pride vs UFC standard judges

[takertitan]

This is a question any MMA fan can get behind. I stand on the side that the PRIDE scoring system is a far better judge of talent shown in a match and is generally a more consistent judging system than UFC's boxing based round system.

 

This also brings on the question; what other rules do you agree/not agree with in current MMA.

 

Kicks to a downed opp and knees can be deadly, but limits can be put on both(no knees from a North south position for example). Elbows has become another major question recently, but do you really want to limit Jon Jones on the ground?

 

the sports rule set has evolved to a point where it should be based fight per fight to give the best results(letting #1 contenders to 5 rounds makes sense a lot of the time), and boxing allows minor discrepancy's to rules like glove size for example.

[brashleyholland]

At the moment, I prefer the 10-point-must system, purely because most judges are not well educated enough to properly, consistently and uniformly judge fights.

 

The 'Pride' system simply adds further subjectivity to the matter. People rag on US judges, but there have been some truly, truly awful decisions in Japan over the years.

 

As for the soccer kicks, knees, etc...I'm in two minds. For the purity of the sport, I say yes. Having been soccer-kicked repeatedly in a fight that probably should have been stopped, I can see why a lot of fighters say no. There is always the argument that while they are more dangerous blows, if a ref is doing his job properly then you shouldn't take many of them before a fight it stopped.

 

On the flipside, it makes the sport look horrible. The fact is, most people see a person getting kicked stomped and they feel a little sick, as they should. For that reason, if I was pressed, I'd vote no.

 

Great thread, btw.

[brashleyholland]

Elbows has become another major question recently, but do you really want to limit Jon Jones on the ground?

 

Just to add on elbows, I think it's horses for courses. Bellator bans them for tournament fights and with good reason; you get cut, you get suspended and can't fight in the next round.

 

Strikeforce were pressured by CBS/Showtime...because they weren't comfortable with the gore on primetime TV (particularly CBS)...that's understandable, and a small sacrifice to get mainstream publicity.

[seanmc]

The judging systems, both 10 point must and Pride, are horribly ineffective IMO. The 10 point must is only questionably effective for Boxing, and they only have 1 aspect of fighting to judge. The Pride system is too easily corrupted. It just seems like it'd be too easy to win an entire fight just by looking better at the end. And by that I mean, by being less damaged after the fight. It's a rather common mindset to believe that the fighter that takes more damage clearly lost the fight. That's simply not true. What MMA needs is a system that scores everything. Striking, Grappling, Ground Fighting, Effective Aggression and Control.

 

Soccer kicks and knees while grounded should be legalized. However, stomps shouldn't be. The big place I'd love to see knees is when the LnP Wrestler has a shot stuffed and is just sitting there on his knees futilely holding onto a leg, jokingly trying to finish the TD. With knees to a grounded opponent legal, the fighter could not afford to sit on his knees holding one leg because the other knee could and would be coming trying to end his night. And it would kind of force the dominant Wrestler to learn how to do other ****, because even the most prolific take down artist has 1 in 5 stuffed. That 1 time could be where the fight is ended by a knee. Hopefully that'd mean we'd see Jon Fitch in a REAL fight, and not a glorified Wrestling match.

[samuricex]

The Pride system is too easily corrupted. It just seems like it'd be too easy to win an entire fight just by looking better at the end. And by that I mean, by being less damaged after the fight. It's a rather common mindset to believe that the fighter that takes more damage clearly lost the fight. That's simply not true.

 

Judging is a hard thing to call in MMA because there are so many different aspects, but the one thing that is universal to everything else is damage. So I believe that damage should play a huge part in the scoring, and that works best when the fight is judged overall.

 

The way I see it is that the 10-point must system is total and utter garbage. While the Pride judging system is better overall. I hate seeing guys who get beat up win a decision just because they held the other guy against the cage for 4 minutes each round. With the Pride system that guy would have lost, and I do believe that is the better call also.

[Daffanka]

I prefer the Pride scoring system although it's not without its own set of problems. Murilo lost way too many fights by being punched a lot at the end.

 

Also I think elbows and knees should be allowed on the ground. Giving people more offensive weapons on the ground encourages a more dynamic ground game. I hated it in Pride when guys would just play double wrist control and get stood up, elbows solve that problem nicely. Knees on the ground would discourage sloppy shots and give wrestlers a very effective weapon to use if they manage to pass the guard and get into side control/north south.

