Message Boards

Unfortunately, mutations are not rational processes. They are near random events, statistically more likely to harm an organism than help. Despite the obvious peril of instituting time limits without creating a system for determining a winner, the UFC had not introduced judges or adopted a scoring system. Shamrock???s clear win was ruled a de-facto draw. It was a farce. The pressure to evolve intensified.

Two months later -- one MMA ???generation??? -- at Ultimate Ultimate, the UFC brought in judges. Three men with backgrounds in martial arts, Ernest Hart Jr. (kickboxing champion), John Little (martial arts publisher) and Michael DePasquale Jr. (jiu-jitsu instructor), judged the bouts using basic combat criteria. This was simple inter-species genetic adoption from Pride Fighting Championships, incorporating beneficial DNA from a successful near relative. Interestingly, with three judges imbued with substantial knowledge in MMA, all the decisions were unanimous.

For the next three years, MMA in America was under tremendous external pressures. In addition to the ever-present and growing risk of being starved of fan and sponsor funding, the UFC found itself beset by political predators. Fighting to survive and temporarily banned from cable TV, the sport went through mutation after mutation. A David and Goliath format pitting fighters of wildly divergent size was adopted and discarded. The one-night tournament format was discarded, re-adopted and ultimately discarded permanently. Rule changes evolved: weight classes, gloves, limitations on striking.

Throughout this tumult, the scoring system remained unchanged. It worked for diehard fans, and evolution is conservative. Lasting change only occurs when it will improve a species??? ability to survive.

Finally, at UFC 21 the five-minute round came to American MMA. The change was long overdue, as the long rounds Japanese spectators appreciated were not winning over American fight fans. What MMA lost in a break from the purity of unregulated combat it more than gained in more intense and broadly marketable combat. Rather than take circling rest breaks in the middle of a 20-minute round, fighters could rest in intercessions conveniently adaptable to announcers pushing products. It marked a critical evolution from struggling fringe spectacle to aspiring mainstream sport.

Similar logic brought the 10-point must system to American MMA. It increased the organism???s ability to survive in an environment dominated by boxing fans and state athletic commissions. This point bears emphasis: the sole virtue of the 10-point must system for MMA is that, in 1999, it appealed to people who knew next to nothing about MMA. Evolution does not produce perfection, beauty or rationality; it promotes only ???fitness??? -- the ability to thrive in a particular environment.

A year later, MMA was sanctioned in New Jersey, and it was at that point -- 10 years and a hundred generations ago, with the co-mutation loss of MMA savvy judges -- that the evolution of MMA scoring ground to a halt. The current experimentation with trivial variations on the hackneyed 10-point must system emphasizes how little influence evolution has to change a well-fed, predator-free, ecologically maximized creature like modern MMA.

Happily, there is an alternative to evolution. In his heavyweight tournament, Coker can be MMA???s Intelligent Designer. While the mandated 10-point must system will determine the winner of each bout, Coker???s fourth judge -- who chooses which fighter advances in the not unlikely event of a draw -- can use whatever scoring system Coker wishes. MMA is a dynamic, multi-faceted sport. It would be best served by a dynamic scoring system that can capture advantages in striking, submissions and wrestling. A difficult charge, surely, but a supreme being can make it happen.

It is worth a shot and if it proves better maybe rhe commisions will adopt it

Otherwise fans will adopt the old james bond chair . If your off by more than what 50%of the fans say ... Your chair tips you into a tank filled with pirahnas. Judging would smarten up in a hurry

Good read. I will let what I read marinate before commenting the good or bad.

Thanks for posting this Roni.

It gets me thinking about the 10-point must system again.
It is ridiculous that basically they never go below 10-9 even when one guy does a LOT of damage to somebody in a round. And they basically make 10-8 the minimum floor. Considering the judges are already using some arbitrary criteria (ring control, agressiveness), the wrong fighter can be given the decision too easily.

In boxing it works a little better because they are doing 10 and 12 round fights so one wrongly scored round doesn't bury a fighter.

If there's a positive, it's that there is a big upside to finishing the fight so that you take the scorecards away from the judges.

