Voodoo - I am a fan of Andy and the changes he's made and will continue to make, but I have a problem with judges saying "this guy won on the scorecards, but the other guy won".
Judging criteria and/or scoring method needs to be updated, but this doesn't sound like the solution. People already think judging is fixed.
Think of it this way. Instead of a judge going 10-9, 10-9. 9-10, and the win goes to fighter A, the judge in addition gives an overall score for the fight 9-10. That way it becomes not a measure of who won the most rounds, but who won the fights. There have been countless cases where a fighter barely wins two rounds, and is solidly thumped in the third and clearly was the loser, but he gets the decision. This stops that.
So what you're saying is that this is better than having the judge just give the last round a 8-10 and have the fight be a draw because fighter B actually won the fight (to most people).
I guess I get what you're saying. To 'make it right' that judge would have to score that last round 7-10 to end up with a scorecard that reflected the 'true winner' and the last round would not have fit the criteria for a 7-10 round and could have barely even been a 8-10 round by the standard definition.
I get where you're going but maybe the tweak needs to be that the 10-9 rounds were scored 10-10 where there was no clear winner.
I'm still grappling with this in my head. Keep this stickied. It's a good start, but I think it still need some tweaking.
Use the same system that football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, cricket, tennis, Judo, fencing, wrestling, and every other sport uses. Point accumulation. It's an open scoring system and promotes activity. It's the system that created the Hail Mary, sudden death overtime, etc. not a system that was invented separately to allow corruption and incompetence: boxing's 10 point must system.
To continue to use the 10 point must system is to pretend that corruption and boxing don't exist. There is ONE reason and one reason ONLY that the 10 point must system is invented: to fix fights. These days, there may be less corruption but it's subjectivity allows incompetence.
I judge, ref, and compete... Depending on what a round is defined as, you may not even need a 10 point system at all. Plus, the way scoring criteria is measured should factor in who advanced closer to a sub or KO.
gilbertfan - An officials perspective on the challenges of judging:
I have been both a regulator as the founding commissioner of the Tennessee Athletic Commission and co-author of the Tennessee Athletic Commission Act that established the commission and rules for MMA, Boxing and Kickboxing in our state.
I have also been a ringside doctor for the UFC, Strikeforce, K1, and Pro-boxing as well as numerous others.
Most recently I have been judging local/regional ammy and pro/am MMA and kickboxing.
I have had the great privilege of being octagon side many times and it is by the most fun I have as a professional. It is a great honor to be able to work for the commissions as both a regulator and as a doctor and judge.
I will say that until one sits octagonside and turns in a scorecard that counts and will affect the livelyhood of an individual and his ability to earn for his family then one should not be quick to criticize the judging in MMA.
It is much more difficult to judge an MMA fight then most people think. I have only judged local pro fights and not yet had the great honor of judging a UFC event.
I am going to give you an inside look at just how challenging MMA judging is and how different it is from watching it on a screen.
First off with respect to perspective. The viewers at home see the fight from multiple camera angles which are hand picked to produce the best visual representation of the action.
Judges are not privy to the same perspective. Judges are not seeing the same fight that the announcers and viewers are watching and hearing about on the television screen at home. They are not seeing what the crowd is seeing on the jumbotron. Judges are not usually watching replays and slo-mos during and between rounds. Yes at times monitors are available . But on the occasions when they are available, judges are encouraged to only use them when obstructed.
Sometimes the action is ultra-close and judges are able to witness or hear strikes, signs of impact (glazed or stunned eyes, eyes rolling back into head, facial or skin coloration changes, bruising, swell, cuts and bleeding, vocalizations of pain, gait and balance problems) that are not as obvious to the cameras at home.
Sometimes the action is further from the judges making it impossible to hear the action and challenging to see the action. Sometimes the action is even obstructed by a post, sometimes it is obstructed by the referee, sometimes it occurs at a bad angle where one fighter obscures the other making it very difficult and sometimes impossible to see techniques. It is very possible to miss effective techniques of impact both striking and grappling.
