 |
| MMA refs have a complicated scoring system for fans to follow. Photo credit MMA UK |
I'm hoping that today's blog is much more interactive on your part (the readers). I am ACTUALLY asking a question, and if any of you guys/girls have a viable answer...I would sincerely appreciate it.
Can anyone explain (in detail) the scoring system in MMA today...?
Now before you pipe up and answer...let me explain what i know...and then you can go into more detail, if you have it. For the sake of argument, let's say that it is a non-title fight, three 5 minute rounds. I KNOW that it is a 10 point "must" system. This just means that if the judge thinks you won that round, then you get 10 points. The loser of the round gets 9 points or less. So, if fighter A wins all 3 rounds and it was a fairly close fight, then it would most likely be scored as 30-27. Supposedly, the judging criteria are: effective striking, effective grappling, aggression and octagon (ring) control. THIS is where the subjectiveness comes into play. Define for me, "effective striking". Is it the fighter who lands more strikes...or the fighter that does more damage...? Define for me "effective grappling". Is it the fighter that is able to take-down his opponent...or the fighter that defends the take-down every time. This is where the scoring begins to become as clear as mud. If the UFC has a system or a statistical way that they judge fights, then they keep it an extremely guarded secret, because this writer was not able to find ANY mention or example of it. However, Strikeforce and a couple of other organizations have a statistical scoring system. Between each round, Strikeforce shows the following stats:
Now before you pipe up and answer...let me explain what i know...and then you can go into more detail, if you have it. For the sake of argument, let's say that it is a non-title fight, three 5 minute rounds. I KNOW that it is a 10 point "must" system. This just means that if the judge thinks you won that round, then you get 10 points. The loser of the round gets 9 points or less. So, if fighter A wins all 3 rounds and it was a fairly close fight, then it would most likely be scored as 30-27. Supposedly, the judging criteria are: effective striking, effective grappling, aggression and octagon (ring) control. THIS is where the subjectiveness comes into play. Define for me, "effective striking". Is it the fighter who lands more strikes...or the fighter that does more damage...? Define for me "effective grappling". Is it the fighter that is able to take-down his opponent...or the fighter that defends the take-down every time. This is where the scoring begins to become as clear as mud. If the UFC has a system or a statistical way that they judge fights, then they keep it an extremely guarded secret, because this writer was not able to find ANY mention or example of it. However, Strikeforce and a couple of other organizations have a statistical scoring system. Between each round, Strikeforce shows the following stats:
# of punches/ # of punches landed
# of submission attempts
# of take-downs/ # of take-down attempts
# of kicks attempted/ # of kicks landed
# of power punches thrown / # of power punches landed
# of power kicks thrown / # of power kicks landed
I wish that everyone would get on the same ^&$%# page when it comes to scoring the fights. There was a recent UFC fight...I won't say the names of the fighters (cough, cough...Hendrix v/s GSP), where I watched the entire fight, and when it was over, I knew...I KNEW who had won the fight. It was a split decision and I was very much incorrect on who I thought had won. Even both of the fighters looked very much confused when the winner was announced.
I don't fight MMA, but in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu tournaments, I would rather get tapped-out rather than fighting for the entire match, thinking I won on points, just to find out that the other guy won by referee/judges decision.
LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK....
No comments:
Post a Comment