Create a new MMA scoring system and discuss

Could not be more wrong.

**** numbers. They do nothing but complicate matters.

Set a clear criteria and then have the judges watch the entire fight. Then have them pick who they thought won. It should be that simple.

 

Whether to introduce numbers or not is a hard debate given the incompentance/bias so often displayed by MMA judges. Genreally I'd be agenst it given the potential for exploitation but it does provide a decent set of standards.

Before trying that route I'd try to stick with something close to the current system but with better defined standards. Besides possible bias(although likely linked to it) I think the #1 problem right now is that far too often judges score a match by there feeling as to who is "in control" not on the actual action. By that I don't always mean "in top position on the ground" but rather the fighter they believe is looking more likely to win the match. The problem is in MMA thats hard as hell to judge the flow of action and there having to do so having only seen a 1/3 or 1/5th of the fight.

Take Shogun/Machida 1 for example, Cecil when asked to justify his scoring of the early rounds for Machida claimed that he thought Lyoto was controling the match. If you think he was being honiest what does that that mean? I'd say it means he believed that Machida was setting Shogun up for the big counter. That wouldnt be an unreasonable view to take given Machida's hiostory BUT he's in effect letting his pre formed opinions/bias's effect his judging rather than actually judging the action that took place infront of him. Thats really the standard judging should be held to I'd say, since you can't judge the entire bout(seems were assuming that 3/5 round by round scoring isnt changing) you need to stop guessing about what could happen next and focus on what actually did happen.

The old Pride system seems like it would actually be a good middle ground with stats to me, give the judges a list of desending criteria and have them score by the top of the list, only progressing downward if no clear advanatge is obvious, something like...

1.Potentially fight ending situations.
2.Attacks landed.
3.Positional control.
4.Aggression.

For example fighter A had fighter B clinched up agenst the cage for 2 mins, got a takedown and was in his guard for a min before fighter B escaped and then dropped him with a punch then nearly finished with GNP. The judges look at that list and see Fighter B had the potential match ending situation and score the round for him while ignoring the following criteria.

I have a sneaking feeling though that the current ill definated criteria will stay with us for a good while yet because promoters are more than happy with the results there giving even if theres the odd bout of fan reaction agenst them.

 

I honestly feel that submission attempts should result in the other fighter getting points for avoiding said submission.

 

If a fighter gets awarded points for avoiding a submission, then that puts guys in situations where they will only try subs if they are desperately behind, tactically.

What we need to remember and keep in mind when implementing a system is that fighters are ****ing smart, and are going to take advantage of that system in order to win first and foremost, only after that do they go for entertainment, at least most fighters are like this because its all about careers.

Problem as I see it is that many, "fights" turn into, "wrestling matches." A fight to me is where you go in there and try to FINISH your opponent off to the best of your ability. There are certain indicators that you are doing such and these are the things that should be rewarded with points, nothing else.

Sub attempt by itself should be worth a point, and the degree/closeness that it lands I think could arguably merit 2. If a guy has a sub locked up but his opponent wills himself, or strengths himself out of it, then 2.

slam or judo throw, 1 point. If its a nasty slam and ****s a guy up bad, 2 points.

Takedown should be a conditional point, so long as the guy going for the takedown follows up and tries to finish his opponent. So takedown by itself starts off as 1/4 point. Follow up with some serious ground and pound, or sub attempt and you get 1 point for the takedown, possibly a total of 3 points if your sub nearly lands.

Now, if you get a lazy takedown, 1/4 point. And your looking to improve position to half mount, that should get you to 1/2 point total, if you go for some serious gnp from side and inflict damage, or go for a serious sub attempt, that should end up awarding you 3 1/2 points. If you do the same from full mount its 4. Like from guard to side to full mount and finish with a serious attempt. If you end up in full mount at the end of a round and you do nothing with it, then you would end up with a point. If you end up at side mount and do nothing with it, you end up with 1/2 a point.

The emphasis of the scoring is that you do something with your position to attempt to end the fight, and thereby doing so you make your conditional points like the ones worth 1/4 point, worth 1 point.

This encourages guys to go for subs and serious gnp. I'll call serious gnp something along the criteria that it is an attempt to knock an opponent into unconsciousness in a single flurry. This way you dont get the peppering hammer punches that dont do much damage stacking points. But, keep in mind if your using some punches to occupy your opponent while you set up a big sub, then you end up getting rewarded for it anyhow.

