# Significant Changes In The Unified Rules Of MMA



## BlueLander (Apr 11, 2010)

> Last year, BE's Dallas Winston covered the annual Association of Boxing Commission (ABC) annual conference. For MMA fans, the most impactful ruling to come out of the 2011 conference was the trial period for Doc Hamilton's proposed Half-Point Scoring System from the 2010 meetings. This year, however, the ABC has made several decisions with direct effects on mixed martial arts.
> 
> First, the death of the half-point system. After the year-long, voluntary evaluation period granted to the half-point system, the ABC concluded that the system had negligible impact on scoring the outcome of an MMA bout:
> 
> ...


http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/17/3163999/association-boxing-commissions-abc-changes-unified-rules-scoring-mma-news


----------



## ACTAFOOL (Dec 10, 2008)

Wow this is great news! Now all we need is judges that know the difference between a triangle that almost finishes a fight and an instrument 

Seriously though they needed this, TDs were given too much weight, this way when theres a wrestler just surviving sub attempts, even if they arent that close but simply constant the guy on the bottom would win

This brings me back to pettis va guida, i still think that was a BS decision! I dont see how surviving a dangerous guard (key word: SURVIVING) means you won the round, if you are simply defending sub attempts then you arent being in control or effective in striking or grappling, effective grappling and agression should have been scored in favor of pettis....

But lets not beat a dead horse lol


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Yeah not excited at all. Doesn't matter what they change, unless the judges actually know wtf they are watching it doesn't matter what they change.

Have you heard the Joe Rogan story about he was talking to a judge and this guy told him he was working a fight and the fighter was working for a kimura and the judge(who he didn't name, but I guess works a lot of fights) next to him turned and said "what is he doing right now?" That kind of ignorance isn't going to be changed with criteria changes.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

> New defnition of "Effective Grappling":
> 
> Judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown, reversals and submission attempts. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, *passing the guard to a dominant position*, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard to create submission attempts. Submission attempts which come close to ending a fight will be weighted more highly than attempts which are easily defended. Submission attempts which cause an opponent to weaken or tire from the effort required to defend the technique will also be weighted highly in scoring. High amplitude takedowns and throws which have great impact will be scored more heavily than a takedown which does not have great impact.


So Lay'n'Pray isn't considered a dominant position¿ That would be great.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

There's nothing wrong with the rules now, the problem is a bunch of people who wanna see finishes getting pissy because someone can't sweep or reverse a guy like Jon Fitch and have to insult wrestling.

The only rule I want changed is that garbage Stand Up rule, that's the coward's refugee for strikers. If you can't get Jon Fitch or Ben Askren off of you, tough shit. Should have worked on that sprawl.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Also now TDD doesn't count. How is that better? Now you can literally steal a round with a single take down after you've tried 20 times already. I get it's about trying to create more offense but come on now.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

These "changes" do nothing.


----------



## ACTAFOOL (Dec 10, 2008)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> There's nothing wrong with the rules now, the problem is a bunch of people who wanna see finishes getting pissy because someone can't sweep or reverse a guy like Jon Fitch and have to insult wrestling.
> 
> The only rule I want changed is that garbage Stand Up rule, that's the coward's refugee for strikers. If you can't get Jon Fitch or Ben Askren off of you, tough shit. Should have worked on that sprawl.


I agree to some extent, i think the wrestler should have to stay busy with some GnP, i dont think any1 should be able to win a fight just taking someone down and holding on to them for dear life and not creating any space or trying to at least improve position. Im not saying this is what fitch does, he actually stays quite busy and he destroyed bj

Still i think a fighter should always be looking to finish or do damage, this is also valid for strikers that simply strike just enough to be ahead on the score card and then just use "footwork" to avoid the fight

But i agree there should be no stand ups...:also i think its good you dont get points to defend, the objective is to be offensive, you should only defend to get a chance to be offensive, makes sense


----------



## BOMDC (Feb 13, 2011)

Roflcopter said:


> These "changes" do nothing.




Yup. All I took from it is that even more weight will be given to wrestling. Question for everyone:


Fighter A & B start the first round. 

After around a minute of feel out with no significant strikes landed fighter A starts to find his range and lands a couple good jabs and say 2 straight counters.

Realizing that he is losing on the feet, fighter B shoots in for a TD around 2:00 in and is stuffed.

Fighter A starts getting more aggressive and lands a multi punch combo. Fighter B tries to circle out but is caught with power shot and is staggered.

Fighter B goes in for a TD at 2:30 in and gets it. 


Fighter B stays in guard landing say 10-15 arm punches.