 

I'd like soccer kicks as well but I don't think they'll ever be allowed. We'll probably see knees on the ground within a few years though.

[Pampero Firpo]

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw stomps, kicks, knees and elbows to a grounded opponent. Those are brutal techniques that diminish the sport in the eyes of the general public (and regulators). I think MMA would be served to forbid those techniques as to do so would help garner broader public acceptance.

 

As for scoring, I prefer the PRIDE system of judging the fight as a whole instead of on a round by round basis. It's not perfect, but it helps avoid situations where one fighter easily wins one round and barely loses the next two. In the 10-point must system he'll lose the fight 29-28, whereas in reality he did better in the fight overall and should therefore win.

 

I do think the sport needs to look at the scoring criteria. The idea of MMA should be to knock out or submit your opponent, and attacks that try to accomplish those ends should be given the most weight. In my opinion too much credit is given for control and not enough for attack that have the potential to finish a fight -- particularly submission attempts.

 

To me a takedown shouldn't be worth much of anything as far as points. The benefit of a takedown is it puts you in a dominant position that will allow you to more effectively attack your opponent. But if you just take him down and then hold him there without attacking, that shouldn't be worth anything. To me that's like giving points to entering a clinch and then hugging your opponent tight so he can't do anything. Yes, it's control -- but if you don't use that control to actually threaten your opponent then it shouldn't be worth any points.

 

I particularly hate it when a guy gets a takedown and then doesn't do anything other than pin down his opponent and periodically slap him across the face so the referee doesn't stand them up. Meanwhile, the guy on the bottom is throwing punches and stringing together submission attempts. The way things are judged now, the guy who was on top would win a round like that, whereas I feel the guy on the bottom should win the round based on his attempts to damage/submit his opponent with strikes and sub attempts -- even if they were attempted from bottom position. In my opinion, strikes and submission attempts (even from the bottom) far outweigh one takedown and control without any attacks.

[Jennie Bomb]

The main problem with the 10 point-must system is not the system, but the application of it by judges. I think that if judges were more inclined to hand out 10-8, 10-7 etc. rounds where they're approriate, I think the perception of the fairness of the system would increase massively. I mean, if a guy clearly dominates one round while aggressively trying to win the whole way through, then Roy Nelson lies on top of him thinking of cheeseburgers for the other two rounds, the other guy should get at least a draw for his dominant round scoring 10-8 against Roy's 10-9 naps.

[samuricex]

The main problem with the 10 point-must system is not the system, but the application of it by judges. I think that if judges were more inclined to hand out 10-8, 10-7 etc. rounds where they're approriate, I think the perception of the fairness of the system would increase massively. I mean, if a guy clearly dominates one round while aggressively trying to win the whole way through, then Roy Nelson lies on top of him thinking of cheeseburgers for the other two rounds, the other guy should get at least a draw for his dominant round scoring 10-8 against Roy's 10-9 naps.

 

That's a terrible example. I hate to think you're just going by what Dana said. Roy had an extremely dominant position and his fight against Kimbo should have been stopped in the first round.

[Jennie Bomb]

That's a terrible example. I hate to think you're just going by what Dana said. Roy had an extremely dominant position and his fight against Kimbo should have been stopped in the first round.

What? I wasn't thinking of a specific fight. I was speaking hypothetically.

[ampulator]

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw stomps, kicks, knees and elbows to a grounded opponent. Those are brutal techniques that diminish the sport in the eyes of the general public (and regulators). I think MMA would be served to forbid those techniques as to do so would help garner broader public acceptance.

I disagree, but only partially. Knees, stomps, and kicks to the head? Yes.

 

Elbows as whole, knees stomps, or soccers to the body or leg? Heck no. I see absolutely no problem with elbows.

[seanmc]

Judging is a hard thing to call in MMA because there are so many different aspects, but the one thing that is universal to everything else is damage. So I believe that damage should play a huge part in the scoring, and that works best when the fight is judged overall.

 

The way I see it is that the 10-point must system is total and utter garbage. While the Pride judging system is better overall. I hate seeing guys who get beat up win a decision just because they held the other guy against the cage for 4 minutes each round. With the Pride system that guy would have lost, and I do believe that is the better call also.

