**CONTAINS PRIDE SHOCKWAVE SPOILER**
(Forgot to put that in the title)

I got the idea for this thread from the Silva/Hunt discussion

What do you think a decision supposed to reflect?
Who would have won the fight if it had gone longer?
Who was closest to winning at a certain point?
Who was more willing to take risks to end the fight?
Who had a strong weight advantage (should this reflect negatively in the ruling)?
Who would have done better in a post-fight beuty contest?

For example, I think Silva would have subbed Hunt eventually (he was very close a few times), but that Hunt got in better shots during the match. Also, if Hunt had been as good a fighter as Silva, he would have murdered him because of his weight advantage. I have no idea how the PRIDE or UFC scoring works. Was the ruling in accordance with those guidelines?

The biggest things that weigh into a choice for me are control and damage.

Who controlled the fight? Things like tempo, positioning, location, style of fight. Did the grappler keep the other guy on the ground? Did he keep good position (top or bottom)? Who dictated the pace of the fight? That goes a long way to determining a winner in my mind. If you can make the other guy fight your way, that's a big step towards winning.

However, if you cannot inflict any damage is controlling the fight as good? No. You need to do something with that control. Guys like Ricco and Tito just settle for laying on someone and doing nothing with it. Once you are in control it's time to inflict some punishment, or else you have done nothing with it.

The way I see things, time is up, no ko, no subs, no dq = no winners.
Its a tie.

I guess this is no more reason for the Gracies to bitch about time limits.

Well yeah, and rightfully so...I understand the reason there is a time requirement, but at the very least, there should be no rounds. Ideally, I agree with ronin69, a win should only result from either:
KO
Submission
Doctor Stoppage
Referee Stoppage
Towel thrown in

I don't think that the judges decision is an effective way to wage a win.

If it comes to criteria for a judges decision, these are the things that should matter, in this order:

Weight advantages first taken into consideration. Anything over a 50lb weight advantage, should give SIGNIFICANT adavantage to the lighter opponent.

Controlling the flow of the fight. If you are fighting on your terms, you're far closer than your opponent to winning the fight. If you control the match, then it should count heavily toward the win.

Total Damage done in the fight. Pretty simple, who landed the most number of devastating blows

Attempts to keep the fight flowing, and to end the fight. The fighter who is continually taking action, and making an effort to end the fight, (either by KO or sub) should be accounted for. Having position is good and all, but you have to do something with it.

Positional control. Who is in control positionally. Pretty simple. Number of lenghty mounts, sidemounts, knee on belly, taking of the back, and takedowns should be accounted for. If a smaller opponent continually takes down a larger opponent it should be accounted for greatly.

Stand up control. Who controlled the fight while on their feet? Sometimes this is just as important as ground control, but we all know that 90% of fights are on the ground 70% of the time or more. Now, If the fight is standup for the majority, then obviously this is going to have a greater effect on the decision than positional ground control.

Those are the basic criteria I would use to judge a fight. That being said, I don't think that there should ever be a judges decision. Fights should be 20mins long, with no rounds. If no one wins by some method at the end of the time, then the fight is a draw...