BJs scoring system

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » BJs scoring system
fonduktoe
8/29/10 11:39:42PM
penn said that rounds should only be scored based on striking and submission attempts which means grappling positions should hold no weight with judges i personally agree but would love some intelligent context
Jackelope
8/29/10 11:46:28PM
I don't agree. That means sweeps, takedowns, and position advancements are worth nothing. I just don't buy into that philosophy at all.
BlueSkiesBurn
8/29/10 11:49:57PM
This is more what I expected from B.J. after a definitive loss. Can't remain humble for even 24 hours.

I agree with Jackelope. If you can't stop the takedown you shouldn't be rewarded. It's not like Edgar LnP'ed. The hardest shot that was landed came from Edgar posturing up and reigning down leather.
Pookie
8/29/10 11:57:01PM
This was said before the fight, it is not him saying he should have won, this is him mid-rant talking about the judging in mma sucking balls*

What he was saying was more along the lines of whoever does the most damage/gets the closest to finishing should be the one who wins the round. The grappling should be scored in the context of what it does to enable a fighter's effort to finish the fight(Damage and Submissions).

Or at least that is what i took from the original article.
bjj1605
8/29/10 11:58:55PM
BJ lost that fight because he had a terrible strategy, was rather apathetic, and because Frankie outworked him.

He shot two takedowns. He got both. He should have been shooting the whole time.
fonduktoe
8/30/10 12:40:15AM

Posted by bjj1605

BJ lost that fight because he had a terrible strategy, was rather apathetic, and because Frankie outworked him.

He shot two takedowns. He got both. He should have been shooting the whole time.

this is not a thread about bj vs edgar this is about the scoring system in mma
lohmann
8/30/10 12:44:59AM

Posted by Pookie

What he was saying was more along the lines of whoever does the most damage/gets the closest to finishing should be the one who wins the round. The grappling should be scored in the context of what it does to enable a fighter's effort to finish the fight(Damage and Submissions).



"Octagon control" is a part of judging criteria, and taking down an opponent (even if it results in little damaging offense), should resonate to the judges according to the rules they're supposed to be playing by. Penn's beef is with the way MMA fights are interpreted as opposed to how they should be interpreted.

When a wrestler puts his opponent on his back, he effectively controls the amount of skills his opponent can utilize to win the fight and forces his opponent to defend the wrestler from improving into a more dominant position. The opponent instead is forced to look for a way to scramble up, sweep, or find a submission from his guard.

Control should matter.

There are cases where fighters can take rounds from the bottom, but they are generally pretty rare.
Jackelope
8/30/10 1:02:06AM
I guess I deleted part of my comment but I had typed that I'd like more context on what was actually said. I'm critical of scoring systems and how working from the bottom is overlooked by judges, but in the context this was presented to me in this thread I have to disagree. There may be a better argument given the context. Anybody have a link?
fonduktoe
8/30/10 1:09:24AM

Posted by Jackelope

I don't agree. That means sweeps, takedowns, and position advancements are worth nothing. I just don't buy into that philosophy at all.

its about doing something with your position to finish the fight as opposed to getting a takedown and sitting in full guard for 5 min. sweeps and takedowns are great but if you do nothing with them to finish the fight than i say all youve done is get the fight to a certain place. it should be about how to finish your opponent not how to control the clock and consequently the judges. i agree that grappling to an advantageous position is a plus in an mma fight but if nothing is done with said position than all you've done is moved ur opponent to a certain spot. i think the scoring system should be about trying to beat your opponent not about the position you force their body to be in (i guess i miss alot of pride rules, sorry)
Jackelope
8/30/10 1:44:58AM
Well I think an effort to finish should be one of the most important judging criteria there is out there. You can dig through my post history and find plenty of mention of that. So, in that sense, I agree.

That being said, all other things being equal you HAVE to score positional dominance. If two fighters are in the same position for 5 minutes and each attempts one submission you would score the round for the one in a position of dominance, would you not? Fighting is about imposing your will on another human being through physical force. A more dominant position = more imposition of will.

TheGodfather1024
8/30/10 10:37:46AM
I don't think one takedown should win the round. I don't get why Maynard won the first round of the Florian fight. Kenny's strikes were better and Maynard didn't do anything to him on the ground in the first fight. Rediculous
DCRage
8/30/10 11:26:39AM
Do we have to have a BJ Penn-Gate after every one of his losses? Geez...
emfleek
8/30/10 11:27:54AM

Posted by Pookie

This was said before the fight, it is not him saying he should have won, this is him mid-rant talking about the judging in mma sucking balls*




Posted by Pookie

This was said before the fight, it is not him saying he should have won, this is him mid-rant talking about the judging in mma sucking balls*




Posted by Pookie

This was said before the fight, it is not him saying he should have won, this is him mid-rant talking about the judging in mma sucking balls*



Posted by Pookie

This was said before the fight, it is not him saying he should have won, this is him mid-rant talking about the judging in mma sucking balls*




Posted by Pookie

This was said before the fight, it is not him saying he should have won, this is him mid-rant talking about the judging in mma sucking balls*

gartface
8/30/10 11:43:21AM
Haha hell yes Fleek, get that point across!

