Significant Changes In The Unified Rules Of MMA - Page 2 - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
General MMA Discussion Discuss King Of The Cage, Ultimate Challenge UK, and HDNet Fights as well as general mixed martial arts discussion.

Reply

Old 07-17-2012, 05:07 PM   #11 (permalink)
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,651
ACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level nowACTAFOOL is on another level now
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOMDC View Post
Yup. All I took from it is that even more weight will be given to wrestling. Question for everyone:


Fighter A & B start the first round.

After around a minute of feel out with no significant strikes landed fighter A starts to find his range and lands a couple good jabs and say 2 straight counters.

Realizing that he is losing on the feet, fighter B shoots in for a TD around 2:00 in and is stuffed.

Fighter A starts getting more aggressive and lands a multi punch combo. Fighter B tries to circle out but is caught with power shot and is staggered.

Fighter B goes in for a TD at 2:30 in and gets it.


Fighter B stays in guard landing say 10-15 arm punches.


There are a few sub attempts with fighter A trying to get a high guard but nothing close and fighter B finishes the round on top staying heavy and avoiding any sweeps, completely controlling the position.


Who wins that round?


I would think Fighter A based on the 2:30 minutes of standing control and landing the only significant strikes on the feet. However, I think a majority of judges would give it to B. How would you score and what do you think an average MMA judge would score it.
Well it depends, if fighter B had an active guard like pettis or oliveira and simply seemed more agressive from his back, add that to the stand up portion of the fight, under these new rules a competent judge would give it to fighter B

I think these changes are good, the problem is nothing will change becuase judges are still terrible no matter what the criteria is
ACTAFOOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 07-17-2012, 05:49 PM   #12 (permalink)
Featherweight
 
Ryan1522's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,145
Ryan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of KnowledgeRyan1522 Is True Champion Of Knowledge
The fact that there is a multi-faceted approach to scoring fights by different judges is no surprise to me. Having four different criteria to look at in effective striking, effective grappling, effective aggression as well as cage/ring control will certainly result in mixed feelings and different opinions on who won a round/fight.

They say grappling and striking will now be weighted evenly, but in some instances, there is a lot of failed grappling and minimal effective striking by either party. In those cases, should octagon control or aggression be more heavily favoured? Which criteria of those 2 should be more favoured? Don't they almost go hand-in-hand?

The first fight that comes to mind to me that fits those criteria is the recent fight between Gleison Tibau vs Khabib Nurmagomedov.

This was also the first time in recent memory where I completely disagreed with Joe Rogan. Rogan kept commenting on how Khabib was losing the fight and how this would be a great learning experience for such a young fighter.

I personally thought that he was dictating the pace of the fight, as well as being the aggressor. Gleison was throwing more technical punches as opposed to the hay-makers Khabib was throwing, but Gleison was always backing up. Khabib though unsuccessful was pushing to get the takedown. Glesion put almost no offense grappling together himself. It seemed like the entire fight Gleison was in defensive mode.

I personally thought Khabib won the fight but thought it was tough to score because there was little effective grappling or effective striking from either man that stood out in my mind, so most of the scoring weight went to cage/ring control.

Thoughts?
__________________
Always Supporting Fighters That Fight to Finish or be Finished

Edson Barboza
Jose Aldo
Anderson Silva
Nate Diaz
Donald Cerrone
Jon Jones
Gabriel Gonzaga
Brandon Thatch



2014 Superfight Advocate

Jones vs Silva
Ryan1522 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 05:50 PM   #13 (permalink)
"Focus"
 
Life B Ez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 8,571
Life B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLife B Ez Is Beyond A Rankings System
Quote:
Originally Posted by SM33 View Post
These changes don't mean a lot due to the incompetence of many judges, only bad part of this article for me is the part that says 10-10 rounds should rarely be scored.

10-10 rounds should be encouraged, I guarantee that all the rubbish judges who can't be assed just pick a name out of a hat when they need to score a close round, that is why we see such strange scoring at the end of close fights. If you find it hard to score and you found no dominant periods in the round, score it 10-10 and forget it.
If that is the case you need to add the option to go more rounds. 10-10 are very popular in K1, in fact pretty sure I see more 10-10 rounds than anything. But I also rarely see a fight not go into the extension rounds.