There are a few sub attempts with fighter A trying to get a high guard but nothing close and fighter B finishes the round on top staying heavy and avoiding any sweeps, completely controlling the position.


Who wins that round?


I would think Fighter A based on the 2:30 minutes of standing control and landing the only significant strikes on the feet. However, I think a majority of judges would give it to B. How would you score and what do you think an average MMA judge would score it.


----------



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

No groin strikes, biting, scratching, poking with fingers, headbutting and grabbing fence/shorts.

That should be all.

These changes don't mean a lot due to the incompetence of many judges, only bad part of this article for me is the part that says 10-10 rounds should rarely be scored.

10-10 rounds should be encouraged, I guarantee that all the rubbish judges who can't be assed just pick a name out of a hat when they need to score a close round, that is why we see such strange scoring at the end of close fights. If you find it hard to score and you found no dominant periods in the round, score it 10-10 and forget it.

Then of course you'll have title fights scored 50-50, that's where the sudden death round comes in, another necessary addition IMO.


----------



## ACTAFOOL (Dec 10, 2008)

BOMDC said:


> Yup. All I took from it is that even more weight will be given to wrestling. Question for everyone:
> 
> 
> Fighter A & B start the first round.
> ...


Well it depends, if fighter B had an active guard like pettis or oliveira and simply seemed more agressive from his back, add that to the stand up portion of the fight, under these new rules a competent judge would give it to fighter B

I think these changes are good, the problem is nothing will change becuase judges are still terrible no matter what the criteria is


----------



## Ryan1522 (Oct 31, 2006)

The fact that there is a multi-faceted approach to scoring fights by different judges is no surprise to me. Having four different criteria to look at in effective striking, effective grappling, effective aggression as well as cage/ring control will certainly result in mixed feelings and different opinions on who won a round/fight. 

They say grappling and striking will now be weighted evenly, but in some instances, there is a lot of failed grappling and minimal effective striking by either party. In those cases, should octagon control or aggression be more heavily favoured? Which criteria of those 2 should be more favoured? Don't they almost go hand-in-hand?

The first fight that comes to mind to me that fits those criteria is the recent fight between Gleison Tibau vs Khabib Nurmagomedov. 

This was also the first time in recent memory where I completely disagreed with Joe Rogan. Rogan kept commenting on how Khabib was losing the fight and how this would be a great learning experience for such a young fighter.

I personally thought that he was dictating the pace of the fight, as well as being the aggressor. Gleison was throwing more technical punches as opposed to the hay-makers Khabib was throwing, but Gleison was always backing up. Khabib though unsuccessful was pushing to get the takedown. Glesion put almost no offense grappling together himself. It seemed like the entire fight Gleison was in defensive mode. 

I personally thought Khabib won the fight but thought it was tough to score because there was little effective grappling or effective striking from either man that stood out in my mind, so most of the scoring weight went to cage/ring control. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

SM33 said:


> These changes don't mean a lot due to the incompetence of many judges, only bad part of this article for me is the part that says 10-10 rounds should rarely be scored.
> 
> 10-10 rounds should be encouraged, I guarantee that all the rubbish judges who can't be assed just pick a name out of a hat when they need to score a close round, that is why we see such strange scoring at the end of close fights. If you find it hard to score and you found no dominant periods in the round, score it 10-10 and forget it.


If that is the case you need to add the option to go more rounds. 10-10 are very popular in K1, in fact pretty sure I see more 10-10 rounds than anything. But I also rarely see a fight not go into the extension rounds.



> Then of course you'll have title fights scored 50-50, that's where the sudden death round comes in, another necessary addition IMO.


Apparently, under the unified rules fighters can fight a MAXIMUM of 5 rounds in a night. So you can't have sudden death in title fights.


----------



## Sports_Nerd (Apr 23, 2012)

BOMDC said:


> Yup. All I took from it is that even more weight will be given to wrestling. Question for everyone:
> 
> 
> Fighter A & B start the first round.
> ...


Well, that's an interesting question, exactly half a round lopsided in favor of the striker (Fighter A) and half in favor of the grappler (Fighter B.) I think the answer depends on a couple of things:

1. Did fighter A hurt the other with any of his strikes? Were there any moments of wobbliness, did fighter B have to clinch for dear life at any point, that sort of thing.

2. What kind of offense did fighter B generate in the stand up? Even if he only landed a few mildly effective strikes it suddenly isn't so lopsided.

