Joe Rogan calls for scoring and judging changes

[Wild]

When you see controversial decisions in MMA, criticism of the scoring system won't be far behind.

UFC welterweight champion Robbie Lawler scored another split decision in a win over Carlos Condit Saturday night at UFC 195 and plenty of fighters, fans and media are crying foul.

UFC commentator Joe Rogan called the fight and says it's finally time for MMA to move away from boxing's 10-point must system.


View: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/683654491934044161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



View: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/683655042855911424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



View: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/683657013461532673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



View: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/683658495757963265?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



View: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/683660787508875264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



View: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/683662004456837120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


LINK: Morning Report: Joe Rogan calls for scoring and judging changes following Robbie Lawler's win at UFC 195

 

[Ted Williams' head]

I think as imperfect and flawed as the 10-point must system is, it's probably the best it's going to get.

I don't want to see MMA turn into amateur boxing or point karate where guys are just trying to touch each other and run to land the most "strikes". Fights should never be determined by statistics because statistics don't tell the whole story (for instance, Arlovski outlanded Miocic).

Rogan used the analogy of football and it's quarters, suggesting that MMA fights should be scored as a whole and guys should be able to rack up as many "points" as they can in a round. The problem with that logic is that all touchdowns/goals in sports are the same. A guy catching an easy 4 yard pass into the end zone and a RB breaking 5 tackles to score an 80 yard punt return... those both count for the same. Not all strikes are the same. Every strike landed in MMA has a unique set of variables (what kind of strike was it, where did it land, did it land clean, how much power was behind it, did the guy see it coming, ect). You can't simply keep a score of "significant strikes" (which means anything other than a jab if I'm not mistaken) and score a fight on that.

Fights are often about the minute details. We need judges that understand these details, that understand the body language of fighters, the effectiveness of certain strikes, ect.

IMO it's not the scoring system, it's the people who are scoring the fights.

 

[La Paix]

I think as imperfect and flawed as the 10-point must system is, it's probably the best it's going to get.

I don't want to see MMA turn into amateur boxing or point karate where guys are just trying to touch each other and run to land the most "strikes". Fights should never be determined by statistics because statistics don't tell the whole story (for instance, Arlovski outlanded Miocic).

Rogan used the analogy of football and it's quarters, suggesting that MMA fights should be scored as a whole and guys should be able to rack up as many "points" as they can in a round. The problem with that logic is that all touchdowns/goals in sports are the same. A guy catching an easy 4 yard pass into the end zone and a RB breaking 5 tackles to score an 80 yard punt return... those both count for the same. Not all strikes are the same. Every strike landed in MMA has a unique set of variables (what kind of strike was it, where did it land, did it land clean, how much power was behind it, did the guy see it coming, ect). You can't simply keep a score of "significant strikes" (which means anything other than a jab if I'm not mistaken) and score a fight on that.

Fights are often about the minute details. We need judges that understand these details, that understand the body language of fighters, the effectiveness of certain strikes, ect.

IMO it's not the scoring system, it's the people who are scoring the fights.

I think stats are helpful, your example with Andre isn't great as the fight didn't need to use a scoring system because it didn't go to the judges.

By no way do I think something like fightmetrics is the definitive way to score but its a good tool to use when making a decision along with other things. Judges should be people who have been former fighters, coaches, and others who know the sport as good as those in the ring/cage so they can use their experience along with some stats to determine the winner. I'm positive there's lots of room for improvement for MMA judging, it should be a major focus for all organizations to work on for everyone's benefit.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

I think stats are helpful, your example with Andre isn't great as the fight didn't need to use a scoring system because it didn't go to the judges.

I brought that up to illustrate that all strikes aren't equal, that obviously Miocic's 6 strikes were worth infinitely more than Arlovski's 7.

The second you tell guys "listen, you touch your opponent the most and you win", you're going to get a bunch of track stars who develop great "shoe shining skills" (throwing quick combos with no power behind them), you're going to get guys throwing slap leg kicks that wouldn't bust a grape and running, you're going to get guys clinching and throwing quick little hooks with no power to the ribs to run up the strike totals... it's just going to be a mess.

We're going to turn MMA in to this...



...and I don't think anybody wants that.

And it's sooo unnecessary. Scoring a fight isn't rocket science. They need to get more capable, educated judges.

 

[La Paix]

I brought that up to illustrate that all strikes aren't equal, that obviously Miocic's 6 strikes were worth infinitely more than Arlovski's 7.

The second you tell guys "listen, you touch your opponent the most and you win", you're going to get a bunch of track stars who develop great "shoe shining skills" (throwing quick combos with no power behind them), you're going to get guys throwing slap leg kicks that wouldn't bust a grape and running, you're going to get guys clinching and throwing quick little hooks with no power to the ribs to run up the strike totals... it's just going to be a mess.

