The Scoring Experiment

My apologies for big-footing the other great articles on the page. Scroll down to find other articles from the last few days. Please read this article thoroughly, especially the end. I think we as a community have the power to be part of something bigger then ourselves. It’s not saving lives, but it’s a small component to helping the sport we all love.

I instituted some experimental scoring on Saturday night while watching UFC 77. We’ve had whispers of complaints as a community of Mixed Martial Arts fans every few months, but the Bisping-Hamill decision threatened to start a fan mutiny for a week or two, and many feared scoring decisions like that one would cost the UFC new fans and casual fans who pay for selected pay-per-views, but haven’t fully bought in to the sport as part of their lives.

Many different ideas of scoring were kicked around. As someone who not only writes about MMA, but follows closely the rest of the media, I was very aware of articles and ideas on this subject. In my original article on UFC 77 I discuss how I formulated this new system, an off shoot of the 10 point must system. Before I get to that, let me state that 95% of the decisions by judges I find very good. Second, I realize many judges come from different backgrounds, like striking sports, which may subconsciously influence a decision versus takedowns of wrestlers or submission attempts from the bottom of jui-jitsu specialists. Also, it is subjective what a judge sees as a valuable attempt at a submission weighed against a valuable defense of that submission, or a takedowns worth versus consistent striking. I think everyone would like a more detailed outline of the overall values of many components to MMA scoring. I realize it isn’t easy and nothing is quite definitive, but it would help the sport grow if people other then State Athletic Officials were able to score fights. I do pretty well when I score a fight, but I don’t know definitively what is considered the correct way, and when a friend asks me, I can only explain in hearsay or my own understandings.

Also, I’d like to acknowledge that it is the state athletic commissions, and not UFC, Elite XC, or any other promotions, that pick the judges and educate them/how authority over them. I’d also like to suggest more judges be picked and trained in the next two years, now that we might get “pure MMA” judges, and not judges started in specific disciplines.

Finally, though I believe the 10 point must system is flawed, and know it coming from boxing makes it an easy target for ridicule, I believe it is not far off from the “best” system. Such a term and idea is subjective to those using it and their comfort, but most times the decisions are in the ballpark if not completely right. It’s important to understand that while you watch a fight with the benefit of several cameras, replays, slow-mo, announcers, and production quality assistance, the three judges sit at separate sides of the Octagon with only their vantage point and eyes to help them. This can cause inconsistencies.

Lets all try to be part of the solution, not an angry mob. As Luke Thomas pointed out with the excellent work done by Fight Linker this past week, blogs can make a HUGE difference. Guerrilla journalism can influence and change the sport we follow, hopefully for the better. That’s what this column and idea hopes to accomplish. I feel inspired by what Thomas said this past week, and I think if we all work together we can make changes. After reading this article, help me. Write your own articles if that’s what you do, or leave comments below. Go back and look at Bisping-Hamill and score it with this system. Or take this system and improve upon my idea, then score a controversial fight over. Try this over the next two months with any MMA event and post your results. If we can find an idea we think might be better, we can write state Athletic Commissions (California, Nevada, and New Jersey, just to name a few) that might listen and experiment themselves on shows across the country. We as a community can stop bitching and start acting. I’ve busted Zach Arnold’s balls before, but Zach has always posted contact info to enable the community to be heard. Follow his lead.

I decided to experiment on UFC 77 with an adjusted scoring system. Though we’ve had problems with the ten point must system, I also never liked Pride’s scoring system, or many of the other suggestions. An adjusted 10 point Must System has been kicked around by many, and at length by Bryan Alverez and Dave Meltzer during radio broadcasts, so I decided to tweak the idea for myself. It’s a more liberal usage, in which I decided close rounds were 10-10 (Jordan Breen has made this point as well), but more dominant rounds would be 10-8 or 10-7, instead of the strict 10-9 most give. Also, a round that probably should have been stopped or one opponent had no offense would go 10-6, instead of 10-8. I won’t go 10-5 or lower, because it creates an unfair mathematical advantage. I call it the Flex 10-point must, or the adjusted system.

Only two fights went to a decision, and I’ll look at them first. In Gurgel vs Robinson, Gurgel got the better of the first round, with little damage done, but superior positioning and technical ground work. I had it 10-9 Gurgel scoring with the 10 point must system, but I went 10-8 with the adjusted system. He didn’t dominate Robinson, but had the advantage the whole round in several facets or components of scoring.

The second round was a reversal of the first. I had it 10-9 Robinson, and here again is where adjusted scoring would help. I had it 10-7 Robinson adjusted. The last minute Robinson started pounding Gurgel and it looked like he was taking a beating when the bell rang. A 10-8 adjusted became 10-7 for Robinson, rewarded for the last minute.

Going into the third round this put them at 19-19 on a traditional score card, but gave an 18-17 advantage to Robinson going into the final round on a “flex” 10 point must scorecard. I feel this better reflected the fight at that moment.

The third and deciding round was dominated by Alvin Robinson. He was close to finishing on strikes, and I can’t remember an offensive move Gurgel made. I had it a 10-8 Robinson round, but 10-6 adjusted. Traditional judging would never go this low, and I think they should. Our first decision and a new scoring test. I’ve got it 29-27 Robinson on traditional judging. Two judges agreed. Now adjusted I had it 28-24 Robinson, which better depicts his dominance of Gurgel in rounds two and especially three, as opposed to Gurgel winning round one less dominantly.

The second fight with a decision was Tim Sylvia vs Brandon Vera. Round one was difficult, I realize. I had it a 10-10 round on regular and adjusted. Nothing happened. It’s Sylvia’s control to Vera’s few strikes. That said, most judges under the current system would feel forced to pick a fighter here, causing a 10-9 round and an already unfair advantage. Given that Tim Sylvia tends to go to decisions, this concerns me.

Second round I had 10-9 Vera. I struggled with 10-9 or 10-8 adjusted, but Vera deserved a 10-8. I say this to illustrate that even this system in not perfect and without objectivity.

Final round was 10-8 Sylvia, and if I gave Vera the adjusted last time as 10-8, this was 10-7 Sylvia adjusted.

I have 29-28 Sylvia in an admittedly oddly scored match (10-10 in first and 10-8 in third). Sylvia wins in straight sets. Let’s check our experiment. 28-27 Sylvia adjusted. So it works the same on this match, and also shows that in many matches the system in place now is also very accurate.

Now it’s your turn. I’m going to do my best in the next few weeks to search out close and/or controversial decisions. I’m going to implement the 10 point must FLEX/adjusted system to these fights and check results. I encourage you to do the same. Also, thoughts and ideas welcome. Like I said, lets figure this out. Anyone with State Athletic information (phone/address/e-mails) please post them. My e-mail is at the bottom, and comments are welcome.

E-mail John Philapavage at johnnyp@mmaopinion.com