this is more of a question to those of you with experience in this, but how are fights judged? i know in the UFC they say aggression, cage control etc, but are certain techniques given points, or is it all subjective?
how 'bout in boxing? does a hard hook that coneects worth more than a light jab?
obviously wrestling has a pretty clear cut scoring system, but i didn’t really know abou tthe rest…
I posted a really long post about this a while back in response to claims that a fight was obviously a fix. Let me see if I can find it (can’t be arsed to type it again)
[quote]cycobushmaster wrote:
this is more of a question to those of you with experience in this, but how are fights judged? i know in the UFC they say aggression, cage control etc, but are certain techniques given points, or is it all subjective?
how 'bout in boxing? does a hard hook that coneects worth more than a light jab?
obviously wrestling has a pretty clear cut scoring system, but i didn’t really know abou tthe rest…[/quote]
it’d depend, is the hook rarely connecting while the fighter is steadily jabbing his opponent? If so, probably the jab. Different judges look for different things, but generally they’re going to score you on your ring generalship and your offense. I’m not sure how they score MMA fights.
Can’t find the post, so here is an abridged version.
Fight is judged on the areas of effective striking, grappling, control and aggression. Both fighters start each round even 10/10. As one fighter starts to dominate a given area then you mentally tip the scale in their favour if the other fighter comes back into it the balance starts to tip in the other direction.
Striking is judged by who is landing more effective strikes. If I jab you and you reply with a 3 punch combo, you are winning. If I jab you and you just take it I am winning. If I jab you, you counter with a 1-2 and I recounter with a 3 punch combo that has you staggering a bit I am winning (etc etc)
Grappling is based on positional dominance and effective sub attempts (to me an effective sub attempt is one that puts the other person in real danger and forces them to actively defend, the same rule as advantages in BJJ scoring.) To be scoring in this area I should be improving my position up the hierarchy of positions and going for sub attempts as they come.
Control is about forcing the other guy to play your game though it is typically won on takedowns, if I am getting more takedowns than you or dominating the clinch then I am winning in this area. Technically you could score a fighter as being ahead on control for takedown defence though you rarely see this happen.
Aggression is about who is actively looking to win the fight.
The different areas are normally seen as a hierarchy so if the striking, grappling and control is even but one fighter is more aggressive they take the round. Whereas if I am really aggressively moving forward but you are catching me with counters at every step you should win the round (this is one area I see some judges getting it very wrong.)
To come to the final score we have to look at who is ahead in each area and how much of each round takes place in each phase so if I outstrike you for 1 minute then you take me down and outgrapple me for 4 minutes you should win the round. 10-8 or 10-7 are only scored when you see near total domination for the entire round.
Each round is scored totally separately. You start with a blank slate as if it were a fresh fight every time the bell goes.
Personally I don’t think the 10 point must system is suited to a 3 round fight. There is too wide a range of performances that can be scored 10-9. This means that I can dominate you for 1 round doing lots of damage but maybe not quite doing enough for a 10-8 (you get a big slam in say) then you scrape the next two boring rounds by a non slam takedown and hold down. You win the fight even though I was closer to finishing it. In boxing you have 10 or 12 rounds which allow this to balance out. In MMA we either need more rounds or more license to score 10-8 or 10-7.
My proposal would be:
10:10 = drawn round
10:9 = very slight advantage to one fighter in round
10:8 = Clear winner of round
10:7 = total dominance in round (like current 10:8)
All headline fights to be 5 rounds
Championship fights to be 7 rounds
cockney nailed it.
Personally I think they should allow half points as well given the low number of rounds. Just my personal feeling.
[quote]Barachiel wrote:
cockney nailed it.
Personally I think they should allow half points as well given the low number of rounds. Just my personal feeling.[/quote]
Works either way though if you have too many gradients it gets harder in later rounds and you start second guessing yourself as a judge. There is a hell of a lot going on in an MMA fight coupled with the crowd and the corners screaming judges are under a lot of pressure and are prone to sometimes being swayed by the crowd, corners and preconceptions.
