How did you score the 1st round of Edgar vs Maynard?

10-7 at least. You just can't only give Maynard 1 extra point for all of those knockdowns, near stoppages, ect... he definitely deserved more than a 10-8. Hell, you can get a 10-8 with a off balance induced flash knockdown in boxing. It's the same scoring system... more complex with the different aspects of the sport. Not as far as round 1 went though.

 

But you're talking as if the condition of the fight actually mattered at all. It doesn't. It shouldn't.

A 10-9 round is a 10-9 round whether it's a championship fight or an under card fight.

Again, the analogy is just fine. They can talk about what a 10-8 was prior to giving it, but until they've seen one, they had no real basis to award one. Similar to a 10-7. They, I'm sure, have talked about it. Did they ever witness one? Very possibly, but I'm not sure judges themselves pay as much attention as some of the fans do.

That was as dominant a round as one can possibly have without having it stopped. It's completely ridiculous to limit it to two options when the range of actions within a round is so large. I've even written to Keith Kizer about this.

 

:good

 

You're missing the point. If what they discuss is "when a round is totally one sided and there's a good chance of a stoppage lasting the whole round, that should be a 10-8 round" tells them that when they see such a thing, they should call it a 10-8. Sure it's dumb that the biggest margin of victory you can have is to give the guy getting whipped on 80% of the points you give the guy who's whipping him, but if that's the rule then that's the rule. For them to decide, "well, I think it should be a 10-7" when that's never been discussed and the appropriate method for scoring is to give a 10-8 then that's what they should do. Complain about the rules and everyone will agree with you. Saying that they SHOULD have scored it 10-7 under the claim that "someone had to score the first 10-8 round, so why not a 10-7" is stupid.

 

Why do you keep saying "if what they discuss"? The 10 pt must system is what it is. There is absolutely no rule that states they have to give it a 10-8. What is with all of this "discussed" ****? The judges are incompetent if they can't figure out something so simple. The scoring system already doesn't work for ****.. especially in cases like this. Only having an option of 10-9 or 10-8, regardless of how the round went makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

Again, you're falling back to that same false analogy. I think we can all safely agree that scoring in MMA is about as ******ed as Sarah Palin.

What I'm arguing is that the range of possibilities of a 10-8 should not reasonably, and does not, include what happened last Saturday in Round 1 of the Main Event.

You can have someone get a knockdown or two and land some pepper jabs and a few decent leg kicks and in some circumstances that might be enough to warrant a 10-8 in the eyes of most judges. However, we can see, quite plainly, that the example I used above doesn't even begin to approach the type of control and damage done by Maynard in Round 1. As I said above, it is about as dominant a round as one can possibly have without the fight being stopped. Clearly that warrants a 10-7. Just because they may not have seen one does not mean that the prospect of it happening is non-existent. It happened. What I believe happened is that none of them have scored a 10-7 before and thus are reluctant to do so even when it is obvious to do just that.

And those arguing that it should never be a 10-7 because it'd be too difficult to "come back" from, that argument is just ridiculous at best. So, because you got your ass handed to you in every conceivable way, but it would be hard to come back from, the other guy who handed out said beating should be penalized? No, what happened, happened and what is warranted should be awarded.

By that same standard, we shouldn't have punches because it would be too difficult to come back and win a fight if one fighter hits another and knocks him down. No, it's tough ****. You got hit, you lost the round, he dominated, he gets the allotted points. It is up to you to do everything in your power to prevent the possibility of a 10-7 (and on up until the round is in your favor). If it happens, it's your fault. There's no sympathy rule. That's just plainly ridiculous.

 

Agreed on both counts.

“Should” I agree with. Nothing about how MMA is scored is how it “should” be. That doesn’t mean that that’s how it IS.

Uh, you’re a bit over your skis with that one there. 10-8 rounds in MMA are pretty rare and certainly not given for a knockdown and a few leg kicks, much less by “most judges”. I agree that they’ve been given for less extreme rounds than Edgar/Maynard II round 1, but come on, I’ve never seen one given for what you’re discussing here and I doubt anyone else has either.

Because it’s a ridiculous example that stretched beyond the point of credulity.

That’s probably true.

It warrants something totally different than a 10-7 because the whole scoring system is meaningless. It’s way too much like boxing and to argue that it should be “fixed” in this case by making it more like boxing is silly.

This is like arguing that one of the judges should have turned in a card that gave Edgar the second round 46-39 because he/she decided on the spot to count takedowns as x points and stuffed takedowns as –y points and a slam as z points etc etc. THEY CAN’T JUST MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG. If all they’ve been TOLD and all they’ve been TRAINED to give is a 10-8 no matter what, then don’t be surprised when they give a 10-8.

Change the rules. They’re stupid and don’t apply well to the sport at all. Until then, apply the rules that you have as best you can, which is what they did in that fight.

 

Posting this as a preamble to my response to your post.

VIII. JUDGES

A. No judge will have a financial interest in any fighter he judges.

B. No judge will be a manager/trainer of any fighter he judges.

C. In a bout goes to it's full time limit, the outcome will be decided by a majority decision of three, (3), MMAC judges.

