UFC judging sucks !

[ƒallenloki]

No, it doesn't.

I don't understand how people like you sit and pretend that the 10 point must is appropriate for MMA. It's not.

If you use the set judging criteria and competent judges it works just fine. Please read the judging criteria and understand that it doesn't reward meaningless takedowns or inactivity; when used properly, the current system works. Like I said in another post, the judges can't even tell you who is winning the fight at this point. You have fights where one judge will score it for one guy 29-28 or 30-27 and someone will score it that way for the other guy. That's not a system problem, that's a judge problem.

The real problem is that you have idiots like Keith Kaizer and Marc Ratner at the center of the situation saying two things: 1) There is nothing wrong with the judges or decisions they're making and 2) that 10-10 and 10-7 rounds don't exist and that 10-8 rarely exists. What?

Another issue is that there are extremely large barriers to entry for new judges and no accountability for existing ones.

[Drunken Cat]

If you use the set judging criteria and competent judges it works just fine. Please read the judging criteria and understand that it doesn't reward meaningless takedowns or inactivity; when used properly, the current system works. Like I said in another post, the judges can't even tell you who is winning the fight at this point. You have fights where one judge will score it for one guy 29-28 or 30-27 and someone will score it that way for the other guy. That's not a system problem, that's a judge problem.

The real problem is that you have idiots like Keith Kaizer and Marc Ratner at the center of the situation saying two things: 1) There is nothing wrong with the judges or decisions they're making and 2) that 10-10 and 10-7 rounds don't exist and that 10-8 rarely exists. What?

Another issue is that there are extremely large barriers to entry for new judges and no accountability for existing ones.

Winner take all rounds in 3 round fights in inappropriate. If they used half points it would be better than it is now. It basically works in boxing, not in MMA.

Another example, point deductions are useless in MMA. If you have a point deducted, you have to sweep all three rounds to avoid a draw. It goes on and on, really. The 10-8 is another example. 10 point must is not designed for MMA and is not appropriate for MMA.

[southcentralcar]

UFC judging gives too much consideration to take downs. All you have to do is take someone down and lay on top of them while doing little damage and faking like you are trying to finish the fight to win rounds in the UFC. I think more credit should go to actually attempting multiple subs, dominant positions, and clean strikes.

not in the ring - fukuda fight. they didnt care about takedowns at all. so it seems if you want to win a fight in the ufc you gotta know what the judges prefer.. takedowns striking ring control or something else.

[ƒallenloki]

Winner take all rounds in 3 round fights in inappropriate. If they used half points it would be better than it is now. It basically works in boxing, not in MMA.

Another example, point deductions are useless in MMA. If you have a point deducted, you have to sweep all three rounds to avoid a draw. It goes on and on, really. The 10-8 is another example. 10 point must is not designed for MMA and is not appropriate for MMA.

So you want to give incompetent judges the responsibility of assigning more points in a more complex system?

[Drunken Cat]

So you want to give incompetent judges the responsibility of assigning more points in a more complex system?

I think Pride judging is the best we've seen, however yes I would prefer the implementation of half-points if we must have a 10-point must, if that's what you're asking. One thing I don't understand is how and why people actually defend the current scoring system. Sure the judges are incompetent, but the 10-point must is absolutely horrible.

[ƒallenloki]

I think Pride judging is the best we've seen, however yes I would prefer the implementation of half-points if we must have a 10-point must, if that's what you're asking. One thing I don't understand is how and why people actually defend the current scoring system. Sure the judges are incompetent, but the 10-point must is absolutely horrible.

You see, here is the thing... I don't think the 10-point must system is perfect, I just think it is the best thing out there right now. Have you read through the suggested 1/2 point system that they're going to be using in the amateurs here in California? It's pretty complicated and not even I fully understand it; I consider myself pretty good and impartial at scoring fights.

Now you're going to take this system and put it in the hands of judges who can't assign ONE POINT to the proper winner of ONE ROUND. Sounds like a catastrophe.

[Drunken Cat]

You see, here is the thing... I don't think the 10-point must system is perfect, I just think it is the best thing out there right now. Have you read through the suggested 1/2 point system that they're going to be using in the amateurs here in California? It's pretty complicated and not even I fully understand it; I consider myself pretty good and impartial at scoring fights.

Now you're going to take this system and put it in the hands of judges who can't assign ONE POINT to the proper winner of ONE ROUND. Sounds like a catastrophe.

I didn't even know there was any half-point system in the works. I was just speaking on principle.

