THE THREE PHASE SCORING SYSTEM FOR MMA

Underground
1

Just kinda throwin this out there. 



I have some strong feelings on what's right and wrong with the current scoring system, and have always said "it's easier to complain about the problems than provide the solutions".  So this is my attempt. 



I'd love to hear some legit feedback on it.



Presenting "The Three Phase Scoring System" for MMA


Tuesday, 29 March 2011 09:42


by Dallas Winston | 




MMA's unified rules have been in place and unaltered since 2001, yet the sport has evolved significantly since that time.  This is my first rough draft of the "Three Phase Scoring System" to better accommodate the present state of MMA.


Scoring aggression and defense as separate elements is eliminated because they are both individual constituents that make up effective offense.  Raw aggression is too often mistaken as "effective aggression", and being effectively defensive is a minuscule but important facet of effective offense.  Therefore, when a fighter is both effectively aggressive and effectively defensive, he is being the more effectively offensive fighter overall.


In the unified rules, a takedown is scored with a value comparable to locking a threatening submission or dropping a fighter with heavy strikes.  Close submissions and damaging strikes represent pure offense and legitimate methods to end the fight, when a takedown is merely forcing your opponent into a different phase of combat. A takedown creates the opportunity for offense on the ground, and opportunities to create offense are not equal with offense itself.  However, utterly dominating through the control of where a fight takes place is recognized under this system, but it's always inferior to effective offense, and reflected as such along with other comparable control-based techniques (see "Note 2").


The only time a referee will intervene is when a foul is committed or to check an injury.  Currently, referee's "restart" the fight or "call for action" to prohibit stalling, which actually fosters more of it.  Knowing that a referee will intervene to restart the fight in a different phase of combat, a fighter will intentionally seize or slow his activity to escape a position, when an increase of fighter activity is required to do so.  In other words, the acting responsibility to avoid stalemates and stalling rests solely on the fighter and his ability to demonstrate offense.  The referee's responsibility is to ensure safety and adherence to the rules.


Be aware that some guidelines are numbered "1a" and "1b", meaning they share equal status as the most important.  "Note 1" explains that the technique representing the most significant threat to end the fight, i.e. the technique that endangers his opponent the most, takes top priority.





REVIEW THE FULL SCORING SYSTEM HERE

2

Sorry, double post.

3

Gunna ponder this one for a while...

4

 Just reading the intro above, I have to agree with your stand up and refereeing thoughts, however I completely disagree with your take on takedowns.  Seems like some legit suggestions are in there, I'll probably finish the whole article later ...

5

 Sorry UJ,



You had me interested until I saw a link.

6

Bones Jones' Little Facking Rua -  Just reading the intro above, I have to agree with your stand up and refereeing thoughts, however I completely disagree with your take on takedowns.  Seems like some legit suggestions are in there, I'll probably finish the whole article later ...


First, thanks for reading, and don't mistake my disagreements for being offended.



Why do you disagree on the takedown thing?



Right now, takedowns count as effective grappling, which is equal with effective striking.  That means landing a TD is weighed equally with a near submission or landing a heavy strike that does damage.  It also counts for control and aggression, which means forcing your opponent to the floor awards you the #1, #2, and #3 measures. 



That's why taking someone down and doing nothing will still win the round.  I wrote an enormous article on the unfair weight of TD's here:



http://thegarv.com/Wrestling-Dominance-In-the-Cage-In-the-Rules.html





Zed, let me know your thoughts when you have time.

 

7

Very interesting read.  Sounds good at first review.

I will have to think about it further before making an additional comments.



crowbar,

I found the act of clicking a link to not be that hard after all.  You should give it a try.  It's not as hard as you might imagine.

 

8

crowbar -  Sorry UJ,



You had me interested until I saw a link.





You're an old schooler that I respect, but I've also noticed  you are oddly horrified and offended anytime a link is provided. 



People have a lot of complaints about MMA journalism, so I put forth a lot of effort to write something worthwhile that will at least stimulate thought and/or discussion.   I basically write for free as well, so the only recognition or reward I get is how many people find it worth reading. 



I find it baffling that a topic would be admittedly interesting to you until tapping your finger on your mousepad once enters the equation and makes it totally undesirable. 



Why is that?  Not trying to change your mind; just curious. 








9

BKViper - Very interesting read.  Sounds good at first review.

I will have to think about it further before making an additional comments.



crowbar,

I found the act of clicking a link to not be that hard after all.  You should give it a try.  It's not as hard as you might imagine.  


