It seems that after every major MMA event questions about judging and scoring come up, and UFC 123 is no different. While most criticism always seems to fall on quality and education of the judges, the main event highlights something I’ve been saying for a long time now, which is that the rules are too ambiguous. How can we expect judges to supply reasonably consistent scoring when the rules are as so open to interpretation? I’m not saying that the 10 point must system is inherently bad. Nor am I suggesting that the scoring criteria be so granular that every move has a point value and all subjectivity is removed. But I am saying that the Unified Rules of MMA in their current form are difficult to sustain.
Ironically the last time I wrote about this was after Lyoto Machida’s controversial decision win against Mauricio “Shogun” Rua at UFC 104. While others have debated about who won the fight, Machida’s latest fight with Quinton “Rampage” Jackson provides us with a useful opportunity to take an in depth look at the scoring criteria, specifically what they are, how they are open to interpretation, and where they need to be clarified or changed.
The rules say that Judges shall evaluate MMA fights based on effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense, in that order.
Effective striking is judged by determining the number of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the significance of such legal strikes.
This seems pretty clear cut on the surface, after all a cross is worth more than a jab. But how significant are leg kicks, knees to the thighs and foot stomps, for instance? How is volume compared to significance? Is significance determined by the type of strike or the effect it has on the opponent? Are strikes really more significant than submission attempts?
Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
One would have to assume that the example of a bottom position fighter using an active, threatening guard is meant to represent submission attempts. But why does one have to make such assumptions about something as fundamental to MMA as submissions? Are submissions really as significant as reversals? Is forcing a fighter to defend against locked in submission as significant as holding someone down?
Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
Most of the criteria here seems like the things a fighter does to set up effective striking and grappling (and submissions). But some of the examples listed are exactly the same as effective grappling, such as passing the guard to achieve mount, creating threatening submission attempts and taking down an opponent. Does it count if a fighter counters an attempt at takedown by remaining standing and does not strike? Should the rules really indicate that a fighter is (or is not) a grappler? Rewarding fighters for dictating the pace, location and position of the bout requires that judges know every fighters preference for each of these aspects of the fight. Is this something judges should have to consider as opposed to what actually happens in the fight? Are judges expected to be able to interpret when a fighter is playing possum, is willing to fight off their back, or prefers to circle around the outside of the fighting area?
Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike or takedown.
Since effective striking and grappling is listed above one must assume that this refers to ineffective striking or takedowns. I suggest this is worthy of some clarification. Where does a judge draw the line between what is effective and what is not effective, but is still somehow significant. Why is effective aggressiveness determined by moving forward as opposed to just attacking, regardless of the direction in which you are moving?
Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.
The way the rules are written it is unclear whether 1) control of the fighting area and 2) effective aggressiveness and 3) defense are of equal or progressively less significance.
Should fighters have to change their fighting styles because the rules penalize them for throwing strikes while moving backward or sideways? Its not like they aren’t attacking or are running away.
All of these questions are left to the interpretation of the judges, and the way each judge resolves these questions can account for wide disparities in the manner that rounds are judged. Consider the first two rounds of Jackson vs. Machida:
In the first round Rampage was walking Machida down for the first 90 seconds of their fight when Machida kicked him in the leg. Who was winning at the point? At 2 minutes in Machida’s 4 leg kicks were the only strikes landed. That’s when really turned on the aggression, but 15 seconds later Machida clinched Rampage up and the only other strikes that had landed were another of his leg kicks. In the clinch Rampage landed some foot stomps, knees to the thighs and some light punches to the body. What are they worth? With 1:55 remaining Rampage landed an uppercut, the first major punch of the fight. Nothing else of significance happened in round, with Machida landing one kick to the body and pushing Rampage against the cage and landing some knees to the thighs. The round boiled down Rampage’s one uppercut vs. about half a dozen kicks from Machida. Rampage didn’t really show any significant advantage in the fighting area control or effective aggressiveness areas as the only times he moved forward was in the beginning of the round when he was getting kicked in the leg and during a flurry later on, that didn’t land any strikes. Machida was able to tie Rampage up multiple times and push him around. I can see giving the round to Machida, but a draw seems more appropriate.
Thirty seconds into the 2nd round they were tied up again, with both fighters having thrown strikes, but landing none. Its clinch seemed to be mutual though Rampage did have Machida’s back to the cage and started landing knees to the thighs and punches to the body until Machida reversed him and a knee to the groin by Rampage separated them. At 3:30 remaining no more strikes had landed and Machida tied Rampage up. Rampage landed a knee to the body, Machida reversed up against the cage, Rampage landed a few punches and elbows to the body. At 3:10 Machida landed a knee to the body and Rampage used it to take Machida down. Machida sat up immediately and Rampage held his legs until Machida stood up at with 2:45 remaining. Machida immediately put Rampage up against the cage for another 15 seconds until the separated. Right after the half way mark Rampage throws a right hook, and Machida blocks it, clinches and pushes Rampage up against the cage. Rampage pushes off the cage, lands a knee to the body, pushes Machida’s back against the cage and starts landing more elbows to the thigh and punches to the body. They quickly separate, Machida rushes in with a knee to the body and Rampage lands an uppercut. They walk each other out until Machida lands a leg kick and ties Rampage, pushing him against the cage. Machida fails to trip Rampage and they both land knees. They separate and right at the end of the round Rampage throws a right, Machida ducks and knocks Rampage to the ground. Rampage bounces back up and blocks a kick just as the bell sounds.
