Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST
  MMA Playground 4.0 is live!     Returning members: check out the patch notes     New members: visit our getting started guide, read the FAQ's and start playing!

Judging system?? Can we do better?

Print  
Posted By Message

Violence108

Standup Guy

Violence108 Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:427
Career:629-417
Joined:Jul 2007
Camp: Wolfpack Crew
Chips:
41
With all the talk about the poor judging system in MMA, and instead of complaining about it, lets right and slove it.

its clear the 10 point must system is not the best for MMA.

Lets try to get alot of ideas and ways to fix it, all of us smart foke should be able to come up with somthing.

Last edited 11/25/09 11:26AM server time by ncordless
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #1   11/22/09 11:19:06PM   

bojangalz

The Original Playground Bully

bojangalz Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,811
Career:1,553-840
Joined:May 2007
Chips:
670
The ten point must isn't perfect by any stretch, but I think in it's purest sense it can be applied to MMA just as effectively as it is in boxing.

The biggest problem with MMA is the judges are completely inept. Secondary to that is the fact that the scoring criteria as defined by the unified rules is vaguely drafted at best.

I think that we need much clearer definitions of what constitutes scoring oppertunities, i.e. what exactly is "octagon control." The rules need to clearly define the equality of striking and grappling as offensive threats. We need judges who are not boxing-centric and not only understand the nuances of MMA, but actually enjoy the sport. We need judges who understand that a fighter's position while grappling is is secondary to their level of activity. Some judges would choke on their own spit if you tried to explain the concept of winning a round off your back.

And I think judges need to better understand the gravity of offense vs defense and better apply it to the closest contested rounds (10-10 isn't so hard to understand) and how it applies to dominant rounds (10-8's and 10-7's.) Once we've accomplished those goals I think the 10 point must will serve the sport quite well.

And we need FAR better athletic commission over-sight of the judges and the decisions they render. The commissions get by far to easy with the excuse that a judge's decision can't be wrong because it's their "opinion" of how the fight played out. That's rediculous.

I'm fairly positive that changing the scoring system without fixing the problems with judging and the definitions of the unified rules will only compound the frustrations. Let's take it one step at a time.

Last edited 11/23/09 12:15AM server time by bojangalz
Edit note/reason: n/a
2 total post edits

_______________________________________
And as El Guapo always says- "God speed, and party on. Whoap!"

Post #2   11/23/09 12:00:06AM   

vomitshovel

MMA Regular

vomitshovel Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:229
Career:136-93
Joined:Nov 2009
Camp: Xtreme Fight Militia
Chips:
24

Posted by bojangalz

The ten point must isn't perfect by any stretch, but I think in it's purest sense it can be applied to MMA just as effectively as it is in boxing.

The biggest problem with MMA is the judges are completely inept. Secondary to that is the fact that the scoring criteria as defined by the unified rules is vaguely drafted at best.

I think that we need much clearer definitions of what constitutes scoring oppertunities, i.e. what exactly is "octagon control." The rules need to clearly define the equality of striking and grappling as offensive threats. We need judges who are not boxing-centric and not only understand the nuances of MMA, but actually enjoy the sport. We need judges who understand that a fighter's position while grappling is is secondary to their level of activity. Some judges would choke on their own spit if you tried to explain the concept of winning a round off your back.

And I think judges need to better understand the gravity of offense vs defense and better apply it to the closest contested rounds (10-10 isn't so hard to understand) and how it applies to dominant rounds (10-8's and 10-7's.) Once we've accomplished those goals I think the 10 point must will serve the sport quite well.

And we need FAR better athletic commission over-sight of the judges and the decisions they render. The commissions get by far to easy with the excuse that a judge's decision can't be wrong because it's their "opinion" of how the fight played out. That's rediculous.

I'm fairly positive that changing the scoring system without fixing the problems with judging and the definitions of the unified rules will only compound the frustrations. Let's take it one step at a time.



WELL SAID
The judging SYSTEM is ok, well, as ok as it is going to get.
They just need to establish more defined parameters for scoring, and make this widely known to the public.
It's not perfect, but neither is anything else on the planet.
MMA is a young and growing sport and will soon address it's problems

Post #3   11/23/09 12:57:52AM   

Kizzzzurt

Learning to Sprawl

Kizzzzurt Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:37
Career:42-21
Joined:Nov 2009
Chips:
1
They really need to figure out what constitutes octagon control and how much it impacts the scoring. The 10-point-must system can work in MMA as it does in boxing but things just need to be defined. How many strikes is worth a takedown, how many takedowns could be nullified by a big slam? How much more meaningful are standing strikes vs ground strikes? Submission offense or defense pays off more? Takedown defense vs offense?

