Consider that Sean Sherk was awarded a decision against Evan Dunham simply because he scored some takedowns, Dunham dominated the fight with excellent striking combinations. Or the first showdown between Rua and Machida. What was to most a clear win for Mauricio "Shogun" Rua, was scored in favor of Machida. Clearly the 10 Point Must Scoring system is not without its flaws.
In this article I will attempt to tackle that issue and actually make an attempt at offering a solution.
Before I can address why the scoring system and why an overhaul is needed, I will first briefly highlight some of the main aspects of the 10 Point Must Scoring system as it applies to MMA:
- 10 Points must be awarded to the winner of the round (before deductions).
- Judges will evaluate MMA techniques, aggressiveness, defense, control of fighting area, etc.
- If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are to be weighed equally.
- 10-8 rounds are scored if a fighter overwhelmingly dominates and 10-7 if a fighter totally dominates.
- If the majority of the fight remains standing, effective striking is weighed first then effective grappling is weighed (and vice versa).
- Effective striking is judged by determining the total number number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.
- Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of legal takedowns and reversals.
It is extremely important to note that the above merely is a summation of the rules most pertinent to the outcome of a typical MMA bout.
A key takeaway from that list is the fact that striking and grappling are considered equally unless one aspect dominates the round. Another key takeaway is that effective striking is judged by total number of legal strikes landed. However, are either of those actually enforced? Carlos Condit literally out landed welterweight champion Robbie Lawler by a historic margin for a title fight loss.
Maybe the problem isn't the rules itself, but the underlying subjectivity. Terms like "effective striking" is open to interpretation. How many jabs does a fighter need to land to overcome being knocked down? Does a takedown carry more weight than a 1-2 combo? There's currently no universal answer to such questions, and therein lies the problem.
Instead of a 10 Point Must system, I would propose just a point system. Every aspect of the fight can be assigned points and the fighter with more points at the end of the round obviously wins said round.
Possibly looking something like this:
Jabs- 1 point.
Leg kicks- 1 point
Body shots- 2 points
Takedowns- 4 points, etc.
Other aspects of the current system like aggressiveness and fighting area control could still be intangible factors that go into consideration. Undoubtedly a system like this would not be perfect either. Is a hard punch scored the same as a softer one? And if not, there is obviously no objective way to measure the intensity of any given blow. However there would be an increased list of objective measures for judges to use in determining the outcome of a fight.
MMA rules shouldn't be set in stone, especially since it is still such a young and growing sport. An overhaul like the one I'm suggesting certainly seems to veer more towards a statistical mindset, but why not? Often it seems like fights are judged with a bias towards a certain style more so than the actual fight itself. If a striker and a grappler execute their gameplans equally well, in theory it should be a draw; however, history shows that's unlikely.
A more technical approach can help modernize the sport and bring it to a place where controversial decision are at least a rare occurrence.
