Quick Jab Report: UFC 192 Results w/ Dwight's Sexy Scoring System

In Houston Texas

Cormier, Pena, Bader

Like Oil Splatters

Welcome Martial Arts Enthusiasts! This last weekend UFC 192 took place in Houston the largest city in Texas. Lets review the outcomes and put my scoring spin using my "Dwight's Sexy Scoring System". As I mentioned in a blog last month, scoring system in MMA sucks. So lets test a different system to give a more realistic score. 

 Daniel Cormier won a split decision against Alexander Gustaffson. 
The judges scored the fight as follows:

49-46 Cormier
48-47 Cormier
47-48 Gustaffson
  
 Here is how I scored the fight:

		Cormier	Gustafsson
Normal strikes	¼ pts	55	33
Significant Strikes	1/3 pts	47	40
Knock down	10 pts	0	10
take down	2 pts	2	2
Submission attempt	5 pts	0	0
Total		103	85

Cormier and Gustafsson put on a hell of show. Gustafsson had one good round of and knocked down Cormier, but could not finish him. Cormier was relentless the entire fight and just attacked, hit and punished Gustafsson.

In the next match, Bader versus Evans. The judges all scored the fight 30-27. This score doesn't instill the dominance Bader had over Evans. Here is how I scored the match.

		Bader	Evans
Normal strikes	¼ pts	14	7
Significant Strikes	1/3 pts	17	8
Knock down	10 pts	0	0
take down	2 pts	2	0
Submission attempt	5 pts	0	0
Total		33	15

Bring on the women's fights! Alright Julianna "The Venezuelan Vixen" Pena versus Jessica "Evil" Eye. All three judges scored the fight 29-27, which only tells us that Pena won each round.

		Pena	Eye
Normal strikes	¼ pts	25	19
Significant Strikes	1/3 pts	11	10
Knock down	10 pts	0	0
take down	2 pts	6	2
Submission attempt	5 pts	15	5
Total		42	31

Lastly, Rose Namajunas defeated Angela Hill in the first round by submission. Here is how I scored the fight up until the submission.

		Rose	Hill
Normal strikes	¼ pts	4	4
Significant Strikes	1/3 pts	4	4
Knock down	10 pts	0	0
take down	2 pts	2	0
Submission attempt	5 pts	5	0
Total		15	8

Fun night of fun fights in the Heart of Texas. How did you score the fights?

-Dwight


References:
http://m.ufc.com/event/UFC192

Nitobe's Bushido Soul of Japan Veracity or Truthfulness

Foreword by Dwight

In the last section we discussed politeness and how a martial artist should carry themselves and have a certain presence "the economy of force". Next, Nitobe focuses on Veracity and Truthfulness. As I read through this section, my mind wandered to the differences between martial artists and martial fighters. My general feeling is that martial sport fighters really represent the opposite concept of veracity. Some are willing to be "untruthful" to win, this stems from all the steroid use. At the highest level of fighting some are looking for something a little bit extra to give them an advantage. And the advantage can particularly lead to a bigger paycheck. In this case, I feel that the sports side gives some a bit of a short sighted approach to martial arts. This isn't always the case but there have been quite a bit of drug instances in the last few years.

Where as Truthfulness, feels like very much apart of a traditional martial art like Karate or Tai Chi. Being Sincere is an invaluable and noble trait to learn, whether you are a young person learning to be a productive part of society, or if you are person in a leadership position. The importance of truthfulness and sincerity cannot be downplayed.


