A few days ago I wrote an article where I presented an adjustment to the 10- point Must System I called “Flex scoringâ€. I applied to the two fights that went to decision on UFC 77 card last Saturday, and printed my results. I also asked readers and MMA media members to write in with their own thoughts about changing scoring at the state athletic level and what they thought about present scoring ( I sent out a lot of personalized e-mails, I’m not that popular yet!).
I felt a follow up with some results, feedback, and thoughts was in order. The first thing that’s glaringly obvious, though unfortunately not surprising, is that for every million that like to bitch and complain loudly, there’s barely one that will take the initiative to act. I got one e-mail from a reader, along with a few comments via blog feedback or on message boards. Most of my responses were at least somewhat solicited from media members, which I’m grateful for. Even with the low turn out the results were encouraging to me. I never felt that my system was fool proof or the definitive answer, or really that I was the only person in the world to think of trying it. But it was a jumping off point, and from here we can continue the discussion with some findings.
Many responses reflected the idea of the system staying the same, but with more liberal usage of 10-10 and 10-8. That, to me, might be the best case scenario to go forward with. A few had a fair criticism, feeling more points to work with was just more chances for judge screw ups or differentiating views (a 10-6 and 10-9 in the same round, perhaps). Still others had ideas of keeping scoring the same, but making more rounds with less time in each round.
I again encourage the talk to go forward and for the discussion to continue. E-mail me with any ideas and thoughts, even if you have no intention of changing the world. Perhaps the system should stay, and if so, lets be sure. Your opinion is as subjective as the judging, and as someone pointed out, perhaps the human error factor, or the chance for it, is a good thing.
Luke Thomas at the great Bloodyelbow.com, who’s rant about Fightlinker’s great contribution via blog inspired me, was kind enough to send along some words. I want to thank him again and share his thoughts with you:
John,
Thanks for kind words and the feedback. At times I get discouraged as well.
It's important to seek out voices who lead the march forward. I don't even
presume to put myself in that category, but as long as I have some sort of
an audience I'll beat the drum. If people listen, that's great.
Hope all is well.
Luke
Rami Genauer of MMAWeekly and MMA Madness sent along some good thoughts. I hope to continue
talking with Rami, and hope you’ll all hear from him, as he’s got
several good analytical words back and forth in e-mails we’ve exchanged:
Hi Johnny,
Got to your piece via Fight Opinion. Any piece dealing with fight scoring
catches my attention and I'm always on the lookout for new and intelligent
ways to look at decision criteria. I think your idea is a good one, but I
have some reservations. First, I'm concerned that the criteria for calling a
round 10-8 or 10-7 or even 10-6 are unclear. Part of what irks everyone
about the current system is that different judges value different techniques
differently. People are resistant to setting hard and fast rules for MMA
scoring, but I think that one would need to if they tried to use a system
such as yours in a three round fight. With only three frames, every single
point is crucial and giving judges more leeway to choose points arbitrarily
would probably anger more than it soothes. I've suggested in the past that
someone establish set events that lead to point deductions. Knockdowns are
the obvious starting point, but solid submission attempts, lenghty periods
of time in mount or back control, and probably some other things should
result in automatic point losses.
Best wishes,
-Rami
Christian, from the blog comments:
This has some potential. I look forward to see you use this scoring on 25-30 fights to see how it comes out.
Todd Martin of CBS Sportsline and WrestlingObserver.com
In regards to your ideas, I think that a more liberal usage of
the full 10 points makes sense. There doesn't even necessarily
need to be a strong change. Just using 10-8 more liberally or
10-10 more liberally would make a big difference. It would be
nice to change the system where whoever wins 2 rounds is the
winner, because not all rounds are created equally. Although the
first Robinson-Gurgel round I wouldn't score 2 points apart if
it were a 100 point must system! Gurgel accomplished nothing
for all his efforts to pass guard and get mount.
Todd
Pramit Mohapatra wrote me Tuesday:
About your article re: the flex scoring system, I like the thought.
I've written a number of blog entries about MMA scoring so I'm on board for a
change in the current system. 10-point must absolutely doesn't work for
MMA. When I can fit it in (maybe after the next scoring controversy) I'll
link to your entry from my blog because it is thought-provoking.
Thanks again.