We're going to turn MMA in to this...



...and I don't think anybody wants that.

And it's sooo unnecessary. Scoring a fight isn't rocket science. They need to get more capable, educated judges.

I'm not sure if Joe is saying what you're suggesting as far as touching a guy the most wins, I'm certainly not. All I'm saying is that using the boxing system to score MMA is very flawed and it needs to be fixed. I'm sure if you got a group of people who been around the MMA since the early 90s they could come up with a better system, and yes pick better judges. Obviously not every strike is equal but you can't totally disregard volume either as its a factor.

 

[regular john]

another thing is that the 10-point must system avoids draws and people hate draws. when I watch amateur fights people boo if there's one for any reason.

if people tune in to see a big fight and it turns out a draw they'll never come back and zuffa knows it.

 

[Ghost Bro]

The 10 point must system has its oddities but its a relatively good system. You either have a sport that can be sanctioned (with rounds, rules, points) or it would be just 2 guys fighting, the 10 point must system or any type of point giving system is in this way a necessity. It also urges the fighters to work towards specific goals that in turn dictate the action. Judge education is a much more severe issue, on top of that judge bias and influence are 2 more severe issues that are a problem with the 10 point must system. It also makes it too easy to rig split decisions.

 

[Ghost Bro]

It also allows for comebacks. Some guy can get hurt badly for a long time, eat a lot of volume and in the end,get the victory by outpointing a guy (getting a takedown or just ring control, dropping the other guy etc)..might not equal in damage in the end, could've lost the fight in the street, certainly lost it when he gets home, but didn't it in the ring which is another important difference from two guys simply fighting.

 

[Pitbull9]

Love how Joe never says shit on fighter pay

 

[member 3289]

The scoring system wasn't the problem on Saturday, it was the judges.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

I'm not sure if Joe is saying what you're suggesting as far as touching a guy the most wins, I'm certainly not. All I'm saying is that using the boxing system to score MMA is very flawed and it needs to be fixed. I'm sure if you got a group of people who been around the MMA since the early 90s they could come up with a better system, and yes pick better judges. Obviously not every strike is equal but you can't totally disregard volume either as its a factor.

Is it very flawed though? I hear that, but I think statistically it works the vast majority of the time. Maybe someone better with MMA stats than me could figure out the ratio of controversial to non-controversial decisions, but it seems to me more often than not the judges get it to where it's satisfactory. We will never have a perfect system that works 100% of the time, but we do have a system now that works most of the time. Maybe our current system just needs to be tweaked/refined? Maybe it's just a matter of proper training for judges, and getting everyone on the same page?

I don't discount volume - in the majority of cases, the man who lands the most strikes is typically the guy who won the fight. But as the eggheads say, correlation does not imply causation and strikes landed doesn't give the whole picture of a fight. And not only does it not give the whole picture, they're often not accurate. I personally went through Lawler/Condit round 3 in my editing software and played the exchanges frame by frame, and found that Condit got credit for landing more strikes than he did in that round. I can only imagine it would be the same thing in the other rounds.

 

[Wild]

Make title fights & main events one 30 minute "round" and if you finish your opponent, you win...if there is no finish, the fights a draw.

Make non-title fights & non-main events, one 20 minute round...same as above. Finish = win, non-finish = draw.

I know this will never happen, but I bet there would more finishes & fights ending decisively.

 

[MichaelSolly]

We need to use all 10 points!!

For example in specific fights

10-10 would be like the first round of
lawler McDonald 2 or round 2 of Jacare vs Romero
10-9 would be like round 2 of Weidman vs rockhold
10-8 would be like mcgregor mendes for mendes
10-7 would be round 3 of lawler Hendricks 1
10-6 - 5th round of lawler condit or the 1st round of Hall vs lobov
10-5 - round 3 of Rory vs lawler 2
10-4 round 3 of jds Cain 3
10-3 round 2 of Matt brown vs Erick silva
10-2 dominated and almost finished 2 times
10-1 I don't think we would ever see

 

[Qat]

Make title fights & main events one 30 minute "round" and if you finish your opponent, you win...if there is no finish, the fights a draw.

Make non-title fights & non-main events, one 20 minute round...same as above. Finish = win, non-finish = draw.

I know this will never happen, but I bet there would more finishes & fights ending decisively.

It would help the fights probably. But you always will have those very hard to finish dudes in the sport nobody wants to fight then, especially in the lower weight classes.
Furthermore my fear with that would be, that the matchmakers have even more wiggle-room, and even a very dominant performance does not directly equate to a fighter furthering himself. Unless the promoter says he sees it as a win. More power to Dana? Meh.
You might have clearly inferior fighters above in the rankings and whatnot. Also could lead to problems in contract-negotiations.