Also, if you go from half mount and end up in the guard, you lose your 1/4 point for improving position. This is a big neutralizer, so guys have to take advantage of their positions. Otherwise a guy can still stack points by, "continuously improving position." Nope, if you have full mount and lose it, that means you ****ed up. If you have half mount and your opponent traps a leg, gets you back into his guard, then you can only regain your half point by getting back into half guard and doing something from there.

Also, if you score some sort of lazy takedownd and start off at half gaurd, then its automatically 1/2 point. Even if your opponent manages to get you into his full guard, you don't lose the 1/4 point for that.

Things that would be frowned upon, and could take points away would be gaining a dominant position and doing nothing with it. This might deal an infraction of 1 point. If the ref has to stand you up because the two fighters neutralized one another, then no deduction. But if the ref stands opponents up because one guy is just catching his breath and not doing anything -1 point. In situations like this, the burden is on the fighter with dominant position to push the fight. If he fails its because he's not trying to finish his opponent, maybe he should try standing or trying a sub.

Same principals with standup.

 

5 judges

 

Indeed, for that reason I'd say any "points" system should be avoided for aslong as possible.

The other man problem is surely disagreement on how each area of the fight should be scored, submission vs striking etc. It seems to me the best way to avoid that is keeping things simple and focusing more on just how effective any attack is. Afterall we know for certain that someone being TKOed and tapping out counts for the same thing don't we so someone very nearly being TKOed or tapping out also naturally counts for the same thing. Once you start to get into points fighting you get a ton of different opinions about how different areas should be weighed.

The obvious way out of that to me seems to be weigh near finishes over everything else, a wrestler might have top control for 4 mins 50 secs but if he's caught in a triangle for the last 10 secs he loses the round.

 

nah, having to score single rounds with basketball scores would confuse things even more.

I'd just like to see fighters lying on top without doing any damage being regarded as basically being the same as boxing on your feet without throwing punches. Forget that Willie Pep bull****, you can't win a round in boxing without throwing a punch.

I'd like to see more emphasis in the scoring directed towards what happens on the ground, ie submission attempts, strikes, and less on the takedown itself and positioning.

Also liked to see fighters stood up after a few seconds of inactivity. Fighters should also be able to grab the fence and opponents shorts to help with leverage in trying to get up.

 

Sometimes, but not always. I don't think fighters should get credit for avoiding when they are saved by the bell, in a scoring sense I mean. Of course they're avoiding getting stopped inside the distance.

I also think submission attempts can be the difference in a close round, especially when the one attempting submissions is winning the positional battle.

 

I would like to see them start using a half point, do away with even rounds(that do not involve point deductions), and do away with any notion of a 10-7 round. 3 point differentials, for one round, is too damning in 3-5 round fights. I don't believe a fighter should win a decision based almost entirely on one round's work.
Sometimes a fighter should get some credit for making out of the round. Or penalized for not ending the fight that round. However you choose to look at that.

 

unlimited rounds, fight to the finish

 

I like that, too. That's the way it was in the beginning. The problem is putting it on ppv. The production has to buy it's air time, ahead of time. If there is no time limits, there is no guarantee that the home audience will see the main event. How many remember the broadcast ending for UFC IV? There were many people that didn't know the outcome of Gracie and Severn for months. Remember, the internet was not so big at that time. I ordered the replay for the fight, and was able to catch the end. Then I complained about the time running out to my cable provider, and only had to pay for the initial purchase instead of two. I had to do the same thing for UFC VI.

 

They could do 3 -10 minute rounds. Just about all fights would be finished well within that time frame... if not, then we can go to a regular decision. There won't be too many decisions to complain about.

I would like this even better...

1st Round - 15 minutes
2nd Round - 10 minutes
3rd Round - 5 minutes

Winner of the first round gets a bonus point. That would force fighters to fight hard for that first round, because if you lose it, then you have to win the next 2 just to draw. Which is only fair since the first round is the same amount of time as the last 2 combined. So, fighting hard in that first round will lead to most fighters being finished, or too tired to last the entire fight anyways. Takes most of the judging out of the fight. after that type of fight... I think it would be much easier to judge who won the rounds. 5 minutes makes it a lot easier for guys who are hurt to just survive. Since no time limit would be the best... but clearly can't be done... I think this is the next best thing. Unless of course they just made it one 30 minute round. Of course, I think it helps the broadcast when they have breaks in between the rounds, show replays, talk about nonsense... show the girls, some advertisements, ect....

 

Creating a points fighting system is just a bad idea; things that fall under the same category and hence receive the same amount of points are going to be drastically different, and hence effect the fight differently.

The only real debate is if you judge the fight as a whole or each round, and since judging each rounds creates more accountability for the judges and reduces the amount a judge has to memorize, it is the superior method.