New Rules, Part Two: Methods to Improve the Judging System in MMA

Columns

In part two of a scheduled four-part series I resume my quest to find a scoring system for MMA that is both fair and accurate in its scope while addressing the issues that plague the current setup that we have in place.

For those who missed it, part one can be found here.

Each article in this series offers a proposition which can be used to rectify the judging situation in MMA, followed by an analysis of why I think it would be a good idea to implement such a change.

I also address the drawbacks that each of these proposals contain and realize that no scoring system will ever be perfect nor agreed upon by everybody.

Yet there is certainly room for my improvement and suggestions surely never hurt anybody. So without further ado, here is the second change that I had in mind.

Proposition: Weigh the Judging Criteria According to a Standardized Quantitative System

The criteria used to score a match obviously have great importance when it comes to creating a judging system which can be both universal and just.

The goal here is to make the criteria as objective and transparent as possible so that fans and competitors alike will know why a fight was scored in a particular manner.

Of course, MMA employs mostly boxing judges who traditionally tend to favor the striking aspect and are not as well-versed in the ground game as the judges that you would find at a jiu-jitsu tournament, naturally enough.

While this deficiency has certainly improved within the last few years as the ground game is getting scored better, the sport of MMA is an entirely different animal than boxing and I think most fans would agree that the ten-point must system is needs some sort of overhaul in order to satisfactorily represent the nuances of an MMA battle.

Here I wish to discuss the qualitative and quantitative aspects of scoring a fight which every judge will need to take into account when scoring a winner.

But I want to make it clear that I do not wish to argue here in favor of one specific criterion over another; I will save that for another time since it is an extremely subjective topic that is difficult to reach a consensus on.

My proposition is intended to work within the existing framework used for scoring fights and thus I will assume that the criteria used in North American promotions are at least adequate though perhaps not entirely perfect in their arrangement, mostly due to the fact that fights are not scored as a whole which of course would be ideal for a combat engagement.

I will say this though: I believe that the attempt to finish the fight is the most important criterion and it is not sufficiently represented under the current stipulations.

After all, rendering your opponent incapable of continuing the match, whether by knocking him out or making him submit, is basically the main goal of a fight and it should probably be a criterion that is scored separately from the others, if not as the most crucial one. But I digress.

The criteria used to rate each fighter’s performance round-by-round are clean striking, effective grappling, octagon control, and effective aggressiveness.

The details for the Nevada State Athletic Commission judging criteria can be found here, and I need to mention the specifics briefly in order to make my point.

The criteria used for striking and grappling are pretty straightforward, such as landing clean, efficient strikes (accuracy) and heavy, effective strikes (power and damage).

For grappling, clean takedowns and reversals are scored evenly, and threatening with submission attempts is suppose to score points, contrary to the evidence that we have seen in some decisions.

Octagon control is basically self-explanatory, while aggressiveness is rated as the least significant factor.

Aggressiveness is defined as moving forward and scoring but is clearly not synonymous with the attempt to finish the match since one can be aggressive, reckless and relatively inefficient while fighting for a decision victory (think Clay Guida) whereas another man can get several near-submissions and is clearly trying to end the bout with every move (think Matt Wiman).

The problem here is evaluating the criteria. The NSAC rules stipulate that a sliding scale will be used to rate the criteria, and striking is weighed more heavily if 90% of a fight takes place on the feet (naturally enough) while grappling is weighed as greater if the majority of the fight takes place on the mat, though effective ground and pound is still counted when applicable.

I’m not quite sure how the judges make use of this “sliding scale,” but my idea here is to give the winner of each criterion a score of 10 in every round.

So whoever has the most effective striking gets ten points, whoever has better octagon control gets ten points, and so on for the four main criteria used in the evaluation.

Now, the most important criteria are striking and grappling, followed by octagon control, and then finally aggressiveness, according to the state athletic commissions.

To weigh these criteria properly it is best to multiply point totals: x3 for the no.1 criterion, x2 for the no. 2 criterion and x1 for the no.3 criterion.

So whoever gets the better of grappling and striking gets thirty points for each, then twenty points for better octagon control and keep only ten points for aggressiveness, the least important criteria under current rules.

That way, by stating which fighter did better in each criterion during a round, one can come to a weighted point total which takes into to account the most important factors necessary to score an MMA match properly.

For a sample round, let’s say fighter A has superior striking and octagon control, so he gets fifty points: thirty from striking, the no.1 criterion, and twenty from octagon control, the second most important criterion.

His opponent, fighter B, would get forty points: thirty for better grappling, also the no.1 criterion, and ten for his effective aggressiveness, the third most significant factor. So the competitor A would win the round, fifty points to forty.

Of course, there is still an element of subjectivity and arbitration as one is still using the same qualitative criteria to determine who has superior striking and grappling, but at least quantifying point totals in this manner leads to greater clarification as to why a particular fighter took a certain round.

There are two caveats though: if a negligent amount of grappling or striking occurs, for example, little to no takedown attempts or clinches, then octagon control and grappling should not be used to score a round and only striking and aggressiveness should count on the feet.

If the same thing occurs on the ground, such as if there is little to no striking from the top or bottom position, then striking should not count as a criterion in that round and only the other three should be taken into account.

This is in fact similar to the current rules, where I mentioned above that if 90% of a fight takes place on the feet then striking is weighed more heavily than grappling (the reverse is also true), and I don’t see anything wrong with this procedure.

Of course, striking on the ground can be just as effective as grappling and should rightly be scored if it is effective and efficient enough to make a sizable difference in the outcome of the round.

These last two additions attempt to eliminate theoretical cases where fighters would try to abuse the system, such as by stuffing a weak takedown attempt, getting fifty points from effective grappling and octagon control, and thus winning the round, despite getting out-struck by a more aggressive fighter (this is a hypothetical example, because it’s unlikely that someone clearly winning on the feet would shoot for a takedown, but I’m just trying to make a point).

This system also attempts to eradicate lay and pray, whereby rabbit punches do not equal superior striking on the ground and the bottom fighter can still win via threatening submission attempts and near-finishes for superior grappling; by reversals and sweeps for octagon control; and through scoring points for aggressiveness in trying to improve position and attack the opponent.

There is one last point that I would like to make about the situation. The fighter on bottom should be able to win a match, as several contests in PRIDE FC showed.

Indeed, in the NSAC rules the guard is counted as a neutral position, though one could not tell this through simple observation since the man on top is so often favored.

The problem under the current judging rules (if they were flawlessly adhered to) is that if a fighter scores a takedown and lands in the top guard position, but little else happens, then the top man takes the round.

Interestingly enough, the reverse is also true so if a fighter pulls guard, which counts as a takedown, and nothing significant happens in the round, then the bottom man takes it on the scorecard.

So this is a note to all you Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu competitors and other grapplers: make sure you are the one who scores the takedown if you want the judges to be on your side!

What I have outlined above is just a basic sketch of a scoring system that is probably in need of some refinement, but my point is that using an objective scheme whereby fans can determine precisely how a judge scored a round in favor of a certain fighter would go a long way towards removing ambiguity and prejudice when it comes down to defining the winner of a fight.