2 Scoring System reforms?

I'd like to propose 2 reforms to the scoring system to the house and see where we stand.

1. The scoring system should be widened and broadened to reflect more degrees of action in a round.
2. The scoring system should be opened, so after each round, the fighters knew how the judges scored a round. 

The first reform would allow degrees of damage or control.  Instead of the routine 10-9, change it to make a 10-9 an EXTREMELY close round.

Maybe make 10-8 a fairly close round.
Maybe make a 10-7 a routine close round.

Make a 10-6 a pretty lopsided round, like Edgar/Maynard, round 1 of their first fight.
Make a 10-5 a ridiculous one-sided round, like Lesnar/Herring.

By making the scoring system open, it will sever a vestige of boxing.  Many corners tell their fighters too optimistic advise.  If the judges' scores were known, all fighters would be able to adjust their strategies according to reality, instead of wishful thinking.

What says the house?

* Edited at 02.19.2012, 2:34 PM ET *

This is what I suggested days ago


Edit: we'll not the open scoring bit. That's a tough call

* Edited at 02.19.2012, 2:18 PM ET *

I think the judging needs a lot more changes, but throwing out this rediculous and outdated 10-9 must scoring system would be a great first step. I don't necessarily know if the scoring need to be open tho, I'm stll mulling that over. I think a corner giving a fighter too optimistic advice is simply a matter of bad cornering (except for a VERY close fight) and not necessarily a flaw in the scoring system. I, for one, wouldnt want to know the round scores before the end of the contest. Imagine if we knew the scores of Shogun-Hendo at UFC 139. I don't think I woudve enjoyed the fight as much as I did now.

great point @rmepeters..for every great 3rd rd we would get if both fighters knew they had a round a piece we would have a lot of fighters playing it safe knowing for sure he was up 2-0

i'm not sure i like the open scoring idea, i think the solution is incredibly simple. take away the 10pt must system, if you allow for 10-10 rounds i think that would change a lot of the bad scores. i also think if you take away the 10pt must, more judges would be more likely to give out 10-8 rounds

the fact that 10-8 rds are almost never called is why you don't see 10-7 rds...if maynard/edgar rd1 in either of their last 2 fights weren't 10-7, then 10-7 rds don't exist

 

After so many said they supported reforming the scoring system in different threads, where are they now?  Don't let a good thread die.

Isn't this subject worth discussion?  

Iv'e said something along these lines quite a few times on this site..... Although I disagree with going as far as 10-5 and I have no idea why you would want to divulge the scores to the fighters round by round...it just seems pointless to me.

@jaff  I would like the scores to be posted publicly for 2 reasons.

1. Fan information
2. Fighter awareness

Too often a fighter might believe he's ahead and hence goes on cruise control.  Auto pilot, when they should be going all out to ensure the win.

I think more fights are evenly matched at one round each, more often than having a fighter with 2 rounds and then cruising.  But even if the one ahead were to cruise, the fighter who was behind would know they had to go for the stoppage and finish the fight.

If a fighter knows he is leading 2 round into the 3rd it will make him fight super safe. It's a bad thing. People are just angry because some people decide to guess they are leading and not fight their heart out but that's their mistake.

As for the 10-8 10-6 etc. It makes no sense. It's a 3 round fight. It's hard to get back form a 1 sided round. It would be better to just judge the whole fight.

@krazyhopz 10-10 rounds are allowed under the current system. 


 @Bill Burges The reasons you listed are the exact reason I don't think they should be public. If a fighter knows he's ahead in two close rounds he's almost guaranteed to cruise. Rather than his corner blowing smoke up his ass and thinking he's ahead. It's easy to cruise and take no risk if you know you're ahead rather than think you're ahead. As for fans knowing a fighter is ahead it can suck excitement out of the final round especially if the first 2 rounds were close. 


 As far as scoring fix I think the half point system is the best. Since judges can give 10-10 but don't like to the .5 point would allow and edge to one fighter of course this increases the chance of Draws.

* Edited at 02.20.2012, 4:38 PM ET *

Decimal scoring system.  10 - 9.7 for a close round... 10-9 for a clearly won round .. its th best way.. so if someone barely loses a round they get 9.5 and up and then if they lose the next round decisvely give a 9. best way for scoring fights like Sanchez-Guida, Rua Henderson, 

@norbar my problem with whole fight judging is instead of stealing rounds in the last minute of the round they could lose the first 2 rounds and have a good last couple minutes and steal the fight.

I think they should do away with scoring based on aggression and octagon control. These are very misleading judging criteria for a fight. 

t0rch aggression and cage control are minor criteria already and only really factored in when someone didn't win the two main criteria of effective striking and effective grappling. I know a lot of people think the scoring is really broad that the four elements aren't explained but it is very detailed. 

