MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/)
-   MMAForum Articles (http://www.mmaforum.com/mmaforum-articles/)
-   -   New MMA Scoring Practices (http://www.mmaforum.com/mmaforum-articles/84579-new-mma-scoring-practices.html)

TheMouthofMMA 11-27-2010 02:00 PM

New MMA Scoring Practices
 
A thread to share our articles... too cool! I blogged up an idea for a new scoring system for MMA. What ya'll think?

MMA Needs New Scoring Practices!

Quote:

"... and Judge Should-Stay-With-Boxing Scored it 30 - 27... Okamiiiiii!"

Okami's hand is raised and Nate "The Great" hastens out of the cage with a disgusted look on his face. For those of us who watched the main event at UFC 122, I think we could all agree it was a close fight and arguments could be made for either fighter. The first round could have been given to Okami or Marquardt, the second was pretty clearly Nate's and the third was likely Okami's. It seemed to come down to who was given round one. So, when I heard one of the judges scored the fight 30-27, I was once again reminded of how badly we need MMA specific scoring practices in our sport. While I don't fundamentally have a problem with the idea of scoring the fight round to round, ten points to the winner and nine to the loser (or maybe 8 if he really got his ass kicked), I do have a problem with how those ten points get awarded.

Although there seem to be some sensible criteria outlined (see How Do MMA Judges Score Fights? by Katrina Belcher), I have yet to find a simply laid out checklist for MMA judges that would - hopefully - mitigate many of these poor scoring decisions. For that matter, given a simple checklist, wouldn't it be nice to have each judge's scorecard displayed on screen after the fight?! What is the big secret here? Could there be any job that need be more transparent in sports then judging? Every call an umpire makes in baseball, play to play - moment to moment, is out for all eyes to see. Despite oft-complaining fans, the end result is some of the best refereeing in any sport.

So, after much discussion with a handful of my fighter and fan friends, here is our official Mouth of MMA proposed scoring methodology for mixed martial arts competition. Further, we believe these scorecards should be displayed after each and every fight:

Example Card



Ring Control: Awarded to the fighter in each round who dictated where the fight took place. THIS IS INCLUSIVE OF TAKEDOWNS. We see no need to score takedowns separately since they are part and parcel to dictating where the fight takes place. A fighter holding his opponent against the cage for the majority of a round is another example of ring control. A fighter continually advancing while striking may or may not be, depending on if his opponent effectively circles around him and displays a desire to work a counter striking game. Obviously, that leaves room for some more subjective opinions by a judge, but with cards displayed openly after a fight, a judge can explain his decision to give a fighter the point for ring control that round.
Striking: Who gets the best of the striking game? Often there is some argument about "effective" striking versus striking for points. We have a separate category to handle that aspect, so this is strictly about putting leather (or skin) on your opponent.
Grappling: By now, anyone actually getting paid to judge a professional MMA fight should know enough about grappling to differentiate a dominant position from a bad one. Each round in which ground fighting takes place should be judged based on which fighter displays the greatest overall advantage on the ground. Putting his opponent into positions which require defending a submission, Spending the majority of the time in a superior position (i.e. taking his opponent's back or gaining mount, etc...). There's already an entire scoring system in place for grappling only competitions and the same logic applies to that part of an MMA fight. The only significant difference being with the guard position in which the fighter on the bottom could be losing points in an MMA fight for not putting his opponent in jeopardy when that opponent is in his guard and delivering blows.
Damage: Quite simply put, which fighter hurt his opponent more. In the example round above, you see that Fighter A won every category that applied other than this one. This could easily be possible in a round in which a fighter outworks and outscores his opponent but gets hit with one or two solid, knee buckling shots - maybe even being cut open in the process. After all, this is a fighting sport and it should be significant who is putting the other fighter closer to not being able to continue.
Aggression: In some rounds/fights one fighter is the one pushing the action all the way while the other is far too passive. The should be an award for aggression each round so the fighters are inspired to push the pace. In most good fights this will be scored 1 to 1 each round, with each fighter "going for it." If only it were a perfect world...
Using this scoring criteria we would, at the end of the fight, tally the scores with the winner of each round getting 10 points and the loser getting 9 (or 8 if the judge feels the loser was thoroughly dominated). Simple enough, simple to display and verify or argue against after each fight is over.

I welcome reader commentary here, as I'd love to see if this can be fine tuned further...

VincePierce 11-28-2010 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMouthofMMA (Post 1309094)
A thread to share our articles... too cool! I blogged up an idea for a new scoring system for MMA. What ya'll think?