 

So Chael Sonnen would've been in danger of losing if he'd went to a decision with Anderson Silva? He was clearly more damaged, but he did dominate the fight. I hate the guy but he clearly would've won if he knew how to defend subs. Anyways, what you're saying is that, regardless of the fact he spent the entire fight on top on the ground, controlling and jokingly GnPing, the cut he suffered would hold more weight? I'm sorry but that's not even close to being right. Borderline dumb really.

[Pogo92]

So Chael Sonnen would've been in danger of losing if he'd went to a decision with Anderson Silva? He was clearly more damaged, but he did dominate the fight. I hate the guy but he clearly would've won if he knew how to defend subs. Anyways, what you're saying is that, regardless of the fact he spent the entire fight on top on the ground, controlling and jokingly GnPing, the cut he suffered would hold more weight? I'm sorry but that's not even close to being right. Borderline dumb really.

 

 

Chael Sonnen was doing a lot more than just laying there, he was legitimately producing damage through his ground and pound and he kept busy, though he never really worked for position. If that fight went to a decision, Chael would have won under any judging standard, Chael straight up did more damage over more time than Silva had. And damage isn't measured in "cuts", quit being dense. It's estimated roughly through number of blows and the effectiveness/power of each strike (And then you would throw in more scoring for attempting to finish and effective use of subs.)

[samuricex]

Pogo hit the nail on the head. I never even stated my definition of damage, and it certainly isn't all aesthetic. Some people cut more easily or bruise more easily, so you have to factor in more than what someone looks like after a fight.

[seanmc]

Chael Sonnen was doing a lot more than just laying there, he was legitimately producing damage through his ground and pound and he kept busy, though he never really worked for position. If that fight went to a decision, Chael would have won under any judging standard, Chael straight up did more damage over more time than Silva had. And damage isn't measured in "cuts", quit being dense. It's estimated roughly through number of blows and the effectiveness/power of each strike (And then you would throw in more scoring for attempting to finish and effective use of subs.)

 

Pogo hit the nail on the head. I never even stated my definition of damage, and it certainly isn't all aesthetic. Some people cut more easily or bruise more easily, so you have to factor in more than what someone looks like after a fight.

 

Bottom line, physical cuts and bruises are clearly more indicative of damage. Chael landed more blows, but they were mainly his harmless GnP, aimed at only keeping the fight on the ground. None of the GnP was as damaging as the few body kicks and 1 elbow Silva landed.

 

Pogo, get off Fails nuts, he kept busy but was far from doing any damage, with the exception of the 1 punch that scored him the fluke knockdown at the very beginning of the fight. If you can't see that, then you're the dense one who needs somebody's sack a rest. Seriously, it's quite sad.

[ampulator]

I wouldn't call Sonnen's GnP harmless, but rather, that he has no power in his hands. He has a lot of power in other parts of his arms, though, so those shots he does still hurts. It's just that, he won't knock anyone out, but it's not like it won't slow you down if you keep getting hit by them. It's kinda like what happened in the Nelson/Santos fight-even if you almost never go down, you slow down because you hit so many times.

 

The opposite in terms of arms, to me, is Matt Serra. Someone said to me, this: "Anvil Heads, Midget Arms". If you get caught, you can go lights, but if you aren't careless, you'd be okay.

 

When you get to someone like Brock Lesnar or Shane Carwin, who has powerful hands AND arms, their GnP pretty much means you dead meat if you get stuck.

[Payne]

Chael Sonnen was doing a lot more than just laying there, he was legitimately producing damage through his ground and pound and he kept busy, though he never really worked for position. If that fight went to a decision, Chael would have won under any judging standard, Chael straight up did more damage over more time than Silva had. And damage isn't measured in "cuts", quit being dense. It's estimated roughly through number of blows and the effectiveness/power of each strike (And then you would throw in more scoring for attempting to finish and effective use of subs.)

 

So then the judging becomes subjective based on Estimates? So, if I think Anderson Silva worked harder from the ground, because he was actively searching for defense and throwing up submissions, he would have clearly won that?

 

Lesnar was just as active defending the punches, as he was kicking (I can't remember his name right now) away, and defending?

