MMA Rules and Judging

[CPT]

Started to rant in another thread that would have gone way off topic, so decided to post it here instead. This can be used for any comments suggestions regarding what you would like to see changed in MMA in terms of rules and/or judging.

So I wanted to talk about the way we judge fights as fans. I think we tend to follow the garbage way judges score fights, so we can be right (and sometimes the judges still get it wrong). Lately I've been trying to just judge fights the way I want. I still follow the judging criteria of effective striking, grappling, octagon control, I just tweak it a little bit to match what I want to see in fights and who I think is winning a fight, not necessarily who I think the judges will score the round for. To me a takedown means literally nothing (unless it is a slam or throw that would actually damage an opponent). It is a way to make it easier for you to execute your offence. If you don't actually execute that offence, you shouldn't get credit for the position, even if it is advantageous.

I'm also a fan of liberal use of 10-8 and 10-10 rounds. Just because I know judges are unlikely to give them doesn't mean I won't give them myself.

This isn't meant to come across as "this is the way it should be for everyone", and I fully realize that my personal scores for fights mean sweet **** all, just thought it could be a good topic for discussion with the board a little dead lately.

[Cammo101]

I'd like to see 10-8 and 10-7 rounds scored more often as a way to combat guys who win 2 rounds by razor thin margins and get beat up in the other round, but win the decision.

This would also give guys more reason to fight to finish.

[SDM]

A 10-7 first round would render the fight basically meaningless. While your situation applies, a guy can get crushed for one round and convincingly win the other two, but not at 10-8 level, and lose. 10 minutes of victory vs. 5 minutes of crushing with no finish.

I think 10-7s are silly under the current scoring system... for one, I can't recall any 10-7s, so where's the precedent? If you're able to go 10-7 on a guy, beat him up so bad that 10-9 is out of the question, and 10-8 isn't enough you have to essentially invent a new score AND you essentially make it impossible for the guy to win on points if he 10-9s you, convincingly, for ten minutes, you do not deserve to win the fight if you can't put him away in the 10-7 round.

10-8's, absolutely, they need more of them. It accomplishes the exact same thing as 10-7.

[REDDzone]

Getting rid of rounds is so unlikely as to probably not even be worth discussing, but it pretty much solves the problems you guys are discussing. Maybe results in more finishes as there aren't artificial and random breaks for fighters to rest and recover.

[singh_shady]

Half points are probably the easiest way to change up the scoring.

After the GSP-Hendricks fight there was a good article on MMA Fighting regarding the broken system. There was a stat that from the last 50 UFC events over 97% (!!) of the scores were 10-9. There was only one round where all 3 judges scored a 10-8 (Siver vs. Nam Phan). ONE unanimous 10-8 round from the last 50 events. These are mind blowing numbers.

There are so many things wrong with this sport right now. Judging, scoring, match making etc where do you even start

[Cammo101]

A 10-7 first round would render the fight basically meaningless. While your situation applies, a guy can get crushed for one round and convincingly win the other two, but not at 10-8 level, and lose. 10 minutes of victory vs. 5 minutes of crushing with no finish.

I think 10-7s are silly under the current scoring system... for one, I can't recall any 10-7s, so where's the precedent? If you're able to go 10-7 on a guy, beat him up so bad that 10-9 is out of the question, and 10-8 isn't enough you have to essentially invent a new score AND you essentially make it impossible for the guy to win on points if he 10-9s you, convincingly, for ten minutes, you do not deserve to win the fight if you can't put him away in the 10-7 round.

10-8's, absolutely, they need more of them. It accomplishes the exact same thing as 10-7.

I think you missed my point. I want the scoring system to adjust accordingly. 10-9 rounds would be close rounds. 10-8 would be decisively won round. 10-7 and on would be decisively won rounds with a lot of damage.

More options depending on how badly someone won the round. Not like now where 10-9 means a toss up round and 10-8 means you basically murdered someone, with no in between.

[Cammo101]

Half points are probably the easiest way to change up the scoring.

