The following is an excerpt from a blog written by MMA fighter Jason MacDonald.
"MMA judging right now is so ridiculous. What needs to be done is it needs to be laid down very clearly what the criteria is for judging a round, and what the percentage is for each area being judged. For example: submissions. Do you get more credit for attempts? Or do you get more credit for escaping an attempt?
It looks like right now all you get credit for is punches and takedowns. Weíre seeing guys who are stealing rounds by just getting a takedown at the end of a round. If you dominate a whole round, can you win it with one takedown right at the end?
Right now, it seems if youíre on your back, youíre losing the fight, even if youíre going for submissions or landing some good shots. Thatís unfortunate, because you can land some nice elbows and punches from the bottom.
And I donít think itís not a problem with the judges themselves. They know what theyíre doing, they just donít have clear guidelines. Itís just so up in the air. Itís not definitive on what a fighter is judged on. Theyíre talking about unified rules. How about unified judging?
Some people think the 10-point must system is a problem. But itís not the system, itís the criteria that gets you the 10 points thatís the problem. It needs to be made definitive how you earn your points, because I think itís also quite subjective right now. If a judge likes seeing certain things, theyíll give more points for that, which is how you get discrepancies."
What do you think?
If I were judjing I would use this criteria: who did the most damage, who was the most aggressive, who controlled the fight more and who came closest to a submission. Pretty much in that order. I wouldn't give too much credit to escaping a submission, as admirable a feat as that is, because it's negated by the fact that the other guy is on the verge of taking you out of the fight. He gets credit, your reward is getting to fight on. In the end its always going to be subjective and even knowledgable, reasonable people are going to see things differently. I do agree that last minute take downs should not be automatic round winners, that is lame.
The only problem with giving them credit for control is that fighters can win rounds for getting takedowns but not doing anything with them. Then they win the round even if their opponent was going for submissions. i.e. last round of GSP vs. Penn.
Off-topic reference to other thread: UpaLumpa, please don't kill this man.
Originally Posted by noonyez
OP: I dislike how it's a 10-point system where people rarely get less than an 8. Seriously...use the range of points! But your point about well-understood criteria for points is also valid.
I don't think submission attempts should really count for anything. If you didn't get the submission what did you really accomplish? I mean, lots of times, a submission attempt will actually wear out the person going for them. Think about when you're trying to triangle someone and for whatever reason it doesn't work, remember how tired your legs feel afterward?
EDIT: Same thing goes for "control". If you take a guy down and don't do anything with it, I fail to see how the "control" really did anything to make the other guy lose. I'll give you points for a good takedown, but what you do after that has to leave more of an impression than "he just held him there". In Judo, a pin scores because it was assumed that you would be damaging the other guy after gaining control. But this is MMA, and if you don't actually do anything, then you shouldn't get anything.
Last edited by RaiNnyX4; 7/27/2008 1:15pm at .
I don't get why it was off topic. Besides RaiNnyX4 just said the same thing I did.
So, by your metric, a guy who eats a handful of punches and gets taken down at the beginning of the round only to reverse his opponent and spend the next few minutes comboing from one submission attempt to another while his opponent grimly hangs on for the end of the round and the standup ought to lose the round?
Originally Posted by RaiNnyX4
By the same notion, we shouldn't score punches unless they knock people out. I mean, if you don't get the knock-out, what did your punch really accomplish?
Sophist: Punches / kicks still hurt people even if they don't knock them out?
I know where you're heading with your argument and I for one agree with you, but we're comparing peaches and pears here.
ADM followed my logic correctly. A punch or kick that lands and doesn't knock the guy out still causes damage. A failed submission attempt, most of the time, does not harm the other guy at all. And in fact, we all know that a failed submission attempt can actually wear out the guy going for the hold more than the guy defending. So yes, the guy who eats the punches and gets taken down at the beginning of the round only to reverse his opponent and spend the next few minutes switching from one submission attempt to another while his opponent grimly hangs on for the end of the round and the standup more than likely would lose the round were I judging.
Originally Posted by Sophist
Even if failed submission attempts don't cause damage the fighter is trying to finish the fight and that should score more points than surviving submissions attempts.