Big John McCarthy

[ps1]

I've not seen anything but he is working on a scoring system just for mma. I'm sure that in his scoring system take downs alone won't mean so much especially if you don't do anything with them or can control your opponant on the ground. Also I think he'll have something about looking at sub attempts and how busy the guy on the bottem is. Just things that the boxing scoring system can't take into consideration. His scoring ayatem could only be better than what's currently in use.

Agreed! There's plenty of room for improvement!

[bushido_man96]

I've not seen anything but he is working on a scoring system just for mma. I'm sure that in his scoring system take downs alone won't mean so much especially if you don't do anything with them or can control your opponant on the ground. Also I think he'll have something about looking at sub attempts and how busy the guy on the bottem is. Just things that the boxing scoring system can't take into consideration. His scoring ayatem could only be better than what's currently in use.

That would be a good thing, especially when the fights go to the cards. Having a balance as to how things score will be beneficial. I don't know how they score them now, really. Are takedowns pretty heavily favored?

[ShoriKid]

Part of the trouble a lot of fight fans see in the scoring comes from a couple of key sources.

Based on boxing's 10 must system. The 'winner' of the round gets his 10 points based on effective striking, grappling, ring control and agression. And why, oh why do the judges in close fights never seem to want to go to the over time, "sudden victory" round?

Effective strinking is pretty easy to spot, most of the time, for the largely boxing based judges. The man landing the damaging strikes, defends well against the strikes and establishes the tempo of the up right fighting. In this case, the boxing model works pretty well. Although someone judging should have an understanding, no matter how basic, of what constitutes effective kicking and clinch work. Other than take downs, I feel that the clinch might be the most mis-scored portion of the fight.

Effective Grappling is where things get dicey. And submission attempt that nearly ends the fight should score. But, so should the brilliant escape that kept that attempt from ending things. Currently, this factor doesn't seem to enter into the judge's scoring system, or at least not well. If a fighter is defending well from the guard, effectively neutralizing the man on top's offense, that SHOULD be scored well. Currently, this is an un appriciated aspect. Repeated attempts as submissions that, while not nearly ending the fight, show activity of the attacker/defender along with their gameness and how "in the fight" they still are. Transitions should be getting scored right along with escapes.

Within the field of effective grappling is where, in my opinion, the take down problem arises. The fighter scoring the take downs is scoring points. It doesn't matter if he can't maintain control of the position once they hit the ground. Or wheather or not they mount any real offense (the imfamous lay and pray tactic/charge). Or even if they can't keep the person down. As long as they don't get caught in a submission/near submission, they are racking up points. Think of the man doing the taking down as a boxer/kick boxer scoring a knock down. That's the way the judges see them. They won't shift a point each time on the score cards, but the man with the most take downs is getting that point for the round. If all other things are equal, they win the round.

Ring control/agression as very, very vague scoring criteria contribute as well. The man making the take downs is seen as instigating the action and atempting to control the location and pace of the fight. Never mind that he may have been getting hammered in the face three seconds prior. Never mind that the other fighter didn't really even defend against the take down, not because he couldn't, but because he was confortable in another aspect/range of the fight, and began gaining dominant position and atempting submissions soon after hitting the mat.

If Big John is working on putting forward a scoring system, I would love to see what it is. If any is qualified to try to work something like that out he is. Between his MA experience and his time reffing, the man knows who's winning a fight. He's in there nose to nose with these guys. So I wish him all the best in his current and future endevors and will miss him in the sport as much as any major fighter of whom I was a fan.

[bushido_man96]

Welcome aboard, ShoriKid! Thanks for the info on the scoring.

Perhaps the UFC scorers need to look into some of the different scoring systems used in Wrestling. Not all of the point scoring ideas will apply, like back points, for instance, but scoring for transitions, reversals, takedown to the back and/or front, as well as escapes, should be looked at. Submission attempts, on the other hand, I don't think should score unless they get locked on, but that usually ends the fight, anyway. If you want to score submission attempts, then you have to figure out a way to score submission defense, too, as you mentioned.

[pittbullJudoka]

As Shori mentioned the effective striking is easy to spot. I have a real problem when a fighter looses a fight when due to the judging basically going on the striking aspect of the game.

If a fighter is taken down and can escape with little to no damage without the ref standing them up they nullified the takedown.

Sub attempts: If a fighter is fighting off his back and throwing up sub attempt keeping his foe busy they should get the credit for aggression and ring control.

Another thing I have noticed with the UFC is that if the fight stays up the fighter who moves forward the most whether they a being beat to a bloody pulp will win a match.

A great example of a fighter winning a fight due to take down points Tito and Forrest. Tito largely won round one, but round two and three were all Forrest and he nullified the take downs by stuffing the shots and standing up with eas. Tito clearly won round one hands down.

The judges for mma in my opinion need to be educated in all aspects of mma before judging said type of match.

We'll have to wait and see what comes of this.

[bushido_man96]

How many matches, just out of curiosity, have any of us seen that we would be willing to argue our points about overturning a scorecard decision in a victory? As for me, I can't think of many that I really shook my head at, but I am not that well seasoned with the points, either. Nor have I been able to watch many fights lately.

[pittbullJudoka]

In the past year or so I think as Shorikid stated there have been some that needed to go to the optional over time rounds which they refer to quite often but never use.

Bisping vs. Hamil

Sakuraba vs. Gracie 2

I'm sure there's more but I missed a few events this year.