California AC director calls for change in scoring

                    <div class="Article" style="float: left;">
                        <tr style="vertical-align: bottom;">
                            <h3><a href="/go=news.detail&gid=439958" target="_blank">
                                California AC director calls for change in scoring 
                        <a href="/go=news.detail&gid=439958" ><img class="photo" src="" /></a>

                        <div style="clear: both; line-height: 1px;height: 1px;">&nbsp;</div>

                    <div style="clear: left; line-height: 1px;height: 1px;">&nbsp;</div>

Atta Boy.

Si se puede!!! Phone Post 3.0

Good job Andy! Phone Post 3.0

Scoring use to be this way in the early UFC's

He probably has k-1 level striking. He should fight Dana to see whose scoring system gets implemented ;)

In before new scoring system.

But in all honesty, the scoring needs to change. they need to have a bunch of scoring systems on a trial run in say an amature leauge, and figure out what works best. - I agree... The 10-9 system doesn't work in MMA. It doesn't work for a lot of sports... Imagine if football was scored 10-9, or baseball, or tennis, or wrestling, or jiu-jitsu. As a fan, I don't care if it takes a small army of statisticians to score a fight... It is worth it to me.


just differentiate the scoring more, the way of scoring is fine, but the way it is used is not.


Score rounds that "can go either way", as a 10-10 or a draw.

Score rounds that are close but a clear winner as 10-9.

etc etc.

10-8 is fairly dominant.

10-7 is very dominant.

10-6 is complete destruction, or just leave it as 10-7.


10-8s are almost impossible to get in MMA, which is silly.

In the 90s when we first got started, they would just ask who you thought won the fight. It worked great, actually, without having to parse the degree to which someones effective grappling trumped the opponent's effective striking.

So what happens when a guy wins the first four rounds of a fight, not dominant or anything but definitely wins them, and then gets beat up in the last round. Does he lose the fight in the judges eyes because he got beat up in that last round?

Also, what's the point of having rounds if you're not going to officially score them? Does MMA go back to no rounds?

It's an incredibly complicated debate.

Andy for President!

Seriously though, this would be a huge step in the right the direction. Phone Post 3.0

nothing changes until Keith does a 180 or steps down and NSAC is re-structured with checks and balances

KingofBJJ - 

Yawn.  Until Rogen started whining about the 10-9 crap, no one ever mentioned it.  Now suddenly Rogan is supposed to be an expert?  The guy's a freaking comedian first and commentator second.  Just because you call fights, doesn't make you an expert, it just makes you a good commentator.

Considering the UFC used to use a different system and an organization who was arguably bigger and better at the time, Pride, used a different system altogether. You're whining about people whining is baseless.

Who won the fight!? I like the idea. Phone Post 3.0

Okay, Kirik, I agree. The scoring needs some work, and the guy seems like a stand up character, but dangit, his pic looks like this guy:

Raezor19 - 
Kirik - 

In the 90s when we first got started, they would just ask who you thought won the fight. It worked great, actually, without having to parse the degree to which someones effective grappling trumped the opponent's effective striking.

We also had 170 pounders fighting 270 pounders, no rounds (technically), ball punching, hair pulling, choking out with gi's....etc....and no sanctioning....should we go back to Indian reserves ???

There were huge problems with MMA in the 90s, but that does not mean everything was wrong. To use your examples, extreme weight disparity is wrong. FIghting with no rounds would be fine. Ball punching and hair pulling are not fine. MMA in a gi was fine. Lack of sanctioning was a nightmare. And some of the best run ACs in the US are tribal. So to answer your question, yes, I think a return to asking the judges to in effect offer a 10-9 on the whole fight rather than round by round is an improvement.

Ball punching not so much.

he's actually the Executive Officer not the Executive Director FYI.

I would be game to see smaller MMA promoters hold "test events" with this scoring in whatever AC jurisdiction that is willing to try it. Like a pilot. Would be good for smaller orgs because more fans would tune in to smaller event shows to see how the new system works out.

I am balls in.

Team GDP - 

he's actually the Executive Officer not the Executive Director FYI.

Hence the lower case d on director.


Its actually quite cool that you are thinking about this idea as I have have talked with some of the judges and they agree that their is certainly room for improvement. I think the new criteria that you, Jeff Mullen and the rest of the MMA judging Committee did to improve the criteria was a good revision but more work must be done.

I agree that the statistical power of the 10-9 must system is diminished with fewer/ longer rounds in MMA as compared to boxing.

I also agree that the lack of a clear/defined cut off inorder to score a 10-8 creates an environment where judges are less likely to score them myself included.

The terms "large margin" vs "close margin" and "effective striking and/ or grappling that have great impact" vs plain old " effective striking and/ or grappling " are very subjective terms with no quantifiable limits. What exactly does "large" mean? How about "close"'? What do we define as being "great impact" on the opponent? These terms are not defined.

All of these terms are subjective. What score is in between "large" and " close"? Certainly there are rounds that are not defined by either of those terms, tweeners so to speak. And with lack of an objective cut off point or definition of these crucial terms then each judge will create their own threshold and cut offs. Andy, as a 6'2" male, someone who is 6' is not that tall to you but to me a 5'8 guy, 6 feet seems tall. So frame of reference is everything and definitions mean alot so if 5'9" is defined as average than 6 feet = taller than average but thats where definitions come in so that everyone is measuring with the same frame of reference.

I have discussed the whole fight scoring system with Jeff Mullen former UFC judge and current director here in TN. Jeff judged during the period it was used in the UFC and had no problems with it.

I propose something along the same lines as what you wrote about but more of a hybrid between whole fight scoring/ 10-9 scoringsystem, and Doc Hamilton's 1/2 point system.

Let me elaborate.

The 10-9 system would remain in place albeit with better/ more objective/ more elaborate definitions of 10-9 and 10-8 . Each round would be scored and turned in to the score keeper. Unofficially the judges would keep track of "impact" or what used to be called "damage" in the old criteria. They could keep a separate impact card and award 1/2 points to in between rounds or whole points to an entire fight that was clearly more effective. At the end of the fight, at the judges discretion, the judge could award a 0,1 or 2 point bonus to the fighter who was most effective, had most effective strikes/grappling of impact or what was formerly known as" damage".

This creates a "fudge factor" so to speak. It is a way to reward the cumulative effectiveness of attacks over an entire fight that may not be evident until the fight is analyzed as a collective whole. Its also a way to account for the in between rounds as well as the assymetric margins of effectiveness that occur as a result of using a discrete point system.

So lets use GSP vs Hendricks as an example. If a judge believed that Hendricks was more effective when the fight was judged cumulatively as a whole because of larger margins of effectiveness in rounds 2 and 4 that are not accounted for with the 10-9 system (aka rounds that are not quite a large margin but not close either) then the judge could award a 1 or 2 point "effectiveness bonus" AKA "cumulative damage bonus" that could account for the work that was done and for the weaknesses in the 10-9 system both statistically and objectively. This bonus would be added to the the total from the 10-9 scoring to determine an overall score for the fight. Maybe this would have resulted in a draw or even a different winner but it would give the judges an escape hatch to account for the fight as a whole.

There is definitely work that needs to be done. Not just in judge training, not just in judges discussing fights with each other to discuss close rounds and perspectives but to the criteria and possibly the vantage points as well.

Neal Frauwirth, MD

Former Commissioner Tennessee Athletic Commission and current Ringside doc and judge.