’ve never heard of it.
So, scoring rounds from 1 to 10 is as silly as giving 9,5 points, lol. Yeah, on a scale from 1 to 10 we REALLY REALLY need ,5 scoring system.
yes.
the half points are unnecessary and overly complicated. Just take whatever you define as a 10-9.5 and make it 10-9, and change everything else to use whole numbers.
You don’t need to get into fractions until you have a definition for everything from 10-9 to 10-1.
yeah exactly
I’d get fractions if it’d be points 1 or 0, like 1 for winner, 0 for loser. so then it would make sense to do a 0,5 but come on on a scale from 1 to 10, and where around 80% of these scores are NEVER used.. this is getting really silly.
srly?
Seems pretty trivial to bash the system based on it’s use of decimals. While I do question the ability of commission employees to add at times I really think this is a small argument against the half point system. It’s just maths homie!
@rask4p on Twitter
Pointless math is pointless. You use decimals when you have to, there are plenty of good whole numbers to use that would make the system easier to use and understand.
And the decimals are only part of the problem, giving idiots decimals won’t fix anything.
by Phildo on Jul 11, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
All I’m saying is that attacking a system based on it’s use of decimals is trivial. Frankly, I see why they’ve done it too, it gives the judges a frame of reference. Sometimes you have to do a little hand holding…
@rask4p on Twitter
just give them a frame of reference that uses whole numbers.
Although why people think a frame of reference with decimals will somehow be used by the geniuses that don’t use the current frame of reference is beyond me.
The way I see it, we need to gently encourage these guys out of the travel crate and into the real world. The easiest way to screw this up would be to change the definition of a 10-9 round. Giving them the granularity to give half points around their most favoritest score ever is a good way to break them in.
@rask4p on Twitter
I've said that same thing a bunch of times, but I gave up
It’s ridiculous having a 10 point system if it’s virtually unheard of for a judge to even score a fighter as low as a 7. It’s really only a 3 point system. If it was legitimately a 10 point range from great to awful, Edgar vs. Maynard’s first round would have been about a 10 – 5 round for Maynard, if that.
.....
by Scabby Knuckle on Jul 11, 2011 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
You had me at hello…err I mean the title. Spot on.
by troutki on Jul 11, 2011 4:44 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
you hire a carpenter to make a seat you dont blame the tools he used you blame the carpenter
the judges are the problem not the rules stupid mantras about no 10-10 and 10-8 not being used when they merit it are part of the problem
Twitter @MaZZM
http://www.mazzznet.com/
IMO positional grappling shouldn't be scored at all.
Close submissions count for scoring. Ground and pound counts for scoring. Powerful slams count for scoring. A double leg or single leg doesn’t count for anything. Getting to side control doesn’t count for anything. Sweeping your opponent doesn’t count for anything. In the context of a fight, damage is the only thing that should be garnering points.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 4:54 PM EDT reply actions
Yeah, I think aggression and octagon control are vague, bogus criteria that only muck the judges’ up even worse. Damage, strikes landed, takedowns, close submissions, and nothing else.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Not even takedowns.
Takedowns don’t score unless they’re a slam.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
It's got to count as a strike as least, a decent body shot.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
^at least^
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
No it doesn't.
Why does it have to score? It’s a means to an end, but a takedown in and of itself scores nothing. It’s the striking and subs that score. Everything else is just a way to be able to do one of those three more effectively.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
All right it depends on the takedown, and it’s been a long time since I’ve been taken down by a wrestler, but it hurt a bit, more than a jab. I’m not giving it a bunch of value, just saying it’s a good as a solid jab.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
exactly
a drag-down double or single (distinctly opposed to a slam, throw etc) should count like a jab. It hurts a little, but not enough to bother a pro fighter too much. It sets up your other offense, it swings the momentum in your favor a bit. But if there’s no follow-up, you better get a damn lot of them to make it significant. Otherwise, one good combination, or sub attempt, or power strike landed would outweigh it for scoring purposes.
I consider myself a softcore fan.
