MMA News

Tuesday, 07/17/2012, 12:20 pm

The Association Of Boxing Commissions Addresses Scoring System In MMA | MMA NEWS

This year at the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) annual conference, the commission removed last year’s proposed half-point scoring system while redefining many Unified Rules for MMA, a decision with a direct effect on mixed martial arts’ scoring.

After a year of a voluntary evaluation period granted to the half-point system proposed by Doc Hamilton in 2010 and put in effect in 2011, the ABC concluded that the system would not significantly help to score an MMA bout effectively.

It appears that changing the current scoring system, when only a marginal amount of fights would be affected (2% if you reference [the California Amateur Mixed Martial Arts Organization, Inc], and 4.85% if you reference [the Edmonton Alberta Athletic Commission]), would not be a significant reason to adopt this change.

The most interesting change comes from the ABC defining revisions to the current MMA judging criteria:
1.) Effective Defense removed as a criteria.
2.) Striking and Grappling are given “equal weight”.
3.) The term “damage” will no longer be used when discussing the scoring of a round. It has been replaced by “effective”.

The ABC has also clarified and amended the definitions of several terms in the Unified Rules of MMA.

1.) “Effective Striking” – Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed.
2.) “Effective Grappling” – judged by the amount of successful executions of takedowns, reversals and submission attempts.
3.) “Effective Aggression” – moving forward, scoring or attacking from the guard, threatening with submissions.
4.) “Cage/Ring Control” – dictating the pace and position of the fight.

The ABC goes on to clarify what score a judge should be giving according to the action during each round of the fight.

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows superiority by even a close margin. This score should rarely be used.
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, demonstrating effective grappling, and utilizing other effective legal techniques.
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins by a large margin, by effective striking and or effective grappling that have great impact on the opponent.
4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by effective striking and or effective grappling, which put the opponent in great danger throughout the round. In a 10-7 round referee stoppage may be eminent. This score should rarely be used.

Removal of effective defense:

1. The committee believes that offensive actions should be the only criteria used to score MMA matches. Offensive fighters are fighters which carry the fight and push the action, and make the fight happen.
2. Defense is its own reward. A fighter who chooses to avoid using defensive actions will invariably suffer the consequences. For example if a fighter decides that they do not want to block or avoid a strike, protect themselves from a submission, or avoid a throw or takedown then they will suffer the results of those offensive actions being used against them. The only role defensive action plays is to keep a fighter in the fight longer so that they can attempt to score using offensive actions.
3. Having two fighters avoid offensive actions and rely solely on defense goes against the basic primary consideration of any combative sport: To score using offense.

Equal consideration of Striking and Grappling:

The old scoring system rewarded striking (as a primary consideration) more than grappling. Mixed Martial Arts is based on two skill sets – striking and grappling. The committee felt that grappling should not be a secondary factor in determining the outcome of a match. Grappling has a definitive skill set and athleticism and offensive capabilities which when used correctly can effectively end a fight. As such grappling skills should be rewarded and given equal weight to striking.

Removal of “damage” as a scoring descriptor:

1. The legal considerations surrounding the term “Damage” as a descriptor were given considerable weight and as such the committee felt that using the word “Damage” may contribute to the potential for liability in the event of any litigation that commissions may find themselves involved in.
2. The sport of MMA is still relatively new and has not received sanctioning in various jurisdictions. The committee felt that “Damage” as a descriptor may play a factor in helping to determine future sanctioning if the term was taken out of context with many opposed to MMA as a sport.
3. ABC Instructors who currently use this as part of their teaching curriculum are advised to make any and all subsequent modifications to their course material.

New definition of “Effective Striking”:

Judged by determining the impact of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the number of such legal strikes. Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed. These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain. Cumulative impact on a fighter will also be weighed. If neither fighter shows an advantage in impact of strikes, the number of strikes will determine the most effective striker.

