Judging in the UFC

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » Judging in the UFC
pv3Hpv3p
6/14/07 5:14:23PM
what do you guys think of how MMA is judged in the UFC (NSAC rules)?

What do you think of a 10 point must system?

How do you think takedowns should be scored against sweeps / escapes / sub attempts / etc?

Do you think the scoring system favors any specific sort of fighter? ie) strikers, wrestlers, jits, judo, whatever


I guess all I'm trying to get at is that I don't really agree with the scoring of a TD being the determining factor in who wins a fight... Especially taking into account the comfort level of JJ practitioners on their back... Or why aren't sweeps and escapes scored on the level of the TD? They are just as, if not more, difficult. I don't like seeing fights like Koschek / Joslin and Herring / O'Brien... I know that wrestling are these two guys's bread and butter, but something should be done with it once you get the TD... Just wondering what yunz guys thought
johny_rotten
6/14/07 5:25:28PM
I agree. Wrestlers have an advantage with the judges in the UFC. The only take down that should gain points are slams. After that a take down should only benifit the fighter if he can do some thing with it, IE deliver strikes set up sub attampts. GSP won the fight against BJ becuase of a take down in the 3rd, but BJ used that take down to set up an oma platta. The oma platta should be scored much more since it could actully end a fight.
pv3Hpv3p
6/14/07 5:35:20PM
That's exactly what I mean... I guess I don't know if it's a fundamental problem with the judges themselves, that they don't aknowledge things like this... I don't know about scoring sub attempts more, but at least equally or a little bit... I think reversals should def be takin into acount as well...
Lord_Lenny
6/14/07 6:13:17PM
mma is a lot harder to judge than say boxing where whoever hit the other guy more times wins the round. some guys are comfortable on their backs and are willing to be taken down, so the take down scoring system gets complicated. I like the idea of slams being the only TD points, also Judo throws, but you shouldnt be rewarded for falling into someone's guard. For that matter the whole judging system is flawed, the last 30 seconds of a round have more of an impact on their judging since its fresh in their memory, and they dont have time to go back and replay the fight. As for one style being overly favored, probably wrestling because they are in the more dominant position but not necessarily doing anything whereas a JJ practitioner could be setting up for a sub. Striking is the most favored, but rightfully so because it does the most damage. judges tend to remember the big punches.
szucconi
6/14/07 6:21:31PM
I think there are a few factors to consider. One is control. Standing up or on the ground, control should be important in determining who is winning. Second is damage. If I control you for four minutes and do nothing, then you light me up for a full minute you win the round.

Take downs are just a display of control and holding a person down only adds to control and give them less of an opportunity to do damage.

Escapes are not controlling, they are a loss of control.

The 10 point must system is adequate, but I wouldn't be against other options. I don't like it when nothing happens in the first round and it become the deciding factor.

I liked the Herring/O'Brien fight. It was a bit slow, but Herring got dominated. Then he cried like a little girl. He kept looking up at the ref like "Get this guy off me because I can't do it my self"

I think the scoring system favors a well rounded aggressive fighter. If Herring wanted to stand with O'Brien then he should have learned how to sprawl.
xthe_scottx
6/14/07 6:45:46PM
This is what I would like to see:

1) A scoring system based on 1-5 with the winner of the round getting a five and the loser gets a 1-4. A round can also be called a tie.

2) Ref's can't stand the fight up because the crowd is booing. If the fighter can't find a way to get it to the feet, why should the ref help him.

3) Judges with knowledge of multiple martial arts, not boxing judges who don't know what's happening half the time on the ground or count leg kicks. Judging criteria would be control, damage and what's listed in #4.

4) Only take downs like slams (completely lifting the person of the ground and throwing them down) get points along with throws, trips, sweeps on the ground, and locked in submission attempts that don't end the fight.

I think right now the scoring system along with UFC rules favors wrestlers and really puts submission grapplers at a disadvantage. With these changes though I think it would even the playing field though since strikers won't lose points if they aren't dominated when they get taken down, submission grapplers will get points if they are on their back and still in control, and wrestlers still can get points easily but won't have their clear advantage that is currently present.
rcg916
6/14/07 7:12:16PM

Posted by xthe_scottx

This is what I would like to see:

1) A scoring system based on 1-5 with the winner of the round getting a five and the loser gets a 1-4. A round can also be called a tie.

2) Ref's can't stand the fight up because the crowd is booing. If the fighter can't find a way to get it to the feet, why should the ref help him.

3) Judges with knowledge of multiple martial arts, not boxing judges who don't know what's happening half the time on the ground or count leg kicks. Judging criteria would be control, damage and what's listed in #4.

4) Only take downs like slams (completely lifting the person of the ground and throwing them down) get points along with throws, trips, sweeps on the ground, and locked in submission attempts that don't end the fight.

I think right now the scoring system along with UFC rules favors wrestlers and really puts submission grapplers at a disadvantage. With these changes though I think it would even the playing field though since strikers won't lose points if they aren't dominated when they get taken down, submission grapplers will get points if they are on their back and still in control, and wrestlers still can get points easily but won't have their clear advantage that is currently present.



