I have a basic knowledge of the basic criteria. Striking/wrestling/ring control etc. but...
if the 2 guys keep it standing for example, does it boil down to the judges "feeling?" For example, you can kinda tell who won the round without actually counting punches etc. Or, if Fighter A throws 100 punches and lands 80 of them with 10 power shots but B throws 12 punches but lands 11 power shots, did B win in the judges eyes?
Is it objective or subjective?
Excellent^^^^
Now lets say B lands a takedown but doesn't maintain control? Still go to B?
I say this somewhat in jest, but I am curious.
Well apparently last night they just draw names from a hat and award the winner.
(NAM/GARCIA)
The rules followed to a T are complete shit. For example, you have three criteria to score:
1. Effective Striking
2. Effective Grappling
3. Cage/Ring Control
And the third criteria, Cage/Ring Control, cannot be "won" without out-grappling or out-striking your opponent. Not possible. In the EXTREME case of no one landing a single strike the guy throwing the most strikes and moving forward is still winning the striking game. So the criteria are GARBAGE. BJ Penn, Frankie Edgar & Anderson Silva have all recently said that they don't even understand the criteria.
That being said, the people picked by the joke Commissions don't even follow their own rules or even understand them. They are nothing but bureaucratic cronies getting a paycheck.
According to the rules, "effective striking" is determined by the number of legal heavy strikes landed -- so, it's both objective (number of strikes) and objective (how many of those were "heavy"). And of course they are not literally counting strikes through the whole round.
BUT
if the round is mostly standing, they are supposed to weight the striking most heavily. So, it's far from true that the scoring criteria allow for "stealing the round" with a takedown or two. And the categories of control and aggression are below both striking and grappling and should thus be a factor when no clear winner can be determined from the two "real" categories -- so, again, a guy should NEVER win the round on "control" (lay and pray or wall pressing) if the other guy actually shows more effective striking (in a mostly standing round) or more effective grappling (in a mostly ground-based round).
And the third criteria, Cage/Ring Control, cannot be "won" without out-grappling or out-striking your opponent. Not possible.
Then who cares? If the guy who wins that category should already have won because of the other category, it's a poorly thought out rule but has no effect on anything.
In the EXTREME case of no one landing a single strike the guy throwing the most strikes and moving forward is still winning the striking game.
Since the scoring definition of "effective striking" is LANDING legal strikes, no, the guy throwing (and missing) the most strikes while moving forward would NOT win that category.
But, if only one guy is moving forward and throwing, though not connecting, he would have to be considered winning that category, no?
Cecile Peoples says he don't believe in no dang scoring critters.
I understand Chael now. How can be guilty of protocol issues when the board doesn't even know the protocol, or can't verbalize it?
13:46-24A.13 Judging
(a) All bouts will be evaluated and scored by three judges.
(b) The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
(c) Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.
(d) Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.
(e) Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal heavy strikes landed by a contestant.
(f) Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
(g) Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
(h) Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.
(i) Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.
(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;
1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;
2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
(k) Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:
1. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:
i. Effective grappling is weighed first; and
ii. Effective striking is then weighed
2. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:
1. Effective striking is weighed first; and
2. Effective grappling is then weighed
3. If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.
From the Unified Rules.
Secion C-I covers the judging criteria.
Can these rules be applied to the Garcia/Phan fight?
cycklops - But, if only one guy is moving forward and throwing, though not connecting, he would have to be considered winning that category, no?Yes, that is exactly it. Orcus is confused there.
And as far as this:
orcus -It has a HUGE effect on scoring striking and grappling and causes tons of confusion:And the third criteria, Cage/Ring Control, cannot be "won" without out-grappling or out-striking your opponent. Not possible.
Then who cares? If the guy who wins that category should already have won because of the other category, it's a poorly thought out rule but has no effect on anything.
