MMA Scoring/Judging Debate

[Guest Lt Gen Potato Head]

This isn't meant to steal sahyder's thunder at all (only thought of that when I threw 'debate' in the title), but I noticed a few people talking about MMA scoring in the MMA thread a few days ago.

So lay out your proposals here.

Should judges score each round individually, or the fight as a whole (just picking a winner)?

What should be the standards for having a 10-8 or 10-7 round as opposed to a 10-9?

Should judges be able to call rounds a draw?

First person to make a comment like "some fights are unanimous decisions when they were close enough that they probably should have been split decisions" or anything along those lines gets shot.

[Gabriel]

I like the current system, but there are some issues that I do have with it.

I feel like, if you can't determine a clear winner of the round, it should be scored as 9-9. I also feel, that if a round is dominated offensively by one participant, forcing the other to act defensively for the full five minutes, it should be a 10-8 round. 10-7 Rounds and similar scores should only occur because of points being taken away for fouls.

I'll use the Dong-Hyun Kim Vs Karo Parisyan fight as an example, as it is freshest in our minds.

The way I saw that fight... Kim dominated Parisyan for the full five minutes of the first round... and then the second and third rounds consisted of what I deemed to be an extremely even battle.

That said, when they announced Karo as the winner, I was extremely disappointed. I can understand that under the current system, the last two rounds were very close, and the judges awarded them to Karo for whatever reason... but I really believe Stun Gun should have been given a 10-8 first round...which then should have made the fight a draw.

[IAceI]

9-9 for drawn rounds, although it's generally easier to pick an actual winner, it's not generally THAT even. But with things like this, if there's a 10-9 round where it's been really close and one person just pips it, if the next one is quite similar then I'm not surprised if the other person goes 10-9.

10-8 for pretty much absolute domination. 10-7 for when it's domination and the other person cheap shots. 10-6's I don't particularly believe in, for me 7 should be as low as it does and that's only when an illegal shot is involved deemed avoidable. For me having a 10-9 and 10-8 is just a way to differentiate and add some depth to just saying "Round 1 - Fighter X wins, 2 - Fighter Y wins" etc.

But I also think there should be some consideration given to the whole fight, rather than looking at is entirely on a round by round basis as that makes the fight seem a bit too broken down. Also I'd quite like to see Dana's scores for each fight, like just a graphic or whatever. So if they have the 3 judges official scores, then Dana's personal score, then maybe a celebrity fan's just to see who thinks what. They wouldn't actually count, but I feel sometimes its easier to watch a round and say "well he was a bit better to me, 10-9 him" rather than scoring on "octagon control" which seems a bit hazy. If you push the fight and try to dominate you should be rewarded for that, if you run around a bit and try to avoid confrontation, then I think scoring wise that should be detrimental to you and it forces you to try and win the fight. But I figure I'd need a bit more time to work on all the ideas and stuff and make sure they're okay, but I'm not necessarily sold that these official score judges are all that.

[Liam]

Why 9-9? I agree with having rounds being drawn, but why not just do what boxing does, and have it as a 10-10, and then heading for 10-9, 10-8 and so on?

I know its basically the same thing, but yeah.

But thats the main thing I'd change, considering some rounds are pretty tight, and almost become a matter of tossing a coin to decide who you are going to give a round to, because you have to. The problem with drawn rounds then becomes more drawn matches, so that would probably need to be rectified.

[IAceI]

Because for me 10 means you won, 9-9 indicates neither were good enough but it hardly matters.

See and for me in the case of a tight first round or so, followed by a second round of domination by one guy then I'm more inclined to say the first round went to the same guy. I know that's not particularly "fair" as such but that's just how I tend to score it.

For example GSP/Penn this gone Sunday, not a perfect example but I'll use it.

For some the first round was very tight, but the second round was all GSP. So I'd be more inclined to give the first to GSP as well, as it would indicate he done more in terms of mental and physical damage (although the instructions between rounds can't be overlooked) but that's just how I see it.

For me though the first round wasn't that tight, not like Rogan and Goldberg claimed. GSP was the only one really doing any work and Penn was just defending, so for me that's a 10-9 round GSP which is why I claimed it wasn't a perfect example but there you go.

I know reading that seems completely delusional on paper as a way to score, but that's just how I do it. If I genuinely can't pick a winner of a round, which is rare but does happen, then for me I kinda look at the flow of the match as a whole and award if accordingly. I hate draws though so I'll do anything to avoid the possibility of anything like a draw cropping up

[Liam]

I think 10-10 works better purely because I kinda see it as you start off 10-10, and if you lose a round, you are essentially dropping points. If its an even round, it stays 10-10. But yeah, it doesn't make much of a difference.

[Guest Lt Gen Potato Head]

My thinking:

"Score the fight, not the rounds" is ludicrous. If you're scoring the rounds properly, you're scoring the fight anyhow.

Draws should be allowed (I'd prefer 9-9 although I'm not too fussed either way), but only in very rare circumstances. 10-9 should be for a slight to solid edge, 10-8 for complete domination, and going lower only when the ref shaves points (basically how it is now).