New definition of “Effective Grappling”:

Judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown, reversals and submission attempts. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to a dominant position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard to create submission attempts. Submission attempts which come close to ending a fight will be weighted more highly than attempts which are easily defended. Submission attempts which cause an opponent to weaken or tire from the effort required to defend the technique will also be weighted highly in scoring. High amplitude takedowns and throws which have great impact will be scored more heavily than a takedown which does not have great impact.

With the Association of Boxing Commissions clarifying and redefining many of the Unified Rules of MMA, I hope to see more accurate judging and less scoring errors when fights go the distance.

Do you believe this clarification will save MMA from embarrassing judging and lopsided decisions, or is it not enough?


56 Responses to “The Association Of Boxing Commissions Addresses Scoring System In MMA | MMA NEWS”

  1. amon says:

    I don’t like the effective defense rule. if you avoid a takedown that should be good for you

    • BJ Fan says:

      i think if you avoid a takedown, you should get points for that… that should be a wash. no points for the takedown failed attempt and no points for the takedown defense.

      makes sense to me. if there were no takedown attempt, there would be no takedown defense. you’re not initiating or engaging, you’re being engaged.

      its different from, say, counter-striking. when counter-striking, its kind of a defensive action but you are causing damage. therefore, you should get points. takedown defense when simply avoiding a take down and causing no damage to the one attempting the takedown is not like counterstriking. its is more like avoiding a strike.

      i don’t think points should be awarded for blocking punches as well. just blocking strikes doesn’t win a fight, there must be counter-damage caused.

      basically, i like the idea of awarding points for things that can finish fights and not things for surviving the fight.

      one thing thats kinda tricky, i think: pulling guard. some guys like to be on the bottom, thats where they are dangerous. a superior bjj fighter can be most dangerous off his back and maybe that where he wants the fight to be, so he can finish it there. do you award him the same points as a wrestler, who prefers to be in top position to grand and point, that gets a take down?

      • Clay says:

        Basically sprawling is the same as blocking a punch/kick

        • Ronin says:

          If you avoid a takedown by sprawling then that in essence is not effective grappling on the part of the person trying to take uyou down hence they should not get rewarded for it but you are not mounting an offense by just defending so you don’t get points either. I don’t see a reason you should get points for sprawling. You’re in a fight to ultimately win not to defend offensive attacks. I think its the right move to take out rewarding defense.

    • BXER says:

      Forget about all that drama,every fighters who is a points fighters,need to understand this is a combat sports,not a karate tournament, the.problem is all this boring wrestlers they do nothing but lay and pray,the rules need to be only if you finish the fight,if you don’t finish is a draw,that will eliminate the fucking boring wrestlers,and put real fighters not fagots who any to be in between another man legs,

    • Mike Rivera says:

      personally i like these new rules, it favors the fighter that is more offensive and not stalling or backing away

  2. Xaninho says:

    The scoringsystem is not the issue. The incompetence of the judges is the real issue. Do they honestly believe these revisions and new definitions will stop the same incompetent judges from scoring a fight so badly that it raises the suspicion they were asleep the whole fight?

    Want to fix the problem? Fix the judges, fire the proven jackasses and make sure there are some competent knowledgable people with experience sitting cageside to score a fight.

    • mahs says:

      Good call. Its not the system so much as incompetent judges.

    • Chris says:

      Well said, i agree that its not just the system but the judges, however at least now that the rules are more specific, if a certain judge clearly isnt following the right criteria then he/she should be held officially accountable. Start punishing them in some manor or assign educational lessons to correct the lack of knowledge.

      • Xaninho says:

        Good point about the rules being more specific.

        And yes start treating the judges as normal employees. Can’t do your job properly? Then you’re not qualified enough and there will have to be consequences.

        • Gabi says:

          Remember it’s the commissions who provide the judges not the UFC. It’s up to the commission on how to treat the judges.

        • Xaninho says:

          Yeah I know. The commissions need to step it up. I don’t know what kind of qualifications are needed to become a MMA judge right now, but sometimes I get the feeling these judges main job is judging figure skating.

