Mixed Martial Arts Forum banner

California Experimenting with new half-point Scoring system

2K views 21 replies 18 participants last post by  MADDSNIPER 
#1 ·
saw this on another forum

i really like the sound of it to be honest. i'm curious as to what points anyone can come up with why this would be detrimental.

or maybe the judges could just get their s**t together in the first place with the current scoring system.
















Apparently California is experimenting with a half-point scoring system in their amateur leagues and are compiling statistics to present to the UFC and ABC at the end of 2011.

Here is an explanation of the system from the article:

Since the start of 2011, California has experimented with a half-point scoring system on its amateur shows, both to get feedback from its judges, and also to compile statistics. At the end of the year, when the stats are done, the findings will be presented to people like Marc Ratner, the vice-president for regulatory affairs at the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and the Association of Boxing Commissioners, to see if the system has more merit than the one in place.

“I like what they are doing,” said Ratner. “Right now the best thing to do is use the system for a year, compile the statistics and see what we can learn.”

Instead of always writing 10-9 on a scorecard unless there is a completely dominant round with a near finish, you have more options. A 10-9.5 is for a close round, like rounds one and three in Siver vs. Wiman, and rounds one and two in Jackson vs. Machida – both fights in which the person who ended up losing in the current system would most likely have won with the new system.

A 10-9 would be the score for a round that is competitive, but, you have no doubt who won. That is still the score that comes up most of the time with the new system. A 10-8.5 would be for a round where one fighter dominated, but didn’t do enough for a 10-8, notably round two in Wiman vs. Siver, and round three in Machida vs. Jackson.

A 10-8 would be similar to how it is currently used, and you’d even have a 10-7.5 for something more dominant than a normal 10-8 round, but for whatever reason, the fight isn’t stopped.

The new system also includes a fourth judge whose lone job is to award points based on criteria. If the three judges come out to a draw, which has happened six times so far this year, a winner is determined based on a points system.

The point system was put together by a panel that included well-known referees and judges “Big” John McCarthy, Herb Dean and Nelson “Doc” Hamilton, as well as Steele and George Dodd, the executive director of the California State Athletic Commission.

The system is four points for a knockdown, two for damaging strikes, one for a takedown, one for a sweep, two for grappling into a dominant position (back, mount or side control), and four for a near submission.

“We’re not married to this system,” said Steele. “We’re working on getting it as good as we can, and it’s getting close.”

So far this year, 155 amateur fights in California have gone to a decision under these new rules. Of those, six, or 4 percent, had different winners based on half-point judging than they would have based on the current system. But there were 17 instances where one judge out of the three had a different winner based on half-points that he would have based on the current system.


http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_y...o14?slug=dm-meltzer_mma_judges_scoring_071111
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I know one fight that it would have changed, that would be bj/fitch. I think the third round would have been better scored at 8.5.

Another could be Edgar/maynard 2, I could see that round 1 going 7.5 etc

I think its a good thing ultimately
 
  • Like
Reactions: St.Paul Guy
#3 ·
I see the good, but I also see the bad. The problem is how you judge currently, not the scoring system really. I think the 4th judge is kind of how all the refs should be judging. It takes legit sub attempts into consideration, power shots, dominate position (half guard, having your opponents back), etc.
 
#5 ·
My idea was to stretch the possible outcomes out from 10-10 to 10-5 and have clearly defined definitions of each score. This is essentially the same thing though and could fix the judging quite a bit. I'm definitely in favor of this. If this were applied to the Wiman/Siver fight Wiman would have won, but under the current system Siver wins.

Now we just need judges who know what they're watching...
 
#6 ·
Interesting stuff, I think this would be a step in the right direction and would also change how fights are fought.
 
#7 · (Edited)
This would make virtually no difference. The examples in the article are Siver vs Wiman and Rampage vs Machida, the guy says that the losers would have won if half points were used. It doesn't solve anything though, because they were CLOSE fights. No matter who the winners and losers are in very close fights, there is going to be big debate about the winner, 90% of it biased.

IMO it's the fight/round format that needs overhauling more so than the points system. Yes a new scoring system is definitely something that needs to happen, but that alone won't solve these issues. I think the number of rounds needs to change, the round time length needs to change, and the option for a tie-breaker round ala TUF needs to be seriously considered for the main stage.

Declining round times e.g. round 1 is 6 mins, 2 is 5 mins, 3 is 4 mins. Or even 6,4,2. Title fights could be 7,6,5,4,3. This will change fighter's attitudes for the better, they will know that the longer the fight goes on, the less time they have in each round to be impressive. This in turn will make fights more exciting, will produce the correct winner more consistantly, and will aid fighters who have trouble with cardio. The fights will be more focussed on skill/will to do damage and ability to perform under pressure, rather than giving them enough time so that the fitter man can bide his time without doing much damage, implementing a passive-aggressive strategy, and then by round 3 looking like a dominant fighter. With a declining system, when a fighter looks beat, it'll be more likely because they have been beat than because they've been outworked.

I believe all professional fighters should strive to be as fit as they can, but whether it's 2 minute rounds or 5 minute rounds, fitness is required anyway. My idea is just an example of trying to think of something different, everyone knows the judges aren't adequate, everyone knows the 10 point system doesn't work for MMA, but right now they are stuck firmly in place and introducing a half point system is like swapping a glass of water for a glass of ice IMO.
 
