When judging UFC fights.

[TechniqueSeeker]

When watching the fights and judging them yourselves. How does your point system work? Do you judge defensive moves the same as offensive moves or different? What are the key elements that a fight has to have in order to come to a conclusion on who won the fight? Anything else you guys can think of that you would like to share on how you judge fights.

[DLF319_OC80]

I judge fights on 2 simple aspects. Damage and danger. How much damage someone takes and the amount of danger they are in. Obviously submission attempts count as putting your opponent in danger, also being in a dominant position counts as danger as well. Then you add in the amount of damage you inflict on your opponent from strikes and such.

 

This keeps everything simple and all aspects of mma can fit into either putting your opponent in danger (even transitions can be looked at as improving your position/ increasing the amount of danger you put your opponent in) or inflicting damage. Actions such as takedowns put your opponent in danger and inflict some damage.

 

Also this takes into account defense as the better your defense the less danger and damage you would be in/ take.

 

Simple. Effective. Correct. Damage and Danger.

[Melvinj0]

I judge round by round like this

 

 

10-9, extremely close round

 

10-8, a pretty close round but with an obvious winner

 

10-7, a dominant round with a very obvious winner

 

 

Example

 

I had the Machida v Rampage fight scored like this

 

 

rnd 1 - 10-9 Machida (due to effective leg strikes and I feel he was in control of the clinch more than Page)

 

Rnd 2 - 10-9 Rampage (Basically just for doing stuff when Machida wasnt)

 

Rnd 3 - 10-8 Machida (A pretty dominant round but I got bashed when i put 10-7 so I changed it lol)

[uaquin]

I don't judge defensive moves the same as offensive, because in the end if you are playing defense you aren't winning the fight.That said where I seem to differ from the judges, is if for instance a guy is going for a takedown and the other fighter not only stuffs the shot but is punishing the guy while doing it, I give the advantage to the guy doing damage.

[Pro_Boxer]

I don't judge defensive moves the same as offensive' date=' because in the end if you are playing defense you aren't winning the fight.That said where I seem to differ from the judges, is if for instance a guy is going for a takedown and the other fighter not only stuffs the shot but is punishing the guy while doing it, I give the advantage to the guy doing damage.[/quote']

 

I agree with what you said except I think defense is very important. Anyone cam throw a punch. But being able to not get hit to me is a talent. Creates a non exciting fight but if a guy has the ability to do it they should get awarded for it. Imo

[joshdfs]

If it is defense which is used to set up offense, like Machida's evasion and counter striking, then to me it kind of falls under octagon control. But if it is only defense, with no offense coming from it, like in GSP/Hardy, then it counts for very little.

 

Effective defense changes aggression into chasing, which is what a good defensive/counter fighter uses as offensive set up.

 

The fact is you can not possibly judge each and every fight identically. Different styles make the criteria affect the fight differently.

 

What worked for PRIDE, and I find myself doing, is to judge by the effectiveness of the style and technique. If good defense sets up effective offense, then it counts as part of the offense overall and effectiveness of technique and strategy.

 

Make sense?

[King_Can]

i judge round by round like this

 

 

10-9' date=' extremely close round

 

10-8, a pretty close round but with an obvious winner

 

10-7, a dominant round with a very obvious winner

 

 

example

 

i had the machida v rampage fight scored like this

 

 

rnd 1 - 10-9 machida (due to effective leg strikes and i feel he was in control of the clinch more than page)

 

rnd 2 - 10-9 rampage (basically just for doing stuff when machida wasnt)

 

rnd 3 - 10-8 machida (a pretty dominant round but i got bashed when i put 10-7 so i changed it lol)[/quote']

 

change your sig you sore looser.

[Riot_Act101]

i judge by efforts to finish the fight...

 

 

FOR ME

 

little pepper shots dont do anything.......moving forwand doesnt do anything......ITS ALL ABOUT TRYING TO FINISH THE FIGHT..........IMO

[seXXXpac]

I judge fights on 2 simple aspects. Damage and danger. How much damage someone takes and the amount of danger they are in.

 

I judge round by round like this

 

 

10-9' date=' extremely close round

 

10-8, a pretty close round but with an obvious winner

 

10-7, a dominant round with a very obvious winner[/quote']

 

I agree with what you said except I think defense is very important. Anyone cam throw a punch. But being able to not get hit to me is a talent. Creates a non exciting fight but if a guy has the ability to do it they should get awarded for it. Imo

 

i judge by efforts to finish the fight...

 

 

FOR ME

 

little pepper shots dont do anything.......moving forwand doesnt do anything......ITS ALL ABOUT TRYING TO FINISH THE FIGHT..........IMO

 

Wrong' date=' wrong, wrong, and [b']WRONG[/b]!!!

 

If it is defense which is used to set up offense' date=' like [b']Machida's evasion and counter striking, then to me it kind of falls under octagon control[/b]. But if it is only defense, with no offense coming from it, like in GSP/Hardy, then it counts for very little.