        • Gabi says:

          That’s a good idea. I should look into it. Maybe start judging myself. Where are you from friend?

  3. YeahRightMan says:

    That’s BS about the grappling. Grappling is a tool that fighters can use to either land multiple strikes and or or get a submission. To give points for leg humping, infact to state that it weighs the same as striking, is ludicrous. If you don’t do any damage from grappling, you should not be rewarded. Oh and removing the word damage? Jesus

    • Mayor of Deviance says:

      They never said, as you put it, “leg humping” would be equally scored. You must actually DO something with that now. And removing damage was obvious to get people who don’t like MMA to soften up to it. People who think that it’s a barbaric sport (old ladies) have less to go by if the main goal is not “damage” but “effectively beat” your opponent.

      IMO the guys coming up with this stuff really came up with good ideas. I didn’t like the defense change, but the explanation is good. Using good defense to stop effective offense keeps you safe and hurts your opponents score instead of helping yours. Good stuff.

  4. joshuah says:

    I dont like the removal of effective defense … and I think more 10-8’s need to be given. I dont see how any round of clay/gray is = jds/Carwin for instance

    If a round is one sided with actual damage being caused 10-8’s should be scored.

    Just like IMO a fighters style & tendencies should be considered. It should mean more if some1 comes in & puts gray Maynard on his back than if Fenian maia is working off his back.

    Perfect example I think BJ vs Fitch.

    Neither Guy ever gets out grappled or out wrestled I scored that fight
    10-8 BJ
    10-8 BJ
    10-7 Fitch

    There r minor rule changes needed fixing there needs to be better educated judges, but mostly fans need to quit acting like everysingle decision is a complete robbery. Close fights happen its part of the game. Fans still argue over SO MANY FIGHTS & have valid points y can the judges not have their opinions? (Not defending judging its turrible) but not every decision is a disgrace

  5. Redlin3 says:

    This is crap, looking what the fighter does??, what about the obvious incompetence that a lot of the judges ‘re showing? THAT SHOULD BE YOUR MAIN CONCERN not the way a fighter fights it’s game. It’s a total bullshit: if a guy get’s hit in the face with an elbow that damages him obviously but he did like 10 -15 straight jabs before he’ll lose because of that hard hit wtf.. in this way you won’t see matches like dan henderson – vs shogun rua or how the fuck would you score a fight like that.. man really those commissions are either some old farts that never fought in their life or they’re on drugs. How would you score Nick Diaz vs Carlos Condit if you idiots think a fighter must fight head first regardless of defense.. how about Floyd Mayweather who’s “in the shell” style is based on defense and counter .. quit using pills people or you’ll find UFC moving to Brasil where if you have the money you can find the right people for the job.

  6. Yogurt slinger says:

    Effective striking #2 and the rule for scoring a 10-9 rd contradicts itself…landing more effective strikes in volume or land 5 heavy shots?

  7. Yogurt slinger says:

    “effective striking” rule #2 and the 10-9 scoring system contradicts itself…effective strikes in volume or 5 heavy shots?

  8. Nick says:

    With these rules I thank Nick Diaz would still be in MMA

  9. Gabi says:

    The number of takedowns done should not get points. A takedown itself is nothing harmful unless it leads to either GNP or a sub. But like 90% of the time they get right back up so the takedown was useless and a waste of time. It’s a desperation move and mostly used to stall by just laying on the opponent taken down. A take down should only award a point if it leads to GNP damage or a sub or sub attempts. Actually trying to finish the fight not just laying on the opponent.