Yes, while a throw or a slam is a power strike
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Here's my problem:
As soon as you start letting judges score takedowns, given how incompetent they are, they will overvalue them. It’s easier to say they aren’t worth anything for scoring purposes.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
You're probably right about that...
which leads right back to the issue of needing new judges, still. Just hard not to count a throw or a power shot into a takedown as nothing…
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
You're practically scoring them as nothing anyways.
A jab doesn’t score very high to begin with. Going from barely scoring to not scoring at all isn’t a huge leap logically but would (hopefully) prevent some of the judging incompetence.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
True.
So, slams and throws only. Agreed:)
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I can live with that
I’d still like to see them try it with ‘score like a jab’. Most of these judges are familiar with boxing, and if they were specifically instructed to score takedowns like jabs unless they could be classed as slams or throws, there’s a chance you would get reasonable results. If a late TD still ‘steals the round’ (good lord I hate to hear Rogan say that) then yes, count for nothing.
I consider myself a softcore fan.
One of those two*
Originally put striking/GNP/subs but changed it.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I decided to score the two main event draws in the UFC under this system
Edgar vs Maynard 2
R1 10-8.5 Maynard
R2 10-9 Edgar
R3 10-9.5 Maynard
R4 10-9.5 Edgar
R5 10-9.5 Edgar
Result: 48-47.5 Edgar
Penn vs Fitch
R1 10-9 Penn
R2 10-9.5 Penn
R3 10-9 Fitch
Result: 29.5-28.5 Penn
http://unintelligentdefense.blogspot.com
Regarding Edgar/Maynard:
I think you scored that first round incorrectly. That’s at least a 10-7.5 if there ever was one.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Its at least a 10-8. Nothing less. I haven’t watched it in awhile, but I recall Frankie holding his own the last 1-2 minutes of the round, for which I’d just make it a solid 10-8. Time to go rewatch it I guess.
"I have reached an age when, if someone tells me to wear socks, I don't have to."- Albert Einstein
I think that’s as bad as I’ve seen a fighter get beat on within one frame of a fight that went the distance.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with Bernier. Edgar held his own for three minutes out of that entire round. Two after he got his ass handed to him.
Yeah! Real nigga. ALL day! Just me. By myself. On the block. Holdin it down. Gun in my waist. Straight face. All day. Not a game. In jail. By myself. 1 bed. No pillow case. 1 pillow. You didn’t write me. It was early. Woke up. Went back to sleep. Took a nap. You ever go night night nigga? Everybody go night night nigga!
I think if you get kicked in the face you deserved it because that means you watched the foot come to your face.
If you out and some dude comes up and slaps you in the face while you with me? Than you just been slapped!
Held his own?
He was out on his feet.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Bad choice of words.
He managed to fight back for two mintues after that beating is very impressive, then arguably won every round after that.
Yeah! Real nigga. ALL day! Just me. By myself. On the block. Holdin it down. Gun in my waist. Straight face. All day. Not a game. In jail. By myself. 1 bed. No pillow case. 1 pillow. You didn’t write me. It was early. Woke up. Went back to sleep. Took a nap. You ever go night night nigga? Everybody go night night nigga!
I think if you get kicked in the face you deserved it because that means you watched the foot come to your face.
If you out and some dude comes up and slaps you in the face while you with me? Than you just been slapped!
He wasn't fighting back in that first at all.
Landed no significant offense. If ever there was a 10-7.5 round, that was it.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Its the whole thing with him only getting handled for that short a time though, most other cases like Brock and Carwin were much longer.
Yeah! Real nigga. ALL day! Just me. By myself. On the block. Holdin it down. Gun in my waist. Straight face. All day. Not a game. In jail. By myself. 1 bed. No pillow case. 1 pillow. You didn’t write me. It was early. Woke up. Went back to sleep. Took a nap. You ever go night night nigga? Everybody go night night nigga!
I think if you get kicked in the face you deserved it because that means you watched the foot come to your face.
If you out and some dude comes up and slaps you in the face while you with me? Than you just been slapped!
Time isn't important.
Edgar got beaten bad, dropped twice, and wasn’t steady on his feet for the entirety of the round. That’s the worst a fighter could ever look within a round and still go to a decision IMO.