Below is the current NSAC judging criteria for those who don't know it and if you look that that and explain what part needs to be changed. 

VIII. JUDGES

A. No judge will have a financial interest in any fighter he judges.

B. No judge will be a manager/trainer of any fighter he judges.

C. In a bout goes to it's full time limit, the outcome will be decided by a majority decision of
three, (3), MMAC judges.

D. A judge is accredited, sanctioned and selected based upon his character, experience, stature in the MMA world, knowledge of MMA systems and impartiality.

E. Judging Criteria
1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it's full time limit based upon the following criteria:
-Clean Strikes
-Effective Grappling
-Octagon Control
-Effective Aggressiveness

F. Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking.

I. Effective Grappling
1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean takedown and active guard position.
2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly takedown his opponent, is effectively grappling.
3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple, through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous defense from the top fighter.
4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.
5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the preceding situations were met.(items 2-4)
6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored the clean takedown deserves the round.
7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling

J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

K. Effective Aggressiveness
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring) 
2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness.

L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded. Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it 
in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations
that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the 
criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is 
imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
-octagon control
-effective aggressiveness
M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and 
control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike
-by submission attempt
-from a throw
-from clean strikes either standing or grounded.

N. Judge's Scorecard Procedures
After each round:
1. each Judge will determine and record a score each round
2. a MMAC official will collect the scorecard after each round
3. the MMAC official will track and add each Judges score by round
4. If the fight goes the time limit, the MMAC official will add each Judge's scorecard and double check total
5. the fighter with the greater number of points wins the fight on each Judges scorecard
6. the fighter who won on the majority of the Judges Scorecards, wins the fight
7. the MMAC official will hand the decision to the PA announcer

O. Types of Judge's Decisions
1. If all three scorecards agree Unanimous
2. If two of three scorecards agree Split
3. Two scorecards agree and one draw Majority
4. two scorecards agree on draw Draw
5. all scorecards different Draw

IX SCORING SYSTEM

A. The MMAC and UFC have adopted a 10 point must system.
The Judge will use the criteria to determine a winner each round. The three step procedure per round is as follows:
-determine winner of round (can be draw)
-determine if winner dominated round
-fouls then factored in (subtract one point per foul from fighter)

B. Draws are again acceptable in MMAC events

C. Point Totals
1. two fighters who draw are given a score of 10-10
2. the fighter who wins a round is given a score of 10-9
3.The fighter who dominates a round is given a score of 10-8
(a score of 10-7 is possible for a dominant round)
4.For each foul a fighter commits, a point is subtracted. This deduction can change a winning round to a draw. 9-9

@bigj but that's not a problem. I know it's not a streetfight but mma should imitate some kind or fighting. In a fight it matters if you looked better and done more damage/put someone in more dangerous situations. If you done more damage, even if it was in 1 round and the other 2 close but your oponent got a close win you should win. 

@norbar, I completely agree. 

@norbar you're right MMA is not a street fight, it's a sport, and should be judged as a sport. Since the fight is not fought in one continuous stanza it should not be scored as one continuous stanza. The best example is a grappler who puts a clinic like Dilashaw did to Watson for 2 rounds but lets say in the last 2 minutes of the 3rd round he gets clipped and dropped and swarmed a little but survives gets back to his feet with the last 20 seconds and fights out the round. The judges can easily steal that fight and ignore the dominate first 10 minutes even 12 minutes and give to someone who had one real good shot in a 15 minute fight. Because the judges always remember best what they see last and without recording a score in between each round to say who won that stanza. Why does it matter the fight is fought in stanzas and should be scored that way? Because a grappler having dominate position has to give it up despite being active, he could have a fighters back and a choke sunk but has to give it up if the round ends. A striker who has his opponent rocked has to stop punching him and let him recover when the round ends. Therefore the fight is not fought as a whole so should not be scored as a whole. If the fight was one continuous 15 or 25 minute fight with no break then score the fight as a whole because it was fought as a whole. 


The problem isn't scoring fights by rounds because logically if you won the majority of the rounds you won the majority of the fight. The only problem is when you have 2 close rounds vs 1 dominant round which is where the half point system would come in have two 10-9.5, 10-9.5, 9-10 which would get at least a draw or 8.5-10 or 8-10 which would give him the win.  

"Since the fight is not fought in one continuous stanza it should not be scored as one continuous stanza"

I don't see why that is a point. You judge the performance in the fight and who was the better fighter. Right now you have a cup format that allows people to coast. A whole fight format will keep fighters on their toes and even if they won't KO someone if they come very close they might win the fight even after loosing the 2 first. It will lead to more exciting fights and definately less boring 3rd rounds. 

Though you have a valid. My idea requires more competent judges that know of the end fight bias. Your idea might work too.