As I have stated before on various threads in the MMA forums he on fannation, I plan on giving MMA a go this summer, not long after my 18th birthday (if my MCL cooperates). I was recently reviewing the PA Athletic Commissions official rules and regulations on MMA judging, and I was surprised by what I read. Pleasently surprised, that is.
I fully expected to read judging criteria based around rewarding a Kerr/Guida style of fighting, as that is often what is reflected in MMA judging. In other words I expected it to read something like "the guy on top is always winning." Instead I read this, a direct quote from the PA Athletic Comissions Rules and Regulations for MMA:
"Effective Grappling: (i)-Takedowns from the standing position to the mount posistion
(ii)-Passing guard to mount position
(iii)-Bottom position fighters using an active, threating guard"
This seems to me to be a system which is far more representative of what is actually happening in the fight as opposed to the decisions we so frequently see. In fact, in this system, if someone were to takedown an opponant and not pass the guard, the takedown wouldn't garner him any points. It is a neutral manuver, and if the bottom player works it actually favors him in the judging.
If, however, the top player fails to pass, and the bottom player can not threaten from the guard, what happens then? Since no one fighter has done more than the other, it would appear to me to be a draw, or a 10-10 round. I don't know that I have seen more than one or two 10-10 rounds given in pro MMA competition, and so the advantage is just given to the top player because, well, he's on top.
I have some problems with this kind of scoring too, which I will write about later, but from now on when you watch a fight, try to think a little past the "brilliant" commentary of Frank Mir or Mike Goldberg, or worst of all Frank Shamrock, and think about who is really in control of the fight in the guard.