(Corresponding podcast)



 
Veracity or Truthfulness

To the question, "Which is the more important, to tell the truth or to be polite?" the Japanese are said to give an answer diametrically opposite to what the American will say, but I forbear any comment until I come to speak of veracity or truthfulness, without which Politeness is a farce and a show. "Propriety carried beyond right bounds," says Masamuné, "becomes a lie." An ancient poet has outdone Polonius in the advice he gives: "To thyself be faithful: if in thy heart thou strayest not from truth, without prayer of thine the Gods will keep thee whole." The apotheosis of Sincerity to which Tsu-tsu gives expression in the Doctrine of the Mean, attributes to it transcendental powers, almost identifying them with the Divine. "Sincerity is the end and the beginning of all things; without Sincerity there would be nothing." He then dwells with eloquence on its far-reaching and long enduring nature, its power to produce changes without movement and by its mere presence to accomplish its purpose without effort. From the Chinese ideogram for Sincerity, which is a combination of "Word" and "Perfect," one is tempted to draw a parallel between it and the Neo-Platonic doctrine of Logos—to such height does the sage soar in his unwonted mystic flight.

Lying or equivocation were deemed equally cowardly. The bushi held that his high social position demanded a loftier standard of veracity than that of the tradesman and peasant. Bushi no ichi-gon—the word of a samurai or in exact German equivalent ein Ritterwort—was sufficient guaranty of the truthfulness of an assertion. His word carried such weight with it that promises were generally made and fulfilled without a written pledge, which would have been deemed quite beneath his dignity. Many thrilling anecdotes were told of those who atoned by death for ni-gon, a double tongue.

The regard for veracity was so high that, unlike the generality of Christians who persistently violate the plain commands of the Teacher not to swear, the best of samurai looked upon an oath as derogatory to their honor. I am well aware that they did swear by different deities or upon their swords; but never has swearing degenerated into wanton form and irreverent interjection. To emphasize our words a practice of literally sealing with blood was sometimes resorted to. For the explanation of such a practice, I need only refer my readers to Goethe's Faust.

A recent American writer is responsible for this statement, that if you ask an ordinary Japanese which is better, to tell a falsehood or be impolite, he will not hesitate to answer "to tell a falsehood!" Dr. Peery is partly right and partly wrong; right in that an ordinary Japanese, even a samurai, may answer in the way ascribed to him, but wrong in attributing too much weight to the term he translates "falsehood." This word (in Japanese uso) is employed to denote anything which is not a truth (makoto) or fact (honto). Lowell tells us that Wordsworth could not distinguish between truth and fact, and an ordinary Japanese is in this respect as good as Wordsworth. Ask a Japanese, or even an American of any refinement, to tell you whether he dislikes you or whether he is sick at his stomach, and he will not hesitate long to tell falsehoods and answer, "I like you much," or, "I am quite well, thank you." To sacrifice truth merely for the sake of politeness was regarded as an "empty form" (kyo-rei) and "deception by sweet words," and was never justified.

I own I am speaking now of the Bushido idea of veracity; but it may not be amiss to devote a few words to our commercial integrity, of which I have heard much complaint in foreign books and journals. A loose business morality has indeed been the worst blot on our national reputation; but before abusing it or hastily condemning the whole race for it, let us calmly study it and we shall be rewarded with consolation for the future.

Of all the great occupations of life, none was farther removed from the profession of arms than commerce. The merchant was placed lowest in the category of vocations,—the knight, the tiller of the soil, the mechanic, the merchant. The samurai derived his income from land and could even indulge, if he had a mind to, in amateur farming; but the counter and abacus were abhorred. We knew the wisdom of this social arrangement. Montesquieu has made it clear that the debarring of the nobility from mercantile pursuits was an admirable social policy, in that it prevented wealth from accumulating in the hands of the powerful. The separation of power and riches kept the distribution of the latter more nearly equable. Professor Dill, the author of "Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire," has brought afresh to our mind that one cause of the decadence of the Roman Empire, was the permission given to the nobility to engage in trade, and the consequent monopoly of wealth and power by a minority of the senatorial families.

