Judging criteria is a real problem and it has been going on for far too long.
The sheer amount of split decisions and perceived robberies is indicative of a problem with the criteria used to score fights. The current judging criteria has been used since 2017, I read the criteria after watching the Pimblett Gordon fight 2 years ago. It appeared to me to be a robbery but on second watch after educating myself on criteria I could see how it could have been arguably scored for either fighter. I have noticed that the commentators often display misunderstanding of the criteria, specifically the idea that a takedown in itself is a huge score for the instigator. In fact they define this fairly clearly that an attack must be established as a result to a takedown in order for it to be deemed successful. Anyway have we any suggestions on how MMA scoring can be fixed so that a fair and correct result is obtained? Below is current criteria; https://mmareferee.com/?q=unifiedrules submitted by /u/Pleasure_Boat [link] [comments]
admin
The sheer amount of split decisions and perceived robberies is indicative of a problem with the criteria used to score fights. The current judging criteria has been used since 2017, I read the criteria after watching the Pimblett Gordon fight 2 years ago. It appeared to me to be a robbery but on second watch after educating myself on criteria I could see how it could have been arguably scored for either fighter. I have noticed that the commentators often display misunderstanding of the criteria, specifically the idea that a takedown in itself is a huge score for the instigator. In fact they define this fairly clearly that an attack must be established as a result to a takedown in order for it to be deemed successful.
Anyway have we any suggestions on how MMA scoring can be fixed so that a fair and correct result is obtained?
Below is current criteria;
[link] [comments]