There's so many factors that it would be ultimately impossible to figure a REAL system, unless they turned the judges into seperate categories. Grappling judge, striking judge, overall(or octagon control) judge. I know it sounds kind of weird at first but this way every fight that happens gets a deeper insight from the judges rather than them putting down a number on a piece of paper and every angle of the fight gets analyzed more than just a 10-point-must system.

Just what I think would help.

Post #4   11/23/09 1:22:32AM   

bojangalz

The Original Playground Bully

bojangalz Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,811
Career:1,553-840
Joined:May 2007
Chips:
670

Posted by Kizzzzurt

The 10-point-must system can work in MMA as it does in boxing but things just need to be defined. How many strikes is worth a takedown, how many takedowns could be nullified by a big slam? How much more meaningful are standing strikes vs ground strikes? Submission offense or defense pays off more? Takedown defense vs offense?




There's no way to quantify these thoughts in an absolute sense. There's just too many variables in any given fight to have hard, concrete numbers as to what number/quality of manuevers beats another. There's no way to right rules in this fashion and still encompass every given way the a bout can play out.

One thing is for sure, offensive manuevers should be valued above defensive ones in every facet of the game. Think of it this way. When both fighters are standing across the cage from each other and no offense has landed on either side both fighters are at zero (not points, but absolute value so to say kind of like a two-sided scale). Once action begins, the scale should start to weigh heavier on the side of the fighter who is pushing the action and being offensive in a manner as to finishing the fight. (I don't mean use a scale in official scoring either... just trying to establish a visual for what I was trying to explain)

If a fighter has a submission attempted on the opponent, the scales should weigh in the offensive fighters favor just as they would for an offensive striker. The fighter attempting the submission is effectively trying to finish the fight. It's now the the other fighter's responcibility to even the scales because at the time of submission his value should be less then that of the offensive fighter. I hope that makes sense.

Furthermore fighters don't get "points" from judges for blocking strikes. Why should they for stuffing a takedown or working through a submission. In a perfect world ALL offensive disciplines should be equal regardless of the amount of visiable damage they may cause. The biggest problem is that striking offense lends itself to visual damage more so than jitz and (or) wrestling. Because of this judges seem to value the weight of striking above all over offensive disciplines. We won't be able to fix this problem without first getting judges who fully understand the sport in all it's facets.

We've got a long way to go. Good thing this sport is still young.

Last edited 11/23/09 8:26AM server time by bojangalz
Edit note/reason: n/a

_______________________________________
And as El Guapo always says- "God speed, and party on. Whoap!"

Post #5   11/23/09 6:55:40AM   

State_Champ

MMA Sensei

State_Champ Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,075
Career:1,426-852
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: The Evil Empire
Chips:
423
5 judges instead of 3.
Score the whole fight instead of round by round.

Post #6   11/23/09 8:29:39AM   

AchillesHeel

Heavyweight Champ

AchillesHeel Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,108
Career:845-448
Joined:Feb 2007
Chips:
603
I agree with Bo. The 10-Point Must system could work, and points should never be awarded for defending.


Posted by State_Champ

Score the whole fight instead of round by round.


I think if the 10-Point Must system were implemented properly, this wouldn't be necessary. One of the current problems with the system is that the judges almost never score a round anything other than 10-9.

As I see it, the benefit to a system that scores the whole fight is that it avoids this scenario: In Rounds 1 & 2, both fighters do very little, but Fighter A does a little bit more and wins both rounds. In Round 3, Fighter B goes nutty and nearly finishes the fight twice. Fighter A wins the decision. Why? Because the judges scored all three rounds 10-9. The "10-Pt Must" system is a binary system in disguise; every round is scored in favor of one fighter or the other, with no nuance. So it isn't actually a 10-point system at all, it's a 1-point system*.

However, if the judges had scored that 3rd round 10-7, Fighter B would have won. In however-many years of watching MMA, I don't believe I've ever seen a single judge score a single round 10-7, and I could probably count the 10-8 rounds on my fingers. That's over hundreds of fights. We also know that the judges are reluctant to ever score a round 10-10.

Some years ago, two baseball writers who were voting for the MVP award refused to vote for Pedro Martinez because they believed pitchers shouldn't be eligible for the award. The problem was that (a) they were wrong, and (b) they weren't empowered to make the decision of who is and isn't eligible. Those writers' ballots should have been deleted from the vote, because they explicitly refused to follow the rules. They weren't, though, because the MLB Commissioner's Office are a bunch of pussies.