The 3rd round was pretty clearly Machida’s so I won’t go into it. But while watching the fight again, often in slow motion, what I found most interesting is how often, contrary to popular opinion, it was Machida that was controlling the space and pace, so often tying Rampage up and pushing against the cage, as well as defending.
Now that we’ve looked at what the judges need to look for, lets look at what the judges are supposed to do with that information as this is of equal importance and ambiguity.
Margins of the 10 Point Must System: Draws vs. Domination
The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;
1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round;
2. 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;
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
Where does ‘neither contestant shows dominance in a round‘ end and ‘a contestant wins by a close margin‘ begin? Where does ‘overwhelmingly dominance’ begin? What’s the difference between ‘overwhelming’ and ‘total’ domination?
How is it that in the spectrum of all possible fights outcomes and gradations of dominance we hardly ever see a 10-10 or a 10-8 round? What type of curve is being used to determine that almost every round is a 10-9? If the rules stipulate that judges have four grades to choose from when scoring a fight then we should see scores spread somewhat evenly across the spectrum even if they taper drastically at the ends. I can accept draws being rare and using the smallest criteria available to determine greater effectiveness. However, if that is the case then the bar for ‘overwhelming’ domination must be set correspondingly low. Conversely if draws are given out liberally and a significant amount of domination is required to win a round, then I can accept the bar for a 10-8 round being set correspondingly high. But neither is the case and that simply doesn’t make sense. And what’s more important is the lack of clarity offered in the rules.
On explanation for this is that in 3 or 5 round fights scoring a round 10-10 or 10-8 drastically increasing the chance that the fight will be scored a draw, and that’s not popular with fans or promotions. There are various potential remedies for draws including more rounds, over time rounds, must decisions, full fight scoring and half point scoring.
These question might seem excessively picky, but these are rules and rules should be specific. If you think the rules do not need to be more specific then don’t complain about the scoring or judges, because they might well be asking themselves these questions like a naked emperor wondering where are their clothes.
Full Fight Scoring
The FightMetric report shows that Rampage had a slight edge in round 1, the 2nd round was a draw, and Machida won the 3rd round by a large margin. Now whether or not you agree with the assessment of this particular fight, the possibility of this outcome is very real. The issue here, which is that not all 10-9 rounds are equal, plus the potential for a round being scored a draw, means that a fighter can do better overall, but still not win the fight. This has led many to mention how Machida would have won the fight under the Pride rules, which is ironic considering that Rampage used the Pride theme has his entrance music.
Does it make sense that a fighter can lose the fight, even if he beat his opponent? You can argue that those are the rules, but is that the way we want the rules to be or would we prefer to see rules that reflect who beat who up more?
Half Point Scoring
Another popular thought circulating recently and especially in reference the Jackson/Machida is Nelson ‘Doc’ Hamilton’s half point scoring system.
One thing that is not obvious in the name, but is essential to this system, is that not only does it change the scoring, but it changes the criteria used as well. In this system the criteria are 1) damage, 2) effective striking and grappling (including near submissions as determined by the referee), and 3) cage control. This criteria seem to be far more appropriate to MMA than the current criteria in the Unified Rules. Although I don’t know if I favor the referee having the additional responsibility of having to evaluate and signal to the judges whether a submission attempt is significant. But this can just as easily be determined by the judges without the referee’s involvement. In addition this system introduces a fourth judge that evaluates the fight as a whole and only comes into play to eliminate draws. Whether or not a fourth judge or the three existing judges play this role this would eliminate the reluctance on the part of promotions to score 10-10 or 10-8 rounds. As for implementing actual half points, this will have the same problems as the current system unless the distinctions between each scoring gradation are clarified. There are many varieties of improvements that can be made to the current rules. Which do you prefer? Whichever it is, I hope you can agree that, even though there will always be an inherent amount of subjectivity in judging fights, the rules need to be specific.
This seems pretty clear cut on the surface, after all a cross is worth more than a jab.
I don't think this is necessarily valid. A straight jab on an opponent moving directly into the line of the jab can have a much more deleterious effect on the opponent than a cross depending on where/how the cross lands.
But how significant are leg kicks, knees to the thighs and foot stomps, for instance?
The Unified Rules do not consider how significant strikes are, but rather, how effective they are.
How is volume compared to significance?
Again, volume is not a consideration under the Unified Rules. We may only consider how effective each technique is during each round.
Is significance determined by the type of strike or the effect it has on the opponent?