Commerce, therefore, in feudal Japan did not reach that degree of development which it would have attained under freer conditions. The obloquy attached to the calling naturally brought within its pale such as cared little for social repute. "Call one a thief and he will steal:" put a stigma on a calling and its followers adjust their morals to it, for it is natural that "the normal conscience," as Hugh Black says, "rises to the demands made on it, and easily falls to the limit of the standard expected from it." It is unnecessary to add that no business, commercial or otherwise, can be transacted without a code of morals. Our merchants of the feudal period had one among themselves, without which they could never have developed, as they did, such fundamental mercantile institutions as the guild, the bank, the bourse, insurance, checks, bills of exchange, etc.; but in their relations with people outside their vocation, the tradesmen lived too true to the reputation of their order.

This being the case, when the country was opened to foreign trade, only the most adventurous and unscrupulous rushed to the ports, while the respectable business houses declined for some time the repeated requests of the authorities to establish branch houses. Was Bushido powerless to stay the current of commercial dishonor? Let us see.

Those who are well acquainted with our history will remember that only a few years after our treaty ports were opened to foreign trade, feudalism was abolished, and when with it the samurai's fiefs were taken and bonds issued to them in compensation, they were given liberty to invest them in mercantile transactions. Now you may ask, "Why could they not bring their much boasted veracity into their new business relations and so reform the old abuses?" Those who had eyes to see could not weep enough, those who had hearts to feel could not sympathize enough, with the fate of many a noble and honest samurai who signally and irrevocably failed in his new and unfamiliar field of trade and industry, through sheer lack of shrewdness in coping with his artful plebeian rival. When we know that eighty percent of the business houses fail in so industrial a country as America, is it any wonder that scarcely one among a hundred samurai who went into trade could succeed in his new vocation? It will be long before it will be recognized how many fortunes were wrecked in the attempt to apply Bushido ethics to business methods; but it was soon patent to every observing mind that the ways of wealth were not the ways of honor. In what respects, then, were they different?

Of the three incentives to Veracity that Lecky enumerates, viz: the industrial, the political, and the philosophical, the first was altogether lacking in Bushido. As to the second, it could develop little in a political community under a feudal system. It is in its philosophical, and as Lecky says, in its highest aspect, that Honesty attained elevated rank in our catalogue of virtues. With all my sincere regard for the high commercial integrity of the Anglo-Saxon race, when I ask for the ultimate ground, I am told that "Honesty is the best policy," that it pays to be honest. Is not this virtue, then, its own reward? If it is followed because it brings in more cash than falsehood, I am afraid Bushido would rather indulge in lies!
If Bushido rejects a doctrine of quid pro quo rewards, the shrewder tradesman will readily accept it. Lecky has very truly remarked that Veracity owes its growth largely to commerce and manufacture; as Nietzsche puts it, "Honesty is the youngest of virtues"—in other words, it is the foster-child of industry, of modern industry. Without this mother, Veracity was like a blue-blood orphan whom only the most cultivated mind could adopt and nourish. Such minds were general among the samurai, but, for want of a more democratic and utilitarian foster-mother, the tender child failed to thrive. Industries advancing, Veracity will prove an easy, nay, a profitable, virtue to practice. 

Just think, as late as November 1880, Bismarck sent a circular to the professional consuls of the German Empire, warning them of "a lamentable lack of reliability with regard to German shipments inter alia, apparent both as to quality and quantity;" now-a-days we hear comparatively little of German carelessness and dishonesty in trade. In twenty years her merchants learned that in the end honesty pays. Already our merchants are finding that out. For the rest I recommend the reader to two recent writers for well-weighed judgment on this point. It is interesting to remark in this connection that integrity and honor were the surest guaranties which even a merchant debtor could present in the form of promissory notes. It was quite a usual thing to insert such clauses as these: "In default of the repayment of the sum lent to me, I shall say nothing against being ridiculed in public;" or, "In case I fail to pay you back, you may call me a fool," and the like.

Often have I wondered whether the Veracity of Bushido had any motive higher than courage. In the absence of any positive commandment against bearing false witness, lying was not condemned as sin, but simply denounced as weakness, and, as such, highly dishonorable.


References:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12096/12096-h/12096-h.htm

Quick Jab Report: UFC Fight Night in Japan Predictions

Saitama Fight Night

 Barnett and Nelson rumble

Tsunami Passes

いっらしゃいませ みんな さん!

Welcome Martial Arts Enthusiasts! This week in MMA, UFC Fight Night will be held in Saitama, Japan. Just an easy train ride outside of Tokyo. This event features two heavy weight sluggers, Josh "The Warmaster" Barnett against Roy "Big Country" Nelson. The other interesting match up is Kyoji Horiguchi versus Chico Camus.

Josh "The Warmaster" Barnett has a record of 33 wins and 7 losses. The Warmaster has 2 wins and 1 loss in the last three matches. In January 2013, Barnett caught Nandor Guelmino in a Triangle Choke. In August 2013, Josh Barnett Tko'd Frank Mir. In his last fight almost two years ago, Barnett was knocked out by Travis Browne.

Loss to Brown:
http://www.ufc.com/media/KOTW-Browne-vs-Barnett

Rory "Big Country" Nelson has a record of 20 wins and 11 loses. Big Country has 1 win and 2 losses. His story of the last three fights, he defeated Antonio Nogueira by Knock out in April, 2014. Then Nelson was knocked out by Mark Hunt in September of 2014. In his last fight, Big Country was defeated by Allstair Overeem by decision.

Whew, this is tough call. I definitely believe it will be a rumble between the two. I believe Josh Barnett will make a come back and knockout Roy Nelson in the first round. But I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the other way around. 

The other match up I am interested in is Kyoji Horiguchi versus Chico Camus. For some odd reason, I want to call Camus, Chico Camel. Don't know why maybe to amuse myself. Anyways, Horiguchi has a record of 15 wins and 2 losses. Horiguchi has 2 wins and 1 loss in his last three fights and here is how it played out. In 2014, Horiguchi TKO'd Jon delos Reyes. In January 2015, Kyoji defeated Louis Gaudinot by decision. Horiguchi in his last fight, got caught in an armbar submission by no other than the Flyweight Champion Demetrious Johnson. 

KO of Jon Reyes:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mwwsu

Chico "King" Camus has a record of 14 wins and 6 losses. Camus has 1 win and 2 losses in his last three fights and here is how the story went. In May 2014, was defeated by Chris Holdsworth by decision. Then in November 2014, Camus won a split decision against Brad Pickett. Then in Camus's last fight he lost a ddecision to Henry Cejudo.

 It doesn't appear that Camus has been doing too well. I am expecting Horiguchi to bounce back and knock out Camus in the second round. These match ups should provide some solid mixed martial arts action in the Land of the Rising Sun. 

ども ありがとう 


-Dwight
 

References:

http://www.sherdog.com
http://www.ufc.com/

Digrassi's His True Art of Defense - Rapier and Buckler Part 3.

Foreword by Dwight

Protect yourself from 16th century fencers a-holes! Part 1 focused of the sword and buckler's stance and use against the gun. Part 2 of this section focused on handling the buckler. Now Part 3, focuses on the offense and defense of the Sword and Buckler. One particular area I enjoyed in this section was trapping the opponent's attack between the sword and buckler.

(Corresponding podcast)

Part 3: Sword and Buckler

Of the Hurt of the Broad Ward, at Sword and Buckler

If a man would step forward, and strike as the standeth in the broadward, it is not lawful for him to use any other than the thrust, considering the right and reversed blows may not be delivered without great peril and danger. For in the site or placing of this ward, the sword is far off from the body. And as he moveth to fetch a right or reversed edgeblow, his sword of force will be much farther: So that it may not be done without great danger. Therefore he shalt use the thrust only: in forcing and delivery whereof, he shall proceed first to carry his hinder foot a half pace forwards, and then to drive it on with the increase of another half pace of the right foot, staying himself in the broad ward.

