Serious responses only please

If you could change something about the current MMA scoring system, please explain what it would be and why.






All of the judges got sent this and am looking for input from all the fans I can get before I write something up and submit it.

I wouldn't necessarily change the scoring system itself, I would change the degree of education the judges receive. In My opinion the system itself works about as well as any system could for the sport, but we have seen time and again judges giving scorecards to the wrong guy, or the right guy with the rounds scored all wacky. I feel like the judges might not be incredibly familiar with what it is they're actually seeing, and for that reason we see some of the more ridiculous scorecards.

I've always been of the belief that the scoring system itself means nothing if the people applying it don't know how to identify fully with the criteria being presented to them.

I think 10-10 rounds should be used. A lot of rounds I see as a draw but are given 10-9 then the other guy dominates the next round and it's unfairly 19-19 after 2 rounds.

Maybe the judges could judge the fight as a whole rather than round by round? Or if fights are supposedly judged by aggression, striking and octagon control, perhaps they could award scores in all three categories?

Also, when guys get ineffectual takedowns they should be given much less credance by the judges. How many times do we see a guy looking for a takedown for takedowns sake late in close fights under the assumption it will nick the round for them? They do it with no intention of inflicting any damage and the fans might end up losing the last couple of minutes of a good fight. judges need to see that shit for what it is.

Short of fighting to a finish, any scoring system will be vulnerable to corruption or judging ineptitude though, and i don't think Dana White is any better a judge of what he sees than Nevada judges. So we may find in time that the current scoring system is as good as anything else they're likely to come up with.

This was my last thought on it. Don't know if it is only one thing that needs changing though as opposed to the system and process itself.

GDPofDRC wrote:

I believe a good majority of fights these days are judged correctly, but there's always a few going against the grain. The current set up can't stop it from happening. Not if I was sitting in the judge's seat, not even if you put fighters or refs in their place. I think the judges should not watch the actual fight in front of them at all but instead, a multiple-screen or window view of what the three or four cameramen filming the fights live are viewing.

I know some jurisdictions allow a monitor cageside for judges. A monitor I'd suggest for this is either an array of nice HD tablets, all touch screens when touched in a fight signals a larger monitor to view, or a bad ass big touch screen monitor. Something big, crisp and clear.

There is capitol costs and paying people good at running the stuff but you hear people complain about judging so much, the people who have been running the biggest promotions in this sport since, the beginning I guess. If things got changed that way it would be nice a investment to have something for your event approved commission certified for judging if a commission itself didn't rent their own equipment out to promotions on their own.

I wouldn't require the judges to sit cageside either but whatever location in the arena which accommodates the ideal setting to view the fight, whether a commissioner or public witness or whoever needs to be there with them, whatever.

To take it even further I'd say allow each individual judge the ability to pause, rewind and slow motion play, for an established amount of time, all screens or windows of the fight, never one individually. It would not be a lot of extra time to view the fight either. The judges could finish watching a fight no more then a few minutes late if it was one of the very good, or bad, close fights demanding a better look.

A big part of the reason why I think the ability to control time would be beneficial is because how the heck is anyone supposed to watch Jon Dodson live and see everything the guy is doing? Fully live viewing still has the judges on trial more than if they can quickly go back to get a better look at something, sudden or quick, hell, even a sneeze on their won part, anything they might of missed during a significant moment in the fight.

The judges could at all times, quickly and easily focus their eyes on the perspective they feel gives them the best view of the fight at a given stretch of time. For me that is what drives my theory this has the potential to improve judging, even just a little.

Reform, it's the problem I see with this. It's tough to implement change and this might be too fundamental a change in the method which MMA contests are judged. It could be the kind of purists who think it's cool that umpires in baseball all have varying individual strike zones or some kind of commission or legal battle BS about bs. I think the technology exists to facilitate improvement, but not the leadership to make something happen any time soon. Perhaps that is something for a different discussion.