Presuming you mean effectiveness rather than significance, we can absolutely say that we're talking about effect on the opponent.
Are strikes really more significant than submission attempts?
In this particular statement I am guessing that you mean "significant" in the context of all techniques used in a round. As I'm sure you know, this is dependent upon the time spent standing or on the ground in the match. If 60% of the match is standing, then strikes hold more significance. If you mean which has more value in a round where there is 100% striking or 100% grappling, I'd again say that we have to view the attacks in terms of effectiveness:
Example – In a 3 round match that is 100% striking with zero grappling, each strike can be considered an attempted strike. Some of those attempts will be successful, among those that are successful, a small percentage will be powerful while others will be glancing or partially defended in some way as to negate a portion of the power. In every case where the strike connects there is at least some small measure of "effectiveness" at the very least, via accumulation over the course of the round. If it does not connect, it can be considered ineffective other than to show "aggression".
Example 2 – In a 3 round match where the contestants immediately clinch, shoot, trip, reap, throw, takedown or pull guard and exclusively grapple with zero striking, there will be elements of control, elements of dominant positioning, reversals/sweeps and submission attacks. Among the submission attacks, most will fail and thus be ineffective unless they lead to greater control, more dominant positions or reversals/sweeps. Therefore, a submission attack that does not lead to any of the aforementioned circumstances can truly be considered nearly completely ineffective other than to express a degree of "aggression" which of course is a completely different metric.
Vis-a-vis these examples, strikes that connect in any way are inherently more effective as the effects accumulate whereas submission attempts cause no damage and if defended successfully, cause no negative effects.
Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
One would have to assume that the example of a bottom position fighter using an active, threatening guard is meant to represent submission attempts. But why does one have to make such assumptions about something as fundamental to MMA as submissions?
I'm not 100% sure I understand your point here. If you're saying that the rule is ambiguous and is suggesting the official should make an assumption that the phrase "bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard" should say "bottom position fighters attempting submissions" I would say that's incorrect. The wording is intentionally worded to allow for submissions, actively unbalancing in an attempt to threaten sweeps/reversals, threats that are not submissions but effectively change the nature of the top person's control in the favor of the bottom person (such as cranks and joint locks for example). There are a number of active and threatening things a bottom position fighter can do that are not necessarily submissions.
Are submissions really as significant as reversals?
Clearly a submission is fight ending so no, not at all. If you are referring to submission attempts, I'm afraid again I'll defer to the definition of the word "effective". If a submission attempt is wholly unsuccessful even insofar as not gaining positional advantage nor negating the top position fighter's control, then yes, the reversal is absolutely more significant and more effective. Even if the submission attempt gains a measure of freedom from a certain control or yields a positional improvement, it can still be said that the reversal is more effective as dominant position offers more latitude for attacks.
Is forcing a fighter to defend against locked in submission as significant as holding someone down
I hate to sound like a broken record but this again comes down to effectiveness according to the Unified Rules. If the locked-in submission is defended or does not yield a submission, was it truly effective? This of course depends on the circumstance of the locked-in submission. Perhaps it drains the gas of the opponent by cutting off the air for a significant period of time in which case an argument can be made that the attempt was effective even though it failed. But perhaps it was a failed kimura or guillotine that was held for a long period but really did nothing more than burn out the arms of the attacker with no serious threat to the defender. These can be said to be ineffective unless the net result is to avoid being punched/elbowed in which case they demonstrate control.
Holding someone down on the other hand, demonstrates control and dominance, two significant elements of effective grappling.
Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler's attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
Most of the criteria here seems like the things a fighter does to set up effective striking and grappling (and submissions). But some of the examples listed are exactly the same as effective grappling, such as passing the guard to achieve mount, creating threatening submission attempts and taking down an opponent.
I can mostly agree with this statement however I don't see that as problematic in any way. Passing the guard to achieve mount is positional improvement in grappling and is awarded as such under most grappling tournament rules. This directly conforms to the concept of control of the fighting area as it determines location and position. "Creating threating submission attempts" means creating the circumstances necessary to perform the submission. If Fighter A trapped on the bottom under the control of Fighter B, it is up to Fighter A to create a positional change or circumstance that allows him to attempt a submission. Otherwise, Fighter B will win the metric of control of the fighting area under those conditions. This sets up a unique dynamic where Fighter A can exercise control over Fighter B and do nothing more while Fighter B must improve position or create the circumstances for a submission attempt. This is a moderate problem but can be mitigated by referees who call for action and may restart the action on the feet.
As for taking down the opponent, my position has always been that a takedown means nothing if nothing is actually done or the opponent simply gets back up for the metric of effective grappling. However, under the metric of control of the fighting area, there is some validity to awarding merit to takedowns; particularly if doing so places the opponent in a trapped position on the cage, corner or ring ropes where some fighters can take advantage of the environment to inflict more effective strikes or exercise more control. Furthermore, if the takedown is followed up by ground and pound, dominant positional control or effective grappling then I would grant that it merited award based on those criteria.
Does it count if a fighter counters an attempt at takedown by remaining standing and does not strike?
If Fighter A successfully defends Fighter B's takedown attempt and remains standing then it nullifies the attempt which should now be considered ineffective. If this continued several iterations I'd say that Fighter A now has demonstrated control of the fighting area by keeping the fight where he wants it to be regardless of all offensive attempts to relocate the fight to the mat. The key here is to consider this metric on it's own rather than introducing other elements like striking which is considered under the metric of effective striking. Of course a 3 round match with Fighter B attempting takedowns and Fighter A stuffing them without any striking would be extraordinarily uncommon.
Should the rules really indicate that a fighter is (or is not) a grappler?
I don't really understand that question at all, is that implied somewhere?
Rewarding fighters for dictating the pace, location and position of the bout requires that judges know every fighters preference for each of these aspects of the fight.
I strongly disagree with that statement. MMA judging should reward dictation of pace, location and position of the bout. If a fighter is aggressively pushing forward, he is dictating the pace, if he is driving the opponent into the cage, he is dictating the pace, if he is sticking and moving, he is dictating the pace, if he is patiently engaging to counterstrike, he is dictating the pace. On the other hand, if he is aggressively pushing forward and being sidestepped or out footworked into bad positions he is not dictating the pace. If he drives the opponent to the cage only to find he is reversed and trapped, he is not dictating the pace. If he is attempting to counterstrike but is being picked apart, he is not dictating the pace. And so on and so forth. The same can be said of location and position.
Is this something judges should have to consider as opposed to what actually happens in the fight? Are judges expected to be able to interpret when a fighter is playing possum, is willing to fight off their back, or prefers to circle around the outside of the fighting area?
The judges must only consider what they see in the fight based on their experience and knowledge of mixed martial arts. Playing possum, rope-a-dope and other tactics are only valid if they are effective. They do not relate to dictation of pace, location and position unless they actually demonstrate effective use of the position. If an opponent is playing possum and gets mounted and grounded & pounded, then clearly that didn't work. If he attempts to rope-a-dope the opponent and take advantage of him but instead gets TKO'd, again, it wasn't such an effective plan. If the opponent does want to fight off of their back they must take the fight there through effective grappling (including takedowns). If the fighter prefers to circle around the outside, this is acceptable as long as they continue to strike or risk censure by way of the timidity rule. If this proves effective, it will be plainly visible in how the striking plays out rather than interpretation of anything esoteric or ambiguous.
Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike or takedown.
Since effective striking and grappling is listed above one must assume that this refers to ineffective striking or takedowns. I suggest this is worthy of some clarification. Where does a judge draw the line between what is effective and what is not effective, but is still somehow significant. Why is effective aggressiveness determined by moving forward as opposed to just attacking, regardless of the direction in which you are moving?
I can see your point here, particularly with regards to moving in directions other than forward. I certainly would support more clarification here. Still, to me this rule has never been vague. Effective aggression means attacking and doing so effectively. Backpedaling, evading, sidestepping, etc… are defensive tactics. Counter-fighters like Machida often lose this metric but still win because despite the lack of aggressive forward movement, they secure more effective striking. I can't find any circumstance where you could call evasion movement "aggressive". If you're a boxing fan you can point to Hopkins, Vitali Klitschko, Holyfield, Mayweather and others who were also counter fighters but the critical thing in counter fighting is being accurate, fast and knowing when to swarm when the opponent is injured. The swarming moments are the only aggressive part of a counter fighter's attacks.
Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.
The way the rules are written it is unclear whether 1) control of the fighting area and 2) effective aggressiveness and 3) defense are of equal or progressively less significance.
This statement surprises me as it clearly states this in the rules:
13:46-24A.13 Judging
….
(c) Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.
(d) Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.
Should fighters have to change their fighting styles because the rules penalize them for throwing strikes while moving backward or sideways? Its not like they aren't attacking or are running away.
As I mentioned above, Effective Aggressiveness is not the most important element and certainly if it affords the fighter a win in the metric of effective striking it should not be sacrificed at all. Fights are won more decisively based on effective striking far more frequently than they are based solely on the metric of aggressiveness.
All of these questions are left to the interpretation of the judges, and the way each judge resolves these questions can account for wide disparities in the manner that rounds are judged. Consider the first two rounds of Jackson vs. Machida:
In the first round Rampage was walking Machida down for the first 90 seconds of their fight when Machida kicked him in the leg. Who was winning at the point?
This is a difficult question to answer and in my mind, respectfully, the wrong question to ask. We can only employ the 10-Point Must rules that allow us to say who, if anyone WON a round, not who was winning at any given moment.
Margins of the 10 Point Must System: Draws vs. Domination
The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;
1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round;
2. 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;
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
Where does 'neither contestant shows dominance in a round' end and 'a contestant wins by a close margin' begin? Where does 'overwhelmingly dominance' begin? What's the difference between 'overwhelming' and 'total' domination?