The defense of the broad ward as Sword and Buckler

Against the thrust of the broad ward, the Buckler is to be opposed, standing at the low ward. And when the enemy commeth resolutely to thrust, then without warding it at all, he shall drive a thrust at the face, carrying the hinder foot in a compass towards the right side as well to lengthen the thrust, as also to carry himself out of the straight line, in the which the enemy commeth resolved to strike, who, by this manner of thrust is easily hurt.

The hurt of the low ward at Sword and Buckler

As this low ward is framed two manner of ways that is to say, with the right foot before and behind: So likewise a man may strike therein after two sorts, standing with the right foot behind (leaving aside, the blows of the edge, being to small purpose) he shall deliver a thrust with the increase of a pace of the right foot, between the enemy's sword and buckler, or else, if it be more commodious without the sword and buckler, settling in the low ward, with the right foot before, in which ward, a man may strike two manner of ways, within and without. Finding himself without having first met the enemy's sword with his own, he shall increase a left pace, not to the intent to avoid himself from the enemy's sword, but shall with his buckler also, stay the enemy's sword and for as much as he did not at the first deliver the said thrust, he shall then continue and force it on directly with the increase of a pace of the right foot. Finding himself within, the same thrust is to be used but more strongly.

For, with the increase of a pace, leaving his buckler or the enemy's sword, he shutteth it in between his own sword and the buckler: and keeping it in that straight, (whereby he is sure the enemy can deliver no edgeblow because it may not move neither upwards nor downwards, neither forwards, but is then without the body) he shall continue on, and resolutely deliver this manner of thrust, with the increase of a pace of the right foot.

The defense of the low ward at Sword and Buckler

For the defense of all these thrusts, it is necessary that he stand at the low ward and standing there at whilest the thrust commeth with is delivered with the right foot behind, he shall do no other, than in the self same time, deliver a thrust at the thigh or breast, turning the hilt of his sword against the enemy's sword and compassing his hinder foot, with all bearing his body out of the straight line, in which the enemy striketh. And this manner of warding doth not only defend, but also safely hurt.

For the defense of the other two thrusts, the one within, and the other without, a man must take great heed, and it is very necessary that as the enemy increase pretending to strike safely, he carry a slope pace with the left foot and deliver a thrust above hand, upon the which the enemy of himself shall run and invest himself. And it is to be considered, that in these thrusts, he that defendeth hath great advantage: For the enemy commeth resolutely to strike, not thinking that it may in any other sort be warded then by giving back, but he that wardeth by increasing, defending and drawing near unto the enemy, is so placed, that he may easily hurt him.

 

Quick Jab Report: Bellator Dynamite 1

A Slug Fest Today

Some San Jose Dynamite

Ortiz Melendez

Alright Martial Arts Enthusiasts, this weekend Bellator Dynamite 1 or 142 or whatever they are calling it. The event will be rocking out in San Jose, California. There are two fights I am excited about. The first match pitting Tito "The Huntington Beach Bad Boy" (geez that is a long nickname) Ortiz against Liam McGeary. The second match is Keri Melendez versus Hadley "Relentless" Griffith.

For whatever reason, whenever I hear the name Tito Ortiz, I just think slug fest. The HBBB has an overall record of 18 wins and 11 loses. Over the last three fights he is two and one. Lets review what happened over the last three fights:

In 2012, he lost to Forrest Griffin by Decision. In mid 2014, he caught Alexander Shlemenko with an arm triangle choke. In his last fight, Ortiz defeated Stephen Bonnar by Decision.

Liam McGeary has a record of 10 wins, zero losses. The story of his last three fights are as follows. McGeary knocked out Egidijus Valavicius in 2014. He caught Kelly Anundson in a triangle choke two months later. Lastly in February, earlier this year won a decision against Emanual Newton.

Like I mentioned above, I think it will be a slug fest between McGeary and Ortiz. This is a good test for McGeary as he is right around his prime, but it doesn't feel like he has really fought anyone with the name recognition like Ortiz. It will be interesting to see how much fight Ortiz has left as he is in his 40s. I believe that McGeary will win by Technical Knock Out.

