MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[Afro]

I forget if there was a thread like this I thought I saw one before but oh well

Im curious of how you would judge a fight, if you could change the scoring

how would you score certain offenses, what would you score the highest, etc use your imagination!

[CHUCKtheCHAMP]

Hmmmm....

I Like The Pride Way Of Judging Things... I Think Most Of The Time Its Pretty Accurate...

I Think They Judge By:

Aggresivness
Attempts To Finish Fight
Takedowns And Takedown D
Ground Control
Damage To Opponent
Who Finishes The Strongest
Standing Combos

I Like Those Critierias....I like the fact that they focuss on the whole fight, and i like how aggressivness and finishing strong gets you points...

[Afro]

I would score aggressiveness high, any striking on your feet high, GnP high

I would score a takedown the lowest, id score a takedown high if the top guy is attacking

id score submission attempts mid-low probably, definently score knockdowns higher.

If you get outstruck by the bottom guy I wont score your takedown higher.

damage will score mid-range it depends on how it was done ive seen guys take like for example 5 hits and blleed and theyll hit the guy 50 times and ppl will think just cuz the dudes bleeding hes losing.

[Mastiff_owner]

First and foremost is ring/cage generalship. who is controlling the pace and activity.

Second attempts to finish the fight

takedowns,takedown d, and escapes

Punishment received/delivered- knock downs

I don't like it when judges score a round based on the last 30 seconds. That is a common ploy used by fighters "stealing the round at the end". I think the judges need to look at the whole body of work.

I also think that the judges need to be well versed in mma. I have seen guys jump guard and get called for being taken down. Give me a break.

I am sure I am forgetting some but yeah thats how I would like to see fights judged.

[Intellectual]

in my opinion, control should play the key factor, not how aggressive or how much damage you cause on the opponent.

[Afro]

Originally Posted by Intellectual

in my opinion, control should play the key factor, not how aggressive or how much damage you cause on the opponent.

do you mean controlling the fight? cuz thats what I mean by aggression, who is being the aggressor, pushin the action, controlling the fight.

[Dan0]

I like these:

Aggressiveness
Attempts To Finish
Takedowns And Takedown D
Ground Control
Observable Damage To Opponent
Who Finishes The Strongest
Standing Combos
Submission attempts

I think ring/cage generalship is, say, too general (just joking Mastiff)

I would also score reversals IF CLEAR CONTROL is observed and only with aggression following the reversal.

[Intellectual]

Originally Posted by Afro Samurai

do you mean controlling the fight? cuz thats what I mean by aggression, who is being the aggressor, pushin the action, controlling the fight.

hmmm i see what you mean. i had a different definition for aggressivness. i thought aggressivness was the person who was trying to throw the punches, kicks, clinchs etc..

controlling for me was the person who was able to counter the aggressor, or be the aggressor himself.

i think i just contradicted myself

[Afro]

like I wouldnt score the guy beckpedaling higher then the guy movin foward

[killerinstinct]

If the fighter on the bottom is doing more work than the fighter on top I'd give him the nod over the fighter on top.For instance I totally agree with the Jeremy Horn/Trevor Prangley decision.