[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
I think Jordan Breen at some point suggested having .5 points so you could have a 10-9.5 round and pushing for me liberal use of 10-8 rounds. I also don’t think the judges have monitors, so they can’t replay/slow mo/change angles on what they see. But you could go off for a while on all the problems/things you’d change in MMA judging.[/quote]
The fact that someone actually listens to Jordan Breen is more depressing than our scoring system.
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
I think Jordan Breen at some point suggested having .5 points so you could have a 10-9.5 round and pushing for me liberal use of 10-8 rounds. I also don’t think the judges have monitors, so they can’t replay/slow mo/change angles on what they see. But you could go off for a while on all the problems/things you’d change in MMA judging.[/quote]
One of the Judges, Doc Hamilton suggested it to the commissions. The 0.5 system allows judges to stick within their current definitions of a 10-9 and 10-8/7. It’ll result in more draws, which remedies in his system by having the referee create a score card as a tie-breaker.
Obviously most people take exception to the last idea, but it wouldn’t be a stretch to include a 4th judge, like in Judo, instead of the ref having to fill out a form between rounds.
I prefer the “liberal 10-8 and 10-10” change, but it’ll have more teething issues for longer than Hamilton’s system.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
to take a broader view…I really think the UFC needs to do something to make fighters fight less defensively.
I am not suggesting they go to the yellow cards like Pride, but perhaps the decision loss by Machida was a subtle message that you have to try to make a fight if you want to win. [/quote]
the UFC does not make the rules…
[quote]Valor wrote:
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
to take a broader view…I really think the UFC needs to do something to make fighters fight less defensively.
I am not suggesting they go to the yellow cards like Pride, but perhaps the decision loss by Machida was a subtle message that you have to try to make a fight if you want to win. [/quote]
the UFC does not make the rules…[/quote]
i get that… but ever sport has it within their ability to change rules or modify things to increase the entertainment factor of their promotion.
has not the NFL made many rule changes that promote more offense and thus more exiting games to the casual fan?
the replay idea mentioned before was interesting, for example in the Rampage Machida fight, third round, when machida hurt Jackson and had him up against the fence, it LOOKED like Rampage unloaded and hit Machida back a few time before Machida took him to the ground, but slow mo replay showed NONE of those punches connected.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
the replay idea mentioned before was interesting, for example in the Rampage Machida fight, third round, when machida hurt Jackson and had him up against the fence, it LOOKED like Rampage unloaded and hit Machida back a few time before Machida took him to the ground, but slow mo replay showed NONE of those punches connected. [/quote]
it also looked to many of the guys at the bar that machida had landed more punches than he actually had in that exchange, or that machida had knocked page down at the end of the second when the replay showed it was really just a slip on rampage’s part. i realy dont have that much interest in seeing machida fight again. you guys can say what you want, and ill admit to bias, but that is one boring motherfucker in my book
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
[quote]Valor wrote:
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
to take a broader view…I really think the UFC needs to do something to make fighters fight less defensively.
I am not suggesting they go to the yellow cards like Pride, but perhaps the decision loss by Machida was a subtle message that you have to try to make a fight if you want to win. [/quote]
the UFC does not make the rules…[/quote]
i get that… but ever sport has it within their ability to change rules or modify things to increase the entertainment factor of their promotion.
has not the NFL made many rule changes that promote more offense and thus more exiting games to the casual fan?
[/quote]
the nfl is not run by a state athletic commission
[quote]Fiction wrote:
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
I think Jordan Breen at some point suggested having .5 points so you could have a 10-9.5 round and pushing for me liberal use of 10-8 rounds.[/quote]
The fact that someone actually listens to Jordan Breen is more depressing than our scoring system.[/quote]
Uh I didn’t say I’m in love with the guy, but he writes articles and does a radio show on a pretty popular MMA site. So yea I’ve read his articles and listened to a couple of MMA radio shows he’s been on so I’m am aware of some of his viewpoints…really depressing.
Half points are a TERRIBLE, terrible idea.
Judges don’t even use the old system fully. Now they have even more clunky like options ,ie half points?
On top of that, it’s still not resolved how submission attempts, takedowns etc should be awarded in relation to other things.
Eg, on guy takes the other down, now he’s mostly LNPing while the other is busily working on submissions.
Does he outpoint the other one? At which point? etc etc
MMA should incorporate a new system and it should distance itself from the scoring of boxing.
Something simple like bestowing 0-3 [0=total passivness/defensive attitude, 3 points= amazing display of aggression and successful appplication of techniques] points for each round.
