Like a lot of yall, I don't like the 10-point must system b/c I don't think it factors in the different ways of scoring/being dominant that there are in MMA. Part of the problem is that you don't REWARD dominance, you penalize ineffectiveness, so score cards ultimately reflect how ineffective the loser was, not so much how dominant the winner was. What if scoring was done from 1 and going up depending on your dominance. It could combine objective & subjective scoring. I just started thinking about this during lunch, but I have an idea how it would go: +1 for knockdown or a tight submission attempt (obj) +1 multiple knockdowns or tight submission attempts or almost ending the fight [especially if they're in trouble at end of the round] (obj/but also kinda subj) +1 for advancing to dominant positions (guard/side control -> mount) or reversing (obj) +1 damage (obj/subj) +1 for "winning the round" (takedowns AND takedown defense, punch/kick connects, aggression) I wouldn't reward takedowns or maintaining top position themselves, but factor them into 'winning the round.' If someone's being dominated on their feet for 4 minutes and gets the takedown w/ a minute to go, that wouldn't win the round. I think I'm going to watch some controversial fights and see if how this scoring works. Any recommendations?
As with the current system the problem is how do you weigh those different areas? looking at your system I'd say for example that advancing position shouldnt count for the same as a knockdown. If you came up with any kind of offical points system I think you'd need to spilt it into two halfs... Firstly each round(or the fight as a whole if you drop round by round scoring) would be judged solely on fight ending situations, that is knockdowns, near subs and a serious spell of potentially fight ending GnP. If none of those take place or fighters have an even number of such situations only then do you look to judge based on strikes that didint cause obvious damage, positional control etc. Even then I agree laying in guard should be viewed as a neutral position, never something that can win a match by itself.
I would grade takedowns and takedown defense under "advancing position/stopping advancement" category.
I see what you're saying when you compare a knockdown to a transition, but to get a mount, you first have to score a takedown or reversal. If nothing else happens but Fighter A knocking Fighter B down, then B reversing and getting the mount, I'd give the round to B. But my system isn't something serious, but more of an illustration that the current MMA scoring system doesn't reward fighters, just penalizes them. That's the reason scorecards show fighters that dominate or eke out rounds the same, but clearly show when fighters have been dominated in a round. If MMA starts incorporating rewarding the different styles' highly favorable situations (wrestlers:mounted/back; strikers:knockdowns/damage; submission:sub-attempts) into the current system (minus takedowns counting for anything more than being busy/aggressive), then we'd have a better system.
Why would you give it to fighter B? merely taking someones back does nothing to potentially end a fight. Yeah he'd have advanced position but equally his opponant likely had to setup his knockdown. Thats what MMA scoring should be about for a couple of reasons IMHO.... 1.The spirit of the sport is to recreate real combat in a safe enviroment, alot of the attraction is that these fighters have the claim to be the toughest guys in the world. With that in mind winning the fight should be all that matters, the scoring from other MA's should obviously count for less than incapaciiating your opponant by any means you can within the rules. If someone comes out and throws a load of weak kicks that would score in TKD then gets nearly KOed should be call the fight even because he was sucessful in his art? I'd say no we should score it for the guy who knocked him down and view the TKD guys MA as either ineffective or poorly adapted to a real fighting enviroment. 2.Scoring that focuses on near finishes is inately fairer than scoring that puts more weight on all the action. We know that KOing someone is the same as choking them out, both incapaciate them. We do not however know the worth of other aspects of MMA agenst each other, is taking someones back equal to landing a good low kick? 5 good low kicks? 20 good low kicks? The further you move away from looking to judge fights on near finishes the more room you leave for bias to creep in such as the current bias in favour of wrestling. So going back to your example if fighter A knocked down fighter B then at some point fighter B took fighter A's back and very nearly sunk in a RNC I'd consider them to be even. I'd only consider other elements such as strikes landed, less effective sub atempts, position on the ground, position standing etc if I had to choose a winner in that situation.