I agree with most of this, except Id prefer the current scoring system to a 1-5 scale. Well put, you are right on the money as far as the wrestlers having an edge.
johny_rotten
6/14/07 7:12:47PM
I don't know if it is the judges fault or how the UFC has set up their scoring system. All the critera are weighed equally, so agression and octagon controll in theory are the same as affective striking. How Pride did it, and to me was the better system, was had weights on all the critera. Damage and effort to finish the fight(IE submission attempts) were judged with more clout over the other things that were looked at. Ring controll and agression were only looked at when there wasn't a clear cut winner in damage and effort to finish.
xthe_scottx
6/14/07 7:26:27PM
I liked the PRIDE scoring system too. The only thing I would've changed is each round is scored, like the UFC or boxing, as opposed to scoring the whole fight once. Also, I took aggression out of scoring criteria because that really should only be scored if their is no clear winner and I think control should be scored because if a wrestler lays on a submission grappler and the grappler doesn't allow the wrestler to throw strikes or prevents the wrestler from passing guard multiple times, he should be considered winning and not the wrestler. A good example of this is Joslin vs Koscheck. Joslin would get taken down and once it was on the ground, Joslin completely controlled Koscheck which doesn't necessarily mean he should have won but he should have got some points at least.
Ultimate_fighter
6/15/07 1:10:21AM

Posted by xthe_scottx

This is what I would like to see:

1) A scoring system based on 1-5 with the winner of the round getting a five and the loser gets a 1-4. A round can also be called a tie.

2) Ref's can't stand the fight up because the crowd is booing. If the fighter can't find a way to get it to the feet, why should the ref help him.

3) Judges with knowledge of multiple martial arts, not boxing judges who don't know what's happening half the time on the ground or count leg kicks. Judging criteria would be control, damage and what's listed in #4.

4) Only take downs like slams (completely lifting the person of the ground and throwing them down) get points along with throws, trips, sweeps on the ground, and locked in submission attempts that don't end the fight.

I think right now the scoring system along with UFC rules favors wrestlers and really puts submission grapplers at a disadvantage. With these changes though I think it would even the playing field though since strikers won't lose points if they aren't dominated when they get taken down, submission grapplers will get points if they are on their back and still in control, and wrestlers still can get points easily but won't have their clear advantage that is currently present.


Agreed... thats dumb.. get up on ur own, ur a fighter aren't ya!
pv3Hpv3p
6/15/07 11:06:54AM

Posted by szucconi

I think there are a few factors to consider. One is control. Standing up or on the ground, control should be important in determining who is winning. Second is damage. If I control you for four minutes and do nothing, then you light me up for a full minute you win the round.

Take downs are just a display of control and holding a person down only adds to control and give them less of an opportunity to do damage.

Escapes are not controlling, they are a loss of control.



On the topic of control... I guess it can be looked at either way... If someone gets the TD, and then is locked in the other guy's guard, completely inactive, who is really controlling the action? It seems like a forced conclusion to assume it is the man on top...

While escapes / sweeps might be looked at as loss of control, they are also the act of taking away the control by the other fighter...

You make some really good points, all I meant to say is that they can be looked at differently, and maybe should.
szucconi
6/15/07 11:42:09AM

Posted by pv3Hpv3p


Posted by szucconi

I think there are a few factors to consider. One is control. Standing up or on the ground, control should be important in determining who is winning. Second is damage. If I control you for four minutes and do nothing, then you light me up for a full minute you win the round.

Take downs are just a display of control and holding a person down only adds to control and give them less of an opportunity to do damage.

Escapes are not controlling, they are a loss of control.



On the topic of control... I guess it can be looked at either way... If someone gets the TD, and then is locked in the other guy's guard, completely inactive, who is really controlling the action? It seems like a forced conclusion to assume it is the man on top...

While escapes / sweeps might be looked at as loss of control, they are also the act of taking away the control by the other fighter...

You make some really good points, all I meant to say is that they can be looked at differently, and maybe should.



Exactly, a fighter on bottom can be in control. It can be difficult to show the judges that you are in control from bottom, but I think Thiago Tavares displayed it against Jason Black. A sweep is an act of control. An escape is a act removing yourself for your opponents control.
AchillesHeel
6/15/07 11:56:05AM

Posted by pv3Hpv3p

On the topic of control... I guess it can be looked at either way... If someone gets the TD, and then is locked in the other guy's guard, completely inactive, who is really controlling the action? It seems like a forced conclusion to assume it is the man on top...


I agree.

Last night's TUF5 fight between Gray Maynard and Nate Diaz was a classic example of wrestling-vs-BJJ, for those who watched it. Gray's wrestling was clearly superior, and he scored takedowns pretty much at will. However, Nate was completely unfazed and put his jiu-jitsu to work. After the fight, Dana White marveled that Nate tried to secure "about four million different submissions" during the first round alone, all from his back.

After the first round, it was as hard a fight to call as could be. I gave the round to Nate, 10-9, but I was worried that the judges would give it to Gray because he kept top position and because Nate was bleeding. That's not to say a vote for Gray would have been stupid, it was a very close round, which I guess is my point: Somebody who knew nothing about MMA would probably assume that Gray was kicking Nate's ass.
pv3Hpv3p
6/15/07 1:23:58PM

Posted by AchillesHeel

After the first round, it was as hard a fight to call as could be. I gave the round to Nate, 10-9, but I was worried that the judges would give it to Gray because he kept top position and because Nate was bleeding. That's not to say a vote for Gray would have been stupid, it was a very close round, which I guess is my point: Somebody who knew nothing about MMA would probably assume that Gray was kicking Nate's ass.



It's funny that you mention this... I have a buddy who's a casual MMA fan, and he and I have been watching this season together... When I asked him who he thought won the first round, he said "look at how bloody that Diaz guy is, and the other guy was on top of him the whole round"(clearly thoguht Gray had won)...

I said something to the effect of how busy Nate was on his back, and he slightly conceded the point, but you're right... To the casual fan, it's really hard to tell what's going on when the fight hits the mat.
Related Topics