They could even go so far as to display points openly between rounds(which would work splendidly with a second ringgirl holding the scoreboard up).
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Half points are a TERRIBLE, terrible idea.
Judges don’t even use the old system fully. Now they have even more clunky like options ,ie half points?
On top of that, it’s still not resolved how submission attempts, takedowns etc should be awarded in relation to other things.
Eg, on guy takes the other down, now he’s mostly LNPing while the other is busily working on submissions.
Does he outpoint the other one? At which point? etc etc
MMA should incorporate a new system and it should distance itself from the scoring of boxing.
Something simple like bestowing 0-3 [0=total passivness/defensive attitude, 3 points= amazing display of aggression and successful appplication of techniques] points for each round.
They could even go so far as to display points openly between rounds(which would work splendidly with a second ringgirl holding the scoreboard up).
[/quote]
Why not just score the submission/position aspect of the ground game like they do in NAGA or FILA grappling competitions, and the takedowns like they do in wrestling? The striking is probably the most difficult portion to score as depending on viewing angles, judging whether a blow lands or not can be very difficult. It also happens extremely quickly.
I say get rid of the 10 point must system and go to a system where fighters are awarded points for effective takedowns (make it so that one must control the opponent’s hips once it hits the ground and/or wind up in side control or mount to get credit for the takedown), gaining positions of dominance once it hits the ground (with rear mount/guard being the most points, then mount, then side control/north-south being the least, also only awarding points for progressing in terms of position), legitimate submission attempts (opponent must actually be in danger of getting submitted to gain a point), and effective striking (a little more subjective, but still better than what they’ve got now IMO). Then maybe throw in some tie-breaker type categories like “damage inflicted, aggressiveness, and ring/octagon control”.
At the end of the fight, add up the points for each round and you’ve got your winner.
The obvious drawback/problem with this though is that you have to have very qualified judges who really understand what they’re watching to be able to score things accurately. Boxing judges like Cecil Peoples scoring MMA fights would likely result in woefully inaccurate score totals (or should I say even more inaccurate) and throw things off. And, since the judges are appointed by the state athletic commissions and not the UFC itself, it may be difficult to find competent judges.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
At the end of the fight, add up the points for each round and you’ve got your winner.
The obvious drawback/problem with this though is that you have to have very qualified judges who really understand what they’re watching to be able to score things accurately.[/quote]
I think the problem with that is that you’ve now turned MMA into Olympic Boxing, which nobody cares about or has any interest in watching.
You can’t score MMA with “points.” You have to go round-by-round as it’s done in UFC, or judge the whole fight, as it was done in Pride.
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
Uh I didn’t say I’m in love with the guy, but he writes articles and does a radio show on a pretty popular MMA site. So yea I’ve read his articles and listened to a couple of MMA radio shows he’s been on so I’m am aware of some of his viewpoints…really depressing. [/quote]
It’s the fact that you don’t seem to mind listening to a guy who looks like this and apparently does not have two brain cells to rub together than depresses me.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
At the end of the fight, add up the points for each round and you’ve got your winner.
The obvious drawback/problem with this though is that you have to have very qualified judges who really understand what they’re watching to be able to score things accurately.[/quote]
I think the problem with that is that you’ve now turned MMA into Olympic Boxing, which nobody cares about or has any interest in watching.
You can’t score MMA with “points.” You have to go round-by-round as it’s done in UFC, or judge the whole fight, as it was done in Pride.[/quote]
Why can’t you? They score grappling competitions with points, wrestling competitions with points, and even some striking competitions (what makes Olympic boxing so unpopular is the way it’s scored, not that it’s scored) with points. Those all seem to do just fine.
How many strikes equal a takedown? You can score grappling and wrestling because you are comparing apples to apples.
Grappling:
2 points for a takedown
2 points for passing into dominant position
2 points for a submission attempt (or 1 for minor advantage)
Striking:
???
And you also run into the situation where you are grading all submissions as equal. They shouldn’t be; threatening a guy with an RNC for 2 minutes and having him on the verge of going to sleep as the bell rings should not be worth the same as a triangle that is postured out of in 10 seconds.
Also, take a situation where a Fighter A gets a takedown into side control and throws on a serious armbar attempt. 6 points. Fighter B defends and slips out after a few seconds, hits him with a bomb of a right hand that rocks Fighter A and then an elbow that slices him open. Fighter A pulls guard and holds him there for most of the rest of the round, taking a few relatively minor GNP shots. Fighter A leaves the round with 6 points and Fighter B leaves with what? You can’t give him a point per punch. Fighter B should absolutely win that round, but under any conceivable scoring system, Fighter A is going to win it.