1. If a fighter keeps trying to take down another fighter down and they are both constantly clinched throughout the round because of this, but he never gets a takedown or gets one takedown he is perceived as winning the cage control even though he is being out-grappled because of the conflicting nature of counting both those things. The man looking for the takedown and clinching is seen as the "aggressor" and the decider of how the fight is playing out, meanwhile he is doing nothing but FAILING for 99% of the round. If you eliminate "cage control" as a criteria and only score take downs that last more than 3 seconds then no reasonable judge would give this person the round.
2. If someone is constantly moving forward while both fighters are throwing a ton of strikes, but the fighter moving backwards is being more effective (think the 1st round of Machida/Rampage) many reasonable judges will have a very hard time deciding who won the striking. If it was ONLY about who landed the better strikes this confusion would go away.
More importantly, the mere existence of cage control is a clear indicator of the confused state the scoring criteria is in and how poorly thought out it all is.
It just seems that it doesn't have to be this screwy. It makes sense when you ONLY have to count punches (ie: boxing) but when you take everything else into account with MMA, the system seems antiquated.
So do we think there will be a legitimate change in the judging criteria before the next decade (2020)?
"According to the rules, "effective striking" is determined by the number of legal heavy strikes landed -- so, it's both objective (number of strikes) and objective (how many of those were "heavy")"
Irony alert---"heaviness" is Haulport's language in his proposed ruleset, not the Unified Rules.
The unified rules say: "Effective striking is judged by determining the number of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the significance of such legal strikes."
Not really intending a debate here, but "significant" is not always synonymous with "heavy" in the general sense---and in any event Haulport's term is linked specifically with the event of a knockdown.
. If a fighter keeps trying to take down another fighter down and they are both constantly clinched throughout the round because of this, but he never gets a takedown or gets one takedown he is perceived as winning the cage control even though he is being out-grappled because of the conflicting nature of counting both those things. The man looking for the takedown and clinching is seen as the "aggressor" and the decider of how the fight is playing out, meanwhile he is doing nothing but FAILING for 99% of the round
I and many others have no problem with rewarding the active fighter over the reactive one, given nothing of significance happening. If one guy is actively going for takedown after takedown and the other guy spends the whole round desperately trying (albeit successfully) to avoid a ground fight, while getting nothing going of his own, then I agree with rewarding the fighter who is proactive. As with submission defense or striking defense, I think avoiding the undesirable outcome is itself the reward and should not also be given points. Further, he IS still dictating where the fight takes place to a greater degree than his opponent is -- the last thing the opponent wants is to be trapped against the cage and (seemingly) unable to mount any offense.
HOWEVER, while that is my preference, the unified rules DO include takedown prevention in the category of control. In fact it is the very first example given of something to score in that category.
only score take downs that last more than 3 seconds
I would have no problem with that, though I think it's not a big deal either way if everything else were applied correctly. In an otherwise even round, even a brief takedown would stand out as the only bit of success one guy had over the other.
2. If someone is constantly moving forward while both fighters are throwing a ton of strikes, but the fighter moving backwards is being more effective (think the 1st round of Machida/Rampage) many reasonable judges will have a very hard time deciding who won the striking. If it was ONLY about who landed the better strikes this confusion would go away.
I and many others do not think Machida was landing the better strikes. I do agree that the "moving forward [and landing a strike]" language is stupid and should be removed. Although I'll also say that given how poorly the judges follow the other criteria, if they do at all, I'm skeptical as to how literally they interpret that line and thus how many decisions it affects.
More importantly, the mere existence of cage control is a clear indicator of the confused state the scoring criteria is in and how poorly thought out it all is.
Again, it's a tie-breaking criteria. If no signficant strikes are landed, no signifcant subs attempted, but one guy gets a bunch of takedowns or has his opponent on the run the whole round, I expect almost every sensible person would think that guy won the round. The problem is that the judges keep giving that category weight that the rules explicitly state it should NOT have -- they use it to trump actual effective striking/grappling in their scoring, rather than consider it only when those categories are too close to call.
Just like I couldn't wait to hear from the jurors from the OJ case I wanna hear how the judges saw this fight.