The other match I am interested in is Keri Melendez vs Hadley Griffith. Neither really has much of an MMA record. Melendez has a Muay Thai record of 2-1 and Griffith has a record  Melendez is unfortunately somewhat well known for being married to another MMA guy. Hopefully, this fight will show us what she can really do. Griffith operates out of the NW and I believe has a record of one win four losses. I am going to root for Griffith, but unfortunately I believe that Melendez will take down the "Rentless" Griffith.

Who do you think will win?

-Dwight


References:
http://www.mmamania.com/2015/7/28/9036299/bellator-mma-signs-keri-anne-taylor-melendez-wife-ufc-contender-gilbert-melendez
www.sherdog.com

Martial Arts and Culture: Who is Bruce?

Do You Know Bruce Lee?

One Point in Time Seattle

Second Wind Renews

What do you know about Bruce Lee? What do you know about his life in Seattle? For many years I did not know that Bruce Lee even remotely spent anytime in Seattle. Did you know Seattle's Wing Luke Museum had and exhibit dedicated to Bruce Lee? It just ended a week ago. But do not fret, The Wing Luke Museum will be introducing the second part of the three year series of the Bruce Lee exhibition,  "Do You Know Bruce? Breaking Barriers".

The first week of October the exhibition will reopen with new items and materials from the Green Hornet and Enter the Dragon. Many of the items for the exhibitions are personal items from the family as well as items from his estate and others. So it is definitely very interesting to check out.

If you are in Seattle and a huge martial arts fan, then you should probably visit the Wing Luke Museum in the International District. Many martial artists I have talked to grew up watching Bruce Lee. He definitely had a tremendous influence on many generations of Martial Artists including today. This is a great way to celebrate a great actor and martial artist and continue his legacy of promoting and improving martial arts.

I am excited for the second act of this three part presentation and I bet many others are as well.

-Dwight

References:

http://www.wingluke.org/brucelee

Mixed Martial Arts Scoring System Sucks! How Can We Fix It?!

Subjective Scoring

Wins are Losses Losses are Wins 

10 Point System Sucks

After listening to the Joe Rogan Experience (#684), he loosely talked about how the UFC scoring is done with the traditional boxing scoring system. He generally says that it just doesn't work in Mixed Martial Arts. Rogan inspired me to look at alternatives. What could be a better system? First, lets address how scoring works today. Second, explain why the current system sucks. Third, go through an exercise of an alternative mixed martial arts scoring system. Fourth, how we can actually make it happen. (Corresponding podcast)

The 10 Point Must System

Boxing's 10 point Must System, where the winner of the round scores a 10 and the loser scores 6 to 9 points. Generally, if a fighter gets knocked down then they lose a point. You hardly ever see anyone score a 6 or 7 points for every round. Even less than five is generally unheard of. So why is this applied mixed martial arts? Well the short answer is the governing non-profit, Association of Boxing Commissions created the uniformed MMA rules. Most likely they roughly based MMA rules on the unified boxing rules. I am as confused as you are to why they did that. Laziness, lack of trained boxing judges, or even just trying to be traditional. I don't know. But Why should we change the system?

How Scoring is Applied Today

Boxing only uses punches, so using a simple scoring system isn't that bad. I am not here to argue against boxing using the 10 point system. Boxing has at least twice as many rounds as MMA, but has fewer striking capabilities limited to Jab, Cross, Upper Cut, Hook, and maybe an overhand punching strikes. So you are either punching or your not 

Per the Association of Boxing Commissions, here is the current criteria for scoring an MMA round:

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.

Notice how this doesn't go any lower. So this essentially allows judges to use multiple choice to score a fight. At UFC 191, the judges were Tony Weeks, Marcos Rosales and Derek Cleary. Tony Weeks and Marcos Rosales seem like mostly boxing guys. Weeks was named one of the worst MMA judges by Bleacher Reports a few years ago (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1090849-the-worst-judges-in-mma-history/page/4). I am not saying that these guys are terrible people or even bad judges, I think they just need a better way to score.