Or one fighter takes the other down (2 points for A), but after about 10 seconds winds up caught in a nasty guillotine (2 points for B), which takes him almost a full minute to escape from. He escapes and passes guard (2 points for A), but only barely establishes side control before B wall walks out and gets a standup. There’s no way that A should have twice the points as B.
The problem is that a “point-scoring” system treats things more like basketball, where all the points are relatively equal in value. MMA is more like football in that it is about “big events”- actions that get a fighter closer to ending the fight. Takedowns or guard passes that don’t result in anything threatening shouldn’t be nearly as valuable as serious submission threats or damaging strikes.
Yeah, I don’t agree with point scoring myself. It’s one thing to do it in wrestling or BJJ. The point of those sports is to get a takedown, get position, or subs. You’re rewarded for those with points and advantages.
In MMA, the goals of the fight are more varied. Is it to get and maintain position on the ground? Dishing out damage? Sub attempts? A sport like that should be scored subjectively based on wide criteria. Of course, that’s the case already, so the issue lies with the general quality of the judges.
You put a point system in MMA and it’ll turn in to sport grappling with strikes: fighters will hunt for takedowns for the sake of the takedowns, not the strategic benefits it provides (this happens sometimes in sport BJJ). Fighters will be more concerned with position; they will go for subs for points (if they’re awarded) as opposed to doing so for the finish.
I don’t watch MMA and catalog every strike landed and every successful positional transition, yet I think I, and most people who’ve followed the sport long enough, have a pretty good sense of who won a round based on whatever criteria.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
How many strikes equal a takedown? You can score grappling and wrestling because you are comparing apples to apples.
Grappling:
2 points for a takedown
2 points for passing into dominant position
2 points for a submission attempt (or 1 for minor advantage)
[/quote]
I’d only award a takedown 1 point. Too easy for a good wrestler to just take his opponent down, let them up and repeat to run up points otherwise.
And I’d give 1 point for effectively defending a submission attempt as well.
Why over complicate it?
Solidly landed blow= 1 point
knock down/rocking blow= 2 points
But you would have gotten points for the rear guard/mount with the RNC, and not for the triangle choke (since guard isn’t a position of advantage and therefore shouldn’t be awarded points IMO). So you while you would get the same points for both submissions, one would gain you more points overall.
That’s one of the reasons that I said you should also give points for damage inflicted, aggressiveness and octagon/ring control. Also, let’s say that we give fighter A 1 point for the submission defense, 2 points for the punch that rocks his opponent, 1 point for the elbow and let’s say that at least 1 of those GNP strikes actually lands solidly to the opponent’s head, so 1 more point. That would leave fighter A with 5 points, and fighter B with 5 points as well. But, since fighter A inflicted more damage (the cut), he’d wind up winning that round.
A would only get credit for the pass if he were able to gain a solid side control for 3 seconds (personally I like the FILA scoring system better than the NAGA scoring system). If he only gets it for a second and B immediately escapes and gets back to his feet, A would not gain points for the pass. They would be even in that situation again.
[quote]
The problem is that a “point-scoring” system treats things more like basketball, where all the points are relatively equal in value. MMA is more like football in that it is about “big events”- actions that get a fighter closer to ending the fight. Takedowns or guard passes that don’t result in anything threatening shouldn’t be nearly as valuable as serious submission threats or damaging strikes.[/quote]
I don’t disagree. I think that more points should be awarded for things like:
-staggering strikes/knock-downs
-serious submission attempts (submission attempts where the opponent is stuck in the attempt for a prolonged period of time and very close to being finished)
-gaining positions where the fight can be ended very quickly (like rear guard/mount)
less points should be awarded for things like:
-solid strikes that land but don’t really do any noticeable damage
-submission attempts which are immediately thwarted
-gaining positions of dominance, but not total dominance (like side control or north/south)
-takedowns (maybe very high slams could get more points though as they can potentially end fights or seriously daze the opponent)
finally throw in points for damage inflicted, aggressiveness (attempting to end the fight), and octagon/ring control.
At least then you can just tally up the scores for the rounds and judge who won rather than just “I think he was winning so I’ll say he gets more points” or “I like this guy’s style better, so I’ll give him more points” or “I like striking better than grappling, so I’ll give the striker more points”.
Admittedly no scoring system is going to be perfect, but this seems like a more objective method than the 10 point must system that is in place atm. At least I think it does.
^ No offense Sento, but the last thing I want to see in MMA is point fighting. You’re essentially talking about putting full-contact point-fighting and sub grappling together in a cage. I don’t think a guy should be able to steal a round with the mount, especially if he’s bloody from being dominated standing. I think he should win the round by attacking from the mount.