Most fans don't know that 2 out of the 3 judging positions are obstructed vantage points. Yes you heard me correctly 2 out of 3 of the commission judges working at a UFC are sitting in positions where there is an octagon post directly in front of a portion of their view. There are open panels on the octagon but these are not assigned to 2 of the 3 judges. I know this because I have sat next to these judges as a ringside doc. One easy improvement to judging at UFCs that the UFC actually has control of is seating assignments/configuration.
JUDGES VIEWS COULD EASILY BE IMPROVED BY MOVING THE 2 OBSTRUCTED JUDGES TO PANELS WITHOUT POSTS IN THE VIEW.
Next judging "visible impact" of "effective" strikes is not just technically difficult due to the physical limitations of each vantage point but also due to inherent subjectivity of the act of determining the degree of visible impact a certain technique has on a fighter. Is a cut worth more than a bruise? Is swelling worth more than grunts of pain? Is bleeding worth more than staggering? Is a thud of impact that echoes across the arena but does not wobble a fighter worth as much as a jab that you can't hear but snaps the opponents head back. Its challenging enough to count/tally the sheer number of strikes and grappling techniques. Now add a level of complexity and tally the cumulative damage caused by effective strikes.
Assessing cumulative damage is also subjective. As a ringside doc its a big part of what I do but most judges are not docs. Its can be very subtle. Sometimes its easier to assess between rounds as the fighters stagger, wobble, limp, or labor their way back to their corners, gasp for air on the stool, or not sit down at all, bleed profusely or swell. But the judges don't get time to observe this type of damage as they have to fill in multiple areas of their scorecards and turn them in nearly immediately after the action stops. This can limit their ability to score the cumulative impact of the round.
The limitations of the 10-9 must system also make judging MMA technically challenging. The current criteria state that 10-10's and 10-7's should rarely be used. The cut offs for scores are not defined elaborately and the terms that are used to describe the scores are subjective and not well defined as well ( see my previous post for a more in depth account of this and my proposed solution)
So overall as a current judge I will tell you its not easy.
As a student of this sport for the last 20 years, I will also say if you don't like the scoring system either suggest a new one or finish your opponents.
Voted up! Great read, and a great contribution to the discussion
An honest thank you to the professional fighters, judges, & refs who gave great insight into this discussion.
I think that the root pf the problem is 2 fold. We have some judges that don't really understand what they are looking at and we have poorly defined scoring criteria.
I think education is the key to both if these issues.
Many of us loved pride, loved all things pride. But the pride style scoring is so open to corruption that it is/was laughable. This proposed system treads close to that.
Judges need to be educated as to what "effective" grappling even means. And so on...
More importantly, judges need to be encouraged to use 10-10 & 10-8 more frequently. The MAJOR flaw of the must system is the idea that someone HAS to win the round. This doesn't always happen & we know it. When an even round occurs it should be scored as such. The differences of what damage/how effective one fighter was over the other will, logically, become apparent in later rounds which would be then scored accordingly.
I also think that reffing is very subjective in its enforcement. Give a guy an inch and he'll take a mile. If a fighter grabs the fence 20 times and only gets cautioned 10 and never sees negative consequences he is going to keep grabbing the fence. I say a flat out policy of 2 warnings and then a deduction. I also think that since a full point deduction can have a MAJOR impact in a 3 round fight, 1/2 point deductions should be given except for blatant or clearly fight changing infractions. Warn, warn, 1/2 point. Do it again, 1/2 point. Blatantly grabbing the top if the cage & holding on for dear life = full point.
And abolish stand ups. If you don't like fighting off your back, learn how to get up, its mma, not hug til big jon takes pity cause the crowd is bored. And if a guy takes someone down and holds him there for 4 1/2 minutes but does nothing but lay on him.... well that's a 10-10 imo, as they have each neutralized each others game. If it was superior striking or takedowns that created that position then it's a 10-9. Boring to watch, but so what? I promise that if guys start pulling draws and lose out in their win bonus they will become more concerned about finishing (or trying to/working towards). Its the current judging criteria, along with boxing judges & refs that are swayed by the crowd that allowed the blanket to become a viable approach in the first place.
My 2 cents.....
And vote gilbertfan up for taking the time in this thread! Really great insight provided there, imo.
