Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums - Judging Changes Proposed to Unified Rules of MMA

For those of you too lazy to read the short PDF, here's
MMAFighting.com's recap from yesterday's Morning Report:

Quote:

Jul 18, 2012 -I'll start this off by stating the obvious. MMA judging is broken and it's going to take plenty of work to fix it.

That being said, the Association of Boxing Commissions (don't worry about the name) knows this and they've outlined a few significant revisions to the Unified Rules of MMA that will be voted on at next week's annual ABC conference.

There's a lot to go over here, so we'll cover all the bases after the jump.

First off, in an effort to curb defensive gameplans, "effective defense" has been slashed from the judging criteria. To quote the proposal: "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 ... Having two fighters avoid offensive actions and rely solely on defense goes against the basic primary consideration of any combative sport."

Somewhere, Clay Guida is crying.

Next, the system we have right now gives precedence to striking over grappling when it comes to scoring rounds. No longer. The commission has proposed to amend the criteria so that both striking and grappling are given equal weight moving forward.

In doing so, the definitions for what constitutes "effective striking" and "effective grappling" have been clarified.

The proposed new classification for "effective striking" favors power over sheer numbers. Essentially, peppering your opponent to point-fight your way to a decision could become a bit more challenging. Per the document: "Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed. These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain ... If neither fighter shows an advantage in impact of strikes, the number of strikes will determine the most effective striker."

On the flip side, the bounds of "effective grappling" now extend to BJJ players who specialize in active guards from the bottom. According to the proposal, if a lay ‘n' prayer is inactive from the top while the opposing fighter is constantly threatening with submissions off his back, the guy on bottom takes the round.

The third amendment is basically a minor fix aimed at creating friendlier public relations. The term "damage" will be removed from the judges' lexicon, in the hopes that a less violent criteria may curb ignorance and help gain sanctioning from reluctant state bodies.

Lastly, the new standards favor "effective striking" and "effective grappling" more than "effective aggression," and far more than "cage control" when tallying round scores. As such, the definition of every potential score from a 10-10 to a 10-7 has been refined:

Quote:

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows superiority by even a close margin. This score should rarely be used.

2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, demonstrating effective grappling, and utilizing other effective legal techniques.

3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins by a large margin, by effective striking and or effective grappling that have great impact on the opponent.

4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by effective striking and or effective grappling, which put the opponent in great danger throughout the round. In a 10-7 round referee stoppage may be eminent. This score should rarely be used.

So there we have it. Just a reminder, none of this is final until the commission has the opportunity to vote at next week's ABC conference.