Whether you like it or not, any new point system placed on the sport is going to change the way athletes approach it. Guys will adapt to the rules and change their games accordingly. We’ve already seen it with LnP wrestlers. IMO MMA is a sport whose nature is the free-fight/NHB, why stifle that with more rules and set-points.
The 10 point must system isn’t really the problem, as several guys have pointed out. The judges are. Though I admit, I’ve noticed judging get slowly better when it comes to awarding guard players. Time, the rabid passion of fans, and perhaps the retirement of one Cecil Peoples, will eventually fix it.
[quote]rundymc wrote:
^ No offense Sento,
[/quote]
None taken. You can dislike my idea if you want. I just personally dislike the current scoring system.
But that already does happen, even with the current scoring system. Fighter A is winning in the stand up (so it’s 10-9, unless maybe he gets knocked down then it might be 10-8), towards the end of the round fighter B takes A down (back to 10-10) and gains a position of superiority (10-9 in B’s favor) and steals the round.
Also, with the system that I purposed, one would not be able to simply gain mount and steal a round if they were being dominated standing as the opponent would have likely built up a decent number of points during the standing portion already and the points for gaining mount would not outweigh that.
If you don’t like the idea of points, then why not just completely due away with any point system at all. Any fight that isn’t ended before the final bell, or isn’t a one sided ass whoopin where it’s absolutely clear that one fighter is dominating the other just can’t seem to finish him, is called a draw. If it’s a title fight, the title holder retains his title. If they want to discourage this, penalize the fighters in the case of a draw. That should result in fighters being a little more concerned with actually finishing fights.
Personally I don’t really like that idea either, nor do I like the current system. IMO if there are going to be points (which there already are), then make them objective, not subjective.
I don’t see how it would be adding any more rules to MMA. Yes, it would change things as far as scoring goes, but it would also make decisions a lot less subjective than they currently are.
If some wrestler is able to take his opponent down and just hold him there (and wasn’t just getting smashed on the feet), like it or not (and regardless of scoring system in place) the wrestler won that round/fight. With the scoring system I purposed, whoever was the most effective (simply scored in a more objective fashion) throughout the entirety of the round wins the round, regardless of whether they do it via striking or grappling.
No LnP doesn’t make for the most exciting fights, but it’s not like it doesn’t already happen.
[quote]
The 10 point must system isn’t really the problem, as several guys have pointed out. The judges are. Though I admit, I’ve noticed judging get slowly better when it comes to awarding guard players. Time, the rabid passion of fans, and perhaps the retirement of one Cecil Peoples, will eventually fix it.[/quote]
I’ll agree that the judges themselves have a lot to do with it. But the only reason that Peoples and co. are able to mess things up so much is because their “decisions” about who wins is purely subjective. At least the system that I suggested would be a lot more objective.
how 'bout different criteria? seperate it into striking, clinch/takedown, ground submission/GnP, aggression, and overall control/dominance…
1 point each for slightly winning each category, 2 points for dominating each category…
theoritically the most aggressive and dominant fighter would win.
get rid of the “must” system completely…
[quote]cycobushmaster wrote:
how 'bout different criteria? seperate it into striking, clinch/takedown, ground submission/GnP, aggression, and overall control/dominance…
1 point each for slightly winning each category, 2 points for dominating each category…
theoritically the most aggressive and dominant fighter would win.
get rid of the “must” system completely…
[/quote]
Fighter A spends the first minute of the round picking apart Fighter B on the feet. Not landing anything too crazy, but avoiding damage, landing some good jabs, etc. Most of minute two and three, he works Fighter B up against the cage and lands some short shots and knees to the legs, followed by a pair of takedowns that he’s unable to do much with. Nothing crazy, but controlling the fight and dictating the pace. Minute four is some more standing, with Fighter A enjoying a slight advantage on the feet. Right at about 1 minute left in the round, Fighter A takes Fighter B down again, but Fighter B executes a brilliant kimura sweep and gains mount. He unleashes a flurry of devastating ground and pound, which leads to Fighter A turtling and B taking the back, then goes back to mount, which leads to some more GnP as the round ends.
In that scoring system, Fighter A would win striking, clinch/takedowns, and aggression, and thus the round. Yet, Figher B clearly should win that round.
Stuff like that happens all the time, and any time you have different categories that somebody needs to win, you are rewarding the guy who used the most varied gameplan, not the guy who did the most damage and controlled the fight.
The way fights are currently scored is just fine. The actual implementation of the scoring system is the problem.