Source: The Underground
Agenda Item 8
July 26, 2010
Presentation of Recommended Changes to MMA Scoring System
Nelson Hamilton, John McCarthy, Herb Dean -California State Athletic Commission Referees
Summary: With the evaluation of Mixed Martial Arts, the scoring system needs to be evaluated to ensure that scoring criteria meets the needs of the sport. As pointed out in presentation when a fighter wins a round just by cage control the same score is given to the other individual who wins a round based on greater damage inflicted. This would allow someone more experience in grappling to takedown an opponent and just stay on top, not inflecting any damage to the other opponent. If this continues for two rounds, he would win two of the three rounds just by cage control. In the final rounds his opponent causes more damage to the fighter and could nearly end the fighter, is awarded the lose even though he inflected more damage through out the match.
Recommendation: This scoring system reflects the current evolution of mixed martial arts. The CAMO is in the process of evaluating the scoring system in the near future and using it at up and coming events. I recommend that the Commission evaluate the pro and a con after CAMO has established the scoring system within the amateur ranks in California. Some of the things that would need to be considered; 1) An extra cost established by the promoter for the extra official 2) ensure all judges are properly trained on the criteria for judging fights 3) referees are trained to understand near-submission 4) would required regulation change to reflect the new scoring system.
ADVANCING THE SPORT OF MMA THROUGH REFINING THE SCORING SYSTEM
We'd like to express our whole-hearted support for the ABC's revisiting ofthe "Unified Rules." Clearly, through time and experience, America's commission officials have gained greater insight into the complexities of regulating Mixed Martial Arts. As the sport evolves, we as officials need to make every effort to match this evolutionary process by rethinking and refining our regulations and procedures. It is in this spirit that we offer recommendations for revising the current scoring system.
It has become fairly obvious to those following the sport that there is growing discontent
with the way many matches -particularly closely contested matches -are scored. In reality,
this seed of discontent is rooted not in the lack ofexpertise or diligence ofour officials, but rather in the use ofa scoring system that does not provide them with the tools necessary to guarantee that their final scores accurately reflect the true nature ofthe bout that occurred.
A Brief History of MMA Scoring
Prior to the implementation ofa scoring system, the outcome ofMMA competition could only be decided by knockout or submission. This was true when the predecessor ofMMA was an Olympic sport known as Pankration in 648 B.C. as well as when it transformed into Brazilian Jiu Jitsu competition and Vale Tudo (literally, "Anything Goes"). There were no judges. If an imposed time limit expired, the bout would be called a draw.
The Present Scoring System
The Ten-Point-Must System allows each judge to reward their selection ofthe more effective MMA fighter with a score of 10-9. In the rare instance when one fighter's relative effectiveness is considered "damaging and overwhelmingly dominant," judges may reward him with a score of 10-8. Conversely, when there is no way to even marginally distinguish between either fighter's effectiveness, the very rare "10-10" score may be used.
Our premise is that the Ten-Point-Must System, as used by the sport for which it was created, boxing, has proven inadequate for use in a multi-discipline sport like MMA, particularly when scoring very close rounds. The nature, variety and diversity of what regularly occur in most MMA rounds demands a scoring system with a finer gradient of options to ensure more fair and accurate scoring.
The obvious failing ofthe current system is that it forces our judges to reward fighters equally for clearly unequal efforts, actions and results. Any round that falls between the vastly divergent circumstances of"marginal advantage in cage control" to anything short of "overwhelming dominance" is rewarded with the exact same score: 10-9. This results in a total-bout scoring that does not accurately reflect the action, leads to criticism of the officials, and even incurs accusations of corruption.
