Decisions, Decisions: Why Judging Has Become A Huge Problem In MMA

I don't think this is really any secret rules, the cage and judging have resulted in MMA regressing badly from an action point of view over the last few years.

As Kennedy says MMA IS NOT boxing+kickboxing+wrestling+BJJ its a fight and the whole point from the beginning was that only what works matters. With that in mind the key factor in all judging should be potentially fight ending situations.

Whats more judging based mostly on near finishes is by its very nature fair, nearly KOing someone is obviously a similar achievement to nearly choking them out. If one the over hand you look to mix in a load of other scoring systems and things like position you open the door for bias to creep in. We know very close finishes are even but does a takedown equal a leg kick? 10 leg kicks? 50 leg kicks? Its very much up to opinion. As Kennedy said how effective such things are depends greatly on the skill sets of both fighters which vary wildly in MMA compaired to most fightsport.

As far as standups/breakups go you need to remember that MMA is limated by time in a way a real NHB fight wouldnt be, if you limate time then you need to limate stalling. Cage clinching espeically is I agree let go FAR to often, ref's standing back and shouting "action" while guys clinch there opponant for a good minute needs to be changed. The fact is you don't need masses of time to use a cage clinch to your advanatge, if someone wants to go for a takedown or deliver signifcant strikes then can do so within 10 secs at the longest. If you have a Mir/Crocop situation though its equally just as clear one guy is not looking to do anything just as quickly so the ref should break things up after a few seconds not 30 secs or even a minute.

I think its pretty clear that MMA scoring as been molded(whether deliberately or as a natural evoltion) to favour american wrestlers.

 

Il say it again bring back the Ring with PRIDE rules and yellow cards. That will seperate the men from the boys.

 

There is nothing wrong with the scoring. It is about impression. Within the scoring criteria, the fighter must give the impression he won the round.

 

A takedown should be scored on the same level as landing a clean punch.

 

Which fighter gives the "impression" he won a round will obviously depend on the criteria though, if takedowns, top control, clinching agenst the fence and aggresive but inaccurate striking is valued too highly they'll provide that impression.

In the second and third rounds of Lil Nog/Bader I got the clear impression Nog was winning, stuffing takedowns, landing more strikes, reversing takedowns quickly and generally looking far more confortable. The same with Sherk/Dunham with the latter clearly being the aggressor, inflicting mroe punishment and generally looking in control.

In both cases though the incorrect asumption that top control counts for more than any of those areas resulted in the judges(and indeed many fans) getting the incorrect impression.

 

Exactly.

Question to Achilles. Does the criteria impact your impression of who's winning the fight? If so, you are wrong.

If your impression is able to make you question the criteria, then you know something is wrong with the scoring.

Check this out.. We can view MMA rules as descriptive, as in the rules dictate who wins the fight, and the rules dictate what is right and wrong. Meaning you would believe the rules are perfect as they are, and it is up to us to learn to appreciate the rules, and evolve to like the way fights turn out due to the rules..

I'm more normative, in that I have a general idea of what a fight is like, and what winning one entails. If I'm old school, its only because I believe it is the fighters responsibility, to attempt to finish off their opponent. This is very, very base in my philosophy of what MMA is about.

In the end, we need an inbetween. What needs to be preserved is our normative ideal so that we have something to measure the rules against. As it is now, the rules are jacked up.

 

Agreed on Mizugaki-Curran. Curran was giving Mizugaki a freaking boxing lesson off his back yet the judges **** up and the guy is cut from the WEC.

 

Moreorless and Koa - note that I said "within the scoring criteria". It is all about impression. Even within the scoring criteria it is up to you what was effective, ineffective etc Where does it say you have to score a takedown this way or the wrestler wins etc It doesn't. Some people will score activity, some will score big moments. As long as the majority are under the impression you won the majority of the fight then you win.

 

...and as I said I'd disagree, the majority were under the impression Dunham beat Sherk. Sean landed a nice elbow in the first but besides that he was on the dfeencive thoughout the majority of the fight, yet still won.

Thats the problem, the judges are not viewing the fight in those terms there looking to score certain elements and many feel takedowns and ground control are valued fair too highly.

Alot of this is I'd say fed by the fact that both judges and fans are afraid to be viewed as "dumbass ultimate boxing fans" who don't understand the ground game. In reality though by scoring takedowns and sitting in guard so highly they just show off there ignorance far more clearly and have given rise to "ultimate wrestling" instead.

 

I think there is a massive, massive problem with judging in the UFC. So many, many decisions are wrong these years. Judges seem to worship takedowns above all else, when in reality a takedown is just one action, one movement, the same as a punch or a kick. The judges seem to worship top control, even if a guy lies on the other hardly throwing, and does absolutely zero damage before they stand up again. The judges seem to have completely disregarded the notion that the fighter who does more damage to his opponent deserves recognition of that fact.

I didn't think a verdict could be stranger than the judge who produced a 30-27 card in favour of Guillard for the recent Marvin Guillard-Jeremy Stephens bout, until they announced a win for Sherk over Dunham, and a clean sweep shut-out for Bader vs L'il Nog later in the evening!!! Guillard does absolutely nothing whatsoever in that fight other than one good punch early on, yet the judges seem to think that if you look tidy, don't get involved in exchanges, jog around the outside of the cage and give the impression that you're cruising, then you are actually winning easily, even if you're doing NOTHING positive. Dunham kicked the **** out of Sherk, but as Sherk was often on top, he gets the win. And Bader wins the first round impressively, then turns in a Guillard-esque display of nothingness for the next two rounds, and gets a round of 30-27s as his reward.

Things have got to change...

 

Takedowns and control can be valued too highly. It depends.

 

:deal

 

It depends on the standards that have become established and those standards clearly value them too highly.

 

I don't know where these standards came from. Maybe it is just because wrestlers have been in strong/influential roles for a while i.e. Brock, GSP, Hughes, Ortiz, Couture etc

If someone is raining blows on someones head from their back like Sanchez vs Guida or Mousasi vs Mo (in spurts) then I won't score against them just because they are on their back.

It's wrong that someone like Lil Nog feels he has to stand up or get the takedown. He can strike from the bottom and look for subs and they should be scored.