As it is, your scenario sounds like a 10-10 round, but if I _had_ to pick a winner assuming no truly significant strikes landed I'd have to go with fighter B. Because if nothing else, fighter B gained a tactical advantage going forward by forcing his opponent to expend more energy.


----------



## BOMDC (Feb 13, 2011)

Sports_Nerd said:


> Well, that's an interesting question, exactly half a round lopsided in favor of the striker (Fighter A) and half in favor of the grappler (Fighter B.) I think the answer depends on a couple of things:
> 
> 1. Did fighter A hurt the other with any of his strikes? Were there any moments of wobbliness, did fighter B have to clinch for dear life at any point, that sort of thing.
> 
> ...




The way I posed to the scenario was for A to pretty much outstrike B thoroughly but not dropping him. A couple power shots and nice combos to fighter B's 2ish jabs and totally missed lead hooks. Then for B to Fitch A for the remaining 2:30 with only arm punches with no posture from guard while A interrupts with couple guard raises and sweep attempts, though none are close to successful. 

I just wanted to bring to light my perception that if the round is split between two fighters (timewise) with one having some standup success, and the other having grappling success, the nod usually goes to the grappler. Main point I'm trying to get at is, if there is pretty dominant striking period, is that negated by the same amount of time controlling the action/grappling and landing less/less damaging strikes? In most cases in seem judges opt for the latter (especially if the round ends with fighter B doing their GNP work) while it seems slightly counter intuitive to me. There is the weight of octagon control added into the grappling/gnp just wondering if there were varying opinions on this.


Would you rather take 2 combos from say Paul Daley on the feet of 20 punches from fitch in your guard. Seems like the former has much more risk for damage/changing the fight, just wondering what people's opinions are.


----------



## Sports_Nerd (Apr 23, 2012)

BOMDC said:


> The way I posed to the scenario was for A to pretty much outstrike B thoroughly but not dropping him. A couple power shots and nice combos to fighter B's 2ish jabs and totally missed lead hooks. Then for B to Fitch A for the remaining 2:30 with only arm punches with no posture from guard while A interrupts with couple guard raises and sweep attempts, though none are close to successful.
> 
> I just wanted to bring to light my perception that if the round is split between two fighters (timewise) with one having some standup success, and the other having grappling success, the nod usually goes to the grappler. Main point I'm trying to get at is, if there is pretty dominant striking period, is that negated by the same amount of time controlling the action/grappling and landing less/less damaging strikes? In most cases in seem judges opt for the latter (especially if the round ends with fighter B doing their GNP work) while it seems slightly counter intuitive to me. There is the weight of octagon control added into the grappling/gnp just wondering if there were varying opinions on this.
> 
> ...


Both Paul Daley and John Fitch could probably kill me by breaking wind. What I as a fan perceive to be more painful/devastating is immaterial. The question that should matter for a judge, IMO, is what results actually arise in the cage.

If one fighter tags another a bunch of times on the feet, but hasn't been able to put him away, then I, as a judge, have to concede that he won the stand up battle, but hasn't actually gained a significant tactical advantage. for a fighter to appear to be losing the stand up battle and then change the tenor of the fight with one punch is far from uncommon.

However, your "fighter B" may have done no more damage from the top position then he took in the standup, but by gaining position he achieved a tactical advantage that fighter A never had. he's limited his opponent's offense significantly.

So, in the absence of any other factors, I would give fighter B the nod in what is essentially a tiebreaker - tactical success as opposed to actual, physical, ass-kicking success.


----------



## BOMDC (Feb 13, 2011)

Interesting point on potential threats per position. Thx for your take.


----------



## BWoods (Apr 8, 2007)

*The Association of Boxing Commissions has made changes to the rules of MMA*

These seem like changes that will put judging in the right direction. This will hurt fighters who lay-and-pray or run away. I'm a bit intrigued by the removal of the defense criteria in scoring but I can see the reasoning behind it.



> Last year, BE's Dallas Winston covered the annual Association of Boxing Commission (ABC) annual conference. For MMA fans, the most impactful ruling to come out of the 2011 conference was the trial period for Doc Hamilton's proposed Half-Point Scoring System from the 2010 meetings. This year, however, the ABC has made several decisions with direct effects on mixed martial arts.
> 
> First, the death of the half-point system. After the year-long, voluntary evaluation period granted to the half-point system, the ABC concluded that the system had negligible impact on scoring the outcome of an MMA bout:
> 
> ...


http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/1...ns-abc-changes-unified-rules-scoring-mma-news


----------



## BlueLander (Apr 11, 2010)

Life B Ez said:


> Have you heard the Joe Rogan story about he was talking to a judge and this guy told him he was working a fight and the fighter was working for a kimura and the judge(who he didn't name, but I guess works a lot of fights) next to him turned and said "what is he doing right now?" That kind of ignorance isn't going to be changed with criteria changes.


That's messed up. I knew the judging was bad, but man I'm a casual fan at best and I seem to know more then most judges 

Any chance retired fighters could maybe get jobs judging in the future?


----------



## Buakaw_GSP (Jan 9, 2011)

So according to 1), the 1st Round of Silva vs Sonnen 2 could have been a 10-7 round now? Damn everyone should just go balls out now, screw with blocking a punch.. Wanderlei Silva is pleased with this news.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

BlueLander said:


> That's messed up. I knew the judging was bad, but man I'm a casual fan at best and I seem to know more then most judges
> 
> Any chance retired fighters could maybe get jobs judging in the future?


Richardo Almeida is doing it right now, but there isn't any money in it. Guys want to go home and relax and run their gyms. So it's not enough money to make it worth while.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

So now defense doesn't count anymore but takedowns still do? Not sure what to think of that.

They say defense is its own reward, why not takedowns?


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

Life B Ez said:


> Have you heard the Joe Rogan story about he was talking to a judge and this guy told him he was working a fight and the fighter was working for a kimura and the judge(who he didn't name, but I guess works a lot of fights) next to him turned and said "what is he doing right now?" That kind of ignorance isn't going to be changed with criteria changes.


Yeah I have heard this and it's deplorable. Why can't you and I just be the judges? People say it's the worst job cos you always get a bad wrap but seriously, that would be an awesome job.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

Something I'd like to add is that most refs do a good job except for one or two...heh...heh. It's a very tough job if you think about. You have to make the best possible judgement in a split second. Thing is we (fans) have all camera angles, the ref only has one even though he's close up. 

Wonder how it'll effect future judging criteria. They still need the yellow card in play deducting 10% of the purse. I love that rule.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

MRBRESK said:


> Yeah I have heard this and it's deplorable. Why can't you and I just be the judges? People say it's the worst job cos you always get a bad wrap but seriously, that would be an awesome job.


I don't know how good or not it would be. But it is definitely a thankless job. The only time they really get talked about is when they **** up. I mean the only judge I know off hand is Cecil Peoples, why? Because he's horriawful bad. I can name a few others, but name me a good judge off the top of your head. Honestly they only get talked about and praised in MMA circles for doing a good job because they so often **** up. If they weren't as bad as they are, you would never read "Great judging tonight"

Also ex-fighters aren't really a perfect solution. Sure they will know what's happening, but they are just as biased. I'm pretty sure if Rampage Jackson and Damien Maia watched a round of back and forth action, ground, clinch and striking they would score it differently. Richardo Almedia(SP) got his first big judge spot. It was the Kos v Hendricks fight, he was the only one to score it for Kos. So make what you will of that.

Not to be that guy, but honestly you know who was a great judge. Eddie Bravo, does anyone remember when he did the unoffical scorecard thing for the ufc a long time ago. I heard him talk about the way he judged fights once and I thought his system was the best. He would take notes of just about everything that way when a round ended he wouldn't forget what had happened or if he did he could read it before he scored the round. It sounded great to me, I forget sometimes what has happened at the beginning of a round and am guilty of scoring a round to a guy who steals it late when it probably should have gone the other way, so judges probably do it a lot too. There is a reason "stealing rounds" is a legit thing.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

Life B Ez said:


> Also ex-fighters aren't really a perfect solution. Sure they will know what's happening, but they are just as biased. I'm pretty sure if Rampage Jackson and Damien Maia watched a round of back and forth action, ground, clinch and striking they would score it differently. Richardo Almedia(SP) got his first big judge spot. It was the Kos v Hendricks fight, he was the only one to score it for Kos. So make what you will of that.
> 
> Not to be that guy, but honestly you know who was a great judge. Eddie Bravo, does anyone remember when he did the unoffical scorecard thing for the ufc a long time ago. I heard him talk about the way he judged fights once and I thought his system was the best. He would take notes of just about everything that way when a round ended he wouldn't forget what had happened or if he did he could read it before he scored the round. It sounded great to me, I forget sometimes what has happened at the beginning of a round and am guilty of scoring a round to a guy who steals it late when it probably should have gone the other way, so judges probably do it a lot too. There is a reason "stealing rounds" is a legit thing.


Good points about the ex fighters.. 

And yeah Eddie Bravo would be a great judge. When guys like Soti are on their backs they shouldn't be losing rounds, they are most often in mission control or meat hook and throwing strikes while neutralising their opponents offence. 