MMA Needs New Scoring Practices!

im reminded of the phrase any measure that becomes a standard stops being a true measure.

whatever legislation you impose becomes an incentive to fight a certain way rather than a recognition of what constitutes a win. theres a theory your fighter will feel bound up and protected by the rules and that he will be free to fight his fight. this dont hold tho as ppl have different ways of fighting. weighting styles alone so theyre balanced is hard enough. im gonna say something insane now to demonstrate human nature. if the guy who won by finishing his opponent was the only one who got paid, the game would change over night. people would leave and find different sports, but the ones who stayed would be about finishing the fight. this is the closest approximation to real life where only one guy really wins a fight. the guy who can finish.

however, we need those all star athletes and the image of sport.

in boxing theres a good argument that demonstrating you are the better boxer is enough. in fighting, does demonstrating you are the better fighter really have the same merit? fighting aint a one dimentional skill like boxing is. in boxing there is the grey area. the punchers chance. in fighting you could increase this multi fold. its hard to say who will win a fight. saying who was winning is what the judges are paid to tell us. again tho ... they arent. machida was beating rampage. over the course of 3 rounds he gradually took control. thats the narrative. however fighting sports eschews that. theres no way you can have a last round = winner, even though its the closest approximation. what would happen? would ppl wait and wait?
would it be unfair to the guy who dominated the first two.
would you get last round specialists? would ppl purposefully hold back?
imagine a system where a fighter got 10 minutes for round 1. non scored. and then 5 minutes for round 2. what would they do?

the point im trying to make is that the system isnt a scoring syatem at all, its an incentive system by proxy.

if you want to make it real, then take away rewards for that which doesnt finish fights. scoring a guy on his fighting ability when he doesnt finish fights is ridiculous. lnp isnt fighting, its restraint, its self defence. gradually mma is evolving into the worlds best restrainers. its the antithesis of what it was meant to be about in the first place.

i dont have the answers on this one. im just trying to spark the mind that does.

TheMouthofMMA 11-28-2010 12:47 PM

You pose some fantastic questions here. A plate full of food for thought...

Quote:

Originally Posted by VincePierce (Post 1309565)
im reminded of the phrase any measure that becomes a standard stops being a true measure.

whatever legislation you impose becomes an incentive to fight a certain way rather than a recognition of what constitutes a win. theres a theory your fighter will feel bound up and protected by the rules and that he will be free to fight his fight. this dont hold tho as ppl have different ways of fighting. weighting styles alone so theyre balanced is hard enough. im gonna say something insane now to demonstrate human nature. if the guy who won by finishing his opponent was the only one who got paid, the game would change over night. people would leave and find different sports, but the ones who stayed would be about finishing the fight. this is the closest approximation to real life where only one guy really wins a fight. the guy who can finish.

however, we need those all star athletes and the image of sport.

in boxing theres a good argument that demonstrating you are the better boxer is enough. in fighting, does demonstrating you are the better fighter really have the same merit? fighting aint a one dimentional skill like boxing is. in boxing there is the grey area. the punchers chance. in fighting you could increase this multi fold. its hard to say who will win a fight. saying who was winning is what the judges are paid to tell us. again tho ... they arent. machida was beating rampage. over the course of 3 rounds he gradually took control. thats the narrative. however fighting sports eschews that. theres no way you can have a last round = winner, even though its the closest approximation. what would happen? would ppl wait and wait?
would it be unfair to the guy who dominated the first two.
would you get last round specialists? would ppl purposefully hold back?
imagine a system where a fighter got 10 minutes for round 1. non scored. and then 5 minutes for round 2. what would they do?

the point im trying to make is that the system isnt a scoring syatem at all, its an incentive system by proxy.

if you want to make it real, then take away rewards for that which doesnt finish fights. scoring a guy on his fighting ability when he doesnt finish fights is ridiculous. lnp isnt fighting, its restraint, its self defence. gradually mma is evolving into the worlds best restrainers. its the antithesis of what it was meant to be about in the first place.

i dont have the answers on this one. im just trying to spark the mind that does.


VincePierce 11-29-2010 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMouthofMMA (Post 1309753)
You pose some fantastic questions here. A plate full of food for thought...

i must appologise if its irrelevant. its just...when i got into mma it was real life streetfighter to me. a quest to see the best style/hardest guy in the world. hell it werent even mma back then. it was just called fighting.

BearInTheClinch 01-26-2011 12:02 AM

the biggest problem with mma scoring isn't that we use Boxing judges, that is a factor sure cus they specialize but it isn't like they ignore Wrestling most of the time they score Takedowns reguardless of if they get the guy with Top possition any benefit or not. The real problem, the real number 1 problem is the length of the rounds. In any 5 minute round (with very VERY few exceptions) both fighters will perform well in some areas and have some aspect of control at different parts. That length of time in each round leaves far too much room for subjectivity.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8 , Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2