Quote:
Then of course you'll have title fights scored 50-50, that's where the sudden death round comes in, another necessary addition IMO.
Apparently, under the unified rules fighters can fight a MAXIMUM of 5 rounds in a night. So you can't have sudden death in title fights.
__________________
Think. It Ain't Illegal Yet
"Discipline Hurts Less Than Regret"
Life B Ez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 05:54 PM   #14 (permalink)
Featherweight
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,171
Sports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level now
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOMDC View Post
Yup. All I took from it is that even more weight will be given to wrestling. Question for everyone:


Fighter A & B start the first round.

After around a minute of feel out with no significant strikes landed fighter A starts to find his range and lands a couple good jabs and say 2 straight counters.

Realizing that he is losing on the feet, fighter B shoots in for a TD around 2:00 in and is stuffed.

Fighter A starts getting more aggressive and lands a multi punch combo. Fighter B tries to circle out but is caught with power shot and is staggered.

Fighter B goes in for a TD at 2:30 in and gets it.


Fighter B stays in guard landing say 10-15 arm punches.


There are a few sub attempts with fighter A trying to get a high guard but nothing close and fighter B finishes the round on top staying heavy and avoiding any sweeps, completely controlling the position.


Who wins that round?


I would think Fighter A based on the 2:30 minutes of standing control and landing the only significant strikes on the feet. However, I think a majority of judges would give it to B. How would you score and what do you think an average MMA judge would score it.
Well, that's an interesting question, exactly half a round lopsided in favor of the striker (Fighter A) and half in favor of the grappler (Fighter B.) I think the answer depends on a couple of things:

1. Did fighter A hurt the other with any of his strikes? Were there any moments of wobbliness, did fighter B have to clinch for dear life at any point, that sort of thing.

2. What kind of offense did fighter B generate in the stand up? Even if he only landed a few mildly effective strikes it suddenly isn't so lopsided.

As it is, your scenario sounds like a 10-10 round, but if I had to pick a winner assuming no truly significant strikes landed I'd have to go with fighter B. Because if nothing else, fighter B gained a tactical advantage going forward by forcing his opponent to expend more energy.
Sports_Nerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 06:17 PM   #15 (permalink)
Flyweight
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pnw.
Posts: 247
BOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sports_Nerd View Post
Well, that's an interesting question, exactly half a round lopsided in favor of the striker (Fighter A) and half in favor of the grappler (Fighter B.) I think the answer depends on a couple of things:

1. Did fighter A hurt the other with any of his strikes? Were there any moments of wobbliness, did fighter B have to clinch for dear life at any point, that sort of thing.

2. What kind of offense did fighter B generate in the stand up? Even if he only landed a few mildly effective strikes it suddenly isn't so lopsided.

As it is, your scenario sounds like a 10-10 round, but if I had to pick a winner assuming no truly significant strikes landed I'd have to go with fighter B. Because if nothing else, fighter B gained a tactical advantage going forward by forcing his opponent to expend more energy.


The way I posed to the scenario was for A to pretty much outstrike B thoroughly but not dropping him. A couple power shots and nice combos to fighter B's 2ish jabs and totally missed lead hooks. Then for B to Fitch A for the remaining 2:30 with only arm punches with no posture from guard while A interrupts with couple guard raises and sweep attempts, though none are close to successful.

I just wanted to bring to light my perception that if the round is split between two fighters (timewise) with one having some standup success, and the other having grappling success, the nod usually goes to the grappler. Main point I'm trying to get at is, if there is pretty dominant striking period, is that negated by the same amount of time controlling the action/grappling and landing less/less damaging strikes? In most cases in seem judges opt for the latter (especially if the round ends with fighter B doing their GNP work) while it seems slightly counter intuitive to me. There is the weight of octagon control added into the grappling/gnp just wondering if there were varying opinions on this.


Would you rather take 2 combos from say Paul Daley on the feet of 20 punches from fitch in your guard. Seems like the former has much more risk for damage/changing the fight, just wondering what people's opinions are.