Ten-Point-Must System with the Use of Half-Points
Using half-points allows judges to score bouts in a way that accurately reflects the qualitative difference between the combatants. By using this finer gradient ofjudging, officials may take into consideration both the "scoring criteria" and the "margin by which" each round is won. For instance, a fighter who wins a round marginally based on "cage control" would not receive the same credit as a fighter who wins a round based on the "greater damage inflicted" on his opponent. The overall scoring ofa bout should not be just a reflection ofwho won the most rounds, but also a reflection ofthe "nature of how" and the "margin by which" each round was won. This is particularly true for MMA, considering that the majority ofbouts are scheduled for only three rounds.
What follows is an abbreviated description ofwhat justifies each score. This can easily be expanded and supported with video in order to help objectify and insure its' consistent application.
10-1O EVEN ROUND Although seldom warranted because very close rounds may be scored 10-9.5, it generally reflects one ofthree circumstances.
• A round in which neither fighter distinguished himself via any ofthe established criteria.
•A round in which one fighter is more effective for half ofthe round and then his opponent comes back and exhibits equal effectiveness in the second half ofthe round.
•A round in which both fighters take turns equally inflicting damage on each other, scoring equally with clean strikes, effective grappling and or equal cage control.
10-9.5 MARGINAL ADVANTAGE This score reflects a round that is extremely close. Neither fighter inflicted greater damage on the other. One fighter may have marginally scored a greater number of strikes, or takedowns, marginally controlled the grappling, or demonstrated superior cage control.
10-9 CLEAR ADVANTAGE This score reflects a round in which it was fairly obvious who won, either through the comparative extent of damage inflicted, the number or quality of clean strikes, or the demonstration ofsuperior grappling. 10-9 is the most frequently used score.
10-8.5 DOMINANT ADVANTAGE
This score reflects a round in which the winner is quite obvious, exhibiting dominance and
clearly outclassing his opponent throughout the round, OR, inflicting significant damage.
10-8 OVERWHELMING ADVANTAGE
This score reflects a round in which one fighter clearly wins the round through a combination of damage and domination throughout the entire round resulting from the obvious effects of superiority in striking and/or grappling.
Although scores of 10-7.5 and 10-7 are theoretically possible, they are improbable. A fight so one-sided would ordinarily dictate a referee's stoppage by TKO.
Half-point scoring is not a new concept. It has been used successfully around the world and is almost universally preferred by the professional officials who have had experience with it.
The Scoring Criteria Revisited
Having addressed the use ofa numerical system that will allow our judges to provide scores that better reflect the action, and more appropriately reward the fighters, it is time to reevaluate
the nature ofthe prioritized criteria that we use as a context for our evaluation.
Although MMA competition is a sport, at its core it is also a fight. And, generally speaking, the most obvious and objective indication as to which fighter is winning is the extent of damage inflicted. Because the concept of"damage" as defined below is a "result" of effectiveness rather than an "action", it should be valued highest on the prioritized judge's scoring criteria.
PRIORTIZED SCORING CRITERIA
1. Damage Damage may be defined as any visible sign ofdebilitation
•A cut or a bruise
•Appearing stunned from a blow to the head or body slam
•Wincing from a body blow
•Ceasing forward movement, becoming defensive or hastily retreating after being struck
•Staggering or favoring a leg that has been kicked.
•Debilitation resulting from the efforts required to escape wrestling holds or
submission attempts.
2. Successful Striking * / Successful Grappling ** Successful Striking and Successful Grappling should appear parallel as second on the list of prioritized criterion. It should be considered the 'Jail-back position" for evaluating effectiveness when neither fighter distinguishes himself or herself in regard to damage inflicted. Placing "successful striking" above "successful grappling, " as exists in the current criteria, is unnecessary since the best measure ofsuccessful striking is "damage". Keeping them parallel at number-two allows judges to evaluate equally the impact that either action(s) had with due consideration for how much ofthe round was contested on the mat versus via 'stand-up' .
3. Cage Control When neither fighter distinguishes themselves through the amount ofdamage inflicted
(1), or the volume or quality ofsuccessful striking / grappling (
2), Cage (or ring) Control should be the point ofevaluation for determining the judges score.
Cage
[... truncated — view original at source URL above ...]