Why 10 Must Scoring System Sucks for MMA

Judge's Skillset

If I had to guess, I am pretty sure most the judges do not have enough martial arts experience to realistically judge MMA fights. You would have to essentially be a black-belt in Jiu Jitsu and Judo and very knowledgeable in a striking art like Muay Thai, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, etc in my opinion to accurately judge a match. Very few people would have that skill set and even if they did it is almost impossible to watch for everything during a match.

Not Enough statistics or judges to make decisions

Like I expressed above, judges can essentially score the fight any way they want as long as it falls into the 4 categories. In the NFL, you have teams of people working with the officials to make the correct decisions during the games. You have the score on a giant board for everyone to see. Not some weird hidden speculation until the end of the game. What if you didn't have a score board in NFL, then an official came out and announced who won the football game, pure lunacy.

Why is there only 3 judges? Is it because boxing only has 3 judges? Three people is probably enough for the simplicity of techniques of boxing. But how many judges should there be for MMA?

MMA is not as simple as Boxing

MMA is much more dynamic than boxing. The amount of techniques is staggering compared to boxing. Here is a list of some techniques of MMA:

• Striking: Jab, Cross, Upper Cut, Hook, Over hand, Elbows, Spinning backhand, front kick, side kick, foot jab, cut kick, spin kick, spinning back kick, knees.

• Wrestling/ Grappling: variety of Take Downs, Sweeps, Guard Passes, Mounts, Back Control, Chokes, Cranks, Locks, Armbars, Kneebars.

What Should the Scoring look like?

Keeping Score


Since MMA is dynamic a more dynamic scoring system should be incorporated. Actually post the results after every round and actually create a substantial scoring system. Wouldn't the fighters try harder if they knew they were down in points? Wouldn't they try a bit harder for the submission or knockout with 30 seconds left in the match.

For grappling and wrestling lets reuse the scoring system by the IBJJF. Why reinvent the wheel for grappling scoring? They already have a decent scoring system in existence.

The IBJJF scores grappling as follows:

• Mounts and Back Control scores - 4 points
• Guard Pass Scores - 3 Points
• Take Downs, Sweeps - 2 Points

In addition I would add near submission similar to wrestling where a near pin scores you more points. Near submission would be worth 5 points.

Why can't the same be applied to the striking side? In most fights, many more striking techniques are thrown. So lets only give significant strikes any worth-while points. This way regardless if you are a striker or grappler you will get roughly the same amount of points.

Here are the possibilities:

• Significant Punching strikes - 1/3 point
• Significant Kicking strikes - 1/3 point
• Advanced strikes (spinning kicks) - 1 points
• Knock Down - 10 points

Create Teams of Judges

Instead of 3 judges, have 6 judges. 3 judges for each fighter. One that concentrates on striking, one focuses on grappling/ throws etc and one that focuses on penalties and dominance. This would allow the boxing associations to still use some of the boxing judges, but also add the depth needed to accurately score these contests. Additionally, provide a staff or stat trackers to provide accurate information to the judges in order to make the right call.

How do we get these changes made?

One way is chang.org. It is a site that allows you to start a petition to make changes in the world. If you get enough people to sign, you can probably influence the athletic commissions to make changes to this antiquated scoring system. It appears that the commissions of the various states meet up at a conference every year and they probably vote on measures to adopt. The last time they changed the scoring system was 2012...

So to wrap this up, the current scoring system sucks, we have explored a possible way to make it better. Let me know what you think, how can the scoring system be improved?


-Dwight


References:
http://abcboxing.com/documents/Unified%20Rules%20of%20MMA%20Judging%20Criteria.pdf
http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations
http://ibjjf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RulesIBJJF_v4_en-US.pdf