Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JonesyUK

Significant changes made to the Unified Rules of MMA

Recommended Posts

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/17/3163999/association-boxing-commissions-abc-changes-unified-rules-scoring-mma-news

 

There is a lot of stuff to read in there, so Im not gonna post all here in the thread, but here are some important snippits:

 

Second, the ABC has decided on a few revisions to the current MMA judging criteria:

 

1.) Effective Defense removed as a criteria.

 

2.) Striking and Grappling are now considered to be given equal weight.

 

3.) The term "damage" will no longer be used as a descriptor when discussing the scoring of a round. It will be replaced by "effective".

 

Finally, the ABC has 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 considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown, reversals and submission attempts.

 

3.) "Effective Aggression" - moving forward scoring with a legal technique or attacking from the guard with threatening submissions.

 

4.) "Cage/Ring Control" - dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Defence needs to be scored. Wrestlers can score points from takedowns but if there takedown is stuffed but defender gets nothing?

 

The defender prevented his opponent from scoring points, so it all works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This change seems to be enlight of recent Jackson's MMA 'tactics'

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Defence needs to be scored. Wrestlers can score points from takedowns that lead to nothing but if their takedown is stuffed the defender gets nothing?

 

^^^^^^

 

 

Stuffed TD's should be just as valuable.

 

but maybe they will roll it into grappling points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Defence needs to be scored. Wrestlers can score points from takedowns that lead to nothing but if their takedown is stuffed the defender gets nothing?

 

Think they are trying to sort that out with this part:

 

New defnition of "Effective Grappling":

 

Judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown' date=' 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.[/quote']

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The defender prevented his opponent from scoring points' date=' so it all works out.[/quote']

 

This^

 

You cant win a fight by defending everything, you have to capitilize and score points yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit about round scoring should hopefully help as I still feel judges are too stingy with the 10-8's and there does need to be the occasional 10-10 round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That and the changes made to effective striking - no more "hey' date=' I touched you, I get a point - yay!!!"[/quote']

 

looks like edgar is in trouble against bendo ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This^

 

You cant win a fight by defending everything' date=' you have to capitilize and score points yourself[/quote']

 

But you can win a decision by getting 1/100 takedowns if your entire gameplan is to just grab a leg. Just like how Khabib got 0/15 (or something) takedowns and won the fight for it, that was ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you can win a decision by getting 1/100 takedowns if your entire gameplan is to just grab a leg. Just like how Khabib got 0/15 (or something) takedowns and won the fight for it' date=' that was ridiculous.[/quote']

 

I didnt see the fight, so i cant really comment on it...

 

But basically what they are saying is that Khabib would not have scored points for those TD attempts, as they were not 'successful' effective grappling, and nor would have Tibau for defending them. That makes sense to me as being correct and fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
judges cant score half the fights correct how the hell they going to deal with these new ****

 

The reason judges had a hard time being consistent was because of the lack of definition within the rules themselves, specifically the old rules were too vague and left too much open to interpretation. With this amended rule set we'll start to see judges who clearly know squat about MMA be let go and replaced with judges that know what "Effective grappling" is. Having defined effective grappling as granular as "passing guard" will help knowledgeable judges score more accurately.

 

It wouldn't hurt you to be a little bit happy that the commission is finally doing something to adjust the rules and define judging criteria, before getting all negative Nancy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt see the fight' date=' so i cant really comment on it...

 

But basically what they are saying is that Khabib would not have scored points for those TD attempts, as they were not 'successful' effective grappling, and nor would have Tibau for defending them. That makes sense to me as being correct and fair?[/quote']

 

imo defending the TD should be worth something becouse hes dictating that the fight be standing instead of on the ground....if not good wrestlers can just spam TD until they get 1 with no reprecussions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imo defending the TD should be worth something becouse hes dictating that the fight be standing instead of on the ground....if not good wrestlers can just spam TD until they get 1 with no reprecussions

 

You're asking that judges continue to score defensive actions as a positive. When considering the individual was put on the defensive by on offensive action, that offensive action being defended, it becomes a wash. Or else you're saying you need to score every single action in a fight. Consider this: Jon Jones throws an ATTEMPTED elbow but misses because Hendo ducks out of the way. Should Hendo be given points because he used a defensive action to not get struck? Hell no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're asking that judges continue to score defensive actions as a positive. When considering the individual was put on the defensive by on offensive action' date=' that offensive action being defended, it becomes a wash. Or else you're saying you need to score every single action in a fight. Consider this: Jon Jones throws an ATTEMPTED elbow but misses because Hendo ducks out of the way. Should Hendo be given points because he used a defensive action to not get struck? Hell no.[/quote']

 

im talking about takedowns....not striking...striking can only be scored offensivly...takedowns should be scored offensive/defensive IMO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt see the fight' date=' so i cant really comment on it...

