How would you change round scoring in MMA ?

BigSm0ke

This seems to be an issue that comes up alot about MMA judging and scoring. I'd like to know what people think should be done to change it or if your happy with the 10 point must system ?

personally I'm not sure how you could change it, I would prefer if a whole fight was judged as a whole, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented.

Mr. Manager

Change the point system.. Assign a greater gap for round wins so that it's more convincing.

Dave 101

Same system, but give more 10-8 rounds if more dominant, and 10-10 rounds if it's close, Hendricks should hav got 10-8 in round 2 and round 1 prob 10-10

SureYWouldntYa

There should be less emphasis on the wrestling. I remember quite a few rounds were A was winning 10-9 comfortably, but B scored a takedown with 10 seconds to go and won the round

El Guapo!

I was thinking about this only last night.
It's very difficult to come up with a new scoring system as there's flaws with all of them. The 10 point system probably works the best out of them all. The only thing you need to sort out is human error in judging. It all depends on how the judges see a fight, and people see a fight differently all the time.

Other than that, you could have something like a combination of Fight Metric and judges score the bout.

Fight Metric scores it like this: A fighter is awarded 1 point for a strike, 2 for a (significant) takedown, 3 points for a significant strike etc. (These are purely examples and would need to be perfected)

Judges then score the fight based on octagon control, aggression etc.

Then at the end of the fight, an aggregate of both the judges analysis and Fight Metric score is created.

That system obviously has flaws, as do all scoring systems. None is absolutely perfect. And the more you try to come up with a new system, the more complicated it gets. The current system is probably the best IF the judges all do their jobs correctly. And for the most part, decisions are usually correct with the 10 point system.

Charlie3dan

After a long debate with a friend about the GSP V Hendricks fight we ended up looking at the rules on UFC.com (I know I know) and it looks like the term "effective" is pretty loosely defined:

From UFC.com: (http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations, 14. Judging, point E, if you're arsed).

"Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant."

That sounds to me like the quantity is deemed more important than the effectiveness. So if I land 3 jabs that cause no damage but you land a right hook that cuts me, I still win the round. If that's the way judges are looking at it, a better definition of the word "effective" would go a long way to improving things.

Does anyone know what the requirements are for judges in terms of MMA Training/ Knowledge/ Experience?

Mr. Manager

Maybe an appeals board? Fight scored on the night. Losing fighter has X amount of hours to lodge a complaint. 3 new judges re watch the fight and score it.

Doesn't really solve the problem on the night though..

Mr. CooL ICE

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

There should be less emphasis on the wrestling. I remember quite a few rounds were A was winning 10-9 comfortably, but B scored a takedown with 10 seconds to go and won the round

Agree... kinda. I think a takedown should be scored favourably if it results in damage being inflicted or submissions being attempted, perhaps even a position advance. A takedown where top position does nothing but hug bottom position before being reset should not be scored at all.

I hated the end of rd2 of Lawlor - MacDonald. He was on top of Lawlor for almost two minutes and landed maybe max 5 strikes and at the end of the round he stood up with a mini celebration. Kinda like "yeah, nailed it". That sort of tactic is frustrating to watch.

dave1982

Me personally Judges should understand MMA completely, maybe retired fighters get a judging licence.I think biggest problem is the Judges not knowing what they are doing.

Clive

A simple change that could be slotted in immediately would be to allow half points.

Mellor

Half point isn't needed if they used the system properly*

As it stands the judges have at least 4 options when scoring a round. The whole issue with scoring system comes down to judges not deviating from 10-9 enough. Have you ever actually read the criteria for the scoring?

10-10 neither contestant shows clear dominance;
10-9 a contestant wins by a close margin,
10-8 a contestant overwhelmingly dominates
10-7 a contestant totally dominates

Based on that there should be way more 10-10s and 10-8s. Basically every 10-8 that was ever given was actually a 10-7.
If they stuck to that it would fix the issues with scoring (but not ignorant judges).

*obviously I get that half point scoring is an attempt to force more variance in round scores. I just pointing out the option exists already.

Morph the Cat

When half points had been experimented with over more than a year in California, roughly 3% of the results were different, in the sense one out of every 33 or so decisions fights would have had a different winner. However, 11% of one judge's cards would have registered a different winner, basically once in every nine fights at least one judge would have had a different winner, and in this case, you only needed one judge changing to have a different result.
The “Pride scoring” will never be done by athletic commissions, whether it’s better or not. There was some momentum for half points, as New Jersey had serious interest in it and California was all for it, but it’s now pretty much a dead issue.

SureYWouldntYa

I Love PPPP Longtime wrote: »

Maybe an appeals board? Fight scored on the night. Losing fighter has X amount of hours to lodge a complaint. 3 new judges re watch the fight and score it.

Doesn't really solve the problem on the night though..

i like that idea. but the only it could work is if the judges haven't seen the fight. for example if GSP Hendricks was reviewed, because of the outroar from much of the UFC and Queen Dana it's likely that it would be awarded to Hendricks

DrPhilG

Mellor hits the nail on the head.

I had been thinking that the half point idea would work, but as stated the main problem is that the 10 point system is simply being misused.

10-10 rounds are rare. I don't recall ever seeing a 10-7.

Realistically if the 10 point system had been applied correctly then Hendricks would have won 48-47, maybe 48-46 if you score both Hendricks rounds 10-8.

10-10
10-9
9-10
10-8
9-10

GSP winning 3 and 5 by a 10-9 score, the first round being a 10-10. If you forced me to choose a winner in the first round I'd say GSP, but in all honesty it should have been a 10-10.