[Gabriel]

I think the only reason I'm even fussed about the system right now is because of the outcome of that fight last Saturday.

I mean, a guy dominates the first round, and then the second two are extremely close calls... arguable even that he won at least one of those last two rounds... and he loses the fight. It just seems like, because of that, there's some tweaking that needs to be done.

I do agree though, that round by round is the way to go.

[Wrath of Kane]

The first thing i think that needs to be done, is to sit down EVERY MMA ref, and teach them the rules, make sure rules are universial, so we don't have the whole back of the head means what fiasco.

Next EVERY JUDGE in MMA, needs to be tested on knowledge of the sport. Alot of judges are boxing purists who know nothing about MMA. It leads to decisions like Diego Sanchez vs Jon Fitch, Matt Hamill vs Michael Bisping and Dong Hyun Kim vs Matt Brown. even with well educated judges things will get scrambled, bad decisions, but it will clear alot of it up.

The 10 Must system is a good scoring it should go like this.

10-10 - Draw

10-9 - One fighter wins the round closely

10-8 - One fighter dominates the round

10-7 - One fighter absolutely dominates the round and is on the verge of finishing their opponent on several occasions.

10-6 - Only when Fouls occur.

I also think that Stand-Ups need to be retracted they ruin the fight. And if a fighter does NOTHING on top and the fighter on the bottom is active and landing strikes going for submissions that fighter should get the round. Unlike what happened with Fitch vs Sanchez.

I do not think a knockdown or close sub automatically equals 10-8 either. I think in some cases you can be losing the round the whole time, and catch a last second knockdown, that doesn't neccisarily win you the round.

Those are my thoughs, i've competed in MMA before i fucked up knee.

[Enter Blue Guy]

The most obvious thing has been said already, more than once; the judges must be properly educated, then there should be a specific qualifications test before a judge can score MMA fights.

I don't think the 10 point system is right for MMA in general, three rounds isn't enough for it to be used properly. I don't think it's the worst thing and the sport isn't going to die as long is it's there, a lot of the suggestions in here would help the system for sure. I think there are more accurate ways to judge a sport with as many intricacies as MMA. If it was up to me, there would be a definitive point system and judges would only be needed for the debatable aspects of a decision.

First off, instead of the round by round, 10 point system, there would be a specific point based, full fight, criteria (which most people either love or hate. I love). It's mostly of the cuff and outside of the box, so please bear with it.

3 points for a clean knockdown of an opponent (no accidental slips. A clear slip after a strike would count as whatever the strike landed was. Anything resembling more of a push or trip would count as a takedown)

2 points for:

Landing a power strike

Landing a clean knee to the head or body in the clinch

Successfully executing a takedown

Achieving full mount

A submission attempt that is fully locked in, but that doesn't end a fight

1 point for:

Landing a jab or an unchecked leg kick

Landing a clean punch in the clinch

Reversal into a dominant position

Achieving half mount, side mount, and rear mount (if any mount is achieved off a reversal, it would count as "reversal into dominant position" and nothing more)

-1 point for an accidental foul after ref issued warnings

-5 points for excessive fouling

Then finally when the judges come into play, judging the debatable fight factors

Who controlled the pace for the majority of the fight.

Who delivered the most damage.

Who was the more active fighter.

Something like 3 or 5 points for each, something that ends the fight with a definitive result.

Excessive? Time consuming? Maybe. Does it have it's flaws? Of course, not nearly as much as the system in place. For the most accurate results, it would take something like this.

Like I said, in a perfect MMA World. This would require video replay, something that smaller promotions may not have access to unless every AC that regulates MMA designates the proper equipment along with the judges it sends to sanctioned events.

As it is now, the must is for is that the judges are qualified to the highest standard. I think after that, the only thing you can ask for is that fans and fighters realize MMA is a sport. Not a brawl where only one can leave on their feet. There are imperfections in they way we determine a sudden death winner in most sports, a lot of which fans and players have reason to bitch about. But for the most part, they've gotten used to it and went with the flow. I think the best we can have it something along the lines of Wrath of Kane's scoring.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Enter Blue Guy

[ZJ Penn]

I also think that Stand-Ups need to be retracted they ruin the fight.

Really? I think there needs to be a lot of educating to referees on when to stand it up, but without it there'd be a ton of fights ruined.

[Wrath of Kane]

I also think that Stand-Ups need to be retracted they ruin the fight.

Really? I think there needs to be a lot of educating to referees on when to stand it up, but without it there'd be a ton of fights ruined.

I think they ruin the validity of the sport. I think that if you get taken down you should have to get back up not have the ref do it for you.

I think it may make some fights unappealing to some, but it adds legitimacy. Many people feel that stand ups are bad for the sport, people like the Gracies and Joe Rogan.

Sure LnP fights may bore the fans, but it's part of the sport. If your Opponent takes you down, either he should let you up, you sub/ko him, reverse him, or get up. The Referee should not get in the middle. It's like in the NFL when some "boring" teams just play Defense and do nothing on offense but short runs up the middle, the ref doesn't stop them it's not exciting to most but it's still a sport first.

i hate stand ups, i just personally think they take away validity.