Judging Fights - Counting Strikes - Foot Stomps

Underground
1

Foot stomps are a fantastic way to score points and win a decision in MMA.

When judging fights, I count strikes. Its very hard to judge striking in MMA, everything happens very quickly and it is very hard to judge the effectiveness of a strike without seeing physical damage on the figher. Often judges will judge a right cross higher than a jab. Or a head kick higher than a low kick. But that is also subjective as a low kick or a jab can do a lot of damage in a fight.

Something they teach you when you learn to be a judge is that blocked strikes are not counted. This is also subjective because strikes that are blocked can still do damage and be effective. But as a general rule judges will not count blocked strikes.

Foot stomps are a fantastic way to score points against your opponent where they can not score against you. They are very hard to block, the best you can do is avoid them. Using your arms to control your opponents upper body means its hard for them to throw strikes back. When you have your opponent up against the fence and you are landing strikes that counts as effective grappling so you are winning that criteria of the scoring system.

Check out Usman using them here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/hvr88h/ufc_251_all_of_usmans_foot_stomps_in_1_minute/

and here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23-knI70ylY&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1hQn80QFfydrWuZu_TVS7gVOMRZjcYOkvYTEvJPZmqJBichBKmnB76Y9g

 

2

This is the problem, strikes both blocked, thrown and landed are All subjective. 

Judges should be looking at the round as a whole thing. Not counting strikes. This is why most people watching can see and tell that a certain fighter did the best in a certain round. And at the same time a judge is counting all these strikes and not necessarily thinking about grappling positions and aggressiveness also.

We can't measure how hard each strike is or how effective was, so there's no point counting them individually. 

Look at the whole

3

If anyone counts a foot stomp as a significant strike, they are an idiot. KO by foot stomp is not happening. 

4
MagnumPeeEye -

If anyone counts a foot stomp as a significant strike, they are an idiot. KO by foot stomp is not happening. 

When I score fights I do not count them as significant or not significant. I count landed strikes.

To me personally a foot stomp counts the same as a light jab. If a striker lands 10 jabs, then a grappler pushes his opponent against the cage and lands 10 foot stomps. That is an even fight in the striking department.

Not only that, but the grappler is showing effective grappling by holding his opponent against the fence and as such is winning the fight at that point.

Now that is just a general statement, it does depend on how strong those jabs and foot stomps are. If I see a broken foot or a broken nose that changes things. But lets say we can not see any physical damage.

5

Foot stomps are cheap. 

When I first saw them back in the NHB days, I thought yes, clever and a bonified technique. 

But now I feel that we maybe need MMA to evolve away from cheap things like that that don't finish fights and yet may keep a fighter out for an elongated period. 

Everyone on this forum(me included) gets frustrated that our favourite fighters aren't fighting more often.

This will often be because they are hiding an injury and don't want to tell the fans incase that area gets targeted. 

Admittedly, I haven't even decided 100 % in my own mind if I want foot stomps to be banned or not. We have some of the major fight techniques banned (rightly) like headbutts, soccer kicks etc. So I don't think we would be watering down the sport too much to ban foot stomps.

But if fighters are going to continue to go for point scoring techniques like that rather than going for the finish, then I say ban them.

It would be rubbish if we have a lot of big fights looking like the Usman vs Masvidal fight. 

6
Radford Martel -

This is the problem, strikes both blocked, thrown and landed are All subjective. 

Judges should be looking at the round as a whole thing. Not counting strikes. This is why most people watching can see and tell that a certain fighter did the best in a certain round. And at the same time a judge is counting all these strikes and not necessarily thinking about grappling positions and aggressiveness also.

We can't measure how hard each strike is or how effective was, so there's no point counting them individually. 

Look at the whole

What is interesting about that is this, what you are talking about is subjective. What you want judges to do is to be subjective. You want judges to 'feel' who won a fight, by looking at it as a whole.

Where the judge who counts landed strikes, does not count blocked strikes actually has a metric with which they can say why a figher has won the striking aspect.

You can do the same with the grappling aspect also. Counting successful takedowns, submission attempts, even guard passing and control.

You mentioned aggressiveness, aggression and octagon control is very rarely looked at for MMA judges. A mma judge should look at effective striking and grappling first, then if you can not pick a winner of the round based on that criteria then you go to aggression and ocatgon control.

When counting strikes, accessing damage and effective grappling. A judge can usually pick a winner. There are exceptions, I would say less than 10% of fights you need to look at aggression and octagon control.

