MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[metalkev1]

The Association Of Boxing Commissions Makes Significant Changes To The Unified Rules Of MMA - Bloody Elbow

[disposableassassin]

4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by effective striking and or effective grappling, which put the opponent in great danger throughout the round. In a 10-7 round referee stoppage may be eminent. This score should rarely be used.

I found this interesting. The first round of Edgar/Maynard 2 & 3 come to mind as 10-7 rounds.

[Y2JUBAE]

1. The committee believes that offensive actions should be the only criteria used to score MMA matches. Offensive fighters are fighters which carry the fight and push the action, and make the fight happen.

2. Defense is its own reward. A fighter who chooses to avoid using defensive actions will invariably suffer the consequences. For example if a fighter decides that they do not want to block or avoid a strike, protect themselves from a submission, or avoid a throw or takedown then they will suffer the results of those offensive actions being used against them. The only role defensive action plays is to keep a fighter in the fight longer so that they can attempt to score using offensive actions.

3. Having two fighters avoid offensive actions and rely solely on defense goes against the basic primary consideration of any combative sport: To score using offense.

What now Greg Jackson?

[rivethead]

I was stunned that grappling wasn't given as much weight as striking in the past, and will be given more weight in the future. As a casual observer, I've been convinced the opposite has been true as long as I've watched bouts under Unified Rules: I've always thought they favored wrestling, and that sometimes takedowns were weighed too heavily, when the fighter did nothing with them after scoring.

rh

[CtGreat]

If only they would add a yellow card system.

I'm glad that they changed made it clear on the defense part though. I never felt like defending a takedown should warrant anybody points.

[goodtimes]

3.) "Effective Aggression" - moving forward scoring with a legal technique or attacking from the guard with threatening submissions.

So I read this as a guy with an active guard is winning if the guy on the top is just fending off submissions.

Removal of effective defense I think is a good move, mainly to just keep the sport more exciting so more people will want to watch it.

Judged by determining the impact of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the number of such legal strikes. Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed. These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain. Cumulative impact on a fighter will also be weighed. If neither fighter shows an advantage in impact of strikes, the number of strikes will determine the most effective striker.

Pretty interesting, makes me think of Ortiz/Griffin immediately. I think Ortiz would have won if they scored it in that way. Forrest was much busier, and probably did more damage overall, but Ortiz's knockdowns I guess would supersede Griffin's volume of strikes landed.

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by CtGreat

If only they would add a yellow card system.

I'm glad that they changed made it clear on the defense part though. I never felt like defending a takedown should warrant anybody points.

I think it depends. If a fighter is getting beaten standing and shoots for TD after TD, it looks like they're "more aggressive" but it's not effective. The line gets blurry if there isn't enough action to dictate that the fighter defending the TD is winning if he can't engage for high volume of strikes because he's defending TD's the whole time.

Swick/Burkman is a good example. Swick was lighting him up on the feet during infrequent exchanges, and ended up defending the vast majority of 15 or so TD's. Swick gets the decision, but Burkman fans argued that he was more aggressive...and were countered by the fact that if your aggression doesn't do anything, it's not effective.

Changing the rules isn't going to fix the problem, unless they work to educate officials [both refs and judges] as well.

rh

[CtGreat]

Originally Posted by rivethead

I think it depends. If a fighter is getting beaten standing and shoots for TD after TD, it looks like they're "more aggressive" but it's not effective. The line gets blurry if there isn't enough action to dictate that the fighter defending the TD is winning if he can't engage for high volume of strikes because he's defending TD's the whole time.

Swick/Burkman is a good example. Swick was lighting him up on the feet during infrequent exchanges, and ended up defending the vast majority of 15 or so TD's. Swick gets the decision, but Burkman fans argued that he was more aggressive...and were countered by the fact that if your aggression doesn't do anything, it's not effective.

Changing the rules isn't going to fix the problem, unless they work to educate officials [both refs and judges] as well.

rh

If you attempt a bunch of takedowns with no success, ten you should only get points for th ones you succeed in. As for the defender, just like you don't get points for blocking a punch, you shouldn't get points for defending a takedown. That's pretty much how i see it. You only get points for "effective" offense, defense is its own reward.

[the_dark_angel_4ever]

Can't say I entirely agree, but it's a step in the right direction.

The term "effective aggression" bothers me though, especially when it comes to grappling. If a fighter is on his back, in guard, and attacking with submissions but isn't actually able to secure one and finish the fight, is that still considered EFFECTIVE?

[noahm]

Originally Posted by the_dark_angel_4ever

Can't say I entirely agree, but it's a step in the right direction.

The term "effective aggression" bothers me though, especially when it comes to grappling. If a fighter is on his back, in guard, and attacking with submissions but isn't actually able to secure one and finish the fight, is that still considered EFFECTIVE?

^^ Yes, it is interesting how a strike that connects, yet fails to KO an opponent is still given quite a bit of consideration, but a submission that fails, even if it was sunk pretty good isn't typically given much weight other than time spent with octagon control.