I concur, this is very subjective. However, this is why we have 3 judges which is supposed to help ward off the inherent subjective nature of this particular rule.
How is it that in the spectrum of all possible fights outcomes and gradations of dominance we hardly ever see a 10-10 or a 10-8 round? What type of curve is being used to determine that almost every round is a 10-9? If the rules stipulate that judges have four grades to choose from when scoring a fight then we should see scores spread somewhat evenly across the spectrum even if they taper drastically at the ends. I can accept draws being rare and using the smallest criteria available to determine greater effectiveness. However, if that is the case then the bar for 'overwhelming' domination must be set correspondingly low.
As I've mentioned before, I'm certainly a proponent of more 10-10 rounds but we do see 10-8 rounds from time to time. I wouldn't say there are an unreasonable lack of 10-8 rounds. Often we just don't see them on the cards since those bouts frequently end without the need to go to the judges' cards for a decision.
Conversely if draws are given out liberally and a significant amount of domination is required to win a round, then I can accept the bar for a 10-8 round being set correspondingly high. But neither is the case and that simply doesn't make sense.
I think that the 10-10 round is less acceptable to the judging community since it poses more controversy when it can usually be found that one of the two contestants won more of the metrics used to determine a win even if it was by a lesser metric like generalship.
And what's more important is the lack of clarity offered in the rules.
Agreed.
On explanation for this is that in 3 or 5 round fights scoring a round 10-10 or 10-8 drastically increasing the chance that the fight will be scored a draw, and that's not popular with fans or promotions. There are various potential remedies for draws including more rounds, over time rounds, must decisions, full fight scoring and half point scoring.
Here is where we get to the heart of the problem. So often people conclude that the rules are the problem. When I've argued that the rules are not perfect but I have yet to see a time when they can't be used to determine a winner, people change the target and say that the scoring must be changed. The problem with that is if we change the scoring, we're still using the same rules. If we change the rules, we're still using the same scoring. The problem isn't the rules or the scoring in my opinion. It is the education of the judges. Under educated judges or judges that are not in accordance with the general judicial body of mixed martial arts is the greatest problem here. Solve that and nearly all of these questions fade away (notable exceptions as you've aptly pointed out are where the rules could use more clarification).
Thanks for the in depth response. You have a many very good counter points, some so much so that I have no response.
The main point I'm driving at is that the scoring system is too open to interpretation. If I can question the rules then can't judges do the same? It looks like you think the rules are far more clear than I do.
Many of your responses center around my use of significance. You said "We may only consider how effective each technique is during each round" however the rules do not refer to effectiveness of a technique. They refer to the effectiveness of the fighter in the entire round – the effectiveness of their striking/grappling/aggressiveness/defense overall. In order to evaluate this overall effectiveness it is fundamental to understand the significance of each technique. Note that I'm not suggesting that a specific technique has the same significance in every application of that technique.
Likewise the volume of techniques is relevant when determining a fighter's overall effectiveness in a round.
You said "effect on the opponent" is what matters. Does that mean that it isn't as important that you land a flush technique, but that it has an effect on your opponent. That means it will be more difficult to be effective against a hardier opponent. What about how easily an opponent bleeds? Is that a factor in the "effect on the opponent?" You mention "drains the gas of the opponent" but these are not always things that judges have anyway way of determining. What if the choke was locked in until the end of the round? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only pointing out the need for more clarity.
My point about striking vs. grappling is that striking is given more weight than grappling. How much more weight?
You mentioned the relevance of the amount of time that the fight is spent standing or on the ground. This in itself is antiquated. Striking takes place standing and on the ground. Grappling takes places standing and on the ground.
Your position that "a takedown means nothing" is in direct conflict with effective grappling, in which a takedown into a dominant position is an example.
To answer your question there is a reference in the rules regarding "countering a grappler's attempt at takedown".
My issue with the wording of "control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense" in 13:46-24A.13 Judging is purely grammatical. It has to do with the use of commas, or lack thereof. But I do see that this is worded differently in the paragraph above.
If a round is judged based on the effectiveness of each fighter in that round, then I see no reason why judges shouldn't be able to determine who is winning a fight at any given point within that round. There is nothing magical that happens at the five minute mark. But my point is in the first 90 seconds Rampage was moving forward, but was getting intermittently kicked in the leg. Which is more effective? What if there were more or less kicks? This is very ambiguous.
I don't see how having three judges prevents, or even significantly diminishes, the results of the ambiguous scoring descriptions.
Saying that "I have yet to see a time when [the rules] can't be used to determine a winner" doesn't mean that the rules do not require clarification. Will everyone reading the same rules and watching the same fight from the same location score the fight the same way? I think its great that the rules are very clear to you, but does that mean that they are clear, are that you have your own clear interpretation. If multiple people are reading the rules and interpreting them differently, then we have a problem.