What everyone needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome.
by lowellthehammer on Jul 11, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel it does.
The length of said ass beating should have some weight on the actual score of said round.
Yeah! Real nigga. ALL day! Just me. By myself. On the block. Holdin it down. Gun in my waist. Straight face. All day. Not a game. In jail. By myself. 1 bed. No pillow case. 1 pillow. You didn’t write me. It was early. Woke up. Went back to sleep. Took a nap. You ever go night night nigga? Everybody go night night nigga!
I think if you get kicked in the face you deserved it because that means you watched the foot come to your face.
If you out and some dude comes up and slaps you in the face while you with me? Than you just been slapped!
Yeah this is a good illustration of both sides of the issue. It works to how I saw the Edgar/Maynard fight, but if BJ scored a 10-9 under that system, then Fitch scored a 10-8 or better in the third by comparison. Still the eye of the beholder in play.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Regarding R3 of Fitch-Penn: 10-9 Fitch? Really? Didn’t he maintain top control for something like 4 minutes straight? Didn’t he land something like 10,000 strikes to BJ’s 2?
It speaks to why I’d like to see judges stop pretending that these numbers mean something intrinsically, and just score the rounds in relation to each other. If you give a 10-8 in the first, and then the other fighter comes back and beats the hell out of his opponent even worse in a later round, hey it’s weird, but it’s a 10-7. Fitch outscored BJ’s combined offensive output in the third round, and by a pretty wide margin.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Who are the judges anyways?
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but they often seem like the same people, and don’t some also judge boxing?
So do they have ANY MMA experience whatsoever (outside of judging)? How familiar are they with the techniques and such?
If they already do this then my bad, but maybe it might be useful to educate judges on various aspects of MMA and which techniques are more difficult/should count for more?
All judges will do is
make 10-9.5 the new 10-9.
We need new judges not a new system.
The biggest thing I have a problem with is how takedowns are scored
I know this is controversial. But to me it seems takedowns are valued so highly by judges that fighters feel encouraged to just go for takedowns and just lay and pray. Leads to more boring fights imo.
But how do judges score things like takedowns defended/ stuffed? Or better yet, someone getting up from underneath their opponent?
Seems like if you have a scenario where two guys exchange strikes fairly evenly, but one guy attempts like 10 takedowns, finally succeeds in one, but then the other fighter is able to stand up- the round is still scored for the guy who gets the takedown.
To me it feels like there should be a fundamental change to scoring a round like this for the other fighter- the guy that’s able to stuff 90% of takedown attempts and then work himself back up even after getting taken down
I’m fine with a takedown being considered a significant strike, but unless you power slam a guy, it’s not even as good as a knockdown. Position doesn’t count for anything, particularly when we’re dealing with 5 minute rounds, in which a patient BJJ specialist doesn’t have much time to set anything up.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Thinking half points are the solution
when in the current system there are already 8 unused points is just retarded beyond words. I know you’re not meant to give out 10-3 rounds (although, why not if it’s a 10 point system) but shit the current system already calls for close and dominant rounds to be scored differently and no one ever does. I cant recall even the last 10-8 round I saw scored.
Kuwabara Kuwabara
Please tell me Njokuani had a 10-8 in the first against Winner.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah two judges gave Njokuani a 10-8 in the first...one of them fucked up.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 11, 2011 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
good call, forgot about that one.
Kuwabara Kuwabara
by J. B. Maddox on Jul 11, 2011 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that the current system could be much more effective if it was used properly, but this would be a great way to cause change. The existing system is enough, but the half point system could get judging out of a rut.
@rask4p on Twitter
all sounds like logical phalacy to me. plus we’ve already agreed that faulty judging is the real issue so babying the already incompetent judges seems like a dangerous precedent. that and I dont feel like guys saying they only lost by half a point.
Kuwabara Kuwabara
by J. B. Maddox on Jul 11, 2011 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
If you start letting the guy who scored the first round of munoz/maia for munoz make up the new rules you are bound for failure.
by Phildo on Jul 11, 2011 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I like the half point system!