 

Or is it just offense? Does defense not count for anything? Would Lyoto Machida lose every fight because he a counter-fighter? He's not aggressive, but he inflicts damage.

 

What about GSP's "safe style"?

 

This leads to a lot of very subjective judging. If you have a favourite, you could very well just be watching him, and missing many points.

 

I think a 10 point must is the best, but the criteria needs to be expanded. Maybe have a "number's cruncher" showing strikes thrown vs. strikes landed, takedowns attempted vs. successful takedowns, top position offense vs. bottome position offense, defensive maneuvers......etc.

[brashleyholland]

So then the judging becomes subjective based on Estimates? So, if I think Anderson Silva worked harder from the ground, because he was actively searching for defense and throwing up submissions, he would have clearly won that?

 

 

Yes, unfortunately that's exactly how it works. When looking at damage, for example, you have to 'judge' who, in your opinion, landed the more damaging blows. Depending on where you're sitting, it's often impossible (especially with bigger cages) for each individual judge to see if a blow lands, or more importantly is effective in causing damage. So you gave to guestimate.

 

When you see a fight that has taken place primarily in one part of the cage (for example, a good wrester has repeatedly taken his opponent down in against the fence in his own corner) it's not uncommon to see one judge score the fight completely differently. Most Sher-tards immediately jump to the 'bad judging' conclusion, having never A) Sat that close to a cage and tried to objectivly score a fight and B) actually learned how to score a fight outside of looking at the Unified Rules judging criteria online.

 

With the Sonnen/Silva example, Sonnen wins that fight every time, whether it's in the US, Japan or Mars. Effective Striking, Effective Grappling, Damage, Aggression, Octagon Control - there are the main judging criteria. Let's disregard damage for a second...Sonnen takes every round on effective grappling/striking, aggression, control. That wins him the fight.

 

Lesnar was just as active defending the punches, as he was kicking (I can't remember his name right now) away, and defending?

 

Carwin took that round on effective striking, damage (he landed the only damaging blows in the round), aggression (he was clearly the aggressor) and Octagon control (he put Brock down and kept him there). It's hard to score anything Brock did in that round...you could say that his transition at the end was effective grappling, but because it constituted such a small percentage of the fight, it would not have been looked at by the judges (unless literally NOTHING else had happened).

 

Or is it just offense? Does defense not count for anything? Would Lyoto Machida lose every fight because he a counter-fighter? He's not aggressive, but he inflicts damage

.

 

Machida wins his fights by Octagon control (he controls the pace of the fight, makes his opponents come to him), effective striking and grappling and damage...he's not aggressive in the traditional sense, but when you can't hit him and he can hit you, he doesn't have to be.

 

What about GSP's "safe style"?

 

Effective grappling (takedowns, guard passing) Octagon control (self explanatory in GSP's case), aggression (actively looking for guard passes/submissions/takedowns) and damage (Matt Serra 1 was the last time that somebody landed more damaging blows than GSP in a fight).

 

This leads to a lot of very subjective judging.

 

Absolutely.

 

 

If you have a favourite, you could very well just be watching him, and missing many points.

 

If you have 'favourites', you shouldn't be judging their fights, period. Most judges I've met are professional enough not to have favourites in that sense, but I've met more judges that aren't what I would call 'qualified' than ones that are.

[brashleyholland]

One thing people don't know/remember about the judging criteria in the US is that a percentage system is used to give weighting to striking and grappling.

 

What this means is that if there is more grappling than striking in a round (i.e. most of the fight takes place in the clinch or on the floor) then grappling is given priority in scoring.

 

So lets say you have a fight where a wrestler takes down a striker and controls him on the mat for four minutes. He doesn't really do much, maybe passes guard one or twice, but lands enough 'pitter-patter' strikes to prevent the ref from standing the fight up. The striker, for his part, throws up a triangle or an armbar, the odd hammer-fist etc.

 

At the four-minute mark, the fight is stood up. The striker goes nuts, landing 40 blows in 60 seconds, getting almost nothing in return. The wrestler is on the back foot, covering up, eating shot after shot. He's a bit busted up by the time the buzzer goes.

 

Now, you could argue that the Striker was the aggressor...he attempted a submission or two from his back, and he certainly did more damage and went for the finish. He wins effective striking too, right?