7

That's interesting that you only look at aggression and octagon control in those circumstances.

I'm not really sure how you personally define octagon control. Is it controlling the centre of the cage and whether you have a fighter on the fence or not?

I don't think Octagon control is anything at all near the importance of aggression/trying for a finish.

There is something special about a finish in Martial Arts. 

And as these sports also have a practical purpose, I say that makes it all the more important. 

We've all seen fights where one person continually back pedals and gets the points win. 

And we've all seen fights where there is a stalemate, sometimes it just takes one fighter to decide to only wait for a counter. 

8

As you Americans say... Those fights SUCK!

Hahaha

9

Apparently if you succefully tackle your opponent in the last 10 seconds of the round, it counts as 1 million strikes landed. 

1 Like
10
Radford Martel -

That's interesting that you only look at aggression and octagon control in those circumstances.

I'm not really sure how you personally define octagon control. Is it controlling the centre of the cage and whether you have a fighter on the fence or not?

I don't think Octagon control is anything at all near the importance of aggression/trying for a finish.

There is something special about a finish in Martial Arts. 

And as these sports also have a practical purpose, I say that makes it all the more important. 

We've all seen fights where one person continually back pedals and gets the points win. 

And we've all seen fights where there is a stalemate, sometimes it just takes one fighter to decide to only wait for a counter. 

It is interesting that we only look at agression and ocatgon control in those circumstances.

It makes sense in some ways as being agressive and having ocatgon control do not matter if the figher is losing the striking and/or grappling battles.

These rules were put in place to protect fighters who are counter punchers from losing fights because they are not walking forward or controling the pace or direction of the fight. As a counter puncher, a figher can land effective strikes while walking backwards.

Definitions are really hard, but for me if a figher owns the center of the cage, has top position in the grappling, has their opponent against the fence they are winning the octagon control. But also this comes down to time also, so a judge will need to remember for how long a fighter held top position or control.

Say one fighter holds mount for 3 minutes and their opponent reverses them and holds mount for 1 minute. Then the figher who held mount for 3 minutes would win the octagon control. Now there are variables but lets just say everything else is even for this example.

Luckily as a judge you rarely have to look at octagon control or agression like I said before so it just does not come up much at all. It is hard being a judge.

You are right, there is something special about a finish! Thats another reason why effective grappling and striking are the first criteria and the only criteria in most fights, because effective striking and grappling finishes fights.

I personally don’t mind watching a counter puncher or a figher who is trying to win like a GSP or an Usman. I totally understand why other fans don’t.

11
BJTT-Frank Rizzo -

Apparently if you succefully tackle your opponent in the last 10 seconds of the round, it counts as 1 million strikes landed. 

So this is something I love talking about. And I totally hear you because sometimes judges really fuck up a fight when they count a takedown too highly.

In the offical rules it states that judges are only to count effective grappling that has an IMPACT on the fight. Some people argue that a takedown at the end of the round does not impact the fight if it does not do any damage to the fighter. Others argue that it shows effective grappling.

I see both perspectives.

To me a takedown at the end of a fight is HUGE when the fight is close. Lets say we are judging a fight and its close, lets say fighter A is winning the fight by my count of 3 strikes. And its back and forth, there are times where figher B is winning the fight. But at this point fighter A is up by 3 strikes. The damage looks even, its hard to tell who is getting the better of who. Then in the last 30 seconds fighter B takes figher A down and holds him there landing no strikes and not passing guard till the end of the round.

So we have to look at effective striking and grappling first.

Figher A won the striking by 3 strikes (lets say they were jabs to make it even harder)

Fighrer B won the grappling with the takedown, even though it was not every impactful or effective as he did no damage

Who won the fight?

I say fighter B, close fight back and forth, 3 strikes is very close and hard to call it on that alone, damage looks even, the takedown seals the deal.

12

Using foot stomps as any measure of success in a fight is ridiculous and whoever uses foot stomps as a deciding factor probably should not be judging or watching fights altogether.

This may be the worst thread of the year so far.

13

Was anyone able to count how many foot stomps Usman landed? I feel he had to have landed at least close to or over 100.

14
cyberc92 -

Was anyone able to count how many foot stomps Usman landed? I feel he had to have landed at least close to or over 100.

43 ;)

15

I always look for "effective striking" 

I don't think foot stomps are very effective