 

Effective defense changes aggression into chasing, which is what a good defensive/counter fighter uses as offensive set up.

 

The fact is you can not possibly judge each and every fight identically. Different styles make the criteria affect the fight differently.

 

What worked for PRIDE, and I find myself doing, is to judge by the effectiveness of the style and technique. If good defense sets up effective offense, then it counts as part of the offense overall and effectiveness of technique and strategy.

 

Make sense?

 

I don't judge defensive moves the same as offensive' date=' because in the end if you are playing defense you aren't winning the fight.That said where I seem to differ from the judges, is if [b']for instance a guy is going for a takedown and the other fighter not only stuffs the shot but is punishing the guy while doing it, I give the advantage to the guy doing damage[/b].

 

You guys are smart

[scarletknight11]

I don't judge defensive moves the same as offensive' date=' because in the end if you are playing defense you aren't winning the fight.That said where I seem to differ from the judges, is if for instance a guy is going for a takedown and the other fighter not only stuffs the shot but is punishing the guy while doing it, I give the advantage to the guy doing damage.[/quote']

 

^^ agree 100%

[Riot_Act101]

Wrong' date=' wrong, wrong, and [b']WRONG[/b]!!!

 

 

 

 

 

You guys are smart

 

i never said i was right....i was asked how i like to judge fights, and i awnsered.....but i suppose its not your fault, that your mother dropped you into a big barrel of stupid while you weere little

[seXXXpac]

i never said i was right....i was asked how i like to judge fights' date=' and i awnsered.....but i suppose its not your fault, that your mother dropped you into a big barrel of stupid while you weere little [/quote']

 

You may not have said you were right, but it's still the wrong way to score a fight.

Why not try to score it the proper way? It's the wise thing to do.

[joshdfs]

You may not have said you were right' date=' but it's still the wrong way to score a fight.

Why not try to score it the proper way? It's the wise thing to do.[/quote']

 

Because then all the oppurtunities to complain about decisions and cry about alleged tampering or other stupidity will be gone.

 

Most people only dislike decisions when it goes against the fighter they picked.

[seXXXpac]

Because then all the oppurtunities to complain about decisions and cry about alleged tampering or other stupidity will be gone.

 

Most people only dislike decisions when it goes against the fighter they picked.

 

Exactly.

I had this fight 29-28 Machida, but I'm not sitting here b*tching about it. It was really close and could have gone either way.

 

Rampage is lucky as sh*t that he landed that takedown in the second round.

[JJMMA_GSP]

I kinda think they should judge mma like they judge bjj. if a fight gets a takedown into guard or halfguard 1 point but if he gets into side control or mount then 2 points. a simple escape can be 1 point but if they reverse or escape from mount or side control 2 points. and depending on how long a person has conrol in an advantagous position can give them points aswell. also the effectiveness of your striking can give you points to

[Riot_Act101]

You may not have said you were right' date=' but it's still the wrong way to score a fight.

Why not try to score it the proper way? It's the wise thing to do.[/quote']

 

allright we may have gotten off on the wrong foot in that other thread, so i apologise, and would like to have a sane discussion(if such a thing is even possible on this forum lol )

 

what is, in your opinion, the correct way to score a fight?

[Eclipse76]

I don't judge defensive moves the same as offensive' date=' because in the end if you are playing defense you aren't winning the fight.That said where I seem to differ from the judges, is if for instance a guy is going for a takedown and the other fighter not only stuffs the shot but is punishing the guy while doing it, I give the advantage to the guy doing damage.[/quote']

 

^^

This

 

Watched the fight live on Saturday and re-watched 3 more times...

First 2 rounds where clearly Rampage, 3rd was Machida.. 2 out of 3 a winner makes.

 

Was nice for Rampage to give props.. but come on.. don't underrate the fact that you won the first 2 rounds, and other than a quick flurry (which you quickly came back with one of your own) you had that fight.

 

It's like he said after at the post fight interviews... his own coaching staff and Dana told him... you won 2 rounds, don't downplay the fact that you won.

[seXXXpac]

allright we may have gotten off on the wrong foot in that other thread' date=' so i apologise, and would like to have a sane discussion(if such a thing is even possible on this forum lol )

 

what is, in your opinion, the correct way to score a fight?[/quote']

 

I just go with the flow, man. From the very first strike, I tend to keep track of who I believe is winning. IMO, there is no 'set' way to score a fight. MMA is highly based on opinions.. especially in very close fights. A lot of things are subjective, but things that AREN'T part of the scoring, can not be used to favour a certain fighter. Damage (cuts) can't be scored, as some fighters cut easier than others. Rocking your opponent DOES count, however.

 

If someone secures a takedown, but then the opponent gets right back up, I consider that a stalemate. I will remember the takedown, but it means very little. If I feel that the round is otherwise even, then the takedown will win the round.

