Serious Problem in UFC Scoring

[UseoForce]

This needs to be addressed, and I have yet to see a thread like this on any of the forums I frequent. I need your thoughts.

There are several fights that this would apply to, but I'll use the Stephan Bonnar vs. Rashad Evans fight as an example.

To summarize, neither fighter inflcited any siginificant striking on the feet or on the ground. Rashad Evans scored numerous takedowns and landed in Bonnar's guard each time. Bonnar launched a few submission attempts, but nothing that came close to finishing Evans. Rashad was awarded the decision.

Okay. I understand how the judges came to that conclusion under the current rules. Rashad had very dominant takedowns. Fine. That's not what this thread is about.

Flashback to Gracie vs. Severn. It took Royce nearly 16 minutesto submit "The Beast." That is almost a minute longer than the Bonnar-Evans fight.

Granted, I haven't seen the Gracie-Severn fight in its entireity, but (if I remember correctly) Severn got a takedown (or a few) and Rouce held him in his guard trying to secure a submission.

Just like the Bonnar-Evans fight.

If the Severn-Gracie fight had been stopped after 15 minutes (Like Bonnar-Evans), SEVERN would have been declared the winner for scoring takedowns and doing a bit of ground and pound.

Any UFC fan can see how that would have changed MMA as we know it today. There might not be a "Gracie legacy!" Let me repeat: If fought under the same rules as the the Bonnar-Evans fight, the Gracie's name might have fallen into obscruity.

The Problem: The UFC needs to devise a better system of scoring fights. At no point in the Bonnar-Evans fight was Stephan in any trouble, and he was closer to stopping the fight (by submisison) than Rashad was. I'm not saying Bonnar was robbed, but Rashad didn't do much to win either! This is MMA, not wrestling. The takedown, in and of itself, except in the case of a rare highly damaging slam, is immaterial. The early UFC's proved that. The Gracie's proved that. It is what happens after the takedown (GNP, submission) that decides a fight. I feel like we're taking a step backward.

I don't have a solution, but the UFC really needs to get its act together as far as scoring.

Your thoughts?

[Andrew_Patton]

yeah, there's several types of fights like that (ortiz v belfort, ortiz v griffin, two other examples) but the thing w/ the UFCs scoring is that it's really the NSAC that makes the rules (nevada state athletic commision) unlike say pride, they don't realize that in fifteen minutes (unlike boxing) whoever pushes the pace, tries to finish & does more damage should get the win... needs to be addressed though

[UseoForce]

Yeah. I don't really care how they change it just as long as they lay down specific guidelines and stick to them consistently. Right now scoring is based on" effective striking, grappling, aggression, and Octagon control." That's incredibly vague.

Tell me: What is effective grappling? Was it Evan's takedowns or Bonnar's submission attempts? Evan's takedowns showed dominance, but Bonnar was closer to finishing the fight.

It's a real problem.

[bushido_man96]

In my opinion, the takedowns shouldn't matter, it is what goes on afterward. If someone is working for a submission, and the other just holds, what should be done? How should it be scored? The person working for the submission is active, but the other person holding is defending, just in a less active way.

I don't think a scoring system similiar to wrestlings would work as a solution either. This is very tough to debate, as there doesn't seem to be a clear answer jumping out to us.

[UseoForce]

That's exactly what I mean.

[cathal]

I am not a big fan of the UFC, I'll watch it occasionally. But if this show is touted as the ultimate in full contact fighting...how is it that someone can be determined a winner when the two fighters are still lucid, standing, and ready to fight?

OK so there is a scoring system in place, which helps to counter the fact that many fighters can be relatively evenly matched. But common sense would dictate that after a long enough time one of them is going to falter.

What happens if one of the UFC fighters is losing, points are stacked up against him, and yet he KO's his opponent? Does he still lose the match because he doesn't have enough points?

[bushido_man96]

I am not a big fan of the UFC, I'll watch it occasionally. But if this show is touted as the ultimate in full contact fighting...how is it that someone can be determined a winner when the two fighters are still lucid, standing, and ready to fight?

OK so there is a scoring system in place, which helps to counter the fact that many fighters can be relatively evenly matched. But common sense would dictate that after a long enough time one of them is going to falter.

What happens if one of the UFC fighters is losing, points are stacked up against him, and yet he KO's his opponent? Does he still lose the match because he doesn't have enough points?

No, just like boxing, the KO always wins.

[UseoForce]

cathal, it IS the ultimate in full contact fighting. The scoring only becomes relevant if neither fighter is KO'd, TKO'd or submitted.

[cathal]

cathal, it IS the ultimate in full contact fighting. The scoring only becomes relevant if neither fighter is KO'd, TKO'd or submitted.

It hink that's relative. Any full contact system which concentrates on just one aspect of fighting (take downs, grappling) isn't the ultimate, imho.

[UseoForce]

The UFC does not focus on one aspect of fighting, it focuses on all aspects, that is why it is called Mixed Martial Arts.

Seriously, watch some UFC or better yet, train MMA awhile before making a statement like that. You're going to give newcomers the impression that the UFC is all about grappling, and that is totally false.