Interesting stuff, Roni.

my bad though. I tried to cut out the part where StrikeForce will innovate and have a 4th judge. I wanted to take out the promotion's side and just give the stopry of the 10 points system which I found interesting, and even following it, many times we miss the bigger picture on how/why it changed.
Here's the first paragraph of the page I left out:

========================================================
Strikeforce CEO Scott Coker has proposed the following scoring system for his promotion???s heavyweight grand prix: A state-appointed athletic commission panel of three officials will judge the fight using the standard 10-point must system, and an ancillary fourth judge will score the fight using a hitherto unseen creature -- the 10 (decimal)-point must system. Round losers will earn anywhere from 9.9 to 8.0 points, based on the degree of their opponent???s advantage.

The decimal system is as follows: 10-9.9 to 10-9.5: marginal advantage; 10-9.4 to 10-9 clear advantage; 10-8.9 to 10-8.5: dominant advantage; 10-8.4 to 10-8 overwhelming advantage. However, the fundamental problem of the 10-point scoring system persists: the near impossibility of converting adjectives into numbers.

How did such a peculiar animal come to be?

To answer that question, it???s best to consider modern evolutionary theory and how its principles apply to the development of MMA scoring...... The rest is above :)

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 08:20 PM ET  02.11 by Roni

10-9.9 to 10-9.5: marginal advantage; 10-9.4 to 10-9 clear advantage; 10-8.9 to 10-8.5: dominant advantage; 10-8.4 to 10-8 overwhelming advantage.

the only thing I don't understand is why do this?
I mean, if you will award half a point, why not simply say

10 - Tie
9 - 7 - clear advantage
6 - 4 - dominant advantage
3 - 1 - overwhelming advantage.

Wouldn't it be clearer?

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 10:46 AM ET  02.12 by Roni

the only thing I don't understand is why do this?I mean, if you will award half a point, why not simply say 10 - Tie9 - 7 - clear advantage6 - 4 - dominant advantage3 - 1 - overwhelming advantage. Wouldn't it be clearer?

Ok, so I took to Strikeforce and asked them about this very issue:

===================

Hello.
First of all, I would like to say how much I appreciate this HW tourney and
Strikeforce's events.
Thank you for everything you bring to us fans of MMA.

I've read in Sherdog that for this tourney you will have a 4th judge that will
score the fight as follows: 10-9.9 to 10-9.5: marginal advantage; 10-9.4 to 10-9
clear advantage; 10-8.9 to 10-8.5: dominant advantage; 10-8.4 to 10-8
overwhelming advantage.

While I think it is a great idea, since it is known the current 10 points
system is not the best, I don't understand is why do it this way?
I mean, if you will award half a point, why not simply award as follows?

10 - Tie
9 - 7 - clear advantage
6 - 4 - dominant advantage
3 - 1 - overwhelming advantage.

Wouldn't this be clearer to anyone judging and watching the fight?
I am not criticizing by any means, I just feel it would be clearer for everyone
than adding decimals at the end of the round.

Thank you!

Here's the reply!

======================================
Hi Roni,

You are exactly right. It would have the same result and may have some advantages. In fact, historically, the "10 point-must" system was designed to replace the older "round system" for scoring boxing because they realized that all "winning rounds" were not created equal, and they did use all 10 points the way you have indicated. Over time however the use of all 10 points was modified back to essentially a two point system where winning the round earned you one point and you'd get a bonus point if your scored a knockdown.

To answer your question though, I went with decimals rather than using the full 10 points so that the general (or "whole-number) scores would still be in the same range as the commission officials but would also reflect a more refined (for lack of a better word) scoring that would serve to demonstrate an advantage in even the closest bout. I thought that this would be easier to understand since it stayed in the same general context as the current scoring system.

Thanks for your interest.

Cory Schafer
ISKA President
STRIKEFORCE Rules Director

Decimals? What next, square roots and logarithms?

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 03:59 PM ET  02.12 by Hyped78

Decimals? What next, square roots and logarithms?

LOL I thought the same at first.
But it makes sense. they are keeping the same numbers of the 10 points system (8,9 and 10) but the decimals will be used to show that not all rounds were made equal. and if this is something that will change the results on a fight, then it just brings to light the need to categorize when there's a clear, dominant or overwhelming advantage in a round thus building a case for changing this 10-must point system existing