I have seen judges score a close round against a fighter because they thought there was a low blow or fence grab that the ref should have penalised for instance.
cool-thanks for the info!
Cockney, I think you have good ideas, but 7 rounds for a championship fight? Some of these guys are gassed in the third round, the 6th and 7th I think (while maybe helpful at times to decide a victor) would be so boring. But overall, agree with your ideas and it does seem that the 10-9 scale is off for MMA.
I was actually having a discussion with some friends about this while watching UFC 105 and one said something to the effect of having both fighters start at 5-5 with the possibility of gaining points or losing points. For instance, Couture is humping Vera against the cage in a clinch for the whole round. Well, he hasn’t done a whole lot to earn more than 5 points, but Vera is doing even less, so he get docked a point. Round scored 5-4.
On the other hand, say a fighter successfully takes somebody down and spends most of the round in some moderate ground and pound, doing some damage but never coming too close to finishing the fight. Round scored 6-4.
Basically, the idea was that you could gain points for doing damage and lose points for being controlled. You could have a situation where both fighters are trading strikes or working for submissions and the round could be scored 7-6 or 8-7, etc. Would also make for interesting “fight of the night” discussions. I think it would also naturally encourage exciting fights as I’m sure fighters would realize that winning a bunch of 5-4 rounds is not going to get them on the big-money cards.
Obviously, this type of system would never happen. But it’s cool to bullshit about, I think.
The boxing judges who jumped to MMA are confused enough with what’s going on as it is to change the scoring system on top of that.
Forget which fight it was, but Rogan mentioned how one fighter was going for a kimura(IIRC), and one of the judges leaned over and said, “What’s he doing?” Rogan was pretty heated by this, but I hope the judge was merely asking the name of the sub, not what he was doing in general.
Like the 5-5 idea though. If the judges used it appropriately, it would make it more obvious when one or both fighters were not doing much, whereas a 10-8 round would mean a lot more, and be rarer.
[quote]boatguy wrote:
The boxing judges who jumped to MMA are confused enough with what’s going on as it is to change the scoring system on top of that.
Forget which fight it was, but Rogan mentioned how one fighter was going for a kimura(IIRC), and one of the judges leaned over and said, “What’s he doing?” Rogan was pretty heated by this, but I hope the judge was merely asking the name of the sub, not what he was doing in general.
Like the 5-5 idea though. If the judges used it appropriately, it would make it more obvious when one or both fighters were not doing much, whereas a 10-8 round would mean a lot more, and be rarer.[/quote]
I have a friend who judges in the UFC and he has told me similar stories. He is also an experienced BJJ brown belt and ref. Far too many of these guys have no clue what is going on on the ground.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Cockney, I think you have good ideas, but 7 rounds for a championship fight? Some of these guys are gassed in the third round, the 6th and 7th I think (while maybe helpful at times to decide a victor) would be so boring. But overall, agree with your ideas and it does seem that the 10-9 scale is off for MMA.
I was actually having a discussion with some friends about this while watching UFC 105 and one said something to the effect of having both fighters start at 5-5 with the possibility of gaining points or losing points. For instance, Couture is humping Vera against the cage in a clinch for the whole round. Well, he hasn’t done a whole lot to earn more than 5 points, but Vera is doing even less, so he get docked a point. Round scored 5-4.
On the other hand, say a fighter successfully takes somebody down and spends most of the round in some moderate ground and pound, doing some damage but never coming too close to finishing the fight. Round scored 6-4.
Basically, the idea was that you could gain points for doing damage and lose points for being controlled. You could have a situation where both fighters are trading strikes or working for submissions and the round could be scored 7-6 or 8-7, etc. Would also make for interesting “fight of the night” discussions. I think it would also naturally encourage exciting fights as I’m sure fighters would realize that winning a bunch of 5-4 rounds is not going to get them on the big-money cards.