After the GSP-Hendricks fight there was a good article on MMA Fighting regarding the broken system. There was a stat that from the last 50 UFC events over 97% (!!) of the scores were 10-9. There was only one round where all 3 judges scored a 10-8 (Siver vs. Nam Phan). ONE unanimous 10-8 round from the last 50 events. These are mind blowing numbers.

There are so many things wrong with this sport right now. Judging, scoring, match making etc where do you even start

By having more 10-8 and 10-7 rounds and using them more often then the most lopsided of the lopsided, you essentially gain the same thing that half points would.

[SDM]

A 10-7 first round would render the fight basically meaningless. While your situation applies, a guy can get crushed for one round and convincingly win the other two, but not at 10-8 level, and lose. 10 minutes of victory vs. 5 minutes of crushing with no finish.

I think 10-7s are silly under the current scoring system... for one, I can't recall any 10-7s, so where's the precedent? If you're able to go 10-7 on a guy, beat him up so bad that 10-9 is out of the question, and 10-8 isn't enough you have to essentially invent a new score AND you essentially make it impossible for the guy to win on points if he 10-9s you, convincingly, for ten minutes, you do not deserve to win the fight if you can't put him away in the 10-7 round.

10-8's, absolutely, they need more of them. It accomplishes the exact same thing as 10-7.

I think you missed my point. I want the scoring system to adjust accordingly. 10-9 rounds would be close rounds. 10-8 would be decisively won round. 10-7 and on would be decisively won rounds with a lot of damage.

More options depending on how badly someone won the round. Not like now where 10-9 means a toss up round and 10-8 means you basically murdered someone, with no in between.

Got it. Yeah, that makes more sense.

[Nemesis21]

I'd like to see strictly MMA judges, not ones pulled over from Boxing.

[Jasen777]

If you use 10-10's and 10-8's more, which I'd fully support, you wouldn't need half points and probably wouldn't need 10-7's (maybe for something like the first round of Edgar-Maynard 2).

Though I would prefer the no round breaks and no standups idea which isn't happening.

I agree with not scoring takedowns necessarily, but if you maintain top position for a significant amount of time even if you are just landing stay busy strikes or trying to pass I think it starts scoring as octagon control.

[CPT]

If you use 10-10's and 10-8's more, which I'd fully support, you wouldn't need half points and probably wouldn't need 10-7's (maybe for something like the first round of Edgar-Maynard 2).

Though I would prefer the no round breaks and no standups idea which isn't happening.

I agree with not scoring takedowns necessarily, but if you maintain top position for a significant amount of time even if you are just landing stay busy strikes or trying to pass I think it starts scoring as octagon control.

In an extreme example, if fighter A could get a takedown and somehow stay on top for the whole round while not landing a strike or attempting a submission, and fighter B lands one punch or a half assed kimura or guillotine attempt, I'm scoring the round for fighter B. Obviously that situation would be stood up, but it just illustrates how little I care about the takedown and positioning. You land a takedown to make it easier for you to land strikes or a submission, not to win the fight.

The effective striking, grappling, aggression, and octagon control criteria leave a lot to interpretation. Some (most?) people consider it to be 25/25/25/25. I've heard of it referred to as more of a hierarchy, with striking being most important, and everything else essentially serving as a tiebreaker, in order of importance. For some people it's not that technical and you just pick the winner of the round using the judging criteria as a guide. I'd probably use a mix of those approaches, and if I had to assign values, it would be something like 49/49/1/1. I think aggression and octagon control should only come into play if the fighters are dead even on striking and grappling -- you know, fighting. And honestly, at that point, I'm probably just going 10-10, as mentioned above.

I think the "who would you rather have been" approach suggested by some posters (Bernman?) is actually a great way to look at it. I would love to hear Goldy read that one during the "rules of the octagon" or whatever segment at the beginning of a card.

[Jasen777]

I think aggression and octagon control should only come into play if the fighters are dead even on striking and grappling -- you know, fighting.

