Scoring in MMA

[BobPlumb]

I'm sitting here watching MMA. Fights are scored on what they call a ten point must system. The fighter who is judged to have won the a round is awarded 10 points. Supposedly the other fighter is awarded 9 or less.

The thing is that the judges hardly ever score someone less than 9 points. Once in awhile when there is a total beatdown of one fighter by another that is just shy of a TKO or a submission, the fighter that is best down will be awarded 8 points. They may as well call it a 2 point must system because the effect is the same as giving the winner of each round 2 points and giving the loser of each round 1 point.

Sometimes this system IMHO results in the wrong fighter being declared the winner of the fight. Henderson vs. GSP for example.

Why can't the judges use the entire point range?

 

[Montrovant]

I'm sitting here watching MMA. Fights are scored on what they call a ten point must system. The fighter who is judged to have won the a round is awarded 10 points. Supposedly the other fighter is awarded 9 or less.

The thing is that the judges hardly ever score someone less than 9 points. Once in awhile when there is a total beatdown of one fighter by another that is just shy of a TKO or a submission, the fighter that is best down will be awarded 8 points. They may as well call it a 2 point must system because the effect is the same as giving the winner of each round 2 points and giving the loser of each round 1 point.

Sometimes this system IMHO results in the wrong fighter being declared the winner of the fight. Henderson vs. GSP for example.

Why can't the judges use the entire point range?

You want to put the fights even further into the judgement of the scorers?

 

[BobPlumb]

I'm sitting here watching MMA. Fights are scored on what they call a ten point must system. The fighter who is judged to have won the a round is awarded 10 points. Supposedly the other fighter is awarded 9 or less.

The thing is that the judges hardly ever score someone less than 9 points. Once in awhile when there is a total beatdown of one fighter by another that is just shy of a TKO or a submission, the fighter that is best down will be awarded 8 points. They may as well call it a 2 point must system because the effect is the same as giving the winner of each round 2 points and giving the loser of each round 1 point.

Sometimes this system IMHO results in the wrong fighter being declared the winner of the fight. Henderson vs. GSP for example.

Why can't the judges use the entire point range?

You want to put the fights even further into the judgement of the scorers?

If the fight is not finished by either (T)KO or submission, then the official result is already in the judgement of the judges. I would like for the judges to do a better job. I think using the total range of the 10 point system would be just nod step in this direction.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm sitting here watching MMA. Fights are scored on what they call a ten point must system. The fighter who is judged to have won the a round is awarded 10 points. Supposedly the other fighter is awarded 9 or less.

The thing is that the judges hardly ever score someone less than 9 points. Once in awhile when there is a total beatdown of one fighter by another that is just shy of a TKO or a submission, the fighter that is best down will be awarded 8 points. They may as well call it a 2 point must system because the effect is the same as giving the winner of each round 2 points and giving the loser of each round 1 point.

Sometimes this system IMHO results in the wrong fighter being declared the winner of the fight. Henderson vs. GSP for example.

Why can't the judges use the entire point range?

You want to put the fights even further into the judgement of the scorers?

If the fight is not finished by either (T)KO or submission, then the official result is already in the judgement of the judges. I would like for the judges to do a better job. I think using the total range of the 10 point system would be just nod step in this direction.

I think there is already enough trouble with the judges. Giving them more leeway in their decisions is a bad idea. It would lead to even worse scoring IMO.

 

[BobPlumb]

You want to put the fights even further into the judgement of the scorers?

If the fight is not finished by either (T)KO or submission, then the official result is already in the judgement of the judges. I would like for the judges to do a better job. I think using the total range of the 10 point system would be just nod step in this direction.

I think there is already enough trouble with the judges. Giving them more leeway in their decisions is a bad idea. It would lead to even worse scoring IMO.

Since they are using the 10 point must system, in theory they already have that leeway. Essentially what they are doing now is counting the number of rounds they think each fighter wins. That being said, the judges make the right decession in most cases now, so you may be right that the scoring would be worse if they fully applied the 10 points of the 10 point must system. However, the system is currently rigged such that a fighter can dominate in the rounds that he wins while the other fighter wins the fight because he is awarded rounds that are close to being a tie.

 

[Unkotare]

MMA is a great idea, a venue for amazing athletes that has developed a lot over the past decade, and a potentially lucrative and entertaining addition to the pantheon of professional sports, BUT...


...I get the feeling that a plateau has been reached. Something tells me that its popularity is going to wane in the next few years down to a small core of fans that cannot support the sport. I think boxing is going to win back a good chunk of the viewership it had lost to the MMA boom pretty soon.

 

[BobPlumb]

MMA is a great idea, a venue for amazing athletes that has developed a lot over the past decade, and a potentially lucrative and entertaining addition to the pantheon of professional sports, BUT...