 

If that fight was scored correctly, he would not win that round. Because the portion of the fight he dominated (and arguably did more to win the round in) was only 20% of the total round, it will only be given a 20% weighting by a judge who is doing his job properly.

[Pogo92]

So then the judging becomes subjective based on Estimates? So, if I think Anderson Silva worked harder from the ground, because he was actively searching for defense and throwing up submissions, he would have clearly won that?

 

Lesnar was just as active defending the punches, as he was kicking (I can't remember his name right now) away, and defending?

 

Or is it just offense? Does defense not count for anything? Would Lyoto Machida lose every fight because he a counter-fighter? He's not aggressive, but he inflicts damage.

 

What about GSP's "safe style"?

 

This leads to a lot of very subjective judging. If you have a favourite, you could very well just be watching him, and missing many points.

 

I think a 10 point must is the best, but the criteria needs to be expanded. Maybe have a "number's cruncher" showing strikes thrown vs. strikes landed, takedowns attempted vs. successful takedowns, top position offense vs. bottome position offense, defensive maneuvers......etc.

 

 

All judging in MMA is subjective. We use no objective measures to gauge the fight, it's all based on what a judge considers "Effective". I think you need to look up what "Objective" means, as it's well regarded that most UFC decisions are far from it.

 

And notice that my description has nothing about defense. Because defense doesn't score points--the point of strong defense is to nullify your oppositions ability to score points/put you into a position to score points. You know, like almost ANY OTHER SPORT.

 

Lyoto Machida would win most of his fights, as he lands considerably more blows and is just about the least hit fighter in the UFC (Both by blows and percentage-wise).

 

 

In the Anderson Silva fight, he showed little ability to both end the fight (Outside the final triangle armbar) and deal damage. Chael Sonnen displayed immense control which translated into a lot of damage, through little increments of striking (Though there was several times in the fight where he was postured up over Silva raining down hard blows).

 

Brock Lesnar did no damage in the first round of his fight and never came close to even attempting to finish in that round. How do you jump to the conclusion that a professional judge could give him the round? Such hyperbolic examples are just ridiculous, quit building arguments out of exaggerations and try to come up with something logical.

 

 

Like I said:

 

"It's estimated roughly through number of blows and the effectiveness/power of each strike (And then you would throw in more scoring for attempting to finish and effective use of subs.) "

 

The attempting to finish is about the only controversial part of this, but in truth it's more or less the least emphasized part of my criteria. The idea is to score against fighters who choose to run away or, in the case where other criteria are at a dead heap, the round would go to whoever worked harder for it.

 

In the case of GSP's "Safe" style, as you put it, yes. The whole point of this system is to discourage that kind of fighting; keep in mind those fighters with top control will still have just as much opportunity to dish out damage from the top as before. The only difference is if they choose not to (For fear of not winning by boring decision) or are incapable of thanks to the bottom's defense, in which case, nuts to them. They shouldn't have brought the fight to the ground if they can't win it there.

 

I generated this criteria with the basis of what Martial Arts stand for, practically. The idea was to train ones body so it could be used a weapon of offense and self-defense, yes? And in a fight, what is one's objective? To, in short, eliminate the threat whether it be by death or incapacitation adequate enough to escape and get help from an authority (And everything inbetween).

 

Where does laying on top of your foe play into that? Sure, you're neutralizing them, but only in the most temporary of manners--The second you get up, he's still fine and ready to brawl. Thus, an emphasis need be put on effective elimantion means, either submissions or striking, and trying to accomplish this means throughout the fight.

 

Bottom line, physical cuts and bruises are clearly more indicative of damage. Chael landed more blows, but they were mainly his harmless GnP, aimed at only keeping the fight on the ground. None of the GnP was as damaging as the few body kicks and 1 elbow Silva landed.

 

Pogo, get off Fails nuts, he kept busy but was far from doing any damage, with the exception of the 1 punch that scored him the fluke knockdown at the very beginning of the fight. If you can't see that, then you're the dense one who needs somebody's sack a rest. Seriously, it's quite sad.