    • Come on man. This is so ignorant why even post it. While some take downs are done to stall, no completed take down is a waste of time. This is MMA–wrestling is part of the sport. It is really tiring to get taken down and have to stand up even if its right away–the up and down of being taken down, getting to your feet, the guy dragging you down more and having to fight to stand is so tiring–its part of the chess match. Desperation? Do you fight? Do you know how skilled these guys are in take down defense–even the ones who suck at it? Its hard work to take a guy down but its an effective strategy because it “mixes” things up. If you’re fighting and you don’t know if the guy is going to shoot on you, throw some combos, kick your leg or clinch you on the cage the guy your fighting can’t get comfortable and in rhythm–not a waste of time. Also, it is as effective as throwing tons of leg kicks–it tires an opponent out and makes them work for their spot in the cage and limits their explosiveness and athleticism as the fight goes on.

    • rcs says:

      Yes and No. . . not all take downs are the same, just like not all punches are the same. Each should be weighted accordingly. Also a take down and escaping from the bottom cancel each other out as far as effective grappling. They don’t cancel each other regarding to “octagon control”.

  10. WrestlingRules says:

    “Equal consideration of Striking and Grappling:

    The old scoring system rewarded striking (as a primary consideration) more than grappling. Mixed Martial Arts is based on two skill sets – striking and grappling. The committee felt that grappling should not be a secondary factor in determining the outcome of a match. Grappling has a definitive skill set and athleticism and offensive capabilities which when used correctly can effectively end a fight. As such grappling skills should be rewarded and given equal weight to striking.”

    Shhhh Listen Up…Can you hear it??? Yep that’s right. The wrestling stampede is getting close….so BTFU the Wrestlers are Taking Over and Now even the Commission KNOWS that…Wrestling Rules!!!!!!! HooRah…

    • Xaninho says:

      That is bullcrap.

      Wrestling is losing, that’s why the commission is adjusting the rules. The unified rules of MMA are already way too much wrestling orientated because of the big involvement Jeff Blatnick had in them.

      Lay n Pray will be considered as top control and it will be favored over a great combination of strikes. So I think a wrestler’s face can be re-adjusted for 2,5 minutes by a striker and if he manages to take his opponent down in the last 2,5 minutes and Lay n Pray him until the bell sounds he will get the round.

      If this will be the case I’m done with watching MMA.

      • Gabi says:

        That is bs thinking. Wresteling style judging and point system should have nothin to do w MMA. A takedown doesn’t do any damage 99% of the time, it really shouldn’t score unless it got GNP or sub attempts.. It’s bs and I agree.

      • T.DADDY says:

        Well if a striker don’t like gettin taken down he should be a boxer than.. its mma.. not boxing.. that’s why Joe Rogan gets pissed everytime the ref stand guys up…hey if you can’t get a guy off you too bad.. learn how to sweep or work on ur TD defense.. stop cryin

        • Xaninho says:

          Joe Rogan hardly ever gets pissed because he hates Lay n Pray just as much as the next guy that’s not a wrestlinglover.

          I have nothing against a good groundfight, GnP, submission attempts, nothing wrong with that. Lay n Pray should be penalized instead of rewarded though.

        • WrestlingRules says:

          Quit crying Xanindo…If that bitch CAN’T get up then he is being dominated by a superior fighter!! Can’t you see this. Why do you want to let this bitch cry to the referee mommy to let him up because he is BETTER?? Hell no, he SUCKS and can’t get up….You want striking, go watch boxing or kickboxing or muay thai or Sandy Cheeks karatee. But if you want the best of best fighting…YOU BETTER START WRESTLING!!!! HOOORAHH!!!

          WRESTLING RULES……..

        • Xaninho says:

          If you want to see a guy being humped by another guy watch wrestling…….or gayporn.

          wrestling sucks.

        • WrestlingRules says:

          See that’s your problem Xanindo, you have these homoerotic thoughts running through your head and when you see a beast of wrestler dominating a bitch who can’t get up, you think “gayporn” ??? I believe the PROBLEM is your brain!!!

          Go watch Sandy Cheeks Karatee.

      • Quitcrying says:

        If your a striker bust a knee on your opponent like Aldo. It works better than crying about it.