As long as he's not biased towards BJJ then he'd be excellent. Do you remember which fights he judged? I'm pretty sure he commentated a card once a while ago aswell (might be wrong).


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

MRBRESK said:


> Good points about the ex fighters..
> 
> And yeah Eddie Bravo would be a great judge. When guys like Soti are on their backs they shouldn't be losing rounds, they are most often in mission control or meat hook and throwing strikes while neutralising their opponents offence.
> 
> As long as he's not biased towards BJJ then he'd be excellent. Do you remember which fights he judged? I'm pretty sure he commentated a card once a while ago aswell (might be wrong).


That's the point though, Eddie however hard he might try you're going to be biased. 

For example, let's say fighter A comes out, rocks fighter B and is beating him up, he almost finishes him, but fighter B survives. All this happened in the first minute, then the fight stays standing until minute with evenly exchanged combos. At the three minute mark fighter B gets a take down, passes guard gets mount, but doesn't do a lot of damage. Fighter A escapes and gets back to his feet at the two minute mark. Then at the one minute mark fighter A gets a take down, but immediately gets caught in a triangle/armbar. They fight until the very last second and finally Fighter A escapes. 

Now, how do you score that? They both have a take down, the striker got his best possible outcome with a win, an almost TKO, and Fighter B the grappler got his best possible outcome, a guard pass dominate position and an almost sub. So it's even, in an ideal world that's a 10-10. Now to refer back to my earlier post, if the judge is Rampage, that round goes to fighter A, if it's Maia that went to Fighter B.

On Eddie Bravo, I think it was a few UFC in the 60s, but I can't say for sure I could be way off, but I feel like that's around where it was. He did guest commentary and unoffical scorecards. The he moved to the production truck. If he wasn't cornering a fighter he would tell the guys which angles to use so that you could see the grappling and he would show them what to show for subs and what not. I think he quit that job around UFC 115 or 116 because there were starting to be so many shows and he couldn't be at his schools.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

Life B Ez said:


> That's the point though, Eddie however hard he might try you're going to be biased.
> 
> For example, let's say fighter A comes out, rocks fighter B and is beating him up, he almost finishes him, but fighter B survives. All this happened in the first minute, then the fight stays standing until minute with evenly exchanged combos. At the three minute mark fighter B gets a take down, passes guard gets mount, but doesn't do a lot of damage. Fighter A escapes and gets back to his feet at the two minute mark. Then at the one minute mark fighter A gets a take down, but immediately gets caught in a triangle/armbar. They fight until the very last second and finally Fighter A escapes.
> 
> Now, how do you score that? They both have a take down, the striker got his best possible outcome with a win, an almost TKO, and Fighter B the grappler got his best possible outcome, a guard pass dominate position and an almost sub. So it's even, in an ideal world that's a 10-10. Now to refer back to my earlier post, if the judge is Rampage, that round goes to fighter A, if it's Maia that went to Fighter B.


I see that as 10-10, which these new rules now allow. Hopefully nobody ever gets Rampage to score fights


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Life B Ez said:


> Not to be that guy, but honestly you know who was a great judge. Eddie Bravo, does anyone remember when he did the unoffical scorecard thing for the ufc a long time ago. I heard him talk about the way he judged fights once and I thought his system was the best. He would take notes of just about everything that way when a round ended he wouldn't forget what had happened or if he did he could read it before he scored the round. It sounded great to me, I forget sometimes what has happened at the beginning of a round and am guilty of scoring a round to a guy who steals it late when it probably should have gone the other way, so judges probably do it a lot too. There is a reason "stealing rounds" is a legit thing.


Making notes is a good thing. Your ultra short term memory lasts only for 7 seconds and when directly after an action another action happens, it's very likely that you forget the first action, because it doesn't get processed by the brain.

When I score fights for myself, I score them minute by minute and I'm not reluctant to score a minute a 10-10 or a 10-7 respectively. After the round I count the scores of the five minutes together so I have my winner of the round.


----------



## sharp533 (Jul 13, 2012)

BOMDC said:


> Yup. All I took from it is that even more weight will be given to wrestling. Question for everyone:
> 
> 
> Fighter A & B start the first round.
> ...


Hmm, I would personally think A should take the round, but I think the fact that B took control for the last two minutes instead of the first two, that fighter B would get it more times than not. I think there should be more 10-10 rounds though.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Overall I think these changes will help out quite a bit. The current rules are rather vague. Also I'm glad they got rid of the half point system.


----------