I look at it two ways. First, in a perfect world where judges score things correctly all the time it leads to better decisions. I think this is obvious and is a good reason to make the switch regardless of our current situation. Second, in the imperfect world we currently have where judges for whatever reason can’t seem to get their heads around 10-10 rounds and 10-8 rounds this new system would likely induce a change in mindset toward more active scoring. I think most judges (no proof of this) feel like they don’t have to score 10-8 rounds unless it’s a blood bath and can’t score 10-10 rounds because they arn’t doing their jobs. The half point system removes the stigma and gives them the freedom to score more accurately.
Will the scores be more consistant? Hells no. Is that a problem if the results are better? Not at all!
@rask4p on Twitter
The fact that the judges don’t score 10-10 and 10-8 rounds is only part of the problem, the problem is they pick the wrong person way too many times. you could give them 17 places after the decimal point, but if they pick the wrong person they still going to fuck it up.
I absolutely agree. The difference could be that the judge would give a 9.5 to the guy who lost rather 9 which amounts a one point swing rather than a two point swing. At the very least this is an opportunity to incite change in the judges mindset and hopefully get them moving in the right direction.
@rask4p on Twitter
But these go to eleven!
This is total nonsense. The judges currently have 10 points they can use to score a round, and as it is they only use 3 of them: 10, 9, or 8. Why don’t the commissions just instruct the judges to use the rest of their damn points they already have instead of now adding half points? They’ll just switch to scoring every round as 10, 9.5, or 9. And we’ll be in the same boat we’re in right now.
Decimal points are not the solution
As argued in the opening post and by the many esteemed commenters already. I realise that judges need to be educated and that a lot of the old guard have to go before judging can possibly become great but I do think a rule change of some sort could work. I’ve argued in favour of one change that I feel would not only make life easier for the judges but would also be a fairer way of scoring in a FanPost here.
I came in here to argue Siver Wiman was judged correctly
but that’s not really the point of the article….
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Jul 11, 2011 10:33 PM EDT reply actions
the PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE PEOPLE SCORING MMA THAT HAVE NEVER WRESTLED, DONE JIU-JITSU, OR BEEN IN A FIGHT IN THEIR LIFE.
it’s very, very simple.
i’ve heard judges say things to justify their score like “he didn’t advance position once he had the guy’s back”.
It’s like…where else was there to go? stand on the top of his head?
i’ve heard judges say things like “he pressed him against the cage and showed control”……
I’ve heard judges cite criteria that IS NOT LISTED IN THE commission rules for scoring.
the problem is the f’ing idiots that are uninformed about what they are watching/scoring. pure and simple.
it’s like having an umpire that’s never played a game of baseball in his life.
Gatti. Dekkers. Pele. Aoki. Kang. Vanderlei. Basillio. Harry Greb.
by theworldsoldestsport on Jul 12, 2011 12:24 AM EDT reply actions
The judges need to read my book MMA Judging 101
Here is an excerpt:
A takedown at the end of the round does not erase the fact that you have had your fucking face caved in for the previous 4 mins and 45 secs.
I agree that bad judges are a bigger problem than the 10-point must system. However, that doesn’t mean the problems of the 10-point must system should be ignored until there are better judges. Educating the current judges and/or getting new, better judges is a process that takes time. Introducing changes to or a replacement for the 10-point must system would be solved by bringing an idea forward, and then trying it out, like it’s being done in California, and therefore should be possible sooner, and in one swift official rule change. I support some kind of change to the 10-point must system immediately.
The half-point system is a good solution. However, I do agree that they should stick to the unused whole numbers, rather than go decimal:
10-10 = 10-10
10-9 = 10-9.5
10-8 = 10-9
10-7 = 10-8.5
10-6 = 10-8
Regarding people’s complaints that the current judges wouldn’t be able to effectively adjust to a changed system like the one listed above, I disagree. Generally, you’d think bad judges are bad because they’re uneducated in MMA, and not becuase they’re retards. I don’t think an adjustment to the scale should be a problem, especially after 6-12 months of it having been established.
