I think I may have fixed the scoring problem in MMA, honestly

A Great Idea		23%	(7)
A bad idea		77%	(24)

I was thinking of different kind of techniques to score rounds, when I thought, for now, keep the same scoring you see, but instead of 3 judges have 5. At first your like, its gonna be the system we have now. No its not. The point is not to change it, but upgrade the scoring of back and forth fights where your not sure which fighter is taking the fight or the round. Some of these past close fights where your not sure the right fighter won, doing it this way can mark that go tremendously higher. DasRy.

it seems like a good idea, but if i was a judge you would have to pay me a hefty amount of money for me not to watch the first round or whatever one im not judging lol. but is that what you mean?

What. Dude how in the country did you read that and come up with that. You have 3 judges now, simply increase to 5. More people watching and scoring the fight that are qualified helps in close fights, the only fights where you need help. Think about it.

oh i diddnt quite get your idea but you didn't have to be mean about it . i thought you meant something like hold three judges in a room and then with out them seeing the first round then get them to judge the second and then alternate. idk apparently i need to get some sleep

it sounds good in theory but in reality the more judges u have the bigger mess u'll get
what they need to do is put the judges through a mma judging school teach them what to look for if im not mistaking most of the judges come from 1 demansional fighting styles they need to lean mma inside and out IMO

---

Posted by thevoodooninja

it sounds good in theory but in reality the more judges u have the bigger mess u'll get
what they need to do is put the judges through a mma judging school teach them what to look for if im not mistaking most of the judges come from 1 demansional fighting styles they need to lean mma inside and out IMO

---

only the bush administration thinks that adding more crap to a pile of crap makes it prettier
by the way, and not to sound like a dick, but using proper english in your initial post might make it easier for people to understand/comment on your idea
it reads like a mess right now (just trying to be constructive!).

This has actually been mentioned before
http://mmaplayground.com/forums/topic21668-1.html

Yes, adding more judges would make for better scoring. The more people you've got, even when just guessing a result, the more accurate your data will be- thus it stands that if you have more judges then you are more likely to get the appropriate outcome.
I wish i could remember the name of the study, but there was a study done buy a wealthy Englishman some time ago to see if the "common man" was capable of making intelligent decisions: he had a crowd guess the weight of a cow. He would have people write their guess on paper and place it in a box. He then averaged the guesses. Inevitably, the more people he had in the crowd, the closer their guesses were to the actual weight.
I think adding more judges would definitely help.

In a bloomin nutshell that is exactly what I was talking about. And to the poster who thought I was being mean, sorry, not trying to come across like that. My point is this, say your watching a fight you have the 3 judges scores it, then you have say knowledable people like Joe Rogan and like an online poll of who won the fight, if you took that and added it to the judges you would get a more fair reading of who won the fight. If you have 5 judges, remember you only need help on close fights, what happens is usally in cases of problems you have 2 judges scoring somewhat fairly and 1 is dubious. Having extra judges makes the inevitable idiot judge less impactful on the scoring thus improving it to me. Very clear and very doable to me.

I don't think there's a scoring problem. When you're using humans, it's inevitable that it's not going to be perfect every time. But the percentage of fights that have the correct scoring FAR outweighs those that don't.

It's like an umpire that calls balls and strikes. There's going to be human error no matter how it's done.

IMO, educating the judges is the best route to take.

(and holy crap, a midget just ran past my window. Seriously!!!)

When you said 5 judges, I thought you were going to say one judge per a style kinda. That could pontentially be a good idea.
Like have one judge for stand up (striking) and another for clinch and takedowns, and another for wrestling and one for submission attempts/ defense, ect.

The problem though would be if a fight never had one of these things in it, the judge would kinda be worthless. They could have one for each of the five things they judge though

It wouldn't change the fact that a close fight is still close. You'd rather say five guys were wrong than three? lol We've still never seen a major judging mishap. Ppl seem to think if a fight is close and their guy didn't win that something needs to change. The 10pt must system is stupid and innapplicable to mma. As is, imo, scoring rd by rd. The whole fight is the only way that makes sense.

oops, double post

Why do people say the 10 point must system does not work? overall this system has been 99.9% accurate since its entstatement. Changing the system is still going to give you the same outcome but just a different route to get there so why change it?

---

Posted by mkiv9secsupra

Why do people say the 10 point must system does not work? overall this system has been 99.9% accurate since its entstatement. Changing the system is still going to give you the same outcome but just a different route to get there so why change it?

---

10pt must is not applicable to mma. I don't know where you came up w/ that number? but anyway... Other systems don't necassarally get the same result (unless you mean there will always be ppl who don't like it). Many dec's over the years ppl have rightfully made the statements "Under PRIDE/UFC rules it would've come out different"

There will always be controversial decisions but we need a system that takes into account wrestling and boxing and kickboxing and JJ and many other arts, and tries to treat them all fairly. This is a system that was invented for a sport like boxing where you can actually just count punches.

I always like how in PRIDE serious attempts to finish were treated in higher regard than anything, regardless of how you were trying to finish you were being rewarded for trying not to go to the judges.