Last edited by BOMDC : 07-17-2012 at 06:20 PM.
BOMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 06:57 PM   #16 (permalink)
Featherweight
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,171
Sports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level nowSports_Nerd is on another level now
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOMDC View Post
The way I posed to the scenario was for A to pretty much outstrike B thoroughly but not dropping him. A couple power shots and nice combos to fighter B's 2ish jabs and totally missed lead hooks. Then for B to Fitch A for the remaining 2:30 with only arm punches with no posture from guard while A interrupts with couple guard raises and sweep attempts, though none are close to successful.

I just wanted to bring to light my perception that if the round is split between two fighters (timewise) with one having some standup success, and the other having grappling success, the nod usually goes to the grappler. Main point I'm trying to get at is, if there is pretty dominant striking period, is that negated by the same amount of time controlling the action/grappling and landing less/less damaging strikes? In most cases in seem judges opt for the latter (especially if the round ends with fighter B doing their GNP work) while it seems slightly counter intuitive to me. There is the weight of octagon control added into the grappling/gnp just wondering if there were varying opinions on this.


Would you rather take 2 combos from say Paul Daley on the feet of 20 punches from fitch in your guard. Seems like the former has much more risk for damage/changing the fight, just wondering what people's opinions are.
Both Paul Daley and John Fitch could probably kill me by breaking wind. What I as a fan perceive to be more painful/devastating is immaterial. The question that should matter for a judge, IMO, is what results actually arise in the cage.

If one fighter tags another a bunch of times on the feet, but hasn't been able to put him away, then I, as a judge, have to concede that he won the stand up battle, but hasn't actually gained a significant tactical advantage. for a fighter to appear to be losing the stand up battle and then change the tenor of the fight with one punch is far from uncommon.

However, your "fighter B" may have done no more damage from the top position then he took in the standup, but by gaining position he achieved a tactical advantage that fighter A never had. he's limited his opponent's offense significantly.

So, in the absence of any other factors, I would give fighter B the nod in what is essentially a tiebreaker - tactical success as opposed to actual, physical, ass-kicking success.
Sports_Nerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 07:02 PM   #17 (permalink)
Flyweight
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pnw.
Posts: 247
BOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to all
Interesting point on potential threats per position. Thx for your take.
BOMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 12:07 AM   #18 (permalink)
Great Googly Moogly!
 
BWoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 1,406
BWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level nowBWoods is on another level now
The Association of Boxing Commissions has made changes to the rules of MMA

These seem like changes that will put judging in the right direction. This will hurt fighters who lay-and-pray or run away. I'm a bit intrigued by the removal of the defense criteria in scoring but I can see the reasoning behind it.

Quote:
Last year, BE's Dallas Winston covered the annual Association of Boxing Commission (ABC) annual conference. For MMA fans, the most impactful ruling to come out of the 2011 conference was the trial period for Doc Hamilton's proposed Half-Point Scoring System from the 2010 meetings. This year, however, the ABC has made several decisions with direct effects on mixed martial arts.

First, the death of the half-point system. After the year-long, voluntary evaluation period granted to the half-point system, the ABC concluded that the system had negligible impact on scoring the outcome of an MMA bout:

It appears that changing the current scoring system, when only a marginal amount of fights would be affected (2% if you reference [the California Amateur Mixed Martial Arts Organization, Inc], and 4.85% if you reference [the Edmonton Alberta Athletic Commission]), would not be a significant reason to adopt this change.

The other two participants in the evaluation were the Colorado State Athletic Commission and the Georgia Athletic and Entertainment Commission. Neither organization saw a single effected score using the half point system.

Second, the ABC has decided on a few revisions to the current MMA judging criteria:

1.) Effective Defense removed as a criteria.

2.) Striking and Grappling are now considered to be given equal weight.

3.) The term "damage" will no longer be used as a descriptor when discussing the scoring of a round. It will be replaced by "effective".

Finally, the ABC has clarified and amended the definitions of several terms in the Unified Rules of MMA

1.) "Effective Striking" - Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed.

2.) "Effective Grappling" - judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown, reversals and submission attempts.