...I get the feeling that a plateau has been reached. Something tells me that its popularity is going to wane in the next few years down to a small core of fans that cannot support the sport. I think boxing is going to win back a good chunk of the viewership it had lost to the MMA boom pretty soon.

Maybe you are right, but I'll take MMA over boxing anyday. Compared to MMA boxing is one dimensional. A boxer does not have to worry about a low level attack as in MMA so the strategy is much different. To make an analogy boxing is to MMA as checkers is to chess.

 

[Unkotare]

MMA is a great idea, a venue for amazing athletes that has developed a lot over the past decade, and a potentially lucrative and entertaining addition to the pantheon of professional sports, BUT...


...I get the feeling that a plateau has been reached. Something tells me that its popularity is going to wane in the next few years down to a small core of fans that cannot support the sport. I think boxing is going to win back a good chunk of the viewership it had lost to the MMA boom pretty soon.

Maybe you are right, but I'll take MMA over boxing anyday. Compared to MMA boxing is one dimensional. A boxer does not have to worry about a low level attack as in MMA so the strategy is much different. To make an analogy boxing is to MMA as checkers is to chess.

Maybe in theory, maybe, but not in practice. What has actually happened is that - out of necessity I think - you see much less skillful displays of striking, wrestling, and submissions than you can in a boxing, muay thai, wrestling, or jujutsu competition. I like MMA, have great respect for the athleticism, and if I had been younger when the boom began I probably would have tried my hand, but I get the feeling it is running out of road.

 

[BobPlumb]

MMA is a great idea, a venue for amazing athletes that has developed a lot over the past decade, and a potentially lucrative and entertaining addition to the pantheon of professional sports, BUT...


...I get the feeling that a plateau has been reached. Something tells me that its popularity is going to wane in the next few years down to a small core of fans that cannot support the sport. I think boxing is going to win back a good chunk of the viewership it had lost to the MMA boom pretty soon.

Maybe you are right, but I'll take MMA over boxing anyday. Compared to MMA boxing is one dimensional. A boxer does not have to worry about a low level attack as in MMA so the strategy is much different. To make an analogy boxing is to MMA as checkers is to chess.

Maybe in theory, maybe, but not in practice. What has actually happened is that - out of necessity I think - you see much less skillful displays of striking, wrestling, and submissions than you can in a boxing, muay thai, wrestling, or jujutsu competition. I like MMA, have great respect for the athleticism, and if I had been younger when the boom began I probably would have tried my hand, but I get the feeling it is running out of road.

If you want to see choreography, then you might want to watch a movie. I submit that it takes a much more rounded knowledge of all the disciplines to compete in MMA than it does to complete in any one of the disciplines. MMA is the closest to a real fight that it gets, and I beleive that is what most people want to see.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe you are right, but I'll take MMA over boxing anyday. Compared to MMA boxing is one dimensional. A boxer does not have to worry about a low level attack as in MMA so the strategy is much different. To make an analogy boxing is to MMA as checkers is to chess.

Maybe in theory, maybe, but not in practice. What has actually happened is that - out of necessity I think - you see much less skillful displays of striking, wrestling, and submissions than you can in a boxing, muay thai, wrestling, or jujutsu competition. I like MMA, have great respect for the athleticism, and if I had been younger when the boom began I probably would have tried my hand, but I get the feeling it is running out of road.

If you want to see choreography, then you might want to watch a movie.

Ok......who said anything about choreography?

 

[Unkotare]

I submit that it takes a much more rounded knowledge of all the disciplines to compete in MMA than it does to complete in any one of the disciplines. .

Well, that's going to depend on what you are thinking of when you use the term "rounded." It certainly involves much less specialized and perfected technique in any one of the disciplines, which is what makes watching competition in any one of those disciplines compelling and entertaining to those who are interested in a given discipline. Therein lies the problem for MMA, I fear.

 

[Unkotare]

MMA is the closest to a real fight that it gets, and I beleive that is what most people want to see.

Teenage boys just learning how to drink may like the sound of that phrase, but anyone who has been around the block a few times knows that "a real fight" is anything but a display of skill and athleticism, let alone sportsmanship.

 

[Montrovant]

MMA is a great idea, a venue for amazing athletes that has developed a lot over the past decade, and a potentially lucrative and entertaining addition to the pantheon of professional sports, BUT...


...I get the feeling that a plateau has been reached. Something tells me that its popularity is going to wane in the next few years down to a small core of fans that cannot support the sport. I think boxing is going to win back a good chunk of the viewership it had lost to the MMA boom pretty soon.

Maybe you are right, but I'll take MMA over boxing anyday. Compared to MMA boxing is one dimensional. A boxer does not have to worry about a low level attack as in MMA so the strategy is much different. To make an analogy boxing is to MMA as checkers is to chess.