 

There are far too many things to describe when scoring a fight, and since every fight is different, they all present different challenges.

For instance, I had Carlos Condit winning 30-26 over Rory MacDonald (had the fight gone to decision). Why? Because although Rory took him down numerous times, he did NOTHING with them except for get beat up. I also take into account the fact that his takedowns came as a direct result of Condit trying to be aggressive and land strikes, so I score the takedown a little weaker than others.

 

Submission attempts count as active offense.

Counter fighters like Lyoto 'control' the Octagon when they're making the opponent chase them.

Stuffing a takedown is also Octagon control, as it's keeping the fight in your realm.

 

There is far too much more to explain, but this is just a general outline of MY opinion. lol

[Riot_Act101]

I just go with the flow' date=' man. From the very first strike, I tend to keep track of who I believe is winning. IMO, there is no 'set' way to score a fight. MMA is highly based on opinions.. especially in very close fights. A lot of things are subjective, but things that AREN'T part of the scoring, can not be used to favour a certain fighter. Damage (cuts) can't be scored, as some fighters cut easier than others. Rocking your opponent DOES count, however.

 

If someone secures a takedown, but then the opponent gets right back up, I consider that a stalemate. I will remember the takedown, but it means very little. If I feel that the round is otherwise even, then the takedown will win the round.

 

There are far too many things to describe when scoring a fight, and since every fight is different, they all present different challenges.

For instance, I had Carlos Condit winning 30-26 over Rory MacDonald (had the fight gone to decision). Why? Because although Rory took him down numerous times, he did NOTHING with them except for get beat up. I also take into account the fact that his takedowns came as a direct result of Condit trying to be aggressive and land strikes, so I score the takedown a little weaker than others.

 

Submission attempts count as active offense.

Counter fighters like Lyoto 'control' the Octagon when they're making the opponent chase them.

Stuffing a takedown is also Octagon control, as it's keeping the fight in your realm.

 

There is far too much more to explain, but this is just a general outline of MY opinion. lol[/quote']

 

hmm well now that i have had someone lay it out....i actually agree with you. it is quite a good scoring system.

[KTASlexii]

When I score a fight I look at strikes. Are they effective and how much they land.

When I look at a takedown. I look at the time they were on the ground,the strikes made on the ground, and if the fighter did any damage at all while on the ground.

When you mention octagon control I look at how you move and if your pushed into the cage. (In the rampage fight, I felt machida had better control because he was making rampage chase him around. He wasn't stuck in one area and unable to move around (except when pushed against the cage which happened to both of them). Aggression and trying to finish a fight also helps, but if your aggression isn't effective (meaning your missing punches and not getting close to finishing the fight it doesn't count much. At the end of the day it's more of an opinion unless they have a set point system for all aspects of mma.

[seXXXpac]

When I score a fight I look at strikes. Are they effective and how much they land.

When I look at a takedown. I look at the time they were on the ground' date='the strikes made on the ground, and if the fighter did any damage at all while on the ground.

When you mention octagon control I look at how you move and if your pushed into the cage. (In the rampage fight, I felt machida had better control because he was making rampage chase him around. He wasn't stuck in one area and unable to move around (except when pushed against the cage which happened to both of them). Aggression and trying to finish a fight also helps, but if your aggression isn't effective (meaning your missing punches and not getting close to finishing the fight it doesn't count much. At the end of the day it's more of an opinion unless they have a set point system for all aspects of mma.[/quote']

 

You'd make a good judge.

[Jbrahams]

I judge round by round like this

 

 

10-9' date=' extremely close round

 

10-8, a pretty close round but with an obvious winner

 

10-7, a dominant round with a very obvious winner

 

 

Example

 

I had the Machida v Rampage fight scored like this

 

 

rnd 1 - 10-9 Machida (due to effective leg strikes and I feel he was in control of the clinch more than Page)

 

Rnd 2 - 10-9 Rampage (Basically just for doing stuff when Machida wasnt)

 

Rnd 3 - 10-8 Machida (A pretty dominant round but I got bashed when i put 10-7 so I changed it lol)[/quote']

 

well it seems if you did something to your opponent you get 9 points, annoys me a bit

[TechniqueSeeker]

Thank you guys for your input!!! I now have some new perspectives on understanding this sport better.

[khazaljj]

I don't like the boxing style points system, so I just watch the entire fight and judge who won the fight. Literally as simple as that. Who did the most significant things, who beat the other guy up more, who controlled the fight, who was winning the grappling, who landed the most significant strikes. Because sometimes rounds are too close and its unfair to give it to a fighter that you aren't sure has won the round (rampage machida first round could have gone either way, and if they had Machida winning round 1 he'd have won the fight easily).

 

You need a liberal approach to MMA judging because it can go in an infinite number of ways and you can't just tie it down to striking, aggression and octagon control like the ufc do.