New Rules, Part One: Methods To Improve The Judging System In MMA

The scoring system in North American MMA is a highly contentious topic that has been discussed numerous times by various writers across the board.

There are a host of issues to be considered, but I'm sure most fans can agree that the current format has several flaws and is not as satisfactory as it could be.

Over the course of two-part series I will be offering four simple propositions on how matters can be improved, while accommodating the fact that no judging system will ever be perfect or agreed upon by everybody.

Of course, MMA in the North-West hemisphere is regulated by state and province athletic commissions and a promotion must abide by their regulations if it wishes to hold an event in a state-sanctioned venue.

Most states have now adopted the Unified Rules for Mixed Martial Arts in order to create a sense of equity. In Japan the situation is different since the sport is not regulated by any governing bodies and each promotion lays down its own rules and scoring system which usually differ from those employed stateside.  

Though these ideas here could also be implemented in Japan, the current judging criteria and rules that I will be examining come primarily from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, the most prominent combat-sport regulatory body in North America.

Thus I will be using the UFC as my main example and will leave an analysis of the judging in Japan to a later date.

My goal here is to stimulate realistic discussion about the topic at hand and to search for practical solutions to the problems that currently plague the scoring of MMA fights.

Thus instead of merely highlighting certain flaws I have tried to come up with various ways to rectify the situation. While judging is my primary concern, I have also made provisions for improving the quality of refereeing to be featured in part two of this series.

Proposition:  Use Five or Seven Judges to Score a Fight

The problem of split decisions in extremely close fights has prompted various pundits to criticize the specific way that fights are scored in terms of the criteria that are involved.

While the topic of pertinent criteria for the judging of a match will be discussed later, one idea that I have not run across during my research is the instigation of extra judges during each contest.

MMA has adopted the ten-point must system of boxing with several modifications, but one element that has remained is the use of three judges ringside to score each bout.

These judges are not employed by any specific promotion but rather by the aforementioned athletic commissions, and to add more of them would be a bit expensive from a financial viewpoint.

There is already a shortage of well-qualified MMA judges on hand, but I think the advantages of using five or seven judges to score a match instead of three well outweighs the costs.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?