Maybe in theory, maybe, but not in practice. What has actually happened is that - out of necessity I think - you see much less skillful displays of striking, wrestling, and submissions than you can in a boxing, muay thai, wrestling, or jujutsu competition. I like MMA, have great respect for the athleticism, and if I had been younger when the boom began I probably would have tried my hand, but I get the feeling it is running out of road.

While I tend to agree with you, as fighters need to train in various martial arts rather than focus on just one, there have been and are some MMA fighters that were extremely successful in their specialized style of fighting before turning to MMA. Wrestling, in particular, has had some high level practitioners turn to MMA, but disciplines such as Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai have as well.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe you are right, but I'll take MMA over boxing anyday. Compared to MMA boxing is one dimensional. A boxer does not have to worry about a low level attack as in MMA so the strategy is much different. To make an analogy boxing is to MMA as checkers is to chess.

Maybe in theory, maybe, but not in practice. What has actually happened is that - out of necessity I think - you see much less skillful displays of striking, wrestling, and submissions than you can in a boxing, muay thai, wrestling, or jujutsu competition. I like MMA, have great respect for the athleticism, and if I had been younger when the boom began I probably would have tried my hand, but I get the feeling it is running out of road.

While I tend to agree with you, as fighters need to train in various martial arts rather than focus on just one, there have been and are some MMA fighters that were extremely successful in their specialized style of fighting before turning to MMA. Wrestling, in particular, has had some high level practitioners turn to MMA, but disciplines such as Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai have as well.

Which speaks directly to my point, as you will observe that those fighters do not display (don't have the opportunity to display) those skills at such a high level in a MMA match because it is such a different context. All well and good, but if you're looking for top-level wrestling or boxing or submissions you are not likely to find it in a MMA match. You will find it in those particular specialties. This is not to disparage MMA by any means, but to explain why I think its popularity has a ceiling that may be fast approaching.

 

[BobPlumb]

MMA was born partly to answer the age old question of which fighting art is most effective. Royce Gracie dominated the early years of the UFC using jujutsu, often submitting fighters much larger than himself. MMA has evolved greatly since then. Fighters have to train in a variety of disciplines to become top level fighters. To me this means more skills, not less. Looks can be deceiving. A boxer can look great as a boxer if he doesn't have to worry about someone taking his back and choking him out.

That being said, if you prefer watching a single disipline, go for it. I am confident that MMA is here to stay unless it becomes outlawed for safety reasons.

 

[Smilebong]

Maybe in theory, maybe, but not in practice. What has actually happened is that - out of necessity I think - you see much less skillful displays of striking, wrestling, and submissions than you can in a boxing, muay thai, wrestling, or jujutsu competition. I like MMA, have great respect for the athleticism, and if I had been younger when the boom began I probably would have tried my hand, but I get the feeling it is running out of road.

While I tend to agree with you, as fighters need to train in various martial arts rather than focus on just one, there have been and are some MMA fighters that were extremely successful in their specialized style of fighting before turning to MMA. Wrestling, in particular, has had some high level practitioners turn to MMA, but disciplines such as Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai have as well.

Which speaks directly to my point, as you will observe that those fighters do not display (don't have the opportunity to display) those skills at such a high level in a MMA match because it is such a different context. All well and good, but if you're looking for top-level wrestling or boxing or submissions you are not likely to find it in a MMA match. You will find it in those particular specialties. This is not to disparage MMA by any means, but to explain why I think its popularity has a ceiling that may be fast approaching.

And I think just the opposite. The early days saw guys who could get by on one or two well disciplined arts. Now they need to be at least semi skilled in boxing, jiu-Jitsu, wrestling and anything else. As time goes on, guys and gals will get more and more highly disciplined in many arts and the fights will get better.

 

[Unkotare]

While I tend to agree with you, as fighters need to train in various martial arts rather than focus on just one, there have been and are some MMA fighters that were extremely successful in their specialized style of fighting before turning to MMA. Wrestling, in particular, has had some high level practitioners turn to MMA, but disciplines such as Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai have as well.

Which speaks directly to my point, as you will observe that those fighters do not display (don't have the opportunity to display) those skills at such a high level in a MMA match because it is such a different context. All well and good, but if you're looking for top-level wrestling or boxing or submissions you are not likely to find it in a MMA match. You will find it in those particular specialties. This is not to disparage MMA by any means, but to explain why I think its popularity has a ceiling that may be fast approaching.

And I think just the opposite. The early days saw guys who could get by on one or two well disciplined arts. Now they need to be at least semi skilled in boxing, jiu-Jitsu, wrestling and anything else. As time goes on, guys and gals will get more and more highly disciplined in many arts and the fights will get better.