It sounds like you're just going by striking though. Which is ok if that's what you want. Wouldn't getting a takedown and controlling the position on the ground be effective grappling?

[CPT]

I would go by submission attempts, although I suppose those could be considered ineffective grappling.

To me the "effective" part means causing damage, or attempting to end the fight. Which may not be the best definition, since if the fight goes to a decision, it wasn't all that effective, but I'm sure you get what I mean.

You're right though, I probably do lean more toward striking, but I would give a lot of credit to close submission attempts.

[REDDzone]

I think the "who would you rather have been" approach suggested by some posters (Bernman?) is actually a great way to look at it. I would love to hear Goldy read that one during the "rules of the octagon" or whatever segment at the beginning of a card.

Its not a bad way to look at it, but unfortunately its probably even less realistic than my idea of no rounds. They are never going back to essentially listing or implying "damage" as the main criteria. If we are just talking theoretically then yea its a good measure.

[Cammo101]

If you use 10-10's and 10-8's more, which I'd fully support, you wouldn't need half points and probably wouldn't need 10-7's (maybe for something like the first round of Edgar-Maynard 2).

Though I would prefer the no round breaks and no standups idea which isn't happening.

I agree with not scoring takedowns necessarily, but if you maintain top position for a significant amount of time even if you are just landing stay busy strikes or trying to pass I think it starts scoring as octagon control.

Do you not remember how boring a lot of those early UFC fights were. That is exactly why they added rounds and standup.

I agree with everything else though.

[REDDzone]

Do you not remember how boring a lot of those early UFC fights were. That is exactly why they added rounds and standup.

I agree with everything else though.

The athletes are so different then to now that the comparison is not even close to apples to apples. And how the hell does adding rounds make a fight less boring?

[Cammo101]

Do you not remember how boring a lot of those early UFC fights were. That is exactly why they added rounds and standup.

I agree with everything else though.

The athletes are so different then to now that the comparison is not even close to apples to apples. And how the hell does adding rounds make a fight less boring?

Because it at least forces GSP or Clay Guida to take someone down 3/5 times. No rounds, no standups is a recipe for boring lay and pray becoming the norm.

[REDDzone]

Because it at least forces GSP or Clay Guida to take someone down 3/5 times. No rounds, no standups is a recipe for boring lay and pray becoming the norm.

Or maybe its a recipe for submission artists to actually be able to implement their strengths? Groundfighting is boring in the ufc now because the onus is no longer on the bottom fighter to sweep or submit, they can just grab on and beg for the referee to intervene after 4 seconds a la Max Holloway this past weekend. As of now guys have 5 minutes to set up a takedown, get it, pass guard, and then submit. And if you don't get it then you reset. Do you have any idea how difficult that is to do? Its just too tall of a task when you realize that even if the guy who got the takedown is a adcc caliber blackbelt, the opponent is almost always blackbelt level as well.

I think there are two factors right now that make groundfighting boring as hell in mma. 1) Judges reward guys for lay and pray which is silly, you should be able to win fights off your back if you are the one damaging your opponent and attempting to finish the fight, and 2) Ref standups. Eliminate this and make guys have to FIGHT off their backs with sweeps/subs instead of just trying to hold on and beg to be saved by the ref. The two factors above are incentives for both the top guy to stall and the bottom guy to stall, and can both easily be eliminated.

I still think Glory is a great option for people who don't enjoy watching groundfighting, I hate how it is being phased out of the sport both by the ufc trying to appeal to the 'let me bang bro' crowd and by incompetent referees.

[High 5]

Incompetent judges make the scoring debate a waste of time. So often they fail to even pick the correct winner of a round. Imagine them giving the loser a 10-8.

And I think takedowns, even if they lead to nothing, should count for something. Not when it's an immediate recovery back to standing, but if you're held down for any amount of time you should be penalized.

[CPT]

If it would ever get past the UFC and the athletic commissions, I think no rounds might get vetoed by TV execs.

No stand ups, and a change in judging philosophy to disregard time spent on top, would still be an improvement over the current state.