3.) "Effective Aggression" - moving forward scoring with a legal technique or attacking from the guard with threatening submissions.

4.) "Cage/Ring Control" - dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.

Finally, the ABC attempts to clarify the criteria that defines what scores are applicable based on the action in the round of a fight:

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows superiority by even a close margin. This score should rarely be used.

2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, demonstrating effective grappling, and utilizing other effective legal techniques.

3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins by a large margin, by effective striking and or effective grappling that have great impact on the opponent.

4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by effective striking and or effective grappling, which put the opponent in great danger throughout the round. In a 10-7 round referee stoppage may be eminent. This score should rarely be used.

Hit the jump for the ABC's justification and explanation of the Unified Rules changes and adjustments.



Removal of effective defense:

1. The committee believes that offensive actions should be the only criteria used to score MMA matches. Offensive fighters are fighters which carry the fight and push the action, and make the fight happen.

2. Defense is its own reward. A fighter who chooses to avoid using defensive actions will invariably suffer the consequences. For example if a fighter decides that they do not want to block or avoid a strike, protect themselves from a submission, or avoid a throw or takedown then they will suffer the results of those offensive actions being used against them. The only role defensive action plays is to keep a fighter in the fight longer so that they can attempt to score using offensive actions.

3. Having two fighters avoid offensive actions and rely solely on defense goes against the basic primary consideration of any combative sport: To score using offense.

Equal consideration of Striking and Grappling:

The old scoring system rewarded striking (as a primary consideration) more than grappling. Mixed Martial Arts is based on two skill sets - striking and grappling. The committee felt that grappling should not be a secondary factor in determining the outcome of a match. Grappling has a definitive skill set and athleticism and offensive capabilities which when used correctly can effectively end a fight. As such grappling skills should be rewarded and given equal weight to striking.

Removal of "damage" as a scoring descriptor:

1. The legal considerations surrounding the term "Damage" as a descriptor were given considerable weight and as such the committee felt that using the word "Damage" may contribute to the potential for liability in the event of any litigation that commissions may find themselves involved in.

2. The sport of MMA is still relatively new and has not received sanctioning in various jurisdictions. The committee felt that "Damage" as a descriptor may play a factor in helping to determine future sanctioning if the term was taken out of context with many opposed to MMA as a sport.

3. ABC Instructors who currently use this as part of their teaching curriculum are advised to make any and all subsequent modifications to their course material.

New definition of "Effective Striking":

Judged by determining the impact of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the number of such legal strikes. Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed. These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain. Cumulative impact on a fighter will also be weighed. If neither fighter shows an advantage in impact of strikes, the number of strikes will determine the most effective striker.

New defnition of "Effective Grappling":

Judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown, reversals and submission attempts. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to a dominant position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard to create submission attempts. Submission attempts which come close to ending a fight will be weighted more highly than attempts which are easily defended. Submission attempts which cause an opponent to weaken or tire from the effort required to defend the technique will also be weighted highly in scoring. High amplitude takedowns and throws which have great impact will be scored more heavily than a takedown which does not have great impact.
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/17...oring-mma-news
BWoods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 12:30 AM   #19 (permalink)
Flyweight
 
BlueLander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 353
BlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He CrossesBlueLander Is Respected By All He Crosses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Life B Ez View Post
Have you heard the Joe Rogan story about he was talking to a judge and this guy told him he was working a fight and the fighter was working for a kimura and the judge(who he didn't name, but I guess works a lot of fights) next to him turned and said "what is he doing right now?" That kind of ignorance isn't going to be changed with criteria changes.
That's messed up. I knew the judging was bad, but man I'm a casual fan at best and I seem to know more then most judges

Any chance retired fighters could maybe get jobs judging in the future?
BlueLander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 12:36 AM   #20 (permalink)
Bantamweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 926
Buakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level nowBuakaw_GSP is on another level now
So according to 1), the 1st Round of Silva vs Sonnen 2 could have been a 10-7 round now? Damn everyone should just go balls out now, screw with blocking a punch.. Wanderlei Silva is pleased with this news.
Buakaw_GSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios