The New System of MMA Scoring
From Old School
Dan Bonnell put up a nice piece last week regarding the issue of judging MMA and some of the shortcomings of the current system that is being used nation and world wide. While we all agree that something (lots of things) should be done about MMA judging, there are many opinions of what actions should be taken. I think that we, as educated fans of the MMA game, all agree that MMA judging lies somewhere between average (on a good day) to horrible (on an average day). Fans don’t actually see all the inadequacies that we, the press, do; I sometimes look at the judges’ cards of fights that end by KO or submission and just how bad certain judges judged the rounds before the fight was finished by the fighters. Some of these judges are far worse than the average fan can imagine. If some of the fights that end before they go to the judges actually went to the judges, the fans would see a lot more absurdities than they currently do.
I see two major areas that our current MMA judging system needs to be improved upon. The first area that needs to be revamped is the judges themselves, while the second thing that needs a complete overhaul is the scoring system.
One of the most obvious things that needs to be addressed in MMA judging is the actual judges; who are they and how did they get where they are? For the most part in this country, MMA judges are locally hired, locally trained (or not trained at all), publicly employed, and, thus, incompetence is bound to enter the picture. NBA refs and MLB baseball umps have years of training, education, and work in the high school sports systems, minor leagues, and colleges before they can move to the bigs. I have an uncle who umped baseball for more than twenty years, including hosting instructional seminars and training workshops. He explained to me how a high quality umpire in baseball generally needs to put in upwards of twenty years before he can work his first MLB game. In MMA, there are people judging Pro fights as high as the UFC level who have no more qualifications than a six hour seminar and a brother-in-law who works for the state!
Somewhere along the line the UFC either lost or never fully controlled the judging and reffing aspect of their own organization. In other Pro sports the organization has their own system of officiating. In Major League Baseball there is an umpires union that the umps belong to. (The same thing is true in the NBA, NHL, and NFL, and these are very powerful unions.) Most umpires toil for years working behind the plate in the Minor Leagues and below before they are able to even get looked at by MLB. Prospective umps are required to take classes and seminars along the way, all the while honing their skills at the high school and college levels. The best of the best from that level may have the opportunity to move on to the Minor Leagues where they will work for several more years. Throughout this whole process, there are systems in place to accurately gauge an umpires’ quality of work; his games are scrutinized and his quality is graded. Only the best umpires arrive at the MLB level, and only after many years of hard work at low pay on the lower levels. The NFL and NBA have similar systems in play at all times for the umpires and refs within their organizations.
I remember once while working cage side I saw a new face on the scene. We introduced ourselves and I asked what his job is here at the fights. “I’m a judge,” is what he told me, and this is his first show. We talked for a while and when I asked him about his MMA background, he told me that he has none. I asked how he became a judge and he answered that he took the course several weeks earlier on a Saturday, and that he knew somebody through his day job that got him the inside track. As I watched him and spoke with him over the course of the night, it was painfully obvious that he had absolutely no skills, knowledge, or experience in the MMA game. He didn’t know why some fights were stopped (didn’t see a fighter tapping on an arm triangle), couldn’t determine who was winning ground battles (had no knowledge of submission), and generally seemed lost all night long. At one point he commented to me that he likes it when one fighter nails a takedown and stays on top the whole round because then he’s pretty sure who won that round! I had to wonder which was more stupid, his lack of skills at this job or his lack of common sense in telling me the things that he told me. (This is a true story; I didn’t make it up for our entertainment.)
The UFC is the biggest organization in the MMA world, much like The NHL is in hockey, the NBA in basketball, and MLB is to baseball. But for some reason, the UFC is the only one of these major organizations that has no say over who referees and judges their own events. If this situation changed, the quality of MMA judging and reffing would improve over night!
The second most problematic area of MMA judging, I believe, lies in the inadequacies of the 10 Point Must System. The 10 Point Must System is the old boxing scoring method where the winner of the round gets ten points, the opponent gets nine points or less. This system, though still somewhat flawed, is most efficiently used in boxing, a sport that allows strikes only with the hands, and championship fights consist of twelve rounds (fifteen rounds in the old days). It is a lot more likely to accurately score a boxing round with the 10 Point Must System than it is to score an MMA round. And in boxing, if you do happen to make a mistake in judgment of a round, you have eleven more rounds to make up for it. In most Mixed Martial Arts fights there are only three rounds, and therefore, if there is a flaw in the judging/scoring system, then it is magnified. (A close round or a misjudged round could result in improperly scoring 1/3 of the fight.)
Another flaw that is inherently built into the 10 Point Must System is that almost all rounds are judged 10-9, regardless of the dominance or closeness of the round. (Remember, the winner of the round MUST receive 10 points, the opponent MUST receive 9 or less. Tied rounds are not allowed in most states.) We’ve all seen many fights in which two of the three rounds are razor thin and could go in favor of either fighter, while the third round is dominated by one fighter. The problem here is when Fighter “A” is given the nod in both of the two close rounds (on two of the three judges’ cards) and then Fighter “B” dominates the third round on all three judges’ cards, but is only given 10-9 scores. Fighter “B” clearly inflicted more damage in the fight, but because of the 10 Point Must System, Fighter “B” loses the fight via a split decision.
Still another flaw that is common in the 10 Point Must System is that the judges, even the good ones, sometimes get so used to scoring 10-9, 10-9, 9-10, 9-10, that they forget to implement a 10-8 when it is warranted. There are many times that I have questioned judges after a decision like the example above, and a judge will say “yeah, I guess I should have called that third round a 10-8 but I just get so used to writing down the 10-9 I forget”. This happens more than you think. I’ve actually seen several situations where a ref will take a point away from a fighter for an infraction during a round, thus insuring that a 10-9 is not even mathematically possible, and judges (who are so frigging accustomed to writing 10-9, 10-9, 10-9) scored that round 10-9.
I remember clearly that this situation happened on a fight card at Mohegan Sun Casino, Connecticut. Fighter “A” dominated Fighter “B”, clearly winning the round 10-9, but Fighter “B” was also penalized a point deduction during the round for repeatedly grabbing the cage. Fighter “A” has to win this round at least 10-8, maybe even 10-7, depending on how severely each judge thinks the round was dominated by Fighter “A”. Two of the three judges scored that round 10-9 for Fighter “A”. The third judge scored it properly at 10-8. When I questioned one of the judges who messed up, he rebuffed my question saying that it really doesn’t matter, because Fighter “A” ended up winning that fight anyhow! This level of incompetence in very rarely addressed in MMA, yet in other Pro sports would be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Repeated mistakes like this one, if the game were Major League baseball, would result in the dismissal of an umpire or referee.
If we eliminate the 10-9, 10-9, 9-10, 9-10 pattern that Judges get so used to using, we will have taken a big step in the right direction. The Ten Point Must System is outdated and antiquated and must go. May I present to you the New Old School 10 Point MMA Scoring System?!
Here’s how it works:
- 10-10 for a tie round. Scoring a round as a tie will now be legal, as opposed to mandatory 10-9 for real close rounds that exists with the current system.
- 10-9 for a close round, like the rounds that are now close and scored 10-9.
- 10-8 score when one fighter dominates a round soundly. There needs to be a difference between a really close round that could go either way (or called a tie) and must be given to one fighter and a round that is dominated by one fighter, and right now those two scenarios are largely scored the same; not any more with the new and improved system.
(Please note, That the 10-10, 10-9, 10-8 scores that I have described in the new system are all currently scored the same, 10-9, in the old 10 Point Must System.)
- 10-7 score for a dominant round that one fighter is close to finishing his opponent.
- 10-6 for a complete domination of the round, one that we would currently call a 10-8.
- 10-5 could be used for that very rare round that is possible and could have been stopped once or twice by the ref but for some reason wasn’t.
This new scoring system will ensure that the two major problems with the current 10 Point Must System vanish immediately. First, the mundane and routine habit of judges scoring 10-9, 10-9, 9-10 will no longer suffice; judges will actually have to think and process more information before writing down their score after each round. Second, the situation where two razor thin rounds offsetting one dominant round will probably no longer be an issue.
Check it out:
The Ten Point Must System- Rounds one and two are wicked close, and with the old system the judges are obligated to score those two rounds 10-9 each; they do so and Fighter “A” wins both those rounds on two of the three judges’ cards, while Fighter “B” wins it on the third judges’ card. Round three is totally dominated by Fighter “B”, and all three judges see it that way, 10-9. Fighter “A” wins this fight via Split Decision (29-28, 29-28, 28-29).