---

Posted by JimiMak

---

Posted by mkiv9secsupra

Why do people say the 10 point must system does not work? overall this system has been 99.9% accurate since its entstatement. Changing the system is still going to give you the same outcome but just a different route to get there so why change it?

---

10pt must is not applicable to mma. I don't know where you came up w/ that number? but anyway... Other systems don't necassarally get the same result (unless you mean there will always be ppl who don't like it). Many dec's over the years ppl have rightfully made the statements "Under PRIDE/UFC rules it would've come out different"

There will always be controversial decisions but we need a system that takes into account wrestling and boxing and kickboxing and JJ and many other arts, and tries to treat them all fairly. This is a system that was invented for a sport like boxing where you can actually just count punches.

I always like how in PRIDE serious attempts to finish were treated in higher regard than anything, regardless of how you were trying to finish you were being rewarded for trying not to go to the judges.

---

so youre saying lots and lots of decisions would have been different if we had a different judging system in place? no there would not. There are very very few decisions that should have been different in MMA all together. If we look at Rampage Griffin.....Griffin got one takedown and 2 sub attempts while mounting Rampage so Griffin controlled the ground game while matching Rampage on the feet. So even going through and looking at each of the components griffin STILL won. Thats my point. Even if you go through and dissect each fight the outcome is still going to be the same, for the most part.

---

Posted by MoJoy

I was thinking of different kind of techniques to score rounds, when I thought, for now, keep the same scoring you see, but instead of 3 judges have 5. At first your like, its gonna be the system we have now. No its not. The point is not to change it, but upgrade the scoring of back and forth fights where your not sure which fighter is taking the fight or the round. Some of these past close fights where your not sure the right fighter won, doing it this way can mark that go tremendously higher. DasRy.

---

This wouldn't work. But your on the right track. because the decision of a round solely goes to 1 guy, when most of the time we see split decision, it's because judges see rounds differently.

ie. If a fighter does a takedown but does nothing but receive soft shots for the bottom, some judges will call it octagon control, others would call it for the strikes.

The real way to solve this scoring problem "which i really think there isn't"

AND LISTEN CLOSELY CUZ YOU WILL AGREE

This would only be for championship fights. You take fighters. not just anyfighters. u make sure they didn't train, spare, work, or anything like that together. And you let them judge.

Also for example in Rampage Forrest, you get a Fighter who has fought both of them to judge also. In this case it would be Shogun.

And finally, I like the idea of 5 judges, but have them all working at the same time.


Plan B - Take 10 judges at random to judge every round of every fight, but randomly select 3 of the judges score cards to be the official scorings.

---

Posted by emfleek

I don't think there's a scoring problem. When you're using humans, it's inevitable that it's not going to be perfect every time. But the percentage of fights that have the correct scoring FAR outweighs those that don't.

It's like an umpire that calls balls and strikes. There's going to be human error no matter how it's done.

IMO, educating the judges is the best route to take.

---

I fully agree, I really dont see a problem right now, except for stupid judges...

Cough Cecil Peoples Cough Cough Jeff Mullen Cough Cough Marcos Rosales Cough

I looked at it if my change was implemented. The reason I think its a great idea cause what I have seen in the majority of recent decision that people complain about, its not all the judges, a common pattern of 1 judge with dubious scoring. This is the point of my rule. By having 5 judges it lets the fool taint the outcome less. Now like I said if all the judges are scoing it bad thats a whole nother ball game. But usually most get it right. I think having instead of 3 people, 5 to look at it, you can only get a more fair picture. How this for a twist. You know how they score the nba jam contest. What if all the judges points for each fighter where cumulaitvely added up, would that be a good idea?

---

Posted by State_Champ

Yes, adding more judges would make for better scoring. The more people you've got, even when just guessing a result, the more accurate your data will be- thus it stands that if you have more judges then you are more likely to get the appropriate outcome.
I wish i could remember the name of the study, but there was a study done buy a wealthy Englishman some time ago to see if the "common man" was capable of making intelligent decisions: he had a crowd guess the weight of a cow. He would have people write their guess on paper and place it in a box. He then averaged the guesses. Inevitably, the more people he had in the crowd, the closer their guesses were to the actual weight.
I think adding more judges would definitely help.

---

yea I heard about this study as well.. basicly the out come was this.. no one guessed the exact weight... but the average of every guess.. and it was something like 600 guesses was exactly right... sadly I do not recall the name of the study of the guy as well..

I think having 5 judges would be a good idea.. also have them sit seperatly encircling the cage or ring so they do not all have essentially the same view.... and yes many of the judges need to know the sport better... setting up some sort of trining program... or even getting judges to take some MMA training.. even just a "crash course" put them through a basic say two week or longer course.. where they are actually in there getting to expereince some of the stuff first hand... .. I think many of the refs should be in this same program.

Why not have 7 judges? Or 25 judges? Or 10,001?

---

Posted by ncordless

Why not have 7 judges? Or 25 judges? Or 10,001?

---

youd have to pay them all

I think that the champion should have an advantage in a title fight. If the chalenger can't KO, TKO, or submit him, the fight should be declared a draw.