I want to see every effective amenity possible utilized to make the job of judging a fight easier. Three judges sitting cageside watching the fights live from three different perspectives have the potential to see three very different fights unfold, especially in closely contested fights. I think if fostered correctly, this proposal is one judges could take advantage of and score fights with a greater level of confidence in their decision.

If they're going to keep the current system in place, the judges have got to be WAY more liberal with both 10-8s and 10-10 rounds. You can not score MMA like boxing, which has developed a clear standard of every round being 10-9 unless there's a knockdown. The problem is judges have no idea what they're doing and that's the root of the problem. 2 human beings watched Ryan Bader-Anthony Perosh and decided that no round in that fight deserved more than a 10-9...I mean what else is there to say?

I think they need to factor in damage more then they currently do. I think that should be weighted the highest when looking at who won the round. For example the Hendricks-GSP round where Johnny did major damage with the short elbows being far more significant then anything else in the round. I'm sure people will hate that example but it's just the freshest one in my mind. I think the impact of the strikes are far more meaningful the the amount of strikes or even dominate positioning.

OU wrote:

I think they need to factor in damage more then they currently do. I think that should be weighted the highest when looking at who won the round. For example the Hendricks-GSP round where Johnny did major damage with the short elbows being far more significant then anything else in the round. I'm sure people will hate that example but it's just the freshest one in my mind. I think the impact of the strikes are far more meaningful the the amount of strikes or even dominate positioning.

Damage is hard to quantify, though. For instance some guys cut/bruise very easily while others seemingly never show any visible wear even after 5 rounds.

Ludo wrote:

OU wrote:

I think they need to factor in damage more then they currently do. I think that should be weighted the highest when looking at who won the round. For example the Hendricks-GSP round where Johnny did major damage with the short elbows being far more significant then anything else in the round. I'm sure people will hate that example but it's just the freshest one in my mind. I think the impact of the strikes are far more meaningful the the amount of strikes or even dominate positioning.

Damage is hard to quantify, though. For instance some guys cut/bruise very easily while others seemingly never show any visible wear even after 5 rounds.

Yeah that is very true, I don't want a grazing elbow or strike that causes a cut to be classified as more damaging then a clean shot that lands more direct. Cuts can be tricky. I'm not even saying whoever has the least amount of marks on their face should be the winner. I'm more referring to who lands the shots with the most impact. I know they don't have a video game like life bar over their heads but most of the time you can have a good feel of who landed the more meaningful strikes. I don't think you have to win the stat battle to win a round. Sometimes you just watch a round and know who got the best of who.

Ah hell, I really want to post a none serious response now.

fuk it

I overall don't have a problem with the scoring and I have always thought for years the easiest way to score a round is think which guy would I have rather not been in that round. It generally works for me. I think 98% of fights are scored correctly also so major changes aren't necessary in my opinion.

no points for takedowns unless its a slam. i can`t stand when fighters win from takedowns. If you`re taking an opponent down you`re doing it to land strikes easier(or submission). If you`re not inflicting damage to your downed opponent you shouldn`t be rewarded

Have you heard any good responses from anywhere?

I would also like to see a point deduction for any fighter who puts his arms in the air after a fight to influence the judges decision in a close bout. If the fight was boring and both fighters do it herb dean could as far as call it a no contest

I'd like to see them get rid of the octagon and stage the fights inside Thunderdome.

Two men enter, one man leaves = a definitive ending to controversial decisions.

bronzehole wrote:

I would also like to see a point deduction for any fighter who puts his arms in the air after a fight to influence the judges decision in a close bout. If the fight was boring and both fighters do it herb dean could as far as call it a no contest

This is trash.

almost split it into trash, but who really gives a fuck?

OU wrote:

bronzehole wrote:

I would also like to see a point deduction for any fighter who puts his arms in the air after a fight to influence the judges decision in a close bout. If the fight was boring and both fighters do it herb dean could as far as call it a no contest

This is trash.

you're wrong. I bet Primetyme has taken this input and added it to his final piece to be submitted