 Thanks.  I was going to go through and explain every justification for every topic, but decided to sit back and absorb some of the thoughts from fans like yourself first.



I'll look forward to your full opinion when you have time.

 

10

 I agree that it`s not hard.This site use to be a platform that the members used to share information with.Now it has become a huge platform for advertisers & people driving traffic to websites. 

11

crowbar -  I agree that it`s not hard.This site used to be a platform that the members used to share information with.Now it has become a huge platform for advertisers & people driving traffic to websites.


 There is no question that I want to write for a successful website, and the success of ANY website is defined by traffic.



So, to me, it's like being in sales:  of course the salesman wants to sell something, so the question is whether what he's offering represents "a ripoff" or something immoral, unprofessional, or flat-out shitty ... or something of worth.



In other words, the material is what should be judged, not the request to consider it.  In this situation, the "risk" of clicking a link to read a topic you admit is interesting doesn't seem entirely bad or threatening.



IMO







 

12

It's not the system it's the judges. It doesn't matter what system you use. if the judges have know idea what there doing then they are going to fuck it up.

13

 ttt

14

JoeVIP  - It's not the system it's the judges. It doesn't matter what system you use. if the judges have know idea what there doing then they are going to fuck it up.


 There is no question that the system doesn't matter if the judge is incompetent, but that doesn't mean that the existing system is flawless and wouldn't benefit from improvements.



I'm actually very pro-Ten Point Must, I just think it's being used improperly, and that TD's are scored unfairly.  There's no way a TD should be on the same level as near-subs or landing heavy strikes; I don't see how anyone can even argue that.



It's a forced change of position, and should be scored equally with stuffing a TD, escaping back to your feet, etc. 



People say "but a TD is offensive and shows aggression!", but that just punishes the guy sprawling because fights start on the feet.  Whoever controls which phase of combat the fight takes place in is doing just that:  controlling, yet it's scored the same as fight-ending offense.


15

^^^^ agree with above. I do like this system though. Phone Post

16

nogblublt -  ^^^^ agree with above. I do like this system though. Phone Post


 Were you referring to my post or the one above it?

17

Uncle Justice - 
JoeVIP  - It's not the system it's the judges. It doesn't matter what system you use. if the judges have know idea what there doing then they are going to fuck it up.


 There is no question that the system doesn't matter if the judge is incompetent, but that doesn't mean that the existing system is flawless and wouldn't benefit from improvements.





 I'm not sure that I entirely agree with this sentiment. Bear with me. The more complex the scoring system, the more educated the judge usually must be. I think most people would agree with this point, largely at an intuitive level (I'm open to the suggestion that practice prove counter-intuitive). The converse seems equally intuitive: simpler criteria produce better results when judging is less sophisticated. The large reason, I tend to think, is that the mind wants to find what I call "an out" when faced with a wall of facts to process (more on this in a second).



Consequently, the best decision rules have to fit the capability of the current pool of judges. Overloading them beyond their comfort zone is a formula for quirky results. Sound familiar? I think so. Part of the existing problem, in my opinion, is that 4 tier scoring within the unified rules does not marry very well with the judging in many venues. Nor does it help most viewers understand the outcome of a given fight, especially one that occurs at all three phases. It may be that a judging criteria must evolve, starting simpler and advancing over time, as judging sophistication evolves.



Back to that judging behavior that I call "looking for an out," I found it rather common in my time as a competitive debator (keep in mind this was decades ago) that we would try to offer judges "outs" in close matches. We were trained to do so. It was an effective strategy. Even if the "out" made little sense in the grand scheme of things, you knew to put it out there. You knew because, historically, judges would vote that way. Many of them did not want to sift through every issue discussed: they wanted an easy way to avoid making a difficult decision.



The "out" in contemporary mma is the takedown. You hear fighters an coaches talk about "stealing the round" in interviews. A number of inexplicable decisions support their belief in this mechanism. It is far from hyperbole to suggest that a striker could batter his opponent standing, stuff a dozen takedowns, but fail on a single one only falling to guard, yet manage to lose the decision. The unified rules clearly state that effective striking to grappling should be weighted in scoring to the proportion of time spent standing to grounded. The unified rules clearly state that takedowns require landing past the guard to even qualify as effective grappling. The unified rules clearly reward stuffing takedowns in order to strike. Despite that clarity, fighters and coaches and you and I all know that they look for the out.



Perhaps I am becoming overly pessimistic and cynical, but I am starting to question whether a better judging system would be a better judging system given our current set of judges.