MountainMedic - An honest thank you to the professional fighters, judges, & refs who gave great insight into this discussion.
I think that the root pf the problem is 2 fold. We have some judges that don't really understand what they are looking at and we have poorly defined scoring criteria.
I think education is the key to both if these issues.
Many of us loved pride, loved all things pride. But the pride style scoring is so open to corruption that it is/was laughable. This proposed system treads close to that.
Judges need to be educated as to what "effective" grappling even means. And so on...
More importantly, judges need to be encouraged to use 10-10 & 10-8 more frequently. The MAJOR flaw of the must system is the idea that someone HAS to win the round. This doesn't always happen & we know it. When an even round occurs it should be scored as such. The differences of what damage/how effective one fighter was over the other will, logically, become apparent in later rounds which would be then scored accordingly.
I also think that reffing is very subjective in its enforcement. Give a guy an inch and he'll take a mile. If a fighter grabs the fence 20 times and only gets cautioned 10 and never sees negative consequences he is going to keep grabbing the fence. I say a flat out policy of 2 warnings and then a deduction. I also think that since a full point deduction can have a MAJOR impact in a 3 round fight, 1/2 point deductions should be given except for blatant or clearly fight changing infractions. Warn, warn, 1/2 point. Do it again, 1/2 point. Blatantly grabbing the top if the cage & holding on for dear life = full point.
And abolish stand ups. If you don't like fighting off your back, learn how to get up, its mma, not hug til big jon takes pity cause the crowd is bored. And if a guy takes someone down and holds him there for 4 1/2 minutes but does nothing but lay on him.... well that's a 10-10 imo, as they have each neutralized each others game. If it was superior striking or takedowns that created that position then it's a 10-9. Boring to watch, but so what? I promise that if guys start pulling draws and lose out in their win bonus they will become more concerned about finishing (or trying to/working towards). Its the current judging criteria, along with boxing judges & refs that are swayed by the crowd that allowed the blanket to become a viable approach in the first place.
My 2 cents.....
And vote gilbertfan up for taking the time in this thread! Really great insight provided there, imo.
MountainMedic - An honest thank you to the professional fighters, judges, & refs who gave great insight into this discussion.
I think that the root pf the problem is 2 fold. We have some judges that don't really understand what they are looking at and we have poorly defined scoring criteria.
I think education is the key to both if these issues.
Many of us loved pride, loved all things pride. But the pride style scoring is so open to corruption that it is/was laughable. This proposed system treads close to that.
Judges need to be educated as to what "effective" grappling even means. And so on...
More importantly, judges need to be encouraged to use 10-10 & 10-8 more frequently. The MAJOR flaw of the must system is the idea that someone HAS to win the round. This doesn't always happen & we know it. When an even round occurs it should be scored as such. The differences of what damage/how effective one fighter was over the other will, logically, become apparent in later rounds which would be then scored accordingly.
I also think that reffing is very subjective in its enforcement. Give a guy an inch and he'll take a mile. If a fighter grabs the fence 20 times and only gets cautioned 10 and never sees negative consequences he is going to keep grabbing the fence. I say a flat out policy of 2 warnings and then a deduction. I also think that since a full point deduction can have a MAJOR impact in a 3 round fight, 1/2 point deductions should be given except for blatant or clearly fight changing infractions. Warn, warn, 1/2 point. Do it again, 1/2 point. Blatantly grabbing the top if the cage & holding on for dear life = full point.
And abolish stand ups. If you don't like fighting off your back, learn how to get up, its mma, not hug til big jon takes pity cause the crowd is bored. And if a guy takes someone down and holds him there for 4 1/2 minutes but does nothing but lay on him.... well that's a 10-10 imo, as they have each neutralized each others game. If it was superior striking or takedowns that created that position then it's a 10-9. Boring to watch, but so what? I promise that if guys start pulling draws and lose out in their win bonus they will become more concerned about finishing (or trying to/working towards). Its the current judging criteria, along with boxing judges & refs that are swayed by the crowd that allowed the blanket to become a viable approach in the first place.
My 2 cents.....