The New Old School 10 Point MMA Scoring System- Rounds one and two are wicked close (possibly even a 10-10 tie), but still two of the judges call it 10-9 for Fighter “A”, the third judge calls them 10-9 for Fighter “B”. Fighter “B” totally dominates the third round as before, but unlike the old system, he receives scores from the three judges of 10-7, 10-7, 10-7.
Here’s how they stack up:
Judge 1 (10-9, 10-9, 7-10) for Fighter “B”: 28-27
Judge 2 (10-9, 10-10, 7-10) for Fighter “B” 29-27
Judge 3 (10-9, 10-9, 10-7) for Fighter “B” 30-25
Fighter “B” wins a unanimous decision, which is much more indicative of how the fight really went down.
I think a system like the one I have described would eliminate some of the flaws in our current MMA scoring system. What do you think?
These are just a few thoughts on The New Old School 10 Point MMA Scoring System!
From Old School
I like this new system idea, I dont think there is any question which one would be more efficient…question is…what is everyone waiting for? Change it already! Simple fix
was anyone at the CFX this weekend?
I don’t think this system will work at all without highly educated judges, so you’re right to have the two-prong approach of revamping the scoring system and the judge training.
I think it’s wrong, though, to make it sound as if a fighter like “The Convict” McLaughlin unfairly won against Tugman at Bellator 39 (when he squeaked out the first two rounds but lost the third soundly). According to our current rules, he won fair and square, not because of a faulty system or bad judges (that was actually an excellent job by the judges). If the system was different, then he might have fought differently. As it was, he won under our current system; he and other fighters who win such decisions shouldn’t be made to feel bad about how they won.
old school do this and its a big step in the right direction but they should do something if fighters take u down and lay on u for half the round without enough action i say a 20 -30 sec rule no action or change in position stand them up alot of fighters take people down and just lay on them wit little damage done just sayin
Its pretty simple really. Just make each fight, one round long. You’ll see a lot more finishes and no one being saved by the bell. 1, 15minute fight.
…or a title fight a 20 minute fight.
I always thought it would be easiest to score 1 point for the major things in a fight- for example if you win striking you get 1 point, take downs 1 point, ground 1 point (who is attacking submissions, ground and pound- position etc), octagon control/ aggression 1 point, damage 1 point,
if there were no take downs in a round for example noone would get the point-
scores would need to be given to the fighters at the end of each round and if they were down 5 points it would make for a great 3rd round
I like that GSP. Scorecards would be simple, list all those aspects you just mentioned and put a check next to the fighter that was more dominant in that aspect of the fight in that round X 3. Great idea!
I like the idea of trying to force the judges to score more decisivley with the 10-8, 10-7 idea but i think when you get into 10-6 and so on it gets to be too much. If you run into a fight like Frankie Edgar vs Gray Maynard 1 where Grey had him all but KO’d on his feet…. According to this theory, it would have been scored 10-5 and Frankie never would have climbed back to win the fight even if he won out the rest of the rounds the same way he did in that fight.
Thinking out loud here:
Now, I think Bessette and Hoxie are on to something with the 1, 15 minute round fight. It puts more emphasis on the fighter to have to finish the fight in the opening few minutes, hence making it more exciting to watch. Unless your plan is to pace yourself like a long distance runner and wear a guy out.
I think over the next few decades we’ll begin to see different rules, regulations, bout times, scoring methods all begin to change. Look at the NFL, as try progressed and matured they added in different equipment, new rules, and even instant replay. Is that the future for our sport as well?
Fighters are immensely more apt to gas in a 15 minute long fight without and breaks in between. So if I’m smart wouldn’t I just try to whether your storm and push the pace when you begin to slow down?
Look, at the end of the day no matter what scoring system we use as long as a human is scoring the fight there will be errors and they will be heavily opinion based.
I’m way to lazy for a one round 15 min fight. Ps Dan B. You are handsome….Extra Homo!!!!
GSP – That’s a cool idea but you are suggesting that striking effectively and a single takedown are on the same level, because if I smack the shit out of you for 4 minutes and you take me down once, and the try to get a submission attempt, then you are up 2-1?…I like your idea but some things should just be weighed differently than others.
…unless you are saying that I could be given a single point for damage and then one more point for aggression and then one more for octagon control…Of course if the judges weren’t wrestler or bjj guys lol…judging will ALWAYS be shitty lol
First off, great article. Kudos to Old School for some well-thought-out solutions, and there’re a lot of really good ideas being bounced around.