        • KIDD433 says:

          These guys defend the Takedowns,even though no effectiveness and defend Fitching because they enjoy seeing 2 men getting intimate and humping.It reminds them off getting ass fucked,so they defend it

    • Gabi says:

      How can grappling end a fight? I would like to know. All I see is KO’s/TKO’s and subs finishing fights. How can grappling ever finish a fight? Strikes and subs seem to be what have been and are finishing fights. Unless you go to the lame judges. which isn’t a finish at all. And mostly wrestler go and leave it in the hands of the judges w/o ever trying to finish the fight and hoping the few takedowns won them the fight. Lol sad thing if it works.

  11. So does this mean that Edger, Faber, Diaz, and maybe Tito (F*** him) all got screwed or what?

  12. Xaninho says:

    Unfortunately the MMA scoring system is very much wrestling orientated because of Jeff Blatnick’s big involvement in the unified rules of mma.

  13. Bjj BB says:

    If you take a guy down and ground n pound his ass or submit him or do submit attem should get points, not a guy who takes u down and lays on you or after he takes u down the guy springs right back up, das bullshit!! Cant stand boring ass wrestlers that cant fucking fight!! Pussy coward move for the handicap one move wrestlers in da mma!!

  14. T.DADDY says:

    I love how they have a pic of cruz when they talk about point scoring.. LMAO..

  15. Quitcrying says:

    I don’t care about the dialog required for scoring a fight, I just want the refs to become more consistent with how they call the fight. Too many blown calls. Maybe in the future if a fighter continues to break a rule after being warned, stop the fight and take the point away. For ex. Silva was told to let go of chaels shorts. Now silva is very aware of what he is doing and proceeded to use chaels shorts to produce leverage for 2 punches he landed. The fight should have been stopped as soon as silva landed the 1st punch. The ref should have taken a point and chael should have been granted a moment to recover just like if someone were to get hit in the nuts. Now I’m not saying the outcome would have changed but when a fighter is being that obvious and the ref does nothing what’s the point of having the rule.

    • WrestlingRules says:

      The short holding was a Seagal Aikidodo technique that will revolutionize MMA forever…These are the things Silva is paying Stevo for….That and the illegal knee and vaseline and cage holding.

      • Xaninho says:

        Weren’t you the one that said if Sonnen would beat Silva, the Silva ‘zombies’ would come up with all sorts of excuses?

        Silva annihilated Sonnen and so far I’ve seen nothing but excuses from his fanboys.

        • WrestlingRules says:

          These aren’t excuses. These are FACTS. Silva greased, Silva grabbed shorts to apply leverage. He grabbed the fence to prevent a takedown and he hit a downed opponent on the ground with an illegal knee. These are FACTS. And Sonnen got tko’d. The referees allowed all the cheating and Sonnen lost. I don’t dispute that. Silva is a cheater and he won. It fits his character perfectly, These are the FACTS…

  16. MMApersonalJesus says:

    They should just have one 30 minute round and then you would have an obvious winner by the end.

  17. Bjj BB says:

    @ T.DADDY, thats my whole point dumbass!! I cant stand one move wrestlers, i dont have a problem with wrestlers that can mix it up stupid!! And fyi, pure wrestlers that cant fight only lay on you, pure bjj guys that cant fight will do alot of moves on the ground, hmmmm now lets add that shit up!! Again wrestlers are one trick ponys who only learn how to fight when adding bjj and stand up, same goes for pure and only bjj guys but C’mon, at the end if the day wrestling is alot more boring to watch then a bjj match, so you stop crying u dry hummping fan!!

    • WrestlingRules says:

      He BITCH a little birdie clued me in that YOU are the one signing in under others names!! Is that TRUE??? Are you doing that???

      juijitsu sucks..

  18. Iceman says:

    That’s all we need for mma..boxing commission needs to stay away from mma.we don’t need corruption or rigged fights in mma.boxing commissions need to worry about there own dying sport.if some how there could be a mma commission that would be great.i think it’s more of the judges that don’t know what the fuck there doing.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.