The current state of judging in mixed martial arts remains a hot button topic - with some in favour of the status quo and some against it.
In hopes to generate some discussion, and hopefully some change to the judging criteria listed under the Unified Rules Of MMA, Part I examined the following:
Replacing the 10-Point must system with singular points (and newly suggested definitions) for Effective Striking, Effective Grappling and Ring/Cage Generalship.
In Part II, I offer up suggestions on Effective Aggressiveness, Effective Defence and Intelligent Defence.
(Note: In bold, is what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of MMA.)
4) Effective Aggressiveness: Moving forward and setting the tempo of the contest while effectively scoring with legal strikes, takedowns and submissions while blocking the opponents counters.
In essence, this is what MMA (and all combat sports) should strive to score its bouts on. The only qualm I have is "while blocking the opponents counters." I have never been a fan of defence, nor do I believe it should be rewarded with points, as it does not end fights. It protects from receiving damage, yes, but it does not end fights. Counter-punching, counter-kicking and counter-attacks end fights.
5) Effective Defence: Successful avoidance or defence of blows and submissions by which an opponent is made to miss by definite maneuvers. However, one who demonstrates these skills must also strike effectively to positively influence the judges' scoring.
It is my belief that this should be removed from MMA judging altogether. As I mentioned above, I do not necessarily agree with awarding defence. It's a fight, so a fighter should try to end a fight with offence and not be awarded for defence.
Case and point: In his UFC 101 bout versus Forrest Griffin, Anderson Silva did not defeat Forrest Griffin with his defence; he defeated him with his offence. His display of bobbing, weaving and slipping of Griffin's attacks assisted him to effectively apply his eye candy of an offence. The bobs, weaves and slips did not cause damage - Silva's fists did, and that's what ended the fight. If Forrest attacked all night, and Silva bobbed and slipped for the rest of the time, I would score the fight for Forrest.
6) Intelligent Defence: An active defence that effectively neutralizes an opponent's attack, particularly when the defender is mounted, either from the front or the back. An intelligent defence minimizes the potential for damage while providing the opportunity for taking back the offence.
Once again, we are awarding a fighter for defending, which in essence, is doing nothing to put an end to a fight. If Fighter A is in the turtle position, or has his back turned with Fighter B's hooks both in, how can he be awarded any points for intelligently defending himself? Fighter B should be awarded the round as he was in a dominant position, controlling his Fighter A, while trying to put an end to the bout.
Again, awarding a fighter for defence, is simply not something I can agree with.
C) Scoring of the above techniques shall be given the most weight as follows:
1) Effective Striking
2) Effective Grappling
3) Octagon Control
4) Effective Aggressiveness/Defence
Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, grappling, octagon control and aggressiveness/defence.
This section should definitely be re-evaluated. Striking should not be given more weight than grappling, or vice versa. It's a MMA fight, where at times, one fighter may be more of a grappling practitioner while his opponent may come from a striking base. It almost seems as if the striker (or strikers in general ) are already ahead on the judges scorecards before the bout even begins.
I would suggest this section be changed to reflect something to the effect of:
"Scoring of the above techniques shall be given the most weight as follows: Effective Aggressiveness, based on one, or a combination of effective striking or grappling, with the round being given to the fighter who displays a higher effectiveness in Ring/Cage Generalship, while working with the end of the fight in mind."
D) Judges should use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the contestants are either standing or on the ground, as follows:
1) If 90 per cent of a round was spent on the ground, then:
a) Effective Grappling is weighed first
b) Effective Striking is then weighed
Based on my own experience, research and in speaking with a variety of sources, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of judges simply are not qualified enough to understand the intricacies of effective grappling. From what I've seen in over a decade of being a part of this sport, most judges look at which fighter is doing the most striking on the ground, perhaps due to the fact that many of these judges come from a boxing background, where striking is paramount.
While I genuinely believe that most judges know what an arm bar attempt is, as well as a rear naked choke, I cannot help but believe that most may have no idea what a Kimura or American is unless the crowd begins to roar, signaling a judge to pay attention that something is going on here.
I harkin the aforementioned thoughts based on when I was certified by Big John McCarthy in his C.O.M.M.A.N.D. course. While my certification was geared towards officiating, the same criteria for judges is required to understand a plethora of MMA techniques, positions and submissions. To see what I'm talking about, take a look at the list of over 85 items that must be understood to pass Big John's course.
I seriously wonder how many judges know what a Von Flue choke is, or an Iranian Lift. Nevermind what a half-guard lock down or an electric chair sweep does to an opponent.
If you cannot name, define or identify all of these techniques, should you really be licensed by a Commission to judge a fight? My answer is a definite and emphatic, no!
2) If 90 per cent of a round was standing, then:
a) Effective Striking is weighed first
b) Effective Grappling is then weighed
Similar to the above, what if four minutes and thirty seconds were spend standing and striking, yet for thirty seconds the fight was on the mat, where Fighter A, who didn't exactly win the standup, nearly finishes Fighter B, with a rear naked choke?
I disagree with the criteria above, as the winner of the round should be defined as the one who came closest to finishing the fight, then coupled with who inflicted the most damage.
3) If a round ends with 50 per cent standing and 50 per cent grounded, striking and grappling are weighed more equally.
Having being a judge at various professional and amateur MMA events, knowing "exactly" what 50 per cent is in a round is virtually impossible. I never once stood there and stared at a timer - I was too focused on scoring the round based on which fighter was winning the fight.
Again, where it says 'grappling', we are under the assumption that athletic commission licensed judges know what 'grappling' is … the majority do not.
In Part III, I'll offer up my suggestions on what the Unified Rules of MMA list as 'Objective Scoring Criteria', which defines how a judge scores a 10-10, 10-9, 10-8 and 10-7 round.
I will also offer up my final suggestions on how I believe judging for MMA should be redefined and used in the sport.
Your thoughts and suggestions are definitely 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.