MMA Brehs...What Needs To Be Changed About the Way Bouts Are Scored?

[Jutt]

I've been thinking this for awhile. I alluded to it in an article I wrote a little while back for the front page of the coli. The Phil Davis/Lyoto Machida fight just added some fuel to the fire in my head about judging and reffing. I'd like to see what you guys think. I also want to see feasible things, so no nonsense about soccer kicks and things of the like.


First off, I feel like takedowns are vastly overrated.


Hear me out before you say "Jutt are you crazy nikka? "

I'm not saying TDs are obsolete, because they are VERY important, however coming from a BJJ background, your takedown only counts if you maintain dominant position for 3 seconds. Too many times in an MMA fight, I see a fighter get the takedown, only to grapevine the legs and the opponent stands back up shortly thereafter, no punches or strikes landed. This absolutely needs overhauled.


Attacking off of your back:

Again, too many judges confuse positional dominance. Just because a fighter is on their back, does not always mean they are in an inferior position. Imo and from what i've seen, there are a fair amount of judges botch this.


Stalling

this is the opposite of my first point. Guys shoot the takedown, and lay in side control, or a very sloppy mount and barely stay active. You can maintain a dominant position by staying active, or transitioning to other positions, or go for subs. I don't see refs stand fighters up enough for my liking(could be just me but ) i noticed this in the Aldo/TKZ fight. Both fighters were on the cage, neither one working, especially the one in the dominant position(Aldo) Herb Dean warned the fighters at least 3 times to work, before breaking them up. Completely unnecessary, especially in a championship fight.


Add on your thoughts

 

[TheNatureBoy]

The problem isn't with the rules, it is with the judges for the most part. You can modify or add rules, but if they don't know what to look for or how to evaluate a rd, it won't matter. The only rule they should add back in is knees to a downed opponent, so you wont get fighters putting their hands to avoid a knee or it makes wrestlers think twice about going for a sloppy takedown.

If you look at the unified rules of MMA it says

Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense. Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense

There isn't anything that says a takedown is worth more or should be scored higher, the problem is with the judges. I do have to say it has improved albeit slowly, it used to be where a fighter would never win a rd off his back, but more recently you see it happening. Pyle vs. Story if an example of that.

 

[Jutt]

The problem isn't with the rules, it is with the judges for the most part. You can modify or add rules, but if they don't know what to look for or how to evaluate a rd, it won't matter. The only rule they should add back in is knees to a downed opponent, so you wont get fighters putting their hands to avoid a knee or it makes wrestlers think twice about going for a sloppy takedown.

If you look at the unified rules of MMA it says



There isn't anything that says a takedown is worth more or should be scored higher, the problem is with the judges. I do have to say it has improved albeit slowly, it used to be where a fighter would never win a rd off his back, but more recently you see it happening. Pyle vs. Story if an example of that.

I think things need to be clarified both in the rules and by the refs and judges. Of course the rules dont matter if the judges dont know what they're looking for, but things need to be better defined

.

 

[The Infamous]

I've been thinking this for awhile. I alluded to it in an article I wrote a little while back for the front page of the coli. The Phil Davis/Lyoto Machida fight just added some fuel to the fire in my head about judging and reffing. I'd like to see what you guys think. I also want to see feasible things, so no nonsense about soccer kicks and things of the like.


First off, I feel like takedowns are vastly overrated.


Hear me out before you say "Jutt are you crazy nikka? "

I'm not saying TDs are obsolete, because they are VERY important, however coming from a BJJ background, your takedown only counts if you maintain dominant position for 3 seconds. Too many times in an MMA fight, I see a fighter get the takedown, only to grapevine the legs and the opponent stands back up shortly thereafter, no punches or strikes landed. This absolutely needs overhauled.


Attacking off of your back:

Again, too many judges confuse positional dominance. Just because a fighter is on their back, does not always mean they are in an inferior position. Imo and from what i've seen, there are a fair amount of judges botch this.


Stalling

this is the opposite of my first point. Guys shoot the takedown, and lay in side control, or a very sloppy mount and barely stay active. You can maintain a dominant position by staying active, or transitioning to other positions, or go for subs. I don't see refs stand fighters up enough for my liking(could be just me but ) i noticed this in the Aldo/TKZ fight. Both fighters were on the cage, neither one working, especially the one in the dominant position(Aldo) Herb Dean warned the fighters at least 3 times to work, before breaking them up. Completely unnecessary, especially in a championship fight.


Add on your thoughts

TDs are overrated, but I wouldn't say vastly overrated. If a a person is getting a TD for a very short period of time [let's say 3-4 seconds], they should still be getting points, but only minimal points. Also, defending TDs is vastly overlooked by judges. For example, when Fighter A is 1/6 for takedowns in a round, the judges give him points for that 1 takedown. However, usually Fighter B is given no points for stuffing 5 takedowns. This happened in the Davis/Machida fight. Machida defended almost all of Davis's TD attempts [he was 8/10 on defending TDs]. Davis got points, but Machida got pretty much nothing for neutralizing most of his wrestling. Of course, getting TDs is worth more than stuffing them. But, you still don't really see fighters getting points for defending TDs.

I agree completely with the second point. Fighters are not given enough credit for fighting off their back. However, this has gotten better. You see more and more judges giving points for someone who is active off their back.

And I also agree with you on the stalling. I still believe fighters should be given time to work against the cage or the on the ground, but when it's pretty much a stalemate [or a lack of activity], break them up.

I agree with Natureboy's post as well. The bigger problem is the judging, not the rules.

 

[Jutt]

TDs are overrated, but I wouldn't say vastly overrated. If a a person is getting a TD for a very short period of time [let's say 3-4 seconds], they should still be getting points, but only minimal points. Also, defending TDs is vastly overlooked by judges. For example, when Fighter A is 1/6 for takedowns in a round, the judges give him points for that 1 takedown. However, usually Fighter B is given no points for stuffing 5 takedowns. This happened in the Davis/Machida fight. Machida defended almost all of Davis's TD attempts [he was 8/10 on defending TDs]. Davis got points, but Machida got pretty much nothing for neutralizing most of his wrestling. Of course, getting TDs is worth more than stuffing them. But, you still don't really see fighters getting points for defending TDs.

I agree completely with the second point. Fighters are not given enough credit for fighting off their back. However, this has gotten better. You see more and more judges giving points for someone who is active off their back.

And I also agree with you on the stalling. I still believe fighters should be given time to work against the cage or the on the ground, but when it's pretty much a stalemate [or a lack of activity], break them up.

I agree with Natureboy's post as well. The bigger problem is the judging, not the rules.

I decided to focus more on the vagueness of the rules moreso. Last time i touched on this subject i picked on the refs. I wish that article was still up on the front page. I'd definitely add that to the mix as well like Nature did. I'll probably do a piece on the judging whenever things get moving with the blog. Like i said I feel like it needs addressed on all 3 fronts.


Good point on stuffing takedowns...thats a great part of the game too. I hear a lot of people say that Davis was more active in going for takedowns, but Lyoto did a great job of defending them, how is that a discredit to him?