You said "We may only consider how effective each technique is during each round" however the rules do not refer to effectiveness of a technique. They refer to the effectiveness of the fighter in the entire round – the effectiveness of their striking/grappling/aggressiveness/defense overall.
If the question was asked, “how does one judge effective striking?”, I’d point to the rules that say, “Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal heavy strikes landed by a contestant.” In that regard, they do in fact refer to the effectiveness of a technique.
If the question were directed at grappling, I’d point to the rules that say, “the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals… take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.” The rules attempt to define by example what are considered “effective” techniques.
The sum of all of these effective techniques is what should be used to determine the effective striking (or grappling, or aggression or defense etc…) of the round overall.
In order to evaluate this overall effectiveness it is fundamental to understand the significance of each technique. Note that I'm not suggesting that a specific technique has the same significance in every application of that technique.
Likewise the volume of techniques is relevant when determining a fighter's overall effectiveness in a round.
I disagree here still if only by way of semantics. Again, the rules explicitly state “the total number of legal heavy strikes landed by a contestant.” If the contestant throws a high volume of strikes, the volume of strikes that can be considered “effective” are only those that are heavy and which land. The rest must be discarded. They can’t even truly be considered under the metric of effective aggression if they are moving forward but are not actually landing. So if Fighter A throws 198 strikes in a round but only 21 are considered effective striking since the rest were wild windmilling strikes, poorly thrown, missed, range finding or any number of other types of strikes, they simply don’t count toward the metric of effective striking as described by the rules. Thus, volume is for all practical purposes, only useful insofar as it relates to heavy strikes which land.
You said "effect on the opponent" is what matters. Does that mean that it isn't as important that you land a flush technique, but that it has an effect on your opponent. That means it will be more difficult to be effective against a hardier opponent.
You have a very good point. Looking closely at the rules to consider your question, I think the answer is not effect on the opponent as I previously stated. The answer should have been landing a flush technique as you correctly stated above. I’ll happily agree with you there.
What about how easily an opponent bleeds? Is that a factor in the "effect on the opponent?" You mention "drains the gas of the opponent" but these are not always things that judges have anyway way of determining. What if the choke was locked in until the end of the round? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only pointing out the need for more clarity.
No argument there, this is one area in particularly where I’ve felt that clarity would be useful. Although there are many situations where the effect is obvious (bleeding, stumbling, apparent exhaustion etc…) damage is not a criteria for judging. I have always felt that is a wise decision. There is a fine line that should be clarified where a technique may be considered effective and the actual effect of the technique.
My point about striking vs. grappling is that striking is given more weight than grappling. How much more weight?
Another excellent point. I don’t know how that could ever be answered better than the way it is currently stated that it is simply “more” and for precisely the reasons you point out below. Grappling does take place while standing but primarily standing is the realm of striking. If we consider all of the possible and likely elements of grappling that can occur on the feet (primarily clinching and takedowns) we’re still left with an overwhelming amount of striking.
Conversely if we make the same sort of consideration on the ground, a great deal of striking also takes place in MMA so it makes sense to me that striking is still more heavily weighted. I don’t think we can or should say exactly how much since every fight is different and to specify it would tie the hands of judges even further. This is one time where the ambiguity of the rules may actually be useful.
You mentioned the relevance of the amount of time that the fight is spent standing or on the ground. This in itself is antiquated. Striking takes place standing and on the ground. Grappling takes places standing and on the ground.
Your position that "a takedown means nothing" is in direct conflict with effective grappling, in which a takedown into a dominant position is an example.
This one is my fault, I get fairly ranty when I get on the topic of take downs. :)I stated specifically that this was "my position" but I failed to clarify that I am also aware that this is in direct conflict with the rules. I didn’t take the time to go too deeply into it. This is one particular rule that I disagree with (much like the 12 to 6 rule). I think that this rule should be modified to reflect the evolution of MMA and how common it is to negate the effect of takedowns or to gain a more dominant position or a strategic skill advantage while on the ground. Based on the actual rules, you’re quite correct although I hope this will eventually change.
To answer your question there is a reference in the rules regarding "countering a grappler's attempt at takedown".
My issue with the wording of "control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense" in13:46-24A.13 Judging is purely grammatical. It has to do with the use of commas, or lack thereof. But I do see that this is worded differently in the paragraph above.
If a round is judged based on the effectiveness of each fighter in that round, then I see no reason why judges shouldn't be able to determine who is winning a fight at any given point within that round. There is nothing magical that happens at the five minute mark. But my point is in the first 90 seconds Rampage was moving forward, but was getting intermittently kicked in the leg. Which is more effective? What if there were more or less kicks? This is very ambiguous.
Frankly I didn’t pay too much attention to that fight as several things were going on at my place during it so I can’t comment on it with any intelligence. What I would say however, is that I’m much less interested in who is winning at any given point during the round. My interest is in who has won the round. I realize a judge must actively keep track of who he believes is winning at any given time but what matters is the winner at the end of the round. That comes off a bit aloof in text but honestly, I don’t know how else to say it, we don’t don’t score partial rounds, we score the round at the end, which happens to be the 5 minute mark. Magical or not.