Fighters will get better at MMA, but not at those specific fighting arts in themselves. In the very best MMA matches you will see amazing athletes who excel greatly at what they do, but you will not see anything approaching the striking skill in even a decent boxing or Muay Thai match, little real wrestling beyond basic positional awareness, and submissions that usually come as a result of the opponent attempting to strike rather than a superior technical advantage in submissions in and of themselves. All of which is fine - necessary even - as MMA is not any one of those arts, but a different fighting context unto itself. I just think that people who want to see any or all of those areas of fighting at a very high level are eventually going to conclude that they won't get that in watching MMA. A real MMA fan wouldn't be looking for that, but many people out there are. Boxing has been popular for a very, very long time and wrestling is just about the oldest sport there is. I hope I'm wrong, as I'd be pleased to see these great athletes get a shot at bigger paydays for all the hard work they put in.

 

[Smilebong]

Which speaks directly to my point, as you will observe that those fighters do not display (don't have the opportunity to display) those skills at such a high level in a MMA match because it is such a different context. All well and good, but if you're looking for top-level wrestling or boxing or submissions you are not likely to find it in a MMA match. You will find it in those particular specialties. This is not to disparage MMA by any means, but to explain why I think its popularity has a ceiling that may be fast approaching.

And I think just the opposite. The early days saw guys who could get by on one or two well disciplined arts. Now they need to be at least semi skilled in boxing, jiu-Jitsu, wrestling and anything else. As time goes on, guys and gals will get more and more highly disciplined in many arts and the fights will get better.

Fighters will get better at MMA, but not at those specific fighting arts in themselves. In the very best MMA matches you will see amazing athletes who excel greatly at what they do, but you will not see anything approaching the striking skill in even a decent boxing or Muay Thai match, little real wrestling beyond basic positional awareness, and submissions that usually come as a result of the opponent attempting to strike rather than a superior technical advantage in submissions in and of themselves. All of which is fine - necessary even - as MMA is not any one of those arts, but a different fighting context unto itself. I just think that people who want to see any or all of those areas of fighting at a very high level are eventually going to conclude that they won't get that in watching MMA. A real MMA fan wouldn't be looking for that, but many people out there are. Boxing has been popular for a very, very long time and wrestling is just about the oldest sport there is. I hope I'm wrong, as I'd be pleased to see these great athletes get a shot at bigger paydays for all the hard work they put in.

Dana White does keep them poor, doesn't he?

 

[Unkotare]

And I think just the opposite. The early days saw guys who could get by on one or two well disciplined arts. Now they need to be at least semi skilled in boxing, jiu-Jitsu, wrestling and anything else. As time goes on, guys and gals will get more and more highly disciplined in many arts and the fights will get better.

Fighters will get better at MMA, but not at those specific fighting arts in themselves. In the very best MMA matches you will see amazing athletes who excel greatly at what they do, but you will not see anything approaching the striking skill in even a decent boxing or Muay Thai match, little real wrestling beyond basic positional awareness, and submissions that usually come as a result of the opponent attempting to strike rather than a superior technical advantage in submissions in and of themselves. All of which is fine - necessary even - as MMA is not any one of those arts, but a different fighting context unto itself. I just think that people who want to see any or all of those areas of fighting at a very high level are eventually going to conclude that they won't get that in watching MMA. A real MMA fan wouldn't be looking for that, but many people out there are. Boxing has been popular for a very, very long time and wrestling is just about the oldest sport there is. I hope I'm wrong, as I'd be pleased to see these great athletes get a shot at bigger paydays for all the hard work they put in.

Dana White does keep them poor, doesn't he?

Well, he's a businessman, but he doesn't exude generosity toward his fighters that's for sure.

 

[Smilebong]

Fighters will get better at MMA, but not at those specific fighting arts in themselves. In the very best MMA matches you will see amazing athletes who excel greatly at what they do, but you will not see anything approaching the striking skill in even a decent boxing or Muay Thai match, little real wrestling beyond basic positional awareness, and submissions that usually come as a result of the opponent attempting to strike rather than a superior technical advantage in submissions in and of themselves. All of which is fine - necessary even - as MMA is not any one of those arts, but a different fighting context unto itself. I just think that people who want to see any or all of those areas of fighting at a very high level are eventually going to conclude that they won't get that in watching MMA. A real MMA fan wouldn't be looking for that, but many people out there are. Boxing has been popular for a very, very long time and wrestling is just about the oldest sport there is. I hope I'm wrong, as I'd be pleased to see these great athletes get a shot at bigger paydays for all the hard work they put in.

Dana White does keep them poor, doesn't he?

Well, he's a businessman, but he doesn't exude generosity toward his fighters that's for sure.

Just my opinion, but he's more like a slavedriver. I have a female friend who works for him as a fighter. She will never make it on that salary.