Sports FAQ
Home / Mixed Martial Arts

Judging Criteria: Failed Takedown Attempts?

krazo1012011-04-24 01:28:38 +0000 #1
I really am trying my best to understand how some judges make the decisions that they do. Watching the Joe Warren/Marcos Galvao fight I really can't wrap my head around the idea that three people actually thought that Joe won that fight fight. Then I was thinking, do you guys think that judges score failed takedown attempts in favor of the person initiating the takedown? Judges seem to think takedowns and "cage control" means everything so maybe they believe that pushing a dude up against the fence while grabbing a leg counts as dictating the pace. If so then I guess it would make some of these robbery decisions make sense in their own f*cked up ways.
BulldogWrestler2011-04-24 01:42:55 +0000 #2
I guess the reasoning that judges use is that someone who is trying to take someone down is being the aggressor (which is true).

In this fight that logic doesn't quite apply imo, but use the following example:

Let's say you have a fight where all 3 rounds go like this:

Fighter A tries to take fighter B down and fails. Fighter B lands a few "soft" shots that do no damage and continues to backpedal. Fighter A continually tries to take fighter B down to no avail. Fighter B is continually backpedaling, and the few strikes he does land do no significant damage or slow Fighter A down at all. At the very end of the round, Fighter A gets a takedown but can do nothing with it.

Let's say this exact scenerio repeats itself over 3 rounds.

Who do you score the fight to?

Do you give it to Fighter B for landing a few strikes - even though he made no attempt to show aggression in the fight or push the fight forward.

Or do you give it to Nik Lentz because he was "aggressive" and "controlled the fight" even though he did no damage?
Tallica19812011-04-24 01:36:11 +0000 #3
Quote:

Originally Posted by BulldogWrestler

I guess the reasoning that judges use is that someone who is trying to take someone down is being the aggressor (which is true).

In this fight that logic doesn't quite apply imo, but use the following example:

Let's say you have a fight where all 3 rounds go like this:

Fighter A tries to take fighter B down and fails. Fighter B lands a few "soft" shots that do no damage and continues to backpedal. Fighter A continually tries to take fighter B down to no avail. Fighter B is continually backpedaling, and the few strikes he does land do no significant damage or slow Fighter A down at all. At the very end of the round, Fighter A gets a takedown but can do nothing with it.

Let's say this exact scenerio repeats itself over 3 rounds.

Who do you score the fight to?

Do you give it to Fighter B for landing a few strikes - even though he made no attempt to show aggression in the fight or push the fight forward.

Or do you give it to Nik Lentz because he was "aggressive" and "controlled the fight" even though he did no damage?

That is a difficult scenario to judge. The key word that seems to be ignored is "effective" when judging fights. If Fighter B successfully stuffs takedowns and is landing strikes, then he is supposed to get credit for octagon control and the standup portion of the match is supposed to be more heavily judged since that's where 90% of the fight took place. If fighter B is trying to constantly score takedowns against the fence and is denied, his aggression is not effective and he is not controlling the cage by failing to put the fight where he wants to.

In the scenario you present, 10-10 rounds would be appropriate.

I think the real problem occurs when fighter B isn't just landing soft non effective strikes, but clean damaging counters and is still deied the W.
warwagon2011-04-24 01:37:38 +0000 #4
I think Failed takedowns should count big time against the person going for them. If a guy stops you from taking him down, he should be rewarded. Also would force the wrestler to pick his spots more as he could get severely behind going for takedown after takedown.
Tallica19812011-04-24 01:53:43 +0000 #5
From the actual judging criteria. Notice the lines in bold:

I. Effective Grappling

1. The Judge shall recognize the value of both the clean takedown and active guard position.

2. The Judge shall recognize that a fighter who is able to cleanly takedown his opponent, is effectively grappling.

3. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter on his back in an active guard position, can effectively grapple, through execution of repeated threatening attempts at submission and reversal resulting in continuous defense from the top fighter.

4. A Judge shall recognize that a fighter who maneuvers from guard to mount is effectively grappling.

5. A Judge shall recognize that the guard position alone shall be scored neutral or even, if none of the preceding situations were met.(items 2-4) 6. A Judge shall recognize that if the fighters remain in guard the majority of a round with neither fighter having an edge in clean striking or effective grappling, (items 2-4), the fighter who scored the clean takedown deserves the round.

7. A clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling

J. Octagon Control

1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.

2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.

3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.

4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

K. Effective Aggressiveness

1. This simply means who is moving forward and finding success.(scoring) 2. Throwing a strike moving backwards is not as effective as a strike thrown moving forward.

3. Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness.

4. Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.

5. Shooting takedowns and getting countered and fended off is not effective aggressiveness.

L. Criteria Evaluation

1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.

2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded.

Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.

3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:

-effective grappling is weighed first.

-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.

-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:

-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective) -clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching) -octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:

-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.

-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:

-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.

-octagon control

-effective aggressiveness

Reply

Name:
Content:


Other posts in this category