Pramit
The next incident was on The Ultimate Fighter, ONE night later! Here’s The Pramit Mohapatra Blog for Baltimore Sun w/ TUF episode featuring scoring trouble
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/mma/blog/2007/10/tuf_6_episode_6_recap.html
The man who broke the Nazi in ProElite story, Ryan from Fightlinker.com:
As for the scoring system, I've always said the problems have to do more
with chickenshit judging than an issue with the 10 point must system. In
effect, the 10 point system is nothing more than a fighter getting one point
or two points more than his opponent based on his efforts. This shouldn't be
hard to fuck up except for the fact that judges are morons, and if you give
them even more leeway than just 2 points, they'll fuck shit up even worse.
So that's the problem with any other judging system out there ... your
system may be better, but it's not more idiot-proof than the existing one.
Anyways, take it easy and I enjoy your site!
Ryan
Adam Swift of MMA Payout.com, a great business perspective on MMA that everyone should make time for:
From a business perspective, I think you can make a good argument both ways. On
the one hand, controversy is cash, but on the other hand bad judging hurts the
credibility of the sport. I don't think there is any doubt that adding 10-10
rounds along with more frequent 10-8 rounds would make for fewer "bad" decisions.
However, it would also mean more draws and in my mind a bad decision is better
than a draw for business in most situations.
Ultimately, from a competitive and business standpoint, I'd like to see five
three-minute rounds. I think you would get more explosive rounds at three minutes
and more accurate decisions with five rounds.
Regards,
Adam Swift
Jordan Breen of Sherdog replied to me. It should be noted
that Jordan helped in forming my thoughts with his persistence
about 10-10 and 10-8 rounds in the last six months, and that was
a theme of many e-mails. Also, I told Jordan I’d take selections,
but I couldn’t choose. It’s all really good thought provoking
stuff, so I apologize to him. If you have a problem with so-called
strong language, skip this one. I don’t:
John,
First of all, thank you. Glad I could inspire you in some way.
Secondly, I don't want to argue about who won rounds or whatever, though I
do think round one of Sylvia-Vera was a round for Sylvia. However, I will
say that this email isn't my first asking my opinion on far more flexible
scoring, and I'm sure it won't be my last. So, here's my beef...
Judging, like anything, is about balance. Part of the problem with judging
in North America is a lack of options. Many judges are reluctant to give out
10-8s (while Sylvia and Robinson each got one on Saturday night, robinson
far more deservedly), and North American judges generally abhor 10-10 rounds
in MMA and boxing. So they get forced into 10-9, 10-9, 10-9, 10-9, 10-9 all
the time.
The reason that I don't think a highly, highly flexible system of scoring
works when you're introducing realistic possibilities of 10-7 and 10-6 is
that really, you're giving TOO much choice. It's no secret I don't like to
speak about events without some kind of sustentative basis, but this is
one I will. If you have judges who can't figure out how to judge MMA now, do
you really want Dalby Shirley in charge of deciding what a 10-6 round is? If
this kind of scoring was in play, you're reducing the theoretical interval
of damage to a point where inevitably, one judge will have a round 10-8, and
the other will have it 10-6. And I guarantee that it would be common with
different guys being all over the fucking map. And the more scenarios you
think about in MMA, I think the more terrifying the proposition of Judge X
dropping a ridiculous score becomes.
The reason I like moving more toward 10-10's, and a bit more liberal use of
10-8s, is that really, short of a guy taking the beating of a century and
making it out, a 10-7 isn't going to happen, so you're left with three
options. Was it too close to give it to one guy, one guy definitely won, or
one guy really beat the other guy's fucking skull in. That's easy, it's
intuitive. A flexible system, you're looking at... was it too close to call?
Was it sorta close but one guy sorta won? One guy clearly won? One guy
really clearly won and did some damage? One guy really did a lot of fucking
damage? It becomes more and more subjective and with the theoretical
interval getting so much smaller into in terms of what constitutes "this
much dominance equals this score", you'll just have people all over the
fucking place.
I think if anything, the best barometer is this: take the most tried and
true indictments of the current system, and put them against two
alternatives.
Example: Fighter 1 and Fighter 2 engage in two extremely close rounds,
Fighter 2 clearly wins the last.
Current system's caveat: Fighter 1 ends up winning 29-28.
With 10-10s used more liberally but really not much beyond a 10-8 short of
death, here on out known as System 1: 10-10, 10-10, 10-9, 30-29, and Fighter
2 wins. The general broadness of the interval suggests that anything really,
really, really close will go 10-10, and thus any clear winner becomes an
easy 10-9.