Im assuming that they are reluctant to give many 10-10 rounds because it would lead to more draws but it's fairer to do that than have loads of bad decisions.

Mr. Manager

DrPhilG wrote: »

Mellor hits the nail on the head.

I had been thinking that the half point idea would work, but as stated the main problem is that the 10 point system is simply being misused.

10-10 rounds are rare. I don't recall ever seeing a 10-7.

Realistically if the 10 point system had been applied correctly then Hendricks would have won 48-47, maybe 48-46 if you score both Hendricks rounds 10-8.

10-10
10-9
9-10
10-8
9-10

GSP winning 3 and 5 by a 10-9 score, the first round being a 10-10. If you forced me to choose a winner in the first round I'd say GSP, but in all honesty it should have been a 10-10.

Im assuming that they are reluctant to give many 10-10 rounds because it would lead to more draws but it's fairer to do that than have loads of bad decisions.

Nearly certain Maldonado was 10-7 against Texeira in both rounds.

SureYWouldntYa

I Love PPPP Longtime wrote: »

Nearly certain Maldonado was 10-7 against Texeira in both rounds.

what fight did you see if Maldonado was 10-7 up :pac:

Morph the Cat

A 10-7 should be a stoppage. That's why there is no 10-7.

Mr. Manager

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

what fight did you see if Maldonado was 10-7 up :pac:

I obv meant down

Mellor

DrPhilG wrote: »

Im assuming that they are reluctant to give many 10-10 rounds because it would lead to more draws but it's fairer to do that than have loads of bad decisions.

I was going to touch on that also.
Draws are messy, they mess up progressive match making, but I still prefer a messy draw over the "wrong" decision.

I Love PPPP Longtime wrote: »

Nearly certain Maldonado was 10-7 against Texeira in both rounds.

That's actually precisely the fight I was thinking of in terms of judges not using the proper scoring options. You'll never believe how the judges actually scored it.
20-18
20-17
20-16

That's fucking insane. Romulo Bettencourt some how scored BOTH rounds 10-9. He should never be allow to judge after that.

The judge giving too 8s looks good next to the sheer incompetence of the other two, but imo the first was a 10-7.

Morph the Cat wrote: »

A 10-7 should be a stoppage. That's why there is no 10-7.

10-7 is totally domination. And I agree, a 10-7 round should be stopped almost every time it happens
But its not uncommon for a round that should be stopped to make it to the bell. Teixeira v Maldonaldo is a perfect example. Round 1 should have been stopped. Rounds 2 is was out on his feet, jelly legged against the cage.

So, if refs are going to let that kind of action take place, then the judges need to score it accordingly.

Mr. Manager

I was actually looking for the score card for that yesterday. Incredible judging...

califano

I would leave it be the way it currently is. The amount of times a controversial decision comes around is few and far between. Im just thankful its isnt like boxing scoring. As long as mma can keep that sort of difference in comparrison to boxing they should be happy.

Swashbuckler

I would keep the ten point system but have five judges.personally I don't think the judges got the gsp fight wrong but maybe that's not relevant to this conversation

unknown13

10-7 should mean the ref should be suspended for not stopping the fight.

Cyborg / Finney round one is an example of a 10-7, infact that should have probably been a 10-6 round. That is how bad it was.

Chewabacca

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ0fqVyxoz8

If you skip to 9.00 Cruz talks about the scoring system. I've always respected Cruz' view on all things mma and agree with him here.

More 10-10s and10-8 rounds makes sense but when these idiots are in charge of scoring the debate will turn to what is a 10-8 and what isn't. Surely there's a wealth of former fighters and trainers who know the ins and outs of the sport who would be glad to do the judging.

At all the Irish events I've been at the judges have been former fighters or trainers and I've never seen a decision that was shocking in the the few Irish Shows I've been to. Correct me if I'm wrong here, though, I'm sure that many people here have been to dozens of Irish shows.

It's upsetting that the sport we love is being plagued by incompetent officials at the highest level.

beaverfever

I think a complete new scoring system is needed with scores awarded for strikes/takedowns landed. Obviously this neeeds a LOT of thinking and planning but it has potential.

Mellor

beaverfever wrote: »

I think a complete new scoring system is needed with scores awarded for strikes/takedowns landed. Obviously this neeeds a LOT of thinking and planning but it has potential.

Are all strikes going to be equal?
Does a jab score the same as a power hook? What about a low kick, or a spinning back kick.

How many strikes equal a takedown?
Will a suplex or a high crotch slam be equal to a leg reap or a trip?
Do only TDs score What about sweeps, passed, positional control on the ground. In which case it makes more sense to TD and let them up and TD again and score twice rather than TD and control them.

I honestly can't see any potential in a system as it just far too complex. And the most important reason is that the sport is MMA not UFC. A lot of people are forgetting that.

Chewabacca

beaverfever wrote: »

I think a complete new scoring system is needed with scores awarded for strikes/takedowns landed. Obviously this neeeds a LOT of thinking and planning but it has potential.

A system this complicated would be near impossible to implement. The results would have to be taken in real time, including determining whether a strike landed clean or not, was a power shot or not etc. It's just not a feasible option.

cowzerp

It's the judges that are the problem, Not the scoring system

Some of it is incompetence and some of it is just not understanding the game as a whole, Some judges are simply way to biased to their favourite arts for example.

chrisbag1986

would love to see for title matches, 25 mins, no break. If it goes the 25mins the current title holder is still the champ. You have to ko or tap pout the champ to win the belt. ( actually defeat the champ )

Makes it more exciting but would never be allowed.