How do you judge a fight that.....

Underground
1

....goes 3 rounds the distance, according to UFC scoring.

Fighter A barely wins Round 1

Fighter B dominates Round 2

Fighter A barely wins Round 3

Is there a chance that Fighter B could still win the fight in the UFC? I'm not sure exactly how they score it.

2

If they're using the ten point must system, barring total domination or a knockdown, fighter A wins 29 to 28 on points.

3

Not sure if you're referencing this or not, but I just watched the Bonnar/Griffin replay with pen & paper in hand, scoring three things, (I know NSAC doesn't go exactly by this criteria, but bear with me)...

1) solid impact strikes (punches/kicks/elbows/knees)

2) solid impact slams/takedowns

3) applied submission attempts

Round 1: Griffin 12 - Bonnar 6

Round 2: Bonnar 10 - Griffin 8

Round 3: Griffin 5 - Bonnar 5

Now in my world, if you have double the points in a round, that's a 10-8. If the points are even, that's a 10-10.

So in this case, my scoring ends up exactly like the 3 judges had it... 29-28 for Griffin.

And I was rooting for Bonnar when I watched the first time.

4

there is an MMA judging thread that has some good suggestions in it.

any system that scores individual rounds is subject to manipulation, and has inherent limtations.

these limitations become glaringly obvious in 3 round fights

5

Gannon,

Do you mean this thread?: http://www.mma.tv/TUF/index.cfm?ac=ListMessages&PID=1&TID=584039&FID=1

I thought I had some good ideas on there, but no one paid attention. :(

6

"Tito dominated the fight on a whole but Belfort technically won 2 out of the 3 rounds."

How does laying on top of a fighter, landing little elbows =domination?

7

I agree with rude22 on th whole, except for the scoringof the first.

While Griffen won rd 1, rd 2 was much more one-sided (in Bonnar's
favor.) It should have been a draw, or Bonnar eeked the decision.

8

mcquaid,

Until I rewatched the fight, I thought Bonnar was a little in front as well. But when I re-watched with the fine-toothed comb, Griffin landed more scoring techniques.

And by UFC's wacky judging criteria, Griffin had the only takedown and sub attempt as well. Ironically, they came in Bonnar's best round, (#2).

9

"there is an MMA judging thread that has some good suggestions in it.

"Gannon,Do you mean this thread?: http://www.mma.tv/TUF/index.cfm?
I thought I had some good ideas on there, but no one paid attention. :( "

well there were some good ideas on it...but yours weren't among them. J/K :)

you had some good ideas. "time for MMA judging to evolve" is pretty good too. how do you post links on this site?

10

(a href="http://www.whateverthesiteis.com")type anything here(/a)

Replace ( with <

Replace ) with >

11

That was a great fight and IT WAS CLOSE but Forest won ANY way you score it...

12

criteria is 1. stand up
2. ground
3. effective aggression
4. ring generalship

in Nevada, it's 10 point must for each round.

13

At first I was shocked at the decision but after watching it again I realized why Forest won.
In the first round he had a strong arm bar attempt which put Stephan in danger. That goes a LONG way in the scoring.
At no point in the fight did Stephan make a strong sub attempt.
Pounding the snot out of eachother is very fun to watch but if you want to win decisions you have to go for Subs and takedowns.