The Scoring System.

Guys please! The scoring system is fine... Just look at Hamill vs. Bisping, Ring vs. Fukuda, Phan vs Garcia, Shogun vs Machida 1, and Rampage vs Machida...Cecil is a ****ing hero

i still cannot believe the phan/garcia decision. I actually believe that fight was rigged

explain to judges wat leg kicks do maybe kick Cecil see if that dosnt change his mind

I think the bigger problems is the judges, not the current scorring system, if you actually look at the scoring literature it is quite in depth, and specific, its the judges are failing to score fights according to the current criteria, and as far a Cecil he is a shitty judge, heard from a friend at a live event, that Cecil who was judging that night, was on his cell texting while a fight was going on.

It was because Phan jerks off in the shower

I thought the same thing.



If the judging were consistently bad throughout, then I would put it down to incompetence, but when only one fight is scored that badly--I wonder.

honestly i think the scoring system is just fine it is the judges we need to get rid of. if there was knowledgeable judges who understood what they were watching we wouldnt see so many bad decisions. sometimes a fight is just really close and no matter who wins there will be a contingent calling it a robbery like the old saying goes you can please some of the people some of the time but you cant please all of the people all of the time. also the pride ruling system was put in place because the judges in pride were employees of the company and could manipulate the outcomes of fights to hedge the betting in their favor. before you weak it is a documented fact that pride fixed fights tampered with judging and refereeing to appease their mafia backers. i know people think that the ufc has had way more bad decisions than pride but you have to realize the ufc has put on roughly 10 times the amount of fight pride has,

I would like to get rid of Points and all that by having an endless round where you finish your opponent or be finished as it is trhe only real way to see who would win in the end. If a guy wins on points it is only part of the picture of who is the better fighter. I know some would say it would be boring to watch two very equal grapplers for like and hour to see who eventually won but to me that would be amazing and worth the wait so that we have very few real doubts about who won.

I do feel the wrestlers would cry foul though in that situation where they rely on control to win a fight.

Problem is a fighter, can only fight for 25 min at a time legally

Wrestlers would love it.



They wouldn't get stood up after a round, so if they were on top, they would stay on top and whittle away until their opponent was finished.



Strikers very often can only have a chance because the round ends and they can begin the next round on their feet.



I think we need 5 round fights for Main Card fights--regardless of whether a title is on the line. A 5 round fight would dramatically reduce the number of decisions IMO.

I agree in that. but many wrestlers would eventually get caught by jj more often. regardless though roundless would figure out who wins. 5 rounds will help.

The only problem with limitless periods and five round fights is that the fight card might surpass a three hour event.



And I gotta tell you, my ass can't handle much more sitting. Those bar stools flatten my checks, and I'm Mexican -- that ain't right.



In all seriousness though, I think a 4-5 hour event could hurt the sport. No one wants to endure that.

cheeks*

I would endure however long it took if it were a p4p fight like GSP vs AS. But yeah it would be bad to wait for a Fitch vs Jake Sheilds fight. I think that someone would gas before 1 hour in most cases though and most fights would easily end within 10-15 minutes. Guys with amazing Cardio like GSP would still be going strong at 20 minutes and clean out most fighters by then except maybe Fitch who would never die. Who knows maybe Fitch can beat GSP if it goes for over an hour.lol.

I don't think the judging is in need of a major re-vamp, but it definitely does need tweaked. IMO I think wrestling/takedowns are credited too much in MMA. For example; a close round will often be credited to a fighter who gets a TD at the end; seen this happen many times. Also, I dont think stuffing a TD counts for much in most judge's eyes.



Also, I think when the fight hits the ground the more 'active' fighter should be awarded points, guys attempting subs, sweeps etc rather than the guy on top just laying in guard for 5 mins. and riding out a decision.



I would also welcome the Yellow Card system back. As then fighters will want to stay active, and keep busy. Instead of just holding position, hoping they dont get stood up, and when a fighters purse is gonna be deducted I think, it would urge them more to stay active and look for the finish. It would get rid of some of the 'Pts Fighters' and you'd see more guys going out looking to finish.



