Joe Ferraro

The current state of judging in Mixed Martial Arts has raised a variety of discussions.

Showdown Joe is in favour of making scoring of a bout public during the course of the bout.

The current state of judging in Mixed Martial Arts has raised a variety of discussions on how the current system needs an overhaul.

In hopes of generating some discussion, and hopefully some change to the judging criteria listed under the Unified Rules Of MMA , Part One, and Part Two, 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," while Part II focused on "Effective Aggressiveness," "Effective Defense," "Intelligent Defense," and more.

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. Note: In bold, is what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of MMA.

19) OBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA:

A) When both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round.

A 10-10 round is a rarity and this is simply due to the fact that there is always one fighter who did at least "one" thing to steal the round. Show me a 10-10 round, and I'll show you a 10-9 winner.

B) When both contestants suffer equal numbers of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes and neither shows clear dominance in a round.

Again, show me a fight where two fighters had an "equal number of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes," and I am confident that I could still determine a winner of that round. 10-9 Round

B) When a contestant remains in the guard position with no fighter having an edge in striking or grappling, the fighter who scored the legal takedown wins the round.

While I can concur with the term definitions, I still find it difficult to award a fighter 10 points and the other nine points based on not doing 10 things/ items.

Read on for my suggestions on what may be a solution to effectively score an MMA fight.

10-8 Round

B) When a contestant adversely affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.

Same as my point above, yet a 10-8 round simply shows dominance by one fighter, rewarding him bonus points that may not be necessary.

10-7 Round

B) When a contestant detrimentally affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.

Show me a 10-7 round, and I can likely make the case that the referee should have stopped the fight.

Time for a Change

When you combine the 10-point boxing scoring system with the fact that most MMA judges come from the "sweet science" and do not understand the vast majority of what makes up a Mixed Martial Arts fight, you have a recipe for disaster, or dare I say, the current state of affairs the sport is in right now.

First and foremost, I believe that every judge who is licensed by a commission MUST be certified first, and possess a thorough understanding of the aspects that make up MMA. Again, please have a look at what is depicted in the C.O.M.M.A.N.D. course to see what I am referring to.

On a very basic scale, when judging an MMA fight, I simply draw a line in the middle of a page; the left side designed for "Fighter A" and the right side for "Fighter B."

I will then place ticks for every exchange that is won by a fighter, whether it is one punch that is thrown, or a flurry met with counter punches that rock the fighter who threw more punches.

I judge based on quality of strikes landed, as opposed to quantity of punches thrown.

I definitely place a tick for any real submission attempts (i.e. locking in an arm bar, choke, and/or forcing an opponent to defend or stall).

I will also place a tick for a successful takedown attempt, as that is dictating where the fight is going and showing ring/cage generalship.

Do I reward an opponent who continues to attempt takedowns, but is thwarted off with excellent takedown defense? My answer is no, but I do keep it in mind if at the end of the round, both fighters have an equal amount of ticks.

I generally make a decision not on the failure of the takedown attempt, but on the fact of how long was the defending fighter fending off the takedown attempt.

If it was a quick sprawl, where he then circled away, neither fighter is awarded.

But, if a fighter was defending a single leg attempt and was trapped against the cage for a minute or so, defending the takedown, I will consider that.

To me, he is defending and thus, the fighter who eventually failed the takedown attempt should be considered with a tick for ring/cage generalship, as he was attempting an offensive move, which in the end, is trying to advance the fight to a finish.

At the end of the round, whoever has the most ticks, wins the round. The winner gets a "1," the loser gets a "0."

As opposed to making it 10-9, it's a 1-0 round. What we see today is a fighter winning 29-28, but what does that really mean? It means a fighter won two rounds to one. So I'd rather see it simply labeled that way. Why confuse something that should be so simple? A 49-46 score should be 4-1, that's it.

I would also recommend that the judges' scoring of each round be made public, on display within the venue and broadcast, so everyone is aware of what the scores are going into each round. When a fighter and his camp know what the score is going into each round, you can rest assured the losing fighter will likely pick up the pace to try and win the round or finish off his opponent.

Now, I am not at all suggesting that this three part series is a bullet-proof, perfect scoring system, but I do believe it is a better way of scoring an MMA bout.

Your thoughts and suggestions are definitely welcomed. I am all eyes and ears, provided it is a step forward in the right direction.