UFC Scoring System
I think that the UFC scoring systems needs to be changed. With the recent controversial decisions I think that the UFC needs to create their own system specifically designed for MMA. If you look at the Tavares/Griffin fight last night it was very hard to score and it is hard to determine who won. I think they need to define what is worth the most amounts of points. Some categories to look at might be takedowns, submission attempts, striking, control, aggression, and defence (and more). There was a couple split decisions last night and I don’t think that so many should be happening because it shows that the judges are looking at different things and scoring the fights completely differently. Many people think that the 10 point must system must change and I think it can work if they define what is worth points. What are everyones thoughts on this?
Anyhtings better than the 10/9 system. If they put a check next to the fighters name evertime he got a takedown, submission attempt, sumission escape, got his back, got full mount, got a knockdown, etc, etc. Whoever has the most checks wins. Even that is better.
I would like to see getting rid of scoring 'rounds' altogether as too much emphasis is placed on action at the end of a round. Score the fight as a whole and ditch 10 point musts. Perhaps weighted numerical values assigned to actions. Assign a "judge" to each fighter to tally the values, computations are done at the end of the fight. Takes subjectivity right out of it. Still the best way is to finish your opponent.
To be honest, Im not even sure if it's the UFC that mandates the 10 point must system or if it's some sort of requirement by the athletic commissions to be able to sanction the matches.
I really don't know.
It's the athletic commissions. I suggest looking through the NSAC guidelines sometime. You may be surprised at all the stuff that they are responsible for.
I think the current scoring system gives a huge advantage to wrestlers who play for position. Not enough emphasis on grappling. Totally an unfair advantage.
I like the system how its working right now but I think exploring the idea of scoring the fight as a whole, instead of rounds might be better. Rounds are only in MMA to fix cuts, give the fighters a breather, and make sure that it doesnt stay on the ground for long periods of time. So why do we judge by rounds when they have nothing to do with MMA and more with boxing.
The 10 point must system is great for boxing but mma defenitly needs a new system, im not smart enough to know what that system would look like though. Luckily the UFC owns several smaller organizatons so it should start testing thme out in smaller shows.
After seeing the last couple of **** ups the judges have had i would have to say yes.
Forrest beat Tito. However, the judge's GAVE the fight to Tito.
Hamill beat Bisping, but since they were in England, Bisping's homeland, they GAVE him the decision. How can one judge score the match 30-27 Hamill and the other two score it 29-28 Bisping. It's ludicrous. Matt Hamill won that fight and it's bullsh*t that he isn't getting credit for it.
Something needs to be done about the scoring. I used to like the 10 point must system but it seems like it's going to have to be changed. You should get credit for takedowns, but after you take the person down, if you just lay there and literally don't do anything, you shouldn't get credit. If you're backing away the entire fight or avoiding confrontation, you should be penalized. The aggressor should get more credit. Submission attempts should be credited.
I think the scoring system needs completely revamped/overhauled. I'm not exactly sure how, but put a few MMA experts in a room and I'm sure they could figure out a system that everyone could agree upon.
They need to score the complete fight.
the scoring system dont need to change,the judges just need to know what they are looking at and how to award the round to the winner...........
whenever i am seeing a fight its pretty much common sense as to who won the round if you are an experienced MMA fan..
changing the system would just make things more complicated IMO...
Giving a certain fighter the round is common sense.....we dont need no scoring system...
THAT,or keep the fight going and going till someone gets submitted,KO'd...but thats not very safe
I have felt for a long time they need their own scoring method. if anything use a point system like wrestling but modified for jits also.that would count as a judge. Have another judge score only the stand up. The third would score the fight as a whole like they do now. I think that it would be more complicated but mma is the the mix of ground and stand up so they should judge for both.
This is tough topic to come up with a solution.
I like the idea of judging the fight as a whole and not 5 minute intervals.
MMA is a complicated sport since there are so many variables that go into a fight. So, in my mind they need a somewhat complicated scoring system to make sure they account for all aspects of the fight.
I would like to see a judge's notes during a fight and see how they came up with their decision of who won the round. That would give us some clarification on how these fights really are getting judged.
Change Cecil Peoples and then go from there. When a fight goes the distance and they go to the judges, who'll here "Judge Morales scores the fight 29-28 for so and so. Judge Homeboy Johnson scores the fight 29-28 for so and so and Judge Cecil Peoples scores the fight 30-27 for you're winner...." Every single time he's a judge, his score differs from everybody. At first I thought he must be the best one and the rest are just novices. But the more I pay attention to his decisions as a judge and a ref, it's not the other judges, it's him.
Get judges that know what they're looking for and at. Get rid of the Ten Point Must System and come up with judging the fight in it's entirety. Submissions attempts, submission defense. take downs and take down defense. Striking. Damage inflicted. Trying to end the fight and aggression. Pretty much how Pride was.