I also think former fighters, or fighters in the future should become judges, or at least educate upcoming officials. Personally I think the UFC system is too wrestling orientated as I've said above. There's a lot of variables in MMA, maybe too many for a Pts system. But then again you cant exactly go back to the UFC 1 days....

i can see giving points to a guy if he is controling the round with sub attempts from the bottom like 6-8 sub attempts in a round but we dont give points for missed punches,kicks failed takedown attempts(or at least we they shouldnt) so why should we give a points for failed subs

The MMa takedown is an interesting dilemma for scoring. If it is well-executed, it is impressive and cause some damage. It can also lead to control over an opponent. But what if the guy gets up very quickly? Does it then count as much as a good punch? At least the attempted td is an aggressive move that takes energy. I don't understand why so many fans hate the ground game. Have you not seen stand-up fights that go on forever without anything landing and few blows thrown?



I do agree that when on the ground, the more active fighter should be given credit more than they are, but they are still usually being controlled by the top fighter. Strikes from the bottom don't have much power, but an elbow can cut. Both are more powerful from the top.



How do you judge a failed submission attempt? By how long it was held, or by the pain it seemed to inflict, or by how the fighter escapes it?



I always thought yellow cards were given too prematurely or unfairly. The ref''s warning should be enough, or he can break them or deduct a point.



To me, the main problem in the 10 point must scoring system is that in a round where one fighter clearly wins he gets a 10-9. If the next round is very close, the other fighter could get a 10-9 round, tying the match. The solution is 2-fold: more 10-10 rounds and more 10-8 or even 10-7 rounds. I have heard boxing people ridicule the idea of using more 10-10 rounds, but their logic is flawed. Besides, if a fight is extremely close, why not call it a draw instead of allowing one point to make one fighter a loser. I just watched the Ultimate Fighter show (SPOILER ALERT) and even Dana thought the rounds were too close to call and it should have gone to a third round. Given the rules of 2 rounds and then one if a draw, really close fights should ALWAYS go to the third round.

I see what you're saying, but I meant that being more active from the bottom as opposed to just top 'control.'



Like if a guy on the bottom is attempting subs, sweeps, striking from the bottom etc. I think that should be awarded more than just top control, as the guy on the bottom would be the more active fighter, and is actually looking for the finish, or to improve position.



Especially if the guy on top, is just content with staying in guard and not attempting to pass, go for subs etc. and throwing minimal strikes, as we've seen all too often in MMA.

Exactly, grapplers should also get points for sweeps, escapes, submission attempts, takedown defense, etc.



This system only rewards the takedown. It is the equivalent of a knock down in Boxing and Kickboxing, and that should not be. If a wrestler is not using the takedown for offensive purposes then the takedown should not be counted.

the problems are small, but they are amplified by the fact that there are only 3 rounds, rounds are SO significant compared to boxing that getting the right balance of criteria is incredibly important, small things like takedowns into full guard should be disregarded if guard isnt passed imo, and someone on bottom should be able to win a round even if they were underneath for 3mins~ as long as they are the more agressive with elbows and armbars etc. without being hurt

yellow cards would be a step in the right direction...

I see the judges as the bigger problem and not the scoring system... they need to be more educated to the sport which is likely to change in the next few years when mma will be a more accepted sport and people get to know the differences in grappling

all of the problems would be solved if they were roundless fights that went until someone was stopped or gave up.

I think I'll have to disagree with you here Edub. I think the system is extremely flawed.



While the judging is horrendous at times, the 10-9 round and western fight rules create massive problems as well. Even if we were to get educated judges, the system still provides unfair disadvantages and advantages.



Let's be honest here, the western hemisphere favors the wrestler and grappler over the striker. PRIDE had a more balanced system than the UFC. Sure, there were controverses but what organization doesn't have them? The UFC has been under fire several times.



I think the Yellow Card (and maybe even stomps and knees to a downed opponent) is desperately needed in the UFC. Why should the wrestlers and grapplers have all the advantages? I can also turn this around and say this will make the one-dimensional wrestlers and grapplers learn striking for a change.



BUT you do have a point. If a fighter can't stop the takedown, then it's his own fault. Yet, likewise for the grappler and wrestler who can't throw or defend a proper kick or punch.



I just think it's moronic that a wrestler or grappler can takedown an opponent near the end of the round and steal the round away. Why should we also give points for takedowns when an individual can't even pass guard? It's asinine and primitive.