Obviously, this type of system would never happen. But it’s cool to bullshit about, I think.[/quote]
I get what you are saying about 7 rounds and I agree for the heavy weights some of the fights would be boring however at the lighter weights we are seeing better and better conditioned fighters and 5 rounds is not always long enough to really divide the fighters. Think about Machida Rua going an extra round or two, would have killed a lot of arguments.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Think about Machida Rua going an extra round or two, would have killed a lot of arguments.[/quote]
True. I think that allowing the judges to add up to two rounds to a championship bout would be reasonable.
Cockney has it. I agree with him on when 10-9 or 10-8 rounds should be scored as such, however that isn’t being done! This is the real crux of the mma scoring problem. Because the fight is so short it doesn’t allow for things to work out like 10 or 12 rounds does in boxing. The Shogun vs Machida fight was a great example. I thought Shogun did quite a bit more overall, but if the judges barely gave Machida rounds 1,2,3 and gave Shogun 4 and 5 but by a clear margin in each round, Machida still wins. Indeed that seems to be what happened. If you scored like Cockney thought, or by a half point system (which is what I like), Machida wins 1,2,3 by 10-9.5 (which gives him a 1.5 pt lead overall). If Shogun wins 4 and 5 clearly, then you score it 10-9 each round (Shogun wins by .5 pt)
Other than just the point method, the other hard thing about mma juding is how to score attempts. For example, do you give more credit to the person being aggressive and going for the takedown, or the person expertly defending it? Or more for the person trying submission after submission, or the person escaping each one? I think these extra gray areas that boxing doesn’t have makes for more subjective interpretation (not that boxing doesn’t have questionable decisions itself, ha). Personally, I prefer to give the most credit to the person who is A)Being the most aggressive and B)Trying to end the fight. For instance, though Rich Franklin landed more shots on Wanderlei Silva, Wandy had him hurt in rounds 2 and 3, and was constantly attacking, while Rich landed mostly slap shots, arm punches, or jabs. But that is really where the gray area lies…if you value Rich’s accuracy and consistency through the fight then you’d see it different. I believe the judging will get better the more we get experience MMA people (not just people with wrestling or boxing backgrounds) into judging the sport. So, in short, it just needs some time.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Think about Machida Rua going an extra round or two, would have killed a lot of arguments.
True. I think that allowing the judges to add up to two rounds to a championship bout would be reasonable.
[/quote]
No, as a fighter going in you have to know how many rounds you are fighting so that you can pace yourself and train for it. I just feel a couple more rounds would settle a lot of the ‘bad judging’ calls that we see.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Think about Machida Rua going an extra round or two, would have killed a lot of arguments.
True. I think that allowing the judges to add up to two rounds to a championship bout would be reasonable.
No, as a fighter going in you have to know how many rounds you are fighting so that you can pace yourself and train for it. I just feel a couple more rounds would settle a lot of the ‘bad judging’ calls that we see.[/quote]
I’m not sure this would clear anything up. It may clear up some fights, but there could be plenty of scenarios where Fighter A was clearly the winner through 5 rounds but Fighter B wins the last 2 and all of the sudden it is a toss-up again. It also would slow the pace of the fights down a bit as the fighters compensate for the possibility of extra rounds.
In these discussions, I always think back to what a promoter told us during the rules meeting:
If your worried about getting screwed by a decision, don’t leave it in the hands of the judges.
Obviously, at that higher level, that is not always possible due to skill levels canceling each other out(for the most part). What is frustrating is to watch a fighter who fights not to lose(fighting ‘smart’) instead of trying to win(Koscheck v. Sanchez comes to mind).
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Think about Machida Rua going an extra round or two, would have killed a lot of arguments.
True. I think that allowing the judges to add up to two rounds to a championship bout would be reasonable.
No, as a fighter going in you have to know how many rounds you are fighting so that you can pace yourself and train for it. I just feel a couple more rounds would settle a lot of the ‘bad judging’ calls that we see.