As long as the judges fail to properly implement the scoring system, it really doesn't matter what that system is.





* There is one place where this isn't true: Point deductions made by the referee for infractions. A deduction of a single point in a 10-point scale is a 10% penalty. If the scoring system were truly a 1-point scale, then the referee would be deducting 1/10th of a point, which would be a pain in the butt. So anyone who thinks the "binary" 10-9 scoring is good should want it to remain that way, and not change to a 1-0 system.

Last edited 11/23/09 9:35AM server time by AchillesHeel
Edit note/reason: n/a
5 total post edits

Post #7   11/23/09 9:25:02AM   

Violence108

Standup Guy

Violence108 Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:427
Career:629-417
Joined:Jul 2007
Camp: Wolfpack Crew
Chips:
41

Posted by bojangalz

The ten point must isn't perfect by any stretch, but I think in it's purest sense it can be applied to MMA just as effectively as it is in boxing.

The biggest problem with MMA is the judges are completely inept. Secondary to that is the fact that the scoring criteria as defined by the unified rules is vaguely drafted at best.

I think that we need much clearer definitions of what constitutes scoring oppertunities, i.e. what exactly is "octagon control." The rules need to clearly define the equality of striking and grappling as offensive threats. We need judges who are not boxing-centric and not only understand the nuances of MMA, but actually enjoy the sport. We need judges who understand that a fighter's position while grappling is is secondary to their level of activity. Some judges would choke on their own spit if you tried to explain the concept of winning a round off your back.

And I think judges need to better understand the gravity of offense vs defense and better apply it to the closest contested rounds (10-10 isn't so hard to understand) and how it applies to dominant rounds (10-8's and 10-7's.) Once we've accomplished those goals I think the 10 point must will serve the sport quite well.

And we need FAR better athletic commission over-sight of the judges and the decisions they render. The commissions get by far to easy with the excuse that a judge's decision can't be wrong because it's their "opinion" of how the fight played out. That's rediculous.

I'm fairly positive that changing the scoring system without fixing the problems with judging and the definitions of the unified rules will only compound the frustrations. Let's take it one step at a time.



yeah i'm with you, the sport needs better judges, not these old boxing judge, MMA is a different sport.

Post #8   11/23/09 11:09:03AM   

sbulldavid

Heavyweight Champ

sbulldavid Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,571
Career:1,370-793
Joined:Mar 2008
Camp: Playground Legends
Chips:
357
I know the Shogun scoring was horrible, but I understand the philosophy of giving a close round to the champ, and I could possibly see Machida winning that way. I didn't consider Couture vs Vera a horrible decision just a lousy fight and two guys that didn't fight a full fight. Seeing a scorecard that has Forrest winning 30-27 is a joke however. I seen several acceptable outcomes but none amounted to Forrest 30-27.

Post #9   11/23/09 5:41:39PM   

vomitshovel

MMA Regular

vomitshovel Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:229
Career:136-93
Joined:Nov 2009
Camp: Xtreme Fight Militia
Chips:
24
At the end of the day, we can all think what we like.
The fans can say/do what they like and it won't change.
It's only when the fighters that believe they got cheated by the system speak up, and tell Dana/ their managers, that this is bullshit and they want to see changes.
Once it's more than 1 or 2 fighters he will have to listen, then we will see the 10 point system done justice to.
It's a good system just needs to be put into utilization properly.

Post #10   11/24/09 7:04:40AM   

tepid55

MMA Sensei

tepid55 Avatar
9
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,494
Career:2,795-1,540
Joined:Feb 2007
Camp: Pride FC Forever
Chips:
120
I think they should use Pride/Dream scoring and score the complete fight.

Post #11   11/24/09 3:59:10PM   

Rush

Laying down the beats

Rush Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,291
Career:759-539
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
835
I think the judges are more of the problem than the judging criteria. However, I think that an overhaul of the criteria would certainly further improve it.

We all just have to understand that with every system there will be flaws, and issues. However, I just want those flaws/issues to be more relevant to MMA.

I think what it will take is that a athletic commission/sanctioning body outside the US needs to go rogue and develop their own scoring. If it works, it will be picked up by other commissions, provided their egos don't get in the way.

Post #12   11/24/09 4:03:00PM   

roadking95th

In Cael We Trust!

roadking95th Avatar
7
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,030
Career:1,351-714
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
180
As I have stated before, Pride's version. 10 minute first, would allow more finishes. 5 minute second. Score fight as a whole.

Either that or more rounds, leading to more finishes.

Post #13   11/25/09 4:53:04PM