Flex scoring you propose, here on out known as System 2: If two rounds are
really, really close, but judges have more numbers at their disposal, the
first two rounds could be 10-9 either way. More options press the idea that
even if its close, someone won a 'little bit'. So you'll still have 10-9
somewhere probably. Then, what if Fighter 2 wins clearly, but doesn't own
Fighter 1 in the final round? He could end up with 10-8, which could lead to
a draw. That's no good, is it?
Example: Fighter 1 solidly wins the first two rounds. Fighter 2 rapes
Fighter 1's brains out in round three.
Current system's caveat: 10-9, 10-9, 9-10, 29-28 for Fighter 1 after getting
his shit pushed in.
System 1: 10-9, 10-9, 8-10, 28-28 draw. Seems fair to me.
System 2: Who the hell knows? There's a bit of logic behind saying 10-8,
10-8 6-10, 26-26 draw would produce the same result. But this is the
intrinsic flaw. With more options and more subjective variance, how likely
are judges to pick those scores? What happens if the round three assbeating
only gets a 10-7 from the judges? Then Fighter 2 comes up short.
So, yeah. That's my take. You need a little more variance to allow judges
the opportunity to call fights right, but not so many options that retards
like Shirley and Trowbridge lose their fucking minds.
-jâ€
From message board reader “DrunknIrish†Interesting article. I think your flex system will tend to get to complicated. I am 100% in agreement with Meltzer’s take on this subject. Because of the athletic commisions, I dont see the 10 point must system changing. What can change is education to the judges as to what to look for in MMA vs boxing… and a more liberal use of 10-10 and 10-8 rounds. I wouldnt want to get into 10-7 or 10-6 rounds as your system calls for. At least not yet. Maybe that can be a second evolution/solution to scoring.
I think the judges may have been reading Meltzer’s comments as well, because there were more 10-8 rounds in this fight than I can remember. Using 10-8’s and 10-10 will be the best way to “mimic” the Pride sytem of scoring.
Here’s my take on the fights you mentioned. Gurgel dominated the first round but did absolutely no damage. He had dominant control, but had to sub attempts and did no damage with strikes. You gave Gurgel 10-8 and adjusted to 10-7 for this round. I would have kept it 10-9 Gurgel. If this was a BJJ competition only, maybe he deserved 10-8. Round 2 was all Robinson, I would have scored 10-9 for Robinson. I would have to watch again to see if he deserved a 10-8 (I wasnt thinking of this when watching the fight). The third round saw complete domination and devastation by Robinson. Clear 10-8 round for him. 29-27 Robinson. I think this scoring concurs with 2 of the 3 judges.
Now… maybe a little more controversial… The Vera/Sylvia match. I think one could have easily scored the first round 10-10. No one really did anything. Giving the round to Sylvia because he kept Vera pushed up against the cage is stupid. Second round clearly went to Vera with the takedown and the final flurry of kicks and strikes at the end. (10-9 Vera). Third round clearly was Sylvia’s. Tim did nothing to deserve a 10-8 in this round imo. Never came close to finishing and never had Brandon in trouble… 10-9 Silvia. Final score… 29-29 draw. I think this decision would have been good. It would have let fighters know that they have to fight. If they know that judges wont give you a round for holding a guy against the cage the whole round, guys would stop doing it.
From Mike Jarsulicat MMA Torch:
Broadening the scoring system is always a good idea. The reason for such liberal use of the 10-9 round in the current system is to avoid a draw. In my opinion, a fight that is a draw should be scored as a draw so this is not a problem with me. A larger problem in MMA judging is how do you judge striking vs. grappling. For example, is a submission attempt meant to finish a fight that does no damage weighted more or less that ground and pound from an opponent’s guard that does some damage but is only an attempt to score points.
FFF, MMA Torch forum Member:
My one concern here is that, while johnnyp’s system is adjusted and does seem to favor aggression over trying to eke out a victory, it only adds a few more degrees to an already subjective scoring process. What’s the difference if you score a round 10-9 or 10-8 if the procedure for arriving at either score is still vague and indeterminate? There are few fights that ultimately do not end up on the ground, and this should be the focus of any new scoring system. Counting punches and kicks landed is the easy part. Determining whether the top or bottom position in guard had better control is not quite so easy. I laud johnnyp’s efforts at making a concrete attempt to clean up MMA scoring, but I think there is a big piece of the puzzle he missed in making his proposed changes.
Loading ...