However, I will give the question more thought. I like some of the elements you present. I really like how you place an emphasis on controlling at which phase a fight occurs. I also like how you incorporate striking into the grappling phase. I think one of the weaknesses of the unified rules is the handling of striking on the ground. I do think you are missing dominant positions in the clinch. If you are going to reward them in grappling, you should reward them in the clinch. Should you do the same for striking by rewarding the center of the ring/cage? I don't know.



Either way, good thoughts. Rational discourse is a good thing.

18

Zedlepln - 
Uncle Justice - 
JoeVIP  - It's not the system it's the judges. It doesn't matter what system you use. if the judges have know idea what there doing then they are going to fuck it up.


 There is no question that the system doesn't matter if the judge is incompetent, but that doesn't mean that the existing system is flawless and wouldn't benefit from improvements.





The "out" in contemporary mma is the takedown. You hear fighters an coaches talk about "stealing the round" in interviews. A number of inexplicable decisions support their belief in this mechanism. It is far from hyperbole to suggest that a striker could batter his opponent standing, stuff a dozen takedowns, but fail on a single one only falling to guard, yet manage to lose the decision.



(1) The unified rules clearly state that effective striking to grappling should be weighted in scoring to the proportion of time spent standing to grounded.



(2) The unified rules clearly state that takedowns require landing past the guard to even qualify as effective grappling.



The unified rules clearly reward stuffing takedowns in order to strike. Despite that clarity, fighters and coaches and you and I all know that they look for the out.





Just wanted to quickly respond to your points in bold. 



1.  Only New Jersey's rules specifically mention the "sliding scale" rule for using the amount of time striking or grappling to prioritize them.  This seems crazy because it should be a no-brainer, but it's a perfect example of how every state CAN and DOES have differences in their rules.



From:  http://www.nj.gov/oag/sacb/docs/martial.html

(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.






2.  They don't "require" takedowns to land past guard, but suggest it as an example. 



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.



See, that whole paragraph of effective grappling needs some serious re-working.  It's a mess. 





3.  The problem with the stuffing takedowns part is that it's listed under control and defense (#2 and 5), where landing a takedown is effective grappling, control, and aggression (#1, #2, #3).  If a fighter clearly wins the #1 category (split between striking and grappling), it trumps everything else.  That means the rules clearly state that taking your opponent down over and over -- even if you don't do anything offensive with it -- means you win the round.

 

19

Uncle Justice - 
Bones Jones' Little Facking Rua -  Just reading the intro above, I have to agree with your stand up and refereeing thoughts, however I completely disagree with your take on takedowns.  Seems like some legit suggestions are in there, I'll probably finish the whole article later ...


First, thanks for reading, and don't mistake my disagreements for being offended.



Why do you disagree on the takedown thing?



Right now, takedowns count as effective grappling, which is equal with effective striking.  That means landing a TD is weighed equally with a near submission or landing a heavy strike that does damage.  It also counts for control and aggression, which means forcing your opponent to the floor awards you the #1, #2, and #3 measures. 



That's why taking someone down and doing nothing will still win the round.  I wrote an enormous article on the unfair weight of TD's here:



http://thegarv.com/Wrestling-Dominance-In-the-Cage-In-the-Rules.html





Zed, let me know your thoughts when you have time.

 
I probably won't read the article you posted above because I think that takedowns are weighted too much as well.  That being said, takedowns need to be considered.  You don't mention td's at all in your most recent article as far as part of scoring criteria.  I don't see how you can't count td's as part of agression or effective grappling.



If you get a td and do nothing with it, the opponent stands back up in one or two seconds, well, that should constitute little more than an advantge to the agressor ... it shouldn't be a fighter decider, but it should be noted.  Now even if you get a td and do nothing except hhold your opponent down, well that does show some control.  IMO that is deserving of a 10-9 round if you consider everything else equal.



If you do nothing but a take a guy down and hold him down for 5 minutes, not advancing postion, you're still winning because you are controlling the fight.



I don't know, I may have missed your point, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

 

20

 ^Why?



Why should performing ONE TD and DOING NOTHING signify that you're the better fighter?  Why does forcing a change of position mean you're demonstrating that you're the better fighter?



It simply doesn't, IMO.  That would be like a prime Chuck Liddell stuffing everyone's takedowns .... but doing nothing.  Not landing any strikes.  Nothing.  Just stuffing takedowns.



If you still disagree, then why doesn't pulling guard win a round?  It's the same thing:  you're forcing the fight from standing to the ground.  So what?  What does that really matter?