I’m just going to chime in to disagree with the “one round only” concept. I love the idea, and it brings back the purity of the earlier Pride and UFC days, but I think it will only worsen the quality of judging.
Think about how quickly you used to doze off in math class. I think mental fatigue will contribute to more human error. The breaks in rounds are a great time for a judge to reflect, regroup, and pen his score before he forgets all the finer details of the past five minutes.
I don’t have any evidence, but I have a sneaking suspicion that one 15-min round will lead to endgame swindles. Let’s say a 3-rounder is scored by all judges as 10-9 10-9 8-10 in the Old School system – it would be declared a draw. But if the same fight was one 15 minute round, I’m willing to bet that the fighter with the late surge would be named the winner, especially when the judges have already watched 8 other fights. Fighter A’s armbar attempt in minute two will be hard to weigh against the elbow Fighter B landed in minute 14.
Keep the rounds, lose the bad judges.
Bessette and I are renting a riverboat and holding one round, fifteen minute fights eleven miles off the coast. If movies have taught me one thing it’s that anything is legal when you’re more than ten miles off the coast and somehow that’s more true in riverboats.
It is true that it might be harder to judge one single long round but how many times have you tried to score (in your head) a fight you’re watching and been someone confused about it on a round by round level but have a VERY clear picture of who won after all three?
Another random thought that will probably also never happen because it’s cost prohibitive is having FIVE judges. This way it’s less likely to be jolted by one D-bag judge.
Old School, I love your ideas. I have some suggestions about this topic as well.
The judges should sit by themselves at different areas along the cage. Depending on one’s location, you can’t see all of the submissions, if a fighter is intelligently defending a “ground and pound” and such. This will allow a judge to score based on what they saw from that perspective without the influence of the other judges at the table.
You can still have the 10 point system. But, have a judge analyze only one aspect of the fight. One judge can score based on striking. Another judge will just score based take downs and the ground game. Then the other judge will score the fight based on aggression. Add all the points together at the end and you should have a winner.
But it all comes down to educating the judges. This can be done by requiring the judges to train in either BJJ, MMA or other combat sports for at least one year AND participate in one competition (NAGA, NAPAGA, Ammy MMA, etc) prior to applying for this job.
This would force these judges to learn more about the sport and make better decisions in scoring the fight. Having them participate in a competition, whether if they win or lose, gives them the fighter’s perspective of scoring a fight. Finally, have the judges attend seminar focusing specifically on one aspect of the fight.
This system will force the fighter to end the match a lot faster or train in all aspects of sport, not just striking or BJJ to score more points for a win.
@ matt, i agree with your point but given your premise- fighter A would get a point for striking, point for damage and point for octagon control/ aggression fighter B would get a point for the take down- a 3-1 round,
This way it might also take out personal biases where a judge is from a background of wrestling and will score a 10-9 round for someone that has a take down and lay and pray for 1/2 round rather than the striker that kicked the crap outta someone for the first half round
For the record the accepted scoring system comes from the New Jersey and Nevada State Athletic Control Boards. The problem is that current judges are not using the accepted criteria not the criteria itself. New Jersey’s rules on judging as accepted on 2/18/03:
13:46-24A.13 Judging
(a) All bouts will be evaluated and scored by three judges.
(b) The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
(c) Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.
(d) Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.
(e) Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal heavy strikes landed by a contestant.
(f) Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.
(g) Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
(h) Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.
(i) Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.
(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;
1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;
2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
(k) Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:
1. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:
i. Effective grappling is weighed first; and
ii. Effective striking is then weighed
2. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:
1. Effective striking is weighed first; and
2. Effective grappling is then weighed
3. If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.
Here is the page http://www.nj.gov/oag/sacb/docs/martial.html
You have to remember that throughout most of the country, the only criteria for being a judge is knowing someone on the commission. There have, quite literally, been times when UFC titles have been decided by a judge who’s only qualifications are being the brother-in-law of a commissioner. I’m not 100% hip on the status of our fair state’s judging scene, but I’m just illustrating the mindset of a lot of the people who make up the rules and how fights are scored. I’m a bigger proponent on letting the referee pick the winner of a fight, as he is often the most qualified official at the event. Actually, strike that, there are a lot of shitty refs at the local level too – is Gary Eblan still reffing?