I think, we, wrestlers and grapplers get too much credit. In combat or in a street fight, no doubt, a fight has an 80% chance that it will lead to the ground realm. Yet, I've witnessed my share of fights (I use to work as a bouncer) and some of the guys on their backs somehow found a way to get back up or reverse the position by using brute force. It then leads to ground and pound or stomps and soccer kicks. Rule #1 in a street fight has always been -- Don't take it to the ground.



So again, I think both provide advantages and disadvantages in a real fight. The system should represent both sides properly, and not just one. I personally don't think it'll benefit the striker even more than the grappler or wrestler. The takedown is still a very powerful tool against the striker. And if the striker has not developed takedown defense then knees, stomps and soccer kicks won't save him/her.



The yellow card has nothing to do with entertainment or excitement, in my usage. IF an individual takes down another and continues on with an attack (effective ground-and-pound, submission attempts, passing of the guard, etc) then the takedown is valid BUT if he fails to initiate any offense and only wishes to stall a fight for personal gain then the yellow card is presented.



I agree, fighters shouldn't be punished for not being exciting but they should be punished if they're trying to find an easy way out. This is Mixed Martial Arts, not the NCAA or Olympics. And no fighter should be viewed or rewarded as a warrior if he or she is seeking to takedown a fighter and ride out the storm.

I can go along with that. A point deducted is still crucial, and motivates him or her to press the action or, at least, fight. Money being taken away might be alittle too cruel due to the fact that they get paid small amounts to fight.



I agree, I don't want it to get overused so I'm going to borrow a rule similar to FIFA's. If a fighter gets more than two yellow cards then he or she is disqualified.

2 major things are needed.



1. Yellow cards would change everything. These guys are fighting to provide for their families...take away 10% of their pursue when they start to lay n pray and we will start seeing Fithc turn into a KO machine.



2. Get former fighters to score fights. They will actually know from years of experience whats going on and score correctly....There are a few out there like Elvis Sinosic but not enough.

1.) Yes.



2.) Hell YES!

I say screw the judges and scoring system. If neither fighter can not finish each other in the last round. Then it is a draw.

I think the best solution to the judging problem is:



1. Pay the judges more money so more people would want to do the job.

2. Hire former MMA fighters who know the game

3. Stop using Nevada State Athletic Commission judges on fights outside of Nevada. The whole commission in Nevada smells funny.

4. Create a training center for judges and bring in fighters and coaches to instruct the judges

5. Have a decision review panel who evaluate the decisions of judges after the fight. If the decision is poor, and a first time offence--suspend his license and send him back to training school. If the judge consistently screws up--take his license away.

Whoa...sorry for the double post--very weird.

^ This a hundred times.

i think it should be scored in this order: 1.significant strikes (standing or ground top/bottom. we can just add them up) 2.danger of being finished (defending a submission for the last 30 seconds of a round means you are in danger, the considered as control for the attacker) 3. Octagon Control (landing jabs and soft kicks/ knees to the leg against a fence/top control.) Short little punches and elbows on the ground are used as tactical moves to generate openings, not scoring points, just fall under top control. That way, we could say that A. Silva was beating sonnen the whole fight logically bc sonnen took way more damage.

Have you ever seen Ben Askrin fight? All he does is wrestle, but it is a beautiful thing to watch if you are a MMA fan, not just a striking fan. He takes his guy down, then absolutely controls him for the entire fight. He does not lay and pray, but is moving constantly, knowing what the opponent is going to do next and countering it. Watch one of his fights in Bellator, look into the face of the loser, and tell me he doesn't look completely beaten, both physically and mentally.

i agree about the yellow cards, i think they should start using them again. i dont see why fighters in the ufc get rewarded for lying on someone and stalling the fight, when in pride they were punished for it.

I still wish to see the 10-9 round scoring procedure to be eliminated.



I think a TKD, Judo, Wrestling, etc point system works better for an MMA bout. You should fight for your points.



For example, if a Fighter A drops Fighter B with a clean punch or kick or knee, then Fighter A is rewarded 2 points. If Fighter B accomplishes a takedown over Fighter A, then Fighter B is given a point. Half points for sweeps, reversals, defense, etc.