And vote gilbertfan up for taking the time in this thread! Really great insight provided there, imo.
Ok I don't like the current scoring system or the amount of rounds and the length of time of each round.
I think championship fights should be seven 4 minute rounds. The fighters fight 3 minutes more but get 2 more minutes of rest. I think 5 minute rounds are too long - especially with a 10 point must scoring system.
I also think a half point scoring system would work better.
If we had a half point scoring system here's how I would have scored the fight and how the judges could have scored the fight:
Round 1: Johnny 10 - 9 1/2 or GSP 10 - 9 1/2 Round 2: Johnny 10-9 or 10 - 8 1/2 Round 3: GSP 10-9 Round 4: Johnny 10-9 Round 5: GSP 10-9 1/2
With this scoring system Johnny would end up with a score of 48 1/2 or 48. GSP would end up with a score of 47, 47 1/2, or 48. The worst Johnny ends up with is a draw.
Disregard my scores for a second and notice the actual judges scores. All 3 judges scored rounds 2-4 the same. Round 1 was different. 2 judges gave it to GSP and hence he was the winner. But if all 3 judges could go back and use the half point system, round 1 would probably be a half point round and round 2 would have at least been a 10-9 round for Johnny (probably a 10-8 1/2 round for Johnny.)
So how do we decide how the 1/2 point scores come in. Here's my take:
10 - 9 1/2 round means the round was extremely close but you have to pick a round winner. 10 - 9 round is when there is a clear winner of the round such as round 2 or round 4 10 - 8 1/2 round is when 1 fighter clearly wins and the loser of the round was in serious trouble such as being rocked, a knock down, or a close submission. Now we also have to take into account how well the loser of the round fought the rest of the round when he escaped trouble. Round 2 is a potential 10-8 1/2 round but it could also be a 10-9 round 10-8 round is when 1 fighter clearly dominates his opponent for most or the entire round, does damage with strikes, and really threatens with submissions.
I can give tons of examples from past fights where a half point score could have been awarded.
We know the scoring system is flawed big time when we give a 10-9 round to George in the 1st (which is debatable) and we give the same score (credit) for Johnny in the 2nd when there was a big difference in those 2 rounds. Yes we can argue for Johnny or George in the 1st but we can't argue for anyone but Johnny in the 2nd. There is no way both of those rounds should be graded equally regardless of who you think won the 1st round.
I don't see what the flaws would be. I listen to Jimmy Smith who is the Bellator color guy. He gives out 10-8 rounds a lot more than most people I've heard. I think his theory is when a fighter is hurt or in grave danger the winner of the round should be compensated for that with a 10-8 round. I don't agree with him all of the time because IMO it should be a 10-81/2 round instead if we used the half point scoring system.
Now imagine if we had seven 4 minute rounds of this GSP/HENDRICKS fight? Both guys would have come out stronger at the beginning of every round. Of course both fighters will settle down but the shorter rounds would create more action and we would not even notice the rounds being 4 minutes instead of 5. The rounds are still plenty long. There's just too much stuff to grade with a 5 minute round. You can even make an argument for 3 minute rounds. I don't think it would disrupt the ground fighting at all - especially with 4 minute rounds.
There would be 28 minutes of fight time instead if 25 and the fighters would get 6 minutes of rest. Basically 3 more minutes of fight and 2 more minutes of rest. I don't think anyone would think the fights are too long especially when you build in the 2 extra rest minutes. Heck it's 50 percent more rest over the life of the fight. That's huge!
IMO if we had My system in place now and thought about changing it to five 5's with a 10 point must scoring system we would all think that is a horrible idea. Just because it's in place now does not make it right.
If you want to argue the 1/2 point system then tell me how you can give Johnny or GSP the 1st and have that round count the same as Johnny winning the 2nd? Those 2 rounds were not close. When we debate who won the 1st and we know who won the 2nd, that should tell us the half point will work.
Let's assume their fight was 2 rounds and the winner was chosen after round 2. Who won the fight? Even if the 1st round was the 2nd round and the 2nd round took place in the 1st round, at the end of 2 rounds we would all have Johnny winning the fight. BUT based on the 10 point must scoring system that fight would have ended in a draw if you gave GSP the 1st. This is EXTREMELY important. The scoring system is so flawed we see the flaws with this example.