The 10-point must is an abysmal system, and I don't think anything will make me think otherwise. I don't see how it could be the best system going, when it's the only system going. That is, aside from the Pride system of scoring entire fights, which is much better imo, and produced far less robberies.

[ƒallenloki]

I didn't even know there was any half-point system in the works. I was just speaking on principle.

The 10-point must is an abysmal system, and I don't think anything will make me think otherwise. I don't see how it could be the best system going, when it's the only system going. That is, aside from the Pride system of scoring entire fights, which is much better imo, and produced far less robberies.

Take an objective look at it.

Check out the judging criteria

VIII. JUDGES

A. No judge will have a financial interest in any fighter he judges.

B. No judge will be a manager/trainer of any fighter he judges.

C. In a bout goes to it's full time limit, the outcome will be decided by a majority decision of three, (3), MMAC judges.

D. A judge is accredited, sanctioned and selected based upon his character, experience, stature in the MMA world, knowledge of MMA systems and impartiality.

E. Judging Criteria
1. Judges are required to determine the winner of a bout that goes to it's full time limit based upon the following criteria:
-Clean Strikes
-Effective Grappling
-Octagon Control
-Effective Aggressiveness

F. Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient) -the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking.

I. Effective Grappling
1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean takedown and active guard position.
2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly takedown his opponent, is effectively grappling.
3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple, through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous defense from the top fighter.
4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.
5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the preceding situations were met.(items 2-4) 6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored the clean takedown deserves the round.
7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling

J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

K. Effective Aggressiveness
1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring) 2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.
3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.
4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness.

L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded.
Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective) -clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching) -octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
-octagon control
-effective aggressiveness

M. Domination Criteria
1. A Judge may determine that a fighter dominated his opponent in a round. This can lead to a two point or more difference on a Judge's scorecard.
2. The definition of a dominating round is a fighter's ability to effectively strike, grapple and control his opponent.
3. A Judge may determine a round was dominating if a fighter was adversely affected by one of the
following:
-knocked down from standing position by clean strike -by submission attempt -from a throw -from clean strikes either standing or grounded.

N. Judge's Scorecard Procedures
After each round:
1. each Judge will determine and record a score each round 2. a MMAC official will collect the scorecard after each round 3. the MMAC official will track and add each Judges score by round 4. If the fight goes the time limit, the MMAC official will add each Judge's scorecard and double check total 5. the fighter with the greater number of points wins the fight on each Judges scorecard 6. the fighter who won on the majority of the Judges Scorecards, wins the fight 7. the MMAC official will hand the decision to the PA announcer

O. Types of Judge's Decisions
1. If all three scorecards agree Unanimous 2. If two of three scorecards agree Split 3. Two scorecards agree and one draw Majority 4. two scorecards agree on draw Draw 5. all scorecards different Draw

IX SCORING SYSTEM

A. The MMAC and UFC have adopted a 10 point must system.
The Judge will use the criteria to determine a winner each round. The three step procedure per round is as follows:
-determine winner of round (can be draw) -determine if winner dominated round -fouls then factored in (subtract one point per foul from fighter)

B. Draws are again acceptable in MMAC events

C. Point Totals
1. two fighters who draw are given a score of 10-10 2. the fighter who wins a round is given a score of 10-9 3.The fighter who dominates a round is given a score of 10-8 (a score of 10-7 is possible for a dominant round) 4.For each foul a fighter commits, a point is subtracted. This deduction can change a winning round to a draw. 9-9

[ƒallenloki]

If you use that ^^^, the 10-point system works. It needs to be in the hands of competent judges, however. I'll also admit that it isn't perfect, but in judging fights, is there really anything perfect?

Anyways...

As for the half point system... It is being developed by Doc Hamilton. It pretty much sucks and is excessively complicated. No draws... which is stupid. Basically if a fight is a draw, then a fourth judge does like a force decision

[Drunken Cat]

If you use that ^^^, the 10-point system works. It needs to be in the hands of competent judges, however. I'll also admit that it isn't perfect, but in judging fights, is there really anything perfect?

Anyways...

As for the half point system... It is being developed by Doc Hamilton. It pretty much sucks and is excessively complicated. No draws... which is stupid. Basically if a fight is a draw, then a fourth judge does like a force decision

These are good criteria. I still think half-points are needed all the same if a 10-point must is to be used for 3 round fights. I simply think the 10 point must is absolutely inappropriate for 3 round fights. This is an improvement with regards to the criteria, but it doesn't change the inflexibility problem.