#21 ·
If I gave an explanation to why I'm not really in favour of the half point system it would go something like this. ^^^

I think its good that they know the system is majorly flawed and they are attempting to address it, I just don't think its the right way forward. I mean of the 155 fights, only 4% had different outcomes. Not sure if its a big enough percentage to warrant a change in an already confusing scoring system. People may argue the fact that if its a title fight then it would be all worth it to get the right winner. But what about all the other fights? Just because the fights vary in importance to us doesn't mean its the same for the fighter.
 
#9 ·
Can somebody explain to me why we currently have a 10 point must system when scores of 10-0, 10-1, 10-2...10-7 NEVER happen??? Going all the way up to 10 makes no sense whatsoever and just makes things more confusing for casual viewers; it makes just as much sense to have a 100 point must system where the winner of a round wins 100-99 or 100-98 if they are dominant, but NEVER any other score.
Absolutely retarded :confused03:
 
#10 ·
A few factors that can be used to aid in the scoring system. Btw I'm not in favor of a half point scoring system.

First factor: Competent judges.
A judge with a boxing background may not be the best candidate to judge MMA. Sure they can follow criteria but more then often they are fooled in scoring for insignificant damage/action. Ex-fighters, ex-trainers would be the best people for this job. Staying unbiased may be an issue here.

Second factor: Competent Refs
Too often we see a ref let one fighter dry hump another for far too long. Too often do we see a ref tell guys to keep busy when guys are in the middle of a strategic battle on the ground. We can't have Herb Dean or Josh Rosenthal reffing every single MMA fight. They need schools like the one that Big John puts on to educate these guys/gals on MMA. You need a big commitment from these people in order to take this to the next level. There needs to be ample monetary reward to make reffing a tangible career.

Third Factor: Scoring system in general
Major modifications are needed which would require a lot of knowledgeable individuals to make the right changes. The implementation of a carding system; scares me to think of the corruption that could be involved with this but if correctly implemented could instantly change the way the fighters have to fight. If stalling is removed from the fight, the fighters have to fight. The judges job gets easier as the fighters are forced to use their skills for a higher percentage of the fight. The refs job is more important as they will dictate to a point what pace a fight will go.

Major sports like Baseball, Football, Hockey, Boxing, etc. have been mainstream for so long that they've had a chance to work out a lot of the kinks in their scoring/rules. The longer MMA is around, the more defined the rules will be. This subject in general is going to be a hot topic for many years no doubt.​
 
#12 ·
There are a few things I think we could do to improve the current system without altering it.

Step 1 - Clone Herb Dean about 15 times. Herb Dean refs every fight, and possibly big John from time to time :D

Step two - get dan mirgliotta, ives lavgine, yamasaki, Cecil peoples and most of the other judges and put them on a boat.

Step C - Torpedo and napalm the boat.

Step IV - Someone pimp slap the shot out of bisping


lol but seriously, it's babysteps to improve a very flawed system.
 
#14 ·
Here's a simple solution: if a judge thinks a fighter won a round that was very close and debatable, give him a point. If a judge thinks a fighter clearly won a round, give him two points. If a judge thinks a fighter absolutely shit on his opponent (i.e. knocked him down, almost finished him, landed 100 strikes on him, cut him up and made him bleed), then give him three points.

It's that simple. Now, most scorecards will read something like 3-0 or 4-1 or whatever which is much easier to comprehend and follow than random scores like 29-28 which makes no sense whatsoever.
 
#17 ·
Or they could just use the god damn scoring system they have. THEY HAVE 10 POINTS, WHY DO THEY NEED 20!?

10-9: Competitive but fighter A won (close round going to the fighter)

10-8: Fighter A very obviously won but by less than a crazy amount of punches, no near finishes (rocking or nearly sinking a submission)

10-7: Fighter A beat the crap out of fighter B but the fight was not stopped (Fighter B was dropped, nearly submitted or saved by the bell in either situation)


Look CSAC, I fixed the scoring system for you!
 
#18 ·
The reason they have the ten point must system is likely because the commissions suddenly needed licensed judges immediately upon the passage of MMA regulation. So using the judges and system they had in place for boxing actually made some sense, at least from a necessity standpoint, if not actual wisdom.

But there's no where near the judging crossover now that there was a decade ago. I'd think you could introduce a new judging system without confusing anyone.

Personally, though using half points is stupid, I still like this better than the current system. In the current system, even though 10-10 and 10-7 rounds are expressly allowed, the commissions teach the judges that they're being paid to determine who won a round and that if a round should be scored 10-7, that means the referee should go to jail for allowing the fight to continue.

So if the commissions implement the half point system and actually let the judges use it, it would at least be better than it is now.

Although I should say that I think that some of the scoring criteria for this system is terrible. Marks on someone's face ≠ damage. People mark up at different rates, it doesn't mean they're taking more or less damage. Case in point, in the ring against Fitch, BJ's face looked pretty good in the third round, physically at least, not the expression. At the post fight presser, he was hiding his swollen eyes behind sunglasses. Fitch should get the same amount of credit for pounding BJ silly as he would for landing the same strikes on Nick Diaz who used to cut like a ripe tomato before he got his scar tissue/eyebrow surgery.

By the way, the chief architect of this system is Doc Hamilton. I realize it was only one fight, but he gave Garcia the nod over the Korean Zombie. I just thought it was worth a mention. Even though I like his intentions of more varied round scores, adding damage as a scoring criteria, and having a technical judge eliminate ties, I don't think it's a panacea.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top