MountainMedic - An honest thank you to the professional fighters, judges, & refs who gave great insight into this discussion.
I think that the root pf the problem is 2 fold. We have some judges that don't really understand what they are looking at and we have poorly defined scoring criteria.
I think education is the key to both if these issues.
Many of us loved pride, loved all things pride. But the pride style scoring is so open to corruption that it is/was laughable. This proposed system treads close to that.
Judges need to be educated as to what "effective" grappling even means. And so on...
More importantly, judges need to be encouraged to use 10-10 & 10-8 more frequently. The MAJOR flaw of the must system is the idea that someone HAS to win the round. This doesn't always happen & we know it. When an even round occurs it should be scored as such. The differences of what damage/how effective one fighter was over the other will, logically, become apparent in later rounds which would be then scored accordingly.
I also think that reffing is very subjective in its enforcement. Give a guy an inch and he'll take a mile. If a fighter grabs the fence 20 times and only gets cautioned 10 and never sees negative consequences he is going to keep grabbing the fence. I say a flat out policy of 2 warnings and then a deduction. I also think that since a full point deduction can have a MAJOR impact in a 3 round fight, 1/2 point deductions should be given except for blatant or clearly fight changing infractions. Warn, warn, 1/2 point. Do it again, 1/2 point. Blatantly grabbing the top if the cage & holding on for dear life = full point.
And abolish stand ups. If you don't like fighting off your back, learn how to get up, its mma, not hug til big jon takes pity cause the crowd is bored. And if a guy takes someone down and holds him there for 4 1/2 minutes but does nothing but lay on him.... well that's a 10-10 imo, as they have each neutralized each others game. If it was superior striking or takedowns that created that position then it's a 10-9. Boring to watch, but so what? I promise that if guys start pulling draws and lose out in their win bonus they will become more concerned about finishing (or trying to/working towards). Its the current judging criteria, along with boxing judges & refs that are swayed by the crowd that allowed the blanket to become a viable approach in the first place.
My 2 cents.....
And vote gilbertfan up for taking the time in this thread! Really great insight provided there, imo.
Mountain Medic,
Everyone's input is appreciated so thanks for contributing.
You are bringing up good points. Here are my thoughts on them.
Your concerns about corruption affecting a different scoring system is admirable but frankly its the judge that is succeptible to corruption not the system. So as long as we use humans to judge corruption is an unlikely but possible occurence.
As far as warnings from Refs go, I take a more hardcore stance, the refs spend upwards of 30 minutes holding rules meetings at every UFC. They conduct private rules meetings for some fighters due to language or schedule difficulty. They even emphasize certain rules to fighters who have had problems with rules in the past. All fighters have adequate chances to ask questions at these meetings. So the pre-fight meeting is technically the first warning. If one wanted to be generous then one additional warning would be permitted at the refs discretion if the ref felt the violation was accidental or unintentional but if it were flagrant/deliberate he could deduct the point without warning. You are right that all refs should adhere to the same policy and remain consistent with themselves and each other.
As for abolishing standups, this will lead to more boring "lay and pray" decisions and would be a terrible change. As a jiu-jitsu practitioner I enjoy the ground game and technical aspects of positional dominance as much as anyone but the scoring system is based on a sliding scale which is weighted based on which affects the round more grappling vs striking but "lay and pray" is not fighting ( its not working toward a finish or advancing position) so allowing it would create more draws and less action and frankly its not as fun to watch.
Winning on scorecard but losing the fight would seem too drastic a change. Even if it's better it would create too much chaos. Seems like a beatdown round should be 10-8. Knockdowns, punches that hurt an opponent [like when Mcdonald hurt bj with those bodyshots], close subs would contribute to a 2 point round if the other fighter didnt return fire. It's a tough job but i think the judges should be mma trained not just boxing rejects.
If you're reading this thread which I truly hope you do since its vital to our sport. Please have your website team update the judging criteria posted in Rules and Regulations at UFC.com as they do not reflect the most recent revisions to the judging criteria.