I’m not sure this would clear anything up. It may clear up some fights, but there could be plenty of scenarios where Fighter A was clearly the winner through 5 rounds but Fighter B wins the last 2 and all of the sudden it is a toss-up again. It also would slow the pace of the fights down a bit as the fighters compensate for the possibility of extra rounds.
[/quote]
The other option is to judge the overall fight ala Pride, the problem there is what happens at the end of the fight always sways the judges.
I thought I would just update this with the latest version of the official scoring criteria
A) Using the 10-Point Must Scoring System; judges are required to determine a winner of a contest that ends after the Initial scheduled number of rounds have been completed. 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
B) Mixed Martial Arts Techniques are defined as:
â??Effective Strikingâ??: The total number of legal heavy strikes landed
â??Effective Grapplingâ??: The successful execution of a legal takedown and/or reversal including the following maneuvers:
a) Takedowns from standing position to mount position;
b) Passing the guard to mount position;
c) Bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
â??Octagon Controlâ??: Dictating the pace, location and position of the contest using the following maneuvers:
a) Countering a grapplerâ??s attempt at takedown to remain standing and legally striking effectively;
b) Taking down an opponent to force a ground fight;
c) Creating threatening submission attempts pass the guard to achieve mount, while on the ground;
d) Creating striking opportunities, while on the ground.
â??Effective Aggressivenessâ??: Moving forward and setting the tempo of the contest while effectively scoring with legal strikes, takedowns, and submissions while blocking the opponents counters.
â??Effective Defenseâ??: Successful avoidance or defense of blows and submissions by which an opponent is made to miss by definite maneuvers. However, one who demonstrates these skills must also strike effectively to positively influence the judgesâ?? scoring.
â??Intelligent Defenseâ??: An active defense that effectively neutralizes an opponentâ??s attack, particularly when the defender is mounted, either from the front or the back. An intelligent defense minimizes the potential for damage while providing the opportunity for taking back the offense.
C) Scoring of the above techniques shall be given the most weight as follows:
Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, grappling, octagon control and aggressiveness/defense.
D) Judges should use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the contestants are either standing or on the ground, as follows:
If 90% of a round was spent on the ground, then:
a) Effective Grappling is weighed first
b) Effective Striking is then weighed
If 90 % of a round was standing, then:
a) Effective Striking is weighed first
b) Effective grappling is then weighed
If a round ends with 50% standing and 50% grounded, striking and grappling are weighed more equally.
OBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA:
10-10 Round
A) When both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round.
B) When both contestants suffer equal numbers of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes and neither shows clear dominance in a round.
10-9 Round
A) When a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers.
B) When a contestant remains in the guard position with no fighter having an edge in striking or grappling, the fighter who scored the legal takedown wins the round.
10-8 Round
A) When a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
B) When a contestant adversely affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.
10-7 Round
A) When a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
B) When a contestant detrimentally affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.
CB…
Thats still a mother fucker…
So if I land 5 “solid” jabs and you land 1 take down in a round that is spent half on the ground and half standing…who won?
What if I land 1 jab more than you, in a round that is 90% on the feet, but you land a single take down?
There will always be a subjective element.
[quote]Valor wrote:
CB…
Thats still a mother fucker…
So if I land 5 “solid” jabs and you land 1 take down in a round that is spent half on the ground and half standing…who won?
What if I land 1 jab more than you, in a round that is 90% on the feet, but you land a single take down?
There will always be a subjective element.[/quote]
did those solid jabs rock the head back or did the other guy just walk through them? Was the takedown to sidemount or into the guard. Was there a slam with the takedown? 1 takedown from how many attempts? What happened for the second half of the fight on the ground? Was there any GnP or did they top guy just blanket? What about the guy on the bottom, was he looking for subs or just holding on?
More to the point, what the fuck was the ref doing? Why were both guys not docked a point for passivity?
You are right, it is always going to be subjective but you cannot reduce a round to just words on the page. I would have to actually see the round to tell you how I would score it.