It's no secret that I believe the judging criteria in Mixed Martial Arts needs to be amended.
It's no secret that I believe the judging criteria in Mixed Martial Arts needs to be amended, and perhaps move away from the 10-Point Must System that was adopted from boxing.
Mixed Martial Arts is not boxing, so I am of the belief that the scoring of MMA bouts should reflect the sport and what is happening inside the ring or cage.
Over the next few days, I will break down what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ), and offer up suggestions on how I would like to see the bouts judged.
In bold, is what is currently in place:
SCORING TECHNIQUES:
A) Using the 10-Point Must Scoring System; judges are required to determine a winner of a contest that ends after the initial scheduled number of rounds have been completed. Ten 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).
The awarding of 10 points is something I have always found strange. If there were "10" things, points of action or techniques that must be completed in the round, then I can understand getting graded on a scale that results in a fighter achieving 10 points. In reality, it's a fight, so I would much rather see rounds scored based on what a fighter did in that round (in comparison to his opponent), and award a score based on which fighter deserved to receive "points". I'll explain more...read on.
B)Mixed Martial Arts Techniques are defined as:
1) "Effective Striking": The total number of legal heavy strikes landed.
I do not have a major qualm with this description, but as I've said in the past, some consideration (and proper training of judges) should reflect and define "the winner of an exchange."
Too often, fighters are rewarded with the number of strikes thrown (quantity) as opposed to being awarded for the heavy strikes landed (quality).
In preparing our Amatuer MMA presentation to the Ontario Government, Terry Riggs (manager to Carlos Newton) and I sat down to define what we believed "effective striking" should reflect. Riggs made an exceptional point, and one that has stuck with me ever since. During an exchange, the winner should be defined as the one who "won the exchange."
If one fighter throws five punches, but the other throws an incredible strike that was more of a "heavy strike," he should be awarded that exchange. If there were five exchanges, where fighter A threw a total of five punches per exchange (total of 25) and fighter B only threw one per exchange (total of five), but all of fighter B's punches were heavy, then he won all five exchanges, even though he through he landed 20 fewer punches.
At the end of the round, I believe one point should be awarded to the fighter who demonstrated effective striking, and zero to the fighter who did not.
2) Effective Grappling: The successful execution of a legal takedown and/or reversal including the following maneuvers:
Takedowns are not grappling - they are takedowns. They are a part of a grappler's arsenal but perhaps this should be removed from effective grappling, and left with Octagon Control (listed below).
a)Takedowns from standing position to mount position.
Remove mount position - there are fighters who do not need the mount position to be successful and can work well from within the guard, half guard, half mount, north-south, or even right to back control, with or without any hooks in. I believe this should be redefined as simply effective takedowns and/or throws and again, moved to Octagon Control.
b)Passing the guard to mount position.
While I agree a fighter does increase his chances of ending a fight if he can pass the guard, there are many fighters who do not need to do so to be successful. Perhaps redefine this to better reflect something to the effect of "damage within the guard" as well as "working to improve position."
c)Bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
I do not have any real issue with this term - but perhaps to improve upon it, a description that might state "Bottom position fighters using an active/threatening ground game." Not all fights stay in guard - some end up in half-guard and can stay there for quite some time.
At the end of the round, "Effective Grappling" should be awarded a point to the winner and no point to the other fighter, based on working on the ground in an attempt to finish off an opponent.
Striking Damage vs. Submission attempts should also be defined and weighed against one another to determine who should be awarded the point of Effective Grappling. If fighter A is locked in an arm bar or triangle and fighter B is forced to defend for half the round, eventually survives, and works some ground and pound for the rest of the round, landing a plethora of punches but not causing real damage, who should be awarded the round?
In my opinion, the fighter that should receive the point is the one who was closer to finishing off his opponent. In this case, I would score it for the fighter who attempted the submission attempts.
Now if the fighter who survived the submission attempts ends up punishing the other fighter with his ground and pound, one could make a case that he wins the round instead.
3)"Octagon Control": Dictating the pace, location and position of the contest using the following maneuvers:
Not all fights are in the Octagon. MMA bouts occur in a cage and ring as well. Perhaps "Ring/Cage Generalship" would be a better term?
a) Countering a grappler's attempt at takedown to remain standing and legally striking effectively:
These are two separate techniques - it basically means that a fighter not only has to defend the takedown AND punish his opponent afterwards. Usually, a fighter will likely stifle his opponent's offence with a sprawl, then circle out. Or perhaps a whizzer, under hook, overhook, then get out of dodge. I am of the opinion that "Countering a fighter's attempt at a takedown, to remain standing" is a better definition.
b)Taking down an opponent to force a ground fight:
No issues at all with the above term.
c)Creating threatening submission attempts pass the guard to achieve mount, while on the ground:
This term should also be rewritten. Attempting a submission, passing the guard and achieving mount are three separate techniques. Attempted submissions should be awarded as their intention is to end the fight; and that's exactly what should be happening in a contest between two athletes.
Passing the Guard, achieving mount, half-mount, rear mount, or on the flipside, moving an opponent to cage (or even centre of ring/cage ), etc., are positional intricacies that are simply set-ups to move the action to a better location for a fighter looking to finish the fight with either strikes or submissions. These all qualify as "Octagon control" in my position and should be listed in the item below.
d) Creating striking opportunities, while on the ground.
As I mentioned above, controlling your opponent is crucial while on the ground and is an attempt to begin to end the fight.
In the end, "Ring/Cage Generalship" should be awarded to the fighter who demonstrated that he was dictating the pace, area and location of where the fight was taking place. Fighters should not necesarrily be awarded for sprawling and avoiding takedowns, if they have done nothing else, like effective striking, etc. I would much rather award a fighter a point if he failed to takedown his opponent 10 times, even if his opponent was successful with his defence, yet did nothing to try and end the fight.
In Part II, I'll offer up my suggestions on what the Unified Rules of MMA list as "Effective Aggresiveness,""Effective Defence," "Intelligent Defence," and much more.
Your thoughts and suggestions are definetly welcomed. I am hoping in the end, a new judging system for MMA can be defined so as to make it more modern and perhaps, more geared toward truly scoring an MMA bout as opposed to adopting a system based loosely around that of boxing.