As fighters become increasingly well-rounded and skilled, MMA fans are seeing more and more fights that are labelled as “controversial” decisions. Most of the rest of community just calls them, and I quote, “WTF, SMH”.

Oopsies?

The Problem:

The criteria for winning a round are super nebulous.

Example from the Unified Rules:

The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:

i. a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;

ii. a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

iii. a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

iv. a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

Yes, “overwhelmingly” versus “totally”. The lamest match-up in adverb history.

Add to that the disdain for viewing draws:
“Currently, 10-10 rounds are permitted under the Unified Rules, but judges are often dissuaded from using them by the overseeing commission.” (1)

Facepalm.

The vagueness leads to judges having almost customized standards, but the commissions stern recommendations cause most tending to err on the side of caution. (2) For many judges, there is no gradient for advantage; it’s a binary choice. Who gets the “10” and who gets the “9”? 10-8’s rounds are very infrequently scored, and 10-7’s are rarer than lotto-winning Yetis.

Of which we know at least one.

There have been attempts to fix this: one proposed rule-set was the Half-point System, which essentially has the same problem of lack of clarity (3). Another was an action-based points system, which I find better, but seems be too different from our current system to be implementable any time soon, if the Fertitta’s are to be believed. (4) We need something that doesn’t change the structure of judging too drastically, but can be adopted by large organizations and athletic commissions without any noticeable difference except in better decisions being given.

A solution!

Criteria, using observable and measurable means, and relying less on impressions and prior knowledge. Judges should primarily award attempts to finish the fight, and have a couple minor criteria so they can offer
Primary Criteria:

1. A near (T)KO (A knockdown automatically meets this criteria). May be scored multiple times in a round.

2. A near submission finish. A tight choke or joint-lock attempt would meet this criteria (a fighter giving up position to defend against the submission would automatically meet this criteria). May be scored multiple times in a round.

3. Landing at least 50% more significant strikes than the opponent on the round. May only be counted if criteria 1 was not met. May only be counted once per round. May only be counted if there are more than 20 total significant strikes in a round.

4. In a ground fighting situation, actively* controlling the opponent for 60 seconds more than he/she was controlled in that round. May only be counted once per round.
* “Actively” means with the a continual attempt to cause damage or advance position. “Laying and Praying” will not suffice. A submission in action counts as control. Attacking from guard counts towards the bottom fighter.

Is this system perfect like a Hawaiian sunset or Nutella? No, but it’s way better than what we have now, which might be compared to Nordic hail...or Vegemite.

No offense.

How do we apply all of this?

For each round, fighters are attempting to meet as many criteria as possible, capische?

Criteria 1 and 2 can be met multiple times. While Criteria 3 and 4 can only be counted once.

If a fighter has met one more criterion than the opponent, the round is 10-9 in their favor.

If the fighter has, for example, knocked their opponent down AND also actively controlled them on the ground for the majority of the round, they’ve met two criteria. The round is 10-8 in their favor.

If the fighter is a werewolf-cyborg, and accumulated three or more criteria, they have earned themselves a 10-7.

If neither fighter has met a criterion or they’ve earned the same amount, the round is scored 10-10. In my experience, roughly a third of rounds are draws.

If the fighter has accumulated any amount of criteria, but their opponent has also met at least one criterion, the fighter has earned a 10-9 round in his favor. Why not just subtract and use the difference? My reasoning is simple: 10-8 and 10-7 should be reserved for dominant performances and a truly dominant performance by a fighter would not include them being threatened in the round.

To be Continued...

------------------------

Thank you for reading! I seem to have run into an impasse: I do not yet know how to create tables in Steemit! I'll be continuing this article with an example bout and scoring sheet soon.

In the meantime, here are a couple other posts I've written that you might dig:

A BJJ instructional video I shot

My Introduction

------------------------
Sources:

(1) http://mmadecisions.com/ten-ten-report/

(2) http://www.bjpenn.com/scorecard-for-miocic-vs-hunt-reveals/

(3) http://mmajunkie.com/2012/07/abc-demurs-on-half-point-system-in-pilot-program-scoring-criteria-modified

(4) http://www.mmafighting.com/2014/5/11/5580152/college-professer-attempts-to-revamp-mixed-martial-arts-fight-scoring