I don't see how having three judges prevents, or even significantly diminishes, the results of the ambiguous scoring descriptions.
The idea as I understand it is that there is an inherent subjective nature of judging combat sports. Since it is a zero-sum game (to win, one person must lose), it can be very difficult to judge close margins. We have two options that are supposed to be used as tools to mitigate this subjectivity under the 10-Point Must System: scoring a round 10-10 and the number of judges.
If we have only one judge, the subjective nature of the sport can lead to even worse controversy than we have now. If we have several judges (3-5 depending on the state/locale), then the majority decision must be used to determine the greatest consensus of who won the round. Like it or not, it seems like a more fair way to judge than a single person. I wouldn’t call it perfect but I don’t know of any better options.
As you likely know, 10-10 rounds are deeply frowned upon by Mark Ratner, the UFC's Vice President of Regulatory Affairs who has publicly and vociferously chastised and berated judges for awarding 10-10 rounds. Ratner has engendered a culture in MMA judging that does not support the use of the 10-10 option. This in many ways has crippled the effectiveness of judging in MMA in my personal opinion.
With such limited use of 10-10 scoring, closely contested rounds now fall into the hands of judges that often score 10-9 rounds and look for the most subtle factors that lead to victory of a round. I think this also lies at the heart of many controversial decisions that cause people to become so upset. Further, it makes the public (justifiably) even more confused as to what they are using to justify a 10-9.
Saying that "I have yet to see a time when [the rules] can't be used to determine a winner" doesn't mean that the rules do not require clarification. Will everyone reading the same rules and watching the same fight from the same location score the fight the same way? I think its great that the rules are very clear to you, but does that mean that they are clear, are that you have your own clear interpretation. If multiple people are reading the rules and interpreting them differently, then we have a problem.
Again, I totally agree. I would never say that the rules are anywhere near perfect. I’d love to see many things changed, clarified or modified. I just think that people are quick to attack the rules or the scoring system. I’m more for educating the judges and the public so we all are on the same page of what’s happening and what should be happening.
I don't think we necessarily have a problem if they are interpreted differently by multiple people. I think that's healthy and in fact it happens all the time in law, science and other disciplines. I think it helps people like you and me to think more carefully and critically about our own interpretations; modify them and crystallize our thoughts on the topic so that we may more intelligently speak to them. People do this every day on the topic of the constitution which I would argue is a supremely more complicated an meaningful document. I think it's good for MMA as long as it leads to amendments in the actual rules that help reduce the subjectivity and facilitate the right person winning in each bout in our beloved sport.
I don't see how having three judges prevents, or even significantly diminishes, the results of the ambiguous scoring descriptions.
The idea as I understand it is that there is an inherent subjective nature of judging combat sports. Since it is a zero-sum game (to win, one person must lose), it can be very difficult to judge close margins. We have two options that are supposed to be used as tools to mitigate this subjectivity under the 10-Point Must System: scoring a round 10-10 and the number of judges.
If we have only one judge, the subjective nature of the sport can lead to even worse controversy than we have now. If we have several judges (3-5 depending on the state/locale), then the majority decision must be used to determine the greatest consensus of who won the round. Like it or not, it seems like a more fair way to judge than a single person. I wouldn’t call it perfect but I don’t know of any better options.
As you likely know, 10-10 rounds are deeply frowned upon by Mark Ratner, the UFC's Vice President of Regulatory Affairs who has publicly and vociferously chastised and berated judges for awarding 10-10 rounds. Ratner has engendered a culture in MMA judging that does not support the use of the 10-10 option. This in many ways has crippled the effectiveness of judging in MMA in my personal opinion.
With such limited use of 10-10 scoring, closely contested rounds now fall into the hands of judges that often score 10-9 rounds and look for the most subtle factors that lead to victory of a round. I think this also lies at the heart of many controversial decisions that cause people to become so upset. Further, it makes the public (justifiably) even more confused as to what they are using to justify a 10-9.
Saying that "I have yet to see a time when [the rules] can't be used to determine a winner" doesn't mean that the rules do not require clarification. Will everyone reading the same rules and watching the same fight from the same location score the fight the same way? I think its great that the rules are very clear to you, but does that mean that they are clear, are that you have your own clear interpretation. If multiple people are reading the rules and interpreting them differently, then we have a problem.
Again, I totally agree. I would never say that the rules are anywhere near perfect. I’d love to see many things changed, clarified or modified. I just think that people are quick to attack the rules or the scoring system. I’m more for educating the judges and the public so we all are on the same page of what’s happening and what should be happening.