I don't agree completely, but the judging does need to change. Submission attempts definitely should hold more water than just pinning a guy down on his back. I also think an authoritative slam should warrant more than a run-of-the-mill takedown. It's definitely a hard job for the judges, and it was especially tough on Saturday with all of the clinch work and cage pressure. I definitely believe grappling advances should be awarded, because if someone passes your guard, half-guard, etc, to get into a dominant position, I can't understand how that wouldn't warrant positive feedback from the judges.

Can't agree or disagree completely with BJ, but the 10 point must system is definitely a thing of the past, or I hope it will be soon enough.
AchillesHeel
8/30/10 12:20:35PM
I agree that things like top position and takedowns are probably awarded too much, but I think Penn's suggestion to remove them entirely is just as dumb. I don't agree with the premise that "Who came closest to finishing" should be the determining factor, because I don't believe judges are capable of determining that without well-drawn guidelines. Without giving the judges a kind of menu of scoring, they'll judge fights on things like whose face looks more busted up, which fighter looks more animated, and who talked more trash (and of course some judges will penalize a fighter for talking trash and some will reward him for it).

What's really retarded about all of this is that MMA acts as if scoring grappling matches is some inscrutable conundrum that demands that wisdom of Solomon to unlock. It isn't. We know it isn't because scoring systems for grappling matches already exist.

In NCAA wrestling you can hear the referee calling out scores as they happen - "Takedown! Blue! Two points! Reversal! Red! Two points!" - and at the end of the match the guy who had more "riding time" (a.k. top position) is awarded an additional point (yes, just 1 - controlling your opponent counts in wrestling, but only a little). You can download the 2010-2011 NCAA Wrestling Rules Book as a pdf here for free. Apparently the people in the athletic associations who administer MMA cannot download and read a pdf.

NAGA awards 2 points for passing guard to side position and 2 points for a "full and strong submission attempt." Further...

A Submission is recognized as Full and Strong when one or more of the following occurs:

-The opponent takes time to escape;
--Upon escaping, the opponent does not instantly move to an attack of his own, but instead assumes a defensive posture;

-The defender is 'In Danger'
-- the finish has the potential for completion (if a kneebar, the hips have to be placed correctly, if a choke, the neck must have been reached, etc.);

-The finish in question is not a low percentage submission (wrist lock, body scissor, etc).


And, furthermore, "Minor Advantage (1 Point) is awarded for a Submission Attempt that is significant but does not meet the above criteria."

Unfortunately, the acronym "NAGA" is very, very scary (a naga is a Hindu half-snake demon, and the word means "King Cobra" in Hindi) so the athletic commission representatives have never watched a match or read their scoring system.

Judo has a very specific scoring system also, as outlined in Wikipedia. Sadly, it uses funny words like "ippon" and "waza-ari", which must be why the Athletic Commission people can't understand it.

The people who administrate MMA scoring should all be removed for incompetence and/or indifference. Everything they need is already out there. They either don't know that or they don't care. Either way, they're clearly unfit for the job.
AchillesHeel
8/30/10 12:23:29PM

Posted by gartface

I also think an authoritative slam should warrant more than a run-of-the-mill takedown.


- Lifting your opponent off the mat = 1 point
- Takedown = 2 points

There, I just did the athletic commission's job for it, and it took me less time than it's taking me to write this sentence.

jae_1833
8/30/10 10:54:25PM
Sounds to me BJ would enjoy the Japanease scoring system over the American system....it would be nice to see him vs Aoki or Kawajiri!
sbulldavid
8/31/10 2:33:27AM
My biggest case for a rule change was the Mousasi/King Mo fight under the rules I had Mo ahead, but I know that Mousasi far outclassed Mo even off of his back, but he didn't attempt enough submissions or stuff the takedowns, and he knew the scoring rules.
BustedKnuckle
8/31/10 7:12:52PM
I do belive that the scoring system is not the problem. But the numerous judges that "comprehend" it very differently.
Aether
9/1/10 8:01:00PM

Posted by BustedKnuckle

I do belive that the scoring system is not the problem. But the numerous judges that "comprehend" it very differently.



Well the ability to interpret rules differently is often a flaw in the structure of the rules themselves. If a rule is written clearly there should be very little room for interpretation.

A good example of this was the "back of the head" rule. The rule was open to interpretation specifically because the people who wrote it didn't define what exactly "back of the head" meant. In most cases rules can be interpreted differently because they were not written clearly enough and the language being used was not precisely defined.
Related Topics