Alternatively, accuracy could be increased further if the 10-point must system were abandoned entirely. There could be a new system in which the winner of Round 1 is awarded 1 point, and then the winner of each subsequent round would receive an amount of points relative to how dominant their round victory was in relation to the victory in Round 1. For example, Fighter A wins Round 1 due to generally landing more strikes, and therefore gains 1 point. Fighter A also wins Round 2, however this time he knocks his opponent down and tries to win the fight via rear naked choke, but is unsuccessful. The greater dominance in that round earns him 2.5 points, since he was more than twice as dominant. In Round 3 Fighter B chooses not to stand, and instead takes down his opponent, landing some elbows, cutting his opponent, but ultimately staying in guard. For that round, he’d earn 2 points. The total score would be 3.5 – 2.0, to Fighter A. Those numbers would be converted into percentages, making the final score 64:36 to Fighter A. After that, the three judges’ scorecards need to be combined. They could either be averaged out, so, 64:36, 60:40, and 64:36 would be averaged into 62:38. OR, the winners on each scorecard could be totalled up, like in the current system: “Judge John scores it 64:36, Judge Mike scores it 60:40, and Judge Dave scores in 64:36, for the winner by unanimous decision, Fighter A!”. There could be other little rules, such as, to win, a fighter must win by more than 5%, or else the fight is a draw, or something like that.
The above solution would be better than the half-point system for increased accuracy, but be a more radical change, and therefore would require more adjustment by both the judges and the fans. One argument I can see people use against the above system is that it requires judges to keep the happenings of previous rounds in their memory: They’d be judging Round 2 in relation to Round 1, and Round 3 in relation to Round 1 and/or Round 2. That’s a drawback, but only a slight one. Again, I bring up the point that generally MMA judges are retards, but just uneducated. They should be trusted in their ability to maintain perspective across the different rounds.
If I were to score Edgar/Maynard using both of the above systems, this is how they’d look:
HALF-POINT SYSTEM (using 10-10, 10-9, 10-8, 10-7, 10-6)
R1: Maynard 10-6
R2: Edgar 10-8
R3: 10-9 to Maynard, although it could go either way
R4: Edgar 10-8
R5: 10-9 to Edgar, although it could go either way
These scores would result in either 46-44 Maynard, 45-45 Draw, or 46-44 Edgar, depending on the scores of Rounds 3 and 5. This is basically the same as how the fight was actually scored, and goes to show that the Edgar/Maynard fight was a great example of “if any fight’s a draw, this one is”.
MY PROPOSED SYSTEM
R1: Maynard 1.0
R2: Edgar 0.4
R3: Maynard 0.1
R4: Edgar 0.3
R5: Edgar 0.1
These scores total 1.1-0.8 in favor of Maynard, producing a 58-42 scorecard. I don’t know whether people would agree with my scores, but you can see that it massively favors Maynard’s dominant Round 1, which is what gives him the win. I’m happy with this. Refer to the classic question of: “Who would you rather be in that fight?” I’d rather be Maynard, due to the beating Edgar received in R1.
What about making ex fighters and/or specialists judges? And making it a full time occupation as opposed to getting paid per fight. Surely there is enough money to be able to put on a dozen guys fulltime, who go through tape and analyze theirs and other judges performances during the week – kind of like training I guess. Also gives ex fighters more career options when they hang up the gloves.
Getting a mixed bag of guys who were specialists in different areas who constantly improve themselves and become more knowledgeable about the other aspects of MMA would be alot better than a Cecil Peoples.
Imagine the 3 judges being people like Rener/Rorion Gracie, Bas Rutten & Guy Mezger. Or Eddie Bravo, Ernesto Hoost & Pat Militech. You get the idea – people who actually understand the nuances and have experienced what is going on inside the cage and know how effective the techniques actually are. Have a variety every fight and they can score based on what they know – Someone to score the grappling aspect, someone to score the striking and someone to give an overall score for control & aggression etc.
I also really wish they would penalize fighters for lay and pray. Doesn’t have to be a yellow card system like Pride, but definitely a warning and point deduction for not being active on the ground. If you take someone down you have to at least try and G&P or pass their guard etc. I agree that strikers etc have to get better TDD etc but the majority of wrestlers are one of the things ruining the sport – especially when they have uneducated judges creaming their pants over a takedown at the end of a round.
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