I don't think we necessarily have a problem if they are interpreted differently by multiple people. I think that's healthy and in fact it happens all the time in law, science and other disciplines. I think it helps people like you and me to think more carefully and critically about our own interpretations; modify them and crystallize our thoughts on the topic so that we may more intelligently speak to them. People do this every day on the topic of the constitution which I would argue is a supremely more complicated an meaningful document. I think it's good for MMA as long as it leads to amendments in the actual rules that help reduce the subjectivity and facilitate the right person winning in each bout in our beloved sport.
Rewarding fighters for dictating the pace, location and position of the bout requires that judges know every fighters preference for each of these aspects of the fight.
I strongly disagree with that statement. MMA judging should reward dictation of pace, location and position of the bout. If a fighter is aggressively pushing forward, he is dictating the pace, if he is driving the opponent into the cage, he is dictating the pace, if he is sticking and moving, he is dictating the pace, if he is patiently engaging to counterstrike, he is dictating the pace. On the other hand, if he is aggressively pushing forward and being sidestepped or out footworked into bad positions he is not dictating the pace. If he drives the opponent to the cage only to find he is reversed and trapped, he is not dictating the pace. If he is attempting to counterstrike but is being picked apart, he is not dictating the pace. And so on and so forth. The same can be said of location and position.
Is this something judges should have to consider as opposed to what actually happens in the fight? Are judges expected to be able to interpret when a fighter is playing possum, is willing to fight off their back, or prefers to circle around the outside of the fighting area?
The judges must only consider what they see in the fight based on their experience and knowledge of mixed martial arts. Playing possum, rope-a-dope and other tactics are only valid if they are effective. They do not relate to dictation of pace, location and position unless they actually demonstrate effective use of the position. If an opponent is playing possum and gets mounted and grounded & pounded, then clearly that didn't work. If he attempts to rope-a-dope the opponent and take advantage of him but instead gets TKO'd, again, it wasn't such an effective plan. If the opponent does want to fight off of their back they must take the fight there through effective grappling (including takedowns). If the fighter prefers to circle around the outside, this is acceptable as long as they continue to strike or risk censure by way of the timidity rule. If this proves effective, it will be plainly visible in how the striking plays out rather than interpretation of anything esoteric or ambiguous.
Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike or takedown.
Since effective striking and grappling is listed above one must assume that this refers to ineffective striking or takedowns. I suggest this is worthy of some clarification. Where does a judge draw the line between what is effective and what is not effective, but is still somehow significant. Why is effective aggressiveness determined by moving forward as opposed to just attacking, regardless of the direction in which you are moving?
I can see your point here, particularly with regards to moving in directions other than forward. I certainly would support more clarification here. Still, to me this rule has never been vague. Effective aggression means attacking and doing so effectively. Backpedaling, evading, sidestepping, etc… are defensive tactics. Counter-fighters like Machida often lose this metric but still win because despite the lack of aggressive forward movement, they secure more effective striking. I can't find any circumstance where you could call evasion movement "aggressive". If you're a boxing fan you can point to Hopkins, Vitali Klitschko, Holyfield, Mayweather and others who were also counter fighters but the critical thing in counter fighting is being accurate, fast and knowing when to swarm when the opponent is injured. The swarming moments are the only aggressive part of a counter fighter's attacks.
Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
One would have to assume that the example of a bottom position fighter using an active, threatening guard is meant to represent submission attempts. But why does one have to make such assumptions about something as fundamental to MMA as submissions?
I'm not 100% sure I understand your point here. If you're saying that the rule is ambiguous and is suggesting the official should make an assumption that the phrase "bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard" should say "bottom position fighters attempting submissions" I would say that's incorrect. The wording is intentionally worded to allow for submissions, actively unbalancing in an attempt to threaten sweeps/reversals, threats that are not submissions but effectively change the nature of the top person's control in the favor of the bottom person (such as cranks and joint locks for example). There are a number of active and threatening things a bottom position fighter can do that are not necessarily submissions.
Are submissions really as significant as reversals?
Clearly a submission is fight ending so no, not at all. If you are referring to submission attempts, I'm afraid again I'll defer to the definition of the word "effective". If a submission attempt is wholly unsuccessful even insofar as not gaining positional advantage nor negating the top position fighter's control, then yes, the reversal is absolutely more significant and more effective. Even if the submission attempt gains a measure of freedom from a certain control or yields a positional improvement, it can still be said that the reversal is more effective as dominant position offers more latitude for attacks.
Is forcing a fighter to defend against locked in submission as significant as holding someone down
I hate to sound like a broken record but this again comes down to effectiveness according to the Unified Rules. If the locked-in submission is defended or does not yield a submission, was it truly effective? This of course depends on the circumstance of the locked-in submission. Perhaps it drains the gas of the opponent by cutting off the air for a significant period of time in which case an argument can be made that the attempt was effective even though it failed. But perhaps it was a failed kimura or guillotine that was held for a long period but really did nothing more than burn out the arms of the attacker with no serious threat to the defender. These can be said to be ineffective unless the net result is to avoid being punched/elbowed in which case they demonstrate control.
Holding someone down on the other hand, demonstrates control and dominance, two significant elements of effective grappling.