 

But basically what they are saying is that Khabib would not have scored points for those TD attempts, as they were not 'successful' effective grappling, and nor would have Tibau for defending them. That makes sense to me as being correct and fair?[/quote']

 

 

It just seems like takedowns are going to be an even bigger problem now. They were already scored ridiculously but now even if you defend 9/10 you will lose on the score cards unless you can do significant damage on the feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im talking about takedowns....not striking...striking can only be scored offensivly...takedowns should be scored offensive/defensive IMO...

 

Grappling is also only scored offensively. Did you read the post? If Jones goes for a triangle choke, but Hendo defends well it's a wash. However, if Jones' triangle choke looks to be severe enough to potentially be fight ending, he gets points. Hendo doesn't get points for eventually defending because he was threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just seems like takedowns are going to be an even bigger problem now. They were already scored ridiculously but now even if you defend 9/10 you will lose on the score cards unless you can do significant damage on the feet.

 

And that's the way it should be. Listen. If Fighter A is clearly the better grappler then fighter B needs to go work on his MMA skills. We're trying to find the best MMA fighter, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's the way it should be. Listen. If Fighter A is clearly the better grappler then fighter B needs to go work on his MMA skills. We're trying to find the best MMA fighter' date=' no?[/quote']

 

How is scoring 1/10 takedowns being the better grappler? Defending 9/10 should score WAY more than 1/10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is scoring 1/10 takedowns being the better grappler? Defending 9/10 should score WAY more than 1/10.

 

Because a defensive action cannot score points. Why is the concept so difficult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because a defensive action cannot score points. Why is the concept so difficult?

 

Why not? 1 takedown isn't better than 9 defended takedowns. Defending 9/10 is showing clear superiority in that department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not? 1 takedown isn't better than 9 defended takedowns. Defending 9/10 is showing clear superiority in that department.

 

Ug. Look. The only way fighter A can be put on the defensive is if fighter B is constantly on the offensive, thus he is the more active fighter and should consequently be rewarded. Getting in a cage, having to defend yourself repeatedly is not what wins a fight.

 

The commission is blatantly trying to punish fighters who train and fight to score points only. It's an actual attempt to put offensive fighting above defensive. There are always going to be pro's and con's to rules, but what they've done here is give the big middle finger to Jacksons camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effective grappling - takedowns, reversals, SUB ATTEMPTS,

 

Looks like fighting off your back is finally a viable way of beating a wrestler if you can't finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not? 1 takedown isn't better than 9 defended takedowns. Defending 9/10 is showing clear superiority in that department.

 

They are scoring grappling in the same way as striking, to make it EASIER to judge.

 

Your comparison is therefore the same as saying 1 clean significant strike isnt better than 9 defended significant strikes, get it?

 

You cant say "Because I ducked and blocked 9 out of his 10 punches, I won" when that one punch that landed put your **** of the mat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Effective grappling - takedowns' date=' reversals, SUB ATTEMPTS,

 

Looks like fighting off your back is finally a viable way of beating a wrestler if you can't finish.[/quote']

 

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO unless they hire some new judges, this system is going to have us going WTF on a lot of fights.. . .

 

It just isn't simple enough for the stupid judges we have today. . . .

 

 

Hopefully it works out for the best...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bit about round scoring should hopefully help as I still feel judges are too stingy with the 10-8's and there does need to be the occasional 10-10 round

 

lol cant have a 10-10 round hope your trolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are scoring grappling in the same way as striking' date=' to make it EASIER to judge.

 

Your comparison is therefore the same as saying 1 clean significant strike isnt better than 9 defended significant strikes, get it?

 

You cant say "Because I ducked and blocked 9 out of his 10 punches, I won" when that one punch that landed put your **** of the mat![/quote']

 

true i like most of the rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ug. Look. The only way fighter A can be put on the defensive is if fighter B is constantly on the offensive' date=' thus he is the more active fighter and should consequently be rewarded. Getting in a cage, having to defend yourself repeatedly is not what wins a fight.

 

The commission is blatantly trying to punish fighters who train and fight to score points only. It's an actual attempt to put offensive fighting above defensive. There are always going to be pro's and con's to rules, but what they've done here is give the big middle finger to Jacksons camp.[/quote']

 

yes the way it should be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess knees to the head of a downed opponent as long as using the thigh is still legally acceptable? :rolleyes:

 

do you post that on every thread now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Effective Aggression" - moving forward scoring with a legal technique or attacking from the guard with threatening submissions.

 

So under this new rule, Pettis beat Guida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Effective Aggression" - moving forward scoring with a legal technique or attacking from the guard with threatening submissions.

 

So under this new rule' date=' Pettis beat Guida[/quote']

 

nick diaz also beat condit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nick diaz also beat condit

 

Uh... Condit still would have won. He had more offensive output than Diaz, along with going for a little jog around the octagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No' date=' Diaz's face - messed up, Condits - fine[/quote']

 

Yeah because he scratched his face with a failed headkick, he hit him with his toe instead of his shin

 

Uh... Condit still would have won. He had more offensive output than Diaz' date=' along with going for a little jog around the octagon.[/quote']

 

yeah but not effective output

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...