 

[FadeToBlack]

I'm just spitballing here. I think the 10 point must system can stay as long as we have good criteria for scoring. I haven't developed a scoring system yet, but here are some of my ideas:

- Takedowns shouldn't be scored as a significant event like a knockdown. A takedown landed that doesn't result in any follow-up advancements (i.e. guard pass, strikes from at least half guard, sub attempts) are not significant events and shouldn't be scored as such. A slam may be a significant event as its both a takedown and a strike. Essentially.

- Strikes from guard should be judged differently than strikes from half guard, side mount or full mount. Most fighters can't inflict meaningful damage from this position

- Knockdowns should dock a fighter a point. If you get knocked down twice, you're down 10-8. If you knock the other guy down, you recover a point and are now down 10-9.

- Lower-body clinch strikes (foot stomps, knees to the thigh) should not be significant scoring techniques, those should only be used to wear down the opponent to set up future scoring events later in the fight. It's an investment into the fight but not significant to end a fight.

 

[dacofty]

I think the 10 point system is ok, we need quality judges, not the good ole boys club we usually see from vegas

 

[La Paix]

Is it very flawed though? I hear that, but I think statistically it works the vast majority of the time. Maybe someone better with MMA stats than me could figure out the ratio of controversial to non-controversial decisions, but it seems to me more often than not the judges get it to where it's satisfactory. We will never have a perfect system that works 100% of the time, but we do have a system now that works most of the time. Maybe our current system just needs to be tweaked/refined? Maybe it's just a matter of proper training for judges, and getting everyone on the same page?

I don't discount volume - in the majority of cases, the man who lands the most strikes is typically the guy who won the fight. But as the eggheads say, correlation does not imply causation and strikes landed doesn't give the whole picture of a fight. And not only does it not give the whole picture, they're often not accurate. I personally went through Lawler/Condit round 3 in my editing software and played the exchanges frame by frame, and found that Condit got credit for landing more strikes than he did in that round. I can only imagine it would be the same thing in the other rounds.

Agree with most of that. I actually think @ZEPH has a thread like you're talking about so maybe he can bump it for us all. I do think it works for the most part but I'd like to see it tweaked for MMA and definitely get some better judges

Edit: I cant find that symbol to tag him with his reemjob SN

 

[Ted Williams' head]

We need to use all 10 points!!

For example in specific fights

10-10 would be like the first round of
lawler McDonald 2 or round 2 of Jacare vs Romero
10-9 would be like round 2 of Weidman vs rockhold
10-8 would be like mcgregor mendes for mendes
10-7 would be round 3 of lawler Hendricks 1
10-6 - 5th round of lawler condit or the 1st round of Hall vs lobov
10-5 - round 3 of Rory vs lawler 2
10-4 round 3 of jds Cain 3
10-3 round 2 of Matt brown vs Erick silva
10-2 dominated and almost finished 2 times
10-1 I don't think we would ever see

Yeah I think we should probably start making more use of the 10 points, I don't know about going down that far but maybe hand out more 10-8/10-7 rounds... I think the biggest problem is we need something to differentiate between a close round that is just barely nicked by one guy and a round that is clearly won by another guy, but not dominant enough to warrant a 10-8.

 

[lueVelvet]

Love how Joe never says shit on fighter pay

Joe Rogan on Reebok sponsor pay: 'I'm on the fighters' side when it comes to that'

 

[La Paix]

I'd like to see them show the judges scorecards after each round.

 

[Pitbull9]

Joe Rogan on Reebok sponsor pay: 'I'm on the fighters' side when it comes to that'

That I saw but I'm talking about the pay in general.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

I really want to see 5 - 3 minute rounds, and 10 - 3 minute rounds for title fights.
Shorter rounds = fresher fighters, Fresher fighters = more action.
More rounds = more clear decisions.
Shorter rounds = less time to wrestle fuck before a mandatory stand up.

If we're going to use a boxing 10 point must, why not give their round duration a shot too?

 

[Ryann Von Doom]

10, 5, 5 rounds. Just sayin.

 

[La Paix]

I really want to see 5 - 3 minute rounds, and 10 - 3 minute rounds for title fights.
Shorter rounds = fresher fighters, Fresher fighters = more action.
More rounds = more clear decisions.
Shorter rounds = less time to wrestle fuck before a mandatory stand up.

If we're going to use a boxing 10 point must, why not give their round duration a shot too?

Not a horrible idea but this is a big advantage to strikers. I like the 10, 5, 5 as well.

 

[Malice]

I really want to see 5 - 3 minute rounds, and 10 - 3 minute rounds for title fights.
Shorter rounds = fresher fighters, Fresher fighters = more action.
More rounds = more clear decisions.
Shorter rounds = less time to wrestle fuck before a mandatory stand up.

If we're going to use a boxing 10 point must, why not give their round duration a shot too?

I never really looked at it like that, but you make a very logical argument for 3min rounds.