D. A judge is accredited, sanctioned and selected based upon his character, experience, stature in the MMA world, knowledge of MMA systems and impartiality.

E. Judging Criteria
1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it's full time limit based upon the following criteria:
-Clean Strikes
-Effective Grappling
-Octagon Control
-Effective Aggressiveness

F. Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient) -the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking.

I. Effective Grappling
1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean takedown and active guard position.
2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly takedown his opponent, is effectively grappling.
3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple, through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous defense from the top fighter.
4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.
5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the preceding situations were met.(items 2-4) 6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored the clean takedown deserves the round.
7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling

J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

K. Effective Aggressiveness
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring) 2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness.

L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded.
Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective) -clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching) -octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
-octagon control
-effective aggressiveness

M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the
following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike -by submission attempt -from a throw -from clean strikes either standing or grounded.

N. Judge's Scorecard Procedures
After each round:
1. each Judge will determine and record a score each round 2. a MMAC official will collect the scorecard after each round 3. the MMAC official will track and add each Judges score by round 4. If the fight goes the time limit, the MMAC official will add each Judge's scorecard and double check total 5. the fighter with the greater number of points wins the fight on each Judges scorecard 6. the fighter who won on the majority of the Judges Scorecards, wins the fight 7. the MMAC official will hand the decision to the PA announcer

O. Types of Judge's Decisions
1. If all three scorecards agree Unanimous 2. If two of three scorecards agree Split 3. Two scorecards agree and one draw Majority 4. two scorecards agree on draw Draw 5. all scorecards different Draw

IX SCORING SYSTEM

A. The MMAC and UFC have adopted a 10 point must system.
The Judge will use the criteria to determine a winner each round. The three step procedure per round is as follows:
-determine winner of round (can be draw) -determine if winner dominated round -fouls then factored in (subtract one point per foul from fighter)

B. Draws are again acceptable in MMAC events

C. Point Totals
1. two fighters who draw are given a score of 10-10 2. the fighter who wins a round is given a score of 10-9 3.The fighter who dominates a round is given a score of 10-8 (a score of 10-7 is possible for a dominant round) 4.For each foul a fighter commits, a point is subtracted. This deduction can change a winning round to a draw. 9-9

 

10-8 Even if the judges are allowed to score it 10-7 you simply can't apply the same logic to MMA as you can to boxing when scoring. Knockdowns are much more common in MMA than they are in boxing, hence the usually automatic score of 10-7 for a round where a boxer is knocked down twice. And what about a round where one fighter gets repeatedly gets taken down in a round and dominated on the ground with mounts, submission attempts, ground and pound, etc... shouldn't some of those be taken into consideration for 10-7 rounds? Because I've seen plenty of those types of rounds, and never a 10-7 score.

 

I completely agree. There is a basis for scoring in MMA, and, however flawed it is, a basis for a 10-7 round is included (see above post).

Again, depending on the timing of the events I described in the rounds and how well they're executed (or, in other words, how "dramatic" it is seen) it is very plausible for the judges in MMA to award a 10-8 round. Common? No, but still plausible.

That's the whole argument, it's the range of a 10-8 (and even a 10-9) that is absurd even though there is a basis for scoring more loosely. It's a false equivalent. Not all "10-8"'s are equal. Edgar vs. Maynard II, Round 1 is not equal to any 10-8 round that I can recall. You yourself agree with my statement that it was as dominant a round as is possible without having the fight stopped. Yet, your argument falls that there is no criteria, or basis, for scoring a 10-7. I have shown you, without any doubt whatsoever, that there is.

I've already shown the rules in my post above. Those are the rules, and if applied appropriately, in this case, a 10-7 round is not only plausible, but the only reasonable outcome to any objective viewing of that round.

 

Absolutely, they should. However, 95% of judges working in MMA don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, metaphorically speaking, when it comes to grappling.

This was simply the most salient example of a 10-7 that should be easily understood because while the majority might be amazingly ignorant of the subtleties of grappling, everyone understands a punch and by no reasonable stretch of the imagination can you realistically consider that anything other then a 10-7 if you're a decently educated fan/judge (but then again, maybe that's my error in thinking that the judges are even "decently" educated).

 

Well, I guess that can end all of the "if that is what was discussed" nonsense.

Clearly 10-7 rounds are possible for a dominant round... and there as never been a finished round in history that deserved it more than this one. If it's possible... then it should have been given. If that wasn't a 10-7 round then there is no such thing.

 

If those are in fact the rules for the Edgar/Maynard II fight then you're absolutely right. As I said before, if more is required for a 10-7 round, I don't know what it could be. I'm not sure how mma judging certification works, but for at least some boxing referee training you watch actual rounds and are meant to give the "correct" score for them. I wonder what, if anything, they show for a 10-7 round. For example, in the fight between Johnson and Brookins on the TUF final, all three judges gave that round to Johnson 10-9 when he was hammering Brookins. One judge only gave Carwin the first round 10-9 in his fight with Lesnar. It has to make you wonder what the actual "standards" are for these rounds and if they're made ridiculously high.

But anyway, as I said, if the rules for the judges were as you posted, then, even though the 10 point system is horrible for mma, that round should have been 10-7.