Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: How should MMA rounds be judged?

Your Message

Click here to log in

What Is Georges St-Pierre's 3-Letter Nickname?

 
 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

HTML

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 08-25-2006, 06:15 PM
    liddell316
    The ten point system works fine, the judges themselves are the problem.

    I've always wondered why they never get guys who have actually had an mma fight as judges. Why not have Randy and other retired fighters be judges for fights?
  • 08-25-2006, 03:42 PM
    Supe
    Regardless if they use judges that for boxing or MMA or ice skating, they just need people that can accurately and consistently judge the matches. While it would be a definite good move to have dedicated MMA judges...ex fighters perhaps...they just need to find people that are flat out better at the job. Any scoring system works with the right people making the desicions just as the best scoring system ever conceived cant make up for incompetence. Wear it
  • 08-25-2006, 06:55 AM
    kronous76
    Well i do remember Dana White stating that the judges were NSAC boxing judges...you would think with MMA growing in popularity and bringing in Vegas tons of money they would appoint MMA judges and come up with some kind of scoring system just for MMA...i'd like to see that happen because of all the contested descisions (sp?) god it's too late to spell lol
  • 08-25-2006, 06:40 AM
    dagreat1
    The problem is that we don't what earns higher scores in the judges minds and that varries from judge to judge as the scores are so different at times.

    I don't know what is worth more head kick that lands but does not knock down the opponent or a double leg takedown (no slam).

    Or a huge punch that rocks the other fighter or an elbow that opens a cut (obviouly the gash hurts but does it do more damage than swelling up an eye).

    Or a stiff jap vs a hard low kick.

    Is there a set system (guidelines) the judges are to follow?

    If so, could someone please post them, that would crtainly give us a better idea of what these judges are supposed to be loking for.
  • 08-25-2006, 05:59 AM
    tj31atr
    In a way I agree with blah, just not completly. I would agree that more rounds needs to have the loser receiving less then 9 points. Way to often you see a guy utterly dominate a round and wins it 10-9. The other fighter wins the other two rounds narrowly, and goes on to win the fight 29-28. MMA is most definitely not boxing but maybe the judges could learn something from boxing. Both guys start with zero. As a round goes on, if you knock a guy down with a punch/kick/judo throw, you get a point. Land a nice combo, a point. Attempt a submission a point. I think you get the point. At the end of the round add up each fighters points, lets say one guy has 13 the other 8, you score it 10-5. The whole round would be scored evenly, as you could keep track on a piece of paper, this idea does have it problems, but hey maybe the scoring would be better. Sad thing is people just don't want to see things change, so we're stuck with 10-9 rounds.
  • 08-25-2006, 05:51 AM
    TheBonger
    i personally just dont see how "barely" winning two rounds and then being dominated for the third should warrant a victory.
  • 08-25-2006, 12:37 AM
    paul
    yea i say judge it by rounds for the same reasons the other guy stated if you dominate a few rounds then get dominated in the last of course you look good to the judges because you were the one winning when the fight finished so you'll always win you could just do nothing then in the last round pull a diego and go all out and the last thing the judges see is you going strong in the last round so you win
  • 08-24-2006, 11:46 PM
    tapper
    no way. its got to be round by round, if a guy clearly wins the first 2 rounds his strategy might be to just stay even for the last round. or what if in a championship fight one guy dominates the first 3 rounds gets hurt and goes on the defence for the last two, it has to judged round by round each round is a fight within the fight.
  • 08-24-2006, 10:04 PM
    TheBonger
    Quote Originally Posted by ronin
    Way to complicated 10 points for the winner of the round and 9 for the loser has worked for decades; it doesnít need changes just better judges.

    Look at Pride there has been maybe 4 decisions I didnít like in watching it for 4 years thatís 1 bad decision per year, looks like there is one every UFC event.

    Maybe judge it like they do in Pride not judged by rounds but by the whole fight.

    I agree with the not judging solely by rounds. I mean in boxing when it is round-by-round u have 10,12 rounds to see who wins (bad decisions aside),but in the UFC where its 3 or 5 rounds at the most. You can have two very close rounds and say the same guy win those first two rounds but they are very close, then the other guy comes out in the third and dominates the last round. Too me the guy who dominates in the end, is probably the guy who should be the winner. I think the fight should be judged as a whole.
  • 08-24-2006, 09:48 PM
    ronin
    Quote Originally Posted by blahface
    If you were judging a UFC fight, what criteria would you use to score points to the fighters. Also, what kind of judging system would you use overall?

    In a UFC fight with a 10 point must system, Iíd always score the first fight with loser getting 5 points. The loser of the next fight would get points relative to how well he did in the fight compared to the last loser. If it is about the same level of domination from the winner, then it would also be a 5. Under this system I would have judged the Tito Forrest fight as such:

    R1: 10-5 for Tito.
    R2: 10-7 for Griffin
    R3: 10-7 for Griffin

    Then the final score would be 25-24 Griffin.

    For overall MMA judging, Iíd give 100 points divided between each fighter per round. If one fighter was winning 65% of the a round, then he would get 65 points and his opponent would get 35 points.
    Way to complicated 10 points for the winner of the round and 9 for the loser has worked for decades; it doesnít need changes just better judges.

    Look at Pride there has been maybe 4 decisions I didnít like in watching it for 4 years thatís 1 bad decision per year, looks like there is one every UFC event.

    Maybe judge it like they do in Pride not judged by rounds but by the whole fight.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •