Organik
06-10-2008, 07:09 PM
I think that there can be no denying the need to reform MMA scoring in the US. The current situation has 3 round fights being scored by a criteria designed for scoring 10 round boxing matches. In addition, as far as I know there is no standard criteria for awarding rounds-as there is in boxing (e.g.: affective aggression, ring generalship, clean, affective punching, and defense). This results in guys frequently being credited far more than it seems warranted for simply taking opponents down and laying on top, doing very little actual damage (the lay and pray).
In regards to the first issue, it is probably unlikely that the '10 point must system' is going to be abolished, seeing as how State boxing commissions currently control MMA. Thus, what is needed is a scoring scale which takes into account the degree of dominance one fighter exhibits over the other in a given round. Here is an example of such a scoring scale:
10-9: This would occur only if a round was exceptionally close, with very little distinguishing one fighter from the other-essentially the closest thing to an even round.
10-8: A close round, but a round in which one fighter clearly stands out as the victor of the winner.
10-7: The winner of the round clearly dominated the action, putting his opponent in legitimate danger of being stopped.
10-6: The winner of the round put on an utterly dominant round winning performance, with the opponent mounting little to no offense of his own to speak of.
As for the scoring criteria, I feel that equal weight ought to be given to clean, effective striking (whether from the standing, top, or bottom positions); grappling (including takedowns, scrambling, reversals, and other such mat work which enables fighter A to obtain an ADVANTAGES POSITION to fighter B); and near submissions (whether from the guard, mount, standing, rear mount, side mount, etc.). These three aspects (striking, grappling, submissions) constitute the principle three elements of MMA and they ought to be weighted equally, as such. Additionally, this would provide fighters more opportunity to score from their backs, thus impelling the top fighter to be more active and ensuring for more competitive battles on the ground. Thus, if fighter A gets a takedown, he would be credited in the scoring. However, if fighter B then attempts an armbar or triangle choke from his guard and is able to put fighter A in significant danger of being stopped, he will receive greater credit, because fighter A simply achieved a dominant position, whereas fighter B achieved a near stoppage of his opponent.
I have more thoughts on this, but I'll leave it at this for now.
In regards to the first issue, it is probably unlikely that the '10 point must system' is going to be abolished, seeing as how State boxing commissions currently control MMA. Thus, what is needed is a scoring scale which takes into account the degree of dominance one fighter exhibits over the other in a given round. Here is an example of such a scoring scale:
10-9: This would occur only if a round was exceptionally close, with very little distinguishing one fighter from the other-essentially the closest thing to an even round.
10-8: A close round, but a round in which one fighter clearly stands out as the victor of the winner.
10-7: The winner of the round clearly dominated the action, putting his opponent in legitimate danger of being stopped.
10-6: The winner of the round put on an utterly dominant round winning performance, with the opponent mounting little to no offense of his own to speak of.
As for the scoring criteria, I feel that equal weight ought to be given to clean, effective striking (whether from the standing, top, or bottom positions); grappling (including takedowns, scrambling, reversals, and other such mat work which enables fighter A to obtain an ADVANTAGES POSITION to fighter B); and near submissions (whether from the guard, mount, standing, rear mount, side mount, etc.). These three aspects (striking, grappling, submissions) constitute the principle three elements of MMA and they ought to be weighted equally, as such. Additionally, this would provide fighters more opportunity to score from their backs, thus impelling the top fighter to be more active and ensuring for more competitive battles on the ground. Thus, if fighter A gets a takedown, he would be credited in the scoring. However, if fighter B then attempts an armbar or triangle choke from his guard and is able to put fighter A in significant danger of being stopped, he will receive greater credit, because fighter A simply achieved a dominant position, whereas fighter B achieved a near stoppage of his opponent.
I have more thoughts on this, but I'll leave it at this for now.