Thread: brutal scoring
7/28/2008 8:49pm, #11
Originally Posted by noonyez
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
7/28/2008 8:57pm, #12
Yeah. In your example, a nice combo and a takedown should be worth more than 3-4 failed sub attempts.
7/29/2008 8:23am, #13Originally Posted by RaiNnyX4
You're talking as though it's always the case that the sub attempt takes more out of the would-be subber than the escaper, and it just doesn't seem to me to be that common a case among BJJ blues or better. Certainly, when I'm fighting someone I can dominate, they tend to gas well before I do even when they are by any normal standard ridiculously fitter than I am, just as I tend to gas before my instructor does when I'm fighting him.
If we're even bringing this up, we could also mention that people break hands from punching. I'm sure you'd regard this as a ridiculous reason for taking punching out of the scoring equation, though.
In any case, the scoring of rounds is meant to judge fighter dominance of the round, not mark off damage done on some mythical hitpoint scale. If a fighter doesn't drop from a strike, it's often hard to tell how much effect it's had on him once he's recovered and is still fighting a minute later. I'm sorry, but that you managed to lightly bruise your opponent's thigh at the start does not, for me, outweigh you being sat on, smothered, neck cranked and having your limbs torqued for the next four minutes until the ref lets you out.
7/29/2008 10:17am, #14
Score the striking and the grappling separatley, both on 10 point systems but without the must because the round can go by with no striking or no grappling (Though hopefully not both!). Count subs as dominant position, whoever spends the most time in dominant positions wins the grappling 10-9. Guard top/bottom is neutral, strikes from one position count make that position dominant (i.e. affective striking from top guard means that top guard is counted as dominant). If you go the whole round without getting btter than a neutral posiiton (Assuming an extensive amount of grappling), you can expect an 8 or if you dont manage to get better than being mounted then expect a 7.
On the feet score striking like you would a boxing match but make clear that while winning earns you 10, loosing badly gets you 8 or even 7 to give even weight to the striking portion.
If no action occurs in a round in one area then a judge can score that aspect of the round 10-10.
If no difference is seen between the fighters in one area then a score of 10-10 can be awarded (maybe spending the entire round in guard with no sub attmpts or affective strikes thrown)
Takedowns into dominant position contribute towads your grappling dominance obviously, heavy slamming takedowns can be judged to add to striking perhaps helping decide otherwise tied rounds if one guy gets a big slam.
Finally, loose a point in the relevant scoring system if you are judged to be saved by the bell.
7/29/2008 4:43pm, #15
Sophist: "In any case, the scoring of rounds is meant to judge fighter dominance of the round, not mark off damage done on some mythical hitpoint scale. If a fighter doesn't drop from a strike, it's often hard to tell how much effect it's had on him once he's recovered and is still fighting a minute later. I'm sorry, but that you managed to lightly bruise your opponent's thigh at the start does not, for me, outweigh you being sat on, smothered, neck cranked and having your limbs torqued for the next four minutes until the ref lets you out."
You're wrong, it's both for control AND for damage inflicted (effectiveness we'll call it because I'm sure you can understand that more so).
It's a fight and thus you'd score effectiveness over anything else. Meaning if you can throw 50 jabs and do nothing (Sherk?) whilst the other guy can land 3 on you and **** up your face (BJ Penn?) then you'd give it to the other guy.
If you're controlling the fight from submission attempts from one to another, it's very hard for a guy to attack you during that. So whilst Mr Submission Attempt Man is doing his thing, he's scoring 'control' points surely. Now whilst some submission attempts take a lot out of your opponent there's a lot of failed ones that don't do a lot of damage.
Lets face it, some guy may suck at finishing submissions but eats punches a lot during a fight. Who would win the fight? I'd like to think the person who was more effective but hey.
7/31/2008 5:19pm, #16
Originally Posted by RaiNnyX4
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
7/31/2008 8:02pm, #17Originally Posted by ADM
8/01/2008 1:32pm, #18
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
Macdonald is off his rocker saying that almeida didn't do anything. He completely dominated cote in round 1.
8/01/2008 2:21pm, #19
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
I judge local fights in my area. My criteria is simple. I usually look for one criteria. Who was putting the most pressure on his opponent during the round.
This means if you get the takedown, but spend the next few minutes doing nothing with it because your opponent is throwing sub after sub, you are not winning. But if you land a few shots in there, and your opponent is just struggling to defend, you are winning. Likewise on the feet, if you are throwing lost of little technical strikes and your opponent has no answers, then you are winning, but if your opponent is shrugging them off and drops/rocks you with a few well placed power shots, well you are not winning. You could be throwing tons of strikes, but if every time you come in you get hit and forced to retreat, well that's not winning for you either.
So its not about who's the most agressive, who's doing the most takedowns, or who's throwing the most punches. I'm all about who's putting the most pressure on his opponent. Basically, I ask myself, if the round continued the way it was going, who would win."a martial art that has no rules is nothing but violence" - Kenji Tomiki