 

 

Perhaps to someone without and basic grasp of how to knockout someone out, yeah cuts look pretty bad. But I'd figure most MMA fans would know that cuts (outside of seriously horrific wounds or cuts that bleed into the eyes) are almost entirely unimportant. And if you truly think that Silva had done more damage for the 4 1/2 rounds, I think you need to get off Anderson's nuts. I was rooting for the man and even I realized that he was effectively dominated in any measure of MMA.

[brashleyholland]

 

I generated this criteria with the basis of what Martial Arts stand for, practically. The idea was to train ones body so it could be used a weapon of offense and self-defense, yes? And in a fight, what is one's objective? To, in short, eliminate the threat whether it be by death or incapacitation adequate enough to escape and get help from an authority (And everything inbetween).

 

That's not really relevent in a discussion about judging criteria for MMA though, which is not a fight where one needs to consider 'death or incapacitation'.

 

Where does laying on top of your foe play into that? Sure, you're neutralizing them, but only in the most temporary of manners--The second you get up, he's still fine and ready to brawl. Thus, an emphasis need be put on effective elimantion means, either submissions or striking, and trying to accomplish this means throughout the fight.

 

It plays in to MMA in a big way, as it's one of the seven perfectly legal and acceptable endings to a fight, as stated in the Unified Rules. KO, submission, TKO, decision, forfeit, DQ, no contest. Doing just enough to win is fine, because that's what the rules of the sport say.

 

Nobody likes to see guys who are intentionally spoiling, but at the same time, there's no need to start changing rules that will force fighters to take unnecessary risks. What the sport needs is referees who can properly and uniformly implement them, and judges who can properly and uniformly score fights using them.

[ampulator]

There were something goofy about all rules. Pride allowed knees, stomps, and soccers kicks to the head on the ground, but no elbows at all. That's just... odd. Allowing those but not allowing elbows? Really?

 

As for unified MMA rules, not allowing the 16-9 elbow, but allow other elbows. Uh, what?

 

I think the rules, are mostly fine, but I prefer the PRIDE way of judging the fight as a whole, and judging by damage. It just makes sense, if you look in light of Rua/Machida 1.

[brashleyholland]

There were something goofy about all rules. Pride allowed knees, stomps, and soccers kicks to the head on the ground, but no elbows at all. That's just... odd. Allowing those but not allowing elbows? Really?

 

Unfortunately the 'no elbows' rule was nothing to do with Pride (who wanted a Vale Tudo-style rule set with head-butts and elbows) and everything to do with their commercial and television partners. Pride was 'Primetime' programming in it's heyday...TV didn't want blood all over the ring/sponsor logos/fighters, and because the money was coming from TV and advertising, not PPV, TV got it's way.

 

Far from being a 'safety' issue, it was simply a way to reduce blood from cuts. Stomping on a dude's face was still all good though

 

As for unified MMA rules, not allowing the 16-9 elbow, but allow other elbows. Uh, what?

 

Widescreen elbows?

 

Seriously though, you're right, it's a stupid rule. I have no idea if the brick-breaking story is true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised!

[takertitan]

I really like the rule from PRIDE where "intent to end the fight" is looked at. This helps nullify guys who sit around round 3 and just try and maintain control vs doing damage. People may say bonus's are there to give incentive, but a loss on your record i think is more incentive to look to be active at all times.

 

I am also in favor of point deductions for stalling or waiting for a ref stand up. I think its bull **** you can have a Ken Shamrock vs Royce Gracie 2 (super-fight) match where one guy just keeps guard and the other guy waits for the other guy to move. PRIDE used to have the card system for this where fighters lost a % of your purse for being inactive, but it was a pain in the ass for most fighters when you only made 5G's on a fight and left with under 1K after fees.

 

The current judging system is flawed in so many ways you could dissect it for days. I think the main problem is a lot of the judges just don't know enough. Get people like Eddie Bravo, Severn, Frank Shamrock, Rickson Gracie, Chuck, Pat miletich, greg jackson... to judge fights. Get your retired guys who KNOW when someone hit someone cause they know EVERYTHING about the sport. Not some boxing judge or smark.

[Payne]

I'm glad my post made for good conversation. I was mainly playing Devil's Advocate.

 

But, my main point was to say that all judging IS subjective, and to get a truer (is that a word????) judging, one would have to go to replays and the aforementioned "number crunchers"