How should Fights be judged.

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » How should Fights be judged.
jimmypockets
7/8/08 2:37:25PM
Just curious.........How do you judge the winner of a fight. By who did the most damage or by who was the most active. I am bringing this up because I have seen alot of fights where the loser clearly did more damage to his opponent an lost. With the exception of the leg kick by Forrest I really thought Rampage clearly did more damage with less strikes. Should you be penalized by not wasting energy throwing ineffective punches when you can conserve that energy and land solid shots? This is not a question to debate Rampage/Forrest it is a general question on how in your mind you judge the winner of a FIGHT.
Jason-plata
7/8/08 2:47:35PM
I think that it should be judged upon effectivness.
It is kinda useless to judge by who throws more punches or kicks.
For instance if a fighter throws 75 punches and kicks for the entire fight and lands only 25% of his punches/kicks and the other fighter only throws 45 punches/kicks but lands 65% of the punches/kicks should win in my eyes.
It shpould not matter how many punches were thrown. It should be about effectivness of the contact.
Just like the Rampage vs. Forest fight.
grappler0000
7/8/08 3:19:48PM

Posted by jimmypockets

Just curious.........How do you judge the winner of a fight. By who did the most damage or by who was the most active. I am bringing this up because I have seen alot of fights where the loser clearly did more damage to his opponent an lost. With the exception of the leg kick by Forrest I really thought Rampage clearly did more damage with less strikes. Should you be penalized by not wasting energy throwing ineffective punches when you can conserve that energy and land solid shots? This is not a question to debate Rampage/Forrest it is a general question on how in your mind you judge the winner of a FIGHT.



which is more damaging, a punch or kick? Is a leg kick more damaging than a head kick? What about a body shot? You could argue that Forrest had just as many solid shots, but different tools were used.
jimmypockets
7/8/08 3:31:58PM
Like I said this is not a debate of the Rampage/Forrest fight.... It is a general question of your opinion. Do you consider a fighter that does more damage to his opponent should win even if his opponent was more aggressive in the fight?
copcopps
7/8/08 3:38:51PM
Yellow cards to stallers
Judged on Aggression, Octagon control, Effective striking and takedowns
Judged as a whole fight
grappler0000
7/8/08 4:24:15PM

Posted by jimmypockets

Like I said this is not a debate of the Rampage/Forrest fight.... It is a general question of your opinion. Do you consider a fighter that does more damage to his opponent should win even if his opponent was more aggressive in the fight?



I only included that to pose another question, as you did comment that you felt Rampage did more damage. I know there is a priority for the factors in determining a fight, but you can break it down to even another level. What type of damage is priority?
Pookie
7/8/08 4:32:50PM
In a perfect world, i believe the fights should be decided by who did the most damage, not necassarily who looks the most beat up... throwing 10x as many shots as the other guy while still landing less then him doesnt win you the fight IMO
grappler0000
7/8/08 4:38:34PM

Posted by Pookie

In a perfect world, i believe the fights should be decided by who did the most damage, not necassarily who looks the most beat up... throwing 10x as many shots as the other guy while still landing less then him doesnt win you the fight IMO



I agree...looking beat up doesn't always mean you lost a fight. Stout/Fisher 2 is a good example.

Oh yeah, and who'd of thought Penn/Uno 2 was a draw after looking at them?



Pitbull09
7/8/08 5:43:29PM
I think what is leaving bad decisions is the interpretation of "control." So many times, a guy can make a useless takedown but it will go towards his score card or a guy gets into full or half guard and isn[t able to damage or attempt a submission. Why should this help either fighter? I think it comes down to judges wanting it to feel like someone is always gaining/losing points but that not always so. Stand ups need to be urged more often for this and penalities should go to fighters attempting this form of a win.

I myself am a fan of grappling matches but the way some go. Judging neeeds to be improved to not go by a wrestling point system but an MMA point system where takedowns or being on top doesnt cut it.
nickcuc547
7/8/08 5:48:34PM
damage most definitely, damage is what wins you fights.

i think the most ambiguous and arbitrary rule in mma is how you score a sub attempt, this is where most of the judging problems lie. a sub attempt that is unsuccessful usually causes little damage and you have to take a beating to get to it at times. it seems like you only get rewarded for landing a submission, now i don't know if that's right or not because most submissions have a lot of risk involved and if you can't lock one on you have the risk of being pummelled. But i think scoring a sub attempt is something that needs to be more clear because it seems to be too arbitrary.
nickcuc547
7/8/08 5:49:56PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by jimmypockets

Just curious.........How do you judge the winner of a fight. By who did the most damage or by who was the most active. I am bringing this up because I have seen alot of fights where the loser clearly did more damage to his opponent an lost. With the exception of the leg kick by Forrest I really thought Rampage clearly did more damage with less strikes. Should you be penalized by not wasting energy throwing ineffective punches when you can conserve that energy and land solid shots? This is not a question to debate Rampage/Forrest it is a general question on how in your mind you judge the winner of a FIGHT.



which is more damaging, a punch or kick? Is a leg kick more damaging than a head kick? What about a body shot? You could argue that Forrest had just as many solid shots, but different tools were used.



not if the fight is being scored round by round you can't, forrest did 99% of his damage in round 2.
MoJoy
7/8/08 10:45:22PM
Two ways. First I look at it round by round. To get the main idea. Then I compare it to how I feel about the totality of the fight right after it goes forth. Thats mostly if it's close. Like in this fight. Forrest Rampage I say should LOL. I had it a 47-47 draw. And I felt like it was that way after it finished. So I am cool with either guy winning, prolly cause rampage was the champ he should of maintained the belt, but just as the cool Rampage, I respect Forrest so much, and he had such a great fight I am cool with him winning. Your not really allowed to score like that, but thats how I think it is most fair.
roadking95th
7/9/08 12:59:15AM
In an ideal world, one should go by a "feel" for the fight. Who one the fight in it's whole. Does the winner pass the eye test. I don't care if fighter A squeeked out rounds 1,2 and 3. If fighter B won 4 and 5 decisively, I feel they won. Hell, it could be 4 to 1, I don't care. At the end of the fight, who is the better man. Some guys can take a lot of "damage" and it doesn't effect them as much.

Unfortunately, it would be very hard to quantify this form of judging and it would be always open to speculation. But hey, that already happens, look at Bisping/ Hamill.

If it doesn't go to the judges then there is no speculation. Unfortunately, with the increase in pay, there is more at risk. I think fighters would rather play it safe then go for the finish and open themselves up. Myabe this is what became AA problem of late. Fighting for the win and not the finish.
cmill21
7/9/08 1:22:25AM
I like how Pride did it with the whole fight. That only works with experienced judges though so I don't think it would work with what we have here, they don't seem to know mma all that well.
Related Topics