By Mark Gessner

At this past Saturday's UFC 131, there were numerous flaws on the judges' scorecards; one of which cost Michihiro Omigawa a win over Darren Elkins in the first fight on the preliminary card via unanimous decision, with judges scoring the fight 29-28, 29-28, and 30-27. Then on the main card, you had Mark Munoz defeating Demian Maia via unanimous decision with judges scoring the fight 29-28, 29-28, and 30-27. The next fight on the card, in the co-main event, Kenny Florian defeated Diego Nunes via unanimous decision with judges scoring the fight 29-28, 29-28, and 30-27. In those three unanimous decision victories, fans, analysts, commentators, myself, and even UFC President Dana White took umbrage the judges' scoring of the fights.

Elkins got the better of Omigawa in their striking exchanges in the first round, even appearing to rock him a couple of time with punches. Omigawa out-struck Elkins standing up in the second round on their fight and then Omigawa ground and pounded Elkins for the majority of the third round, and should have been given the victory, winning the final two rounds. However, two out of the three judges gave Elkins two out of the three rounds, and the other judge, Dave Hagen, scored all three rounds for Elkins. In light of this travesty of justice by the judges, Dana White has since awarded Omigawa the win bonus he should have and would have received if not for incompetent judging.

In Mark Munoz versus Demian Maia, Maia clearly got the better of Munoz in their striking exchanges. In the second round, Munoz was able to sprawl three takedown attempts and went to working with punches to the body and head of Maia. Munoz and Maia then fought a closely contested third round with even striking but Munoz scored two takedowns whereas Maia was unable to take Munoz to the ground. Maia clearly won the first round, and Munoz won the final two. Yet, judge Nelson "Doc" Hamilton scored all three rounds for Munoz.

Then, in our co-main event, Kenny Florian fought Diego Nunes for a shot at Jose Aldo for the UFC Featherweight Championship. Diego Nunes got the better of KenFlo in their striking exchanges in the first round, even dropping him towards the end of the round. Florian then proceeded to win the second and third rounds with his takedowns and ground striking. However, the 30-27 judge from the first fight on the card, Dave Hagen, again scored this fight 30-27, awarding all three rounds to Florian. One event, three 30-27s in three closely contested fights, one of which cost a fighter a win on their record.

With this in mind, I would like to explain to all of you, and any judges who maybe reading, how the scoring system in mixed martial arts should work and the criteria for scoring fights.

Scoring System
Mixed Martial Arts fights are scored on a ten-point must system. With this system, the winner of the round must be awarded ten points (barring an infraction that negates a point assessed by the referee during the round) and the loser of the round receiving nine or less points. If a fighter dominates his or her opponent for the majority of the round and appears to be on the verge of finishing their opponent during the round with the opponent unable to mount any offense whatsoever can be scored 10-8. Examples of this would be Gray Maynard's first round against Frankie Edgar at UFC 125, Antonio Silva's second round versus Fedor, Jon Fitch's round three against BJ Penn at UFC 127, or even, Junior Dos Santos' beat down of Shane Carwin in the first round at this past weekend's UFC 131. While infrequent, 10-8 can be scored based on one fighter completely out-classing their opponent, but generally, rounds are awarded to a fighter by a score of 10-9.

So then, what is the criteria for awarding a fighter the round? In MMA, rounds are awarded based on four separate categories: effective striking, effective grappling, aggression, and octagon control.

Effective Striking
Let's start out with the key word, effective. The dictionary definition of the word is: adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result. Therefore, a fighter who wildly throws a barrage of punches, kicks, and/or knees, but does not connect with their strikes, is not effectively striking. The intent for damaging their opponent is there, but the effectiveness is not if they do not land with their strikes. A big head kick, where you attempt to go shin-to-the-chin and knockout your opponent is not effective if they throw up and arm and block the kick. A fighter can throw a right jab, left upper cut, and a right hook combination, but if their opponent has their hands up, blocking the punches from connecting with their head, it is not an effective striking sequence. Throwing more punches than your opponent is not the equivalent to out-striking your opponent. For example, at The Ultimate Fighter Season 12 Finale, Leonard Garcia clearly threw more strikes than Nam Phan, however, Phan connected with one hundred and sixteen strikes as opposed to Garcia's seventy. Despite hitting Garcia forty-seven more times than he was hit, Phan received a loss on his record which caused outrage amongst Dana White, and especially Joe Rogan, who lit up the judges while on commentary at the event. More strikes thrown does not equal effective strikes landed.

Effective Grappling
Another scoring criteria where the word "effective" should be the highlighted. Grappling constitutes takedowns, dominant positioning clinching against the cage, and ground positioning for a fighter. If a fighter is able to secure a takedown, it should be taken into consideration while scoring a round. However, it is not "effective takedowns," it is "effective grappling." If a fighter takes their opponent to the ground, but does not attempt to advance positioning, is it really that effective? The lay-and-pray has won a lot of fighters many fights but why is that? Effective grappling constitutes a takedown followed by advancing your position from an open guard, for example, to half guard, side control, mount, or even taking your opponent's back. A fighter laying on top of their opponent following a takedown from anywhere to thirty seconds to multiple minutes is not effective, it is just taking them down and holding them there until the referee stands you up. During this time, fighters can tend to be content keeping their opponent there while throwing minimal and strikes or attempting to advance position while their opponent lands strikes on bottom. Again, the key word is "effective," takedowns, advanced positions, and striking and/or submissions to attempt to finish the fight are better and should be scored as such.

Many fights that are too-close-to-call when it comes to stand-up striking are awarded to the fighter who has the edge in takedowns. This should be the case as the fighter is mixing in both effective striking and grappling. The sport is mixed martial arts and a round should be rewarded to a fighter who can not strike but also mix in grappling/wrestling.

Aggression
The final two categories for scoring in MMA can be the toughest to judge and award fighters. This is really based on a certain fighters' style. Some fighters such as Jon "Bones" Jones, Chris Leben, "Rampage" Jackson, Clay Guida, Shane Carwin, and even new MMA middleweight contender Brian Stann are fighters are constantly are looking to go right at their opponents and turn their lights out. You then have fighters like Lyoto Machida, Georges St. Pierre, Anderson Silva, Rashad Evans, and Frank Mir who wait for their opening and capitalize on it to attempt to score a knockout or tapout. Being aggressive, going balls to the wall looking for the highlight reel victory is great and entertaining, but a fighter who intelligently waits for their opening and capitalizes on their opponents' opening left by their aggression is better. Early knockouts and submissions are great, but generally they are against someone being overly aggressive leading themselves wide open for an unprotected punch or kick.

Octagon Control
Much like aggression, this is category is awarded to the fighter who seems to be able to do whatever they want to their opponent. Whether it is taking the center of the octagon, and keeping your opponent on the outside, or keeping your opponent clinched up against the cage for the majority of the round, and not letting them sustain any offense for the majority of the round, you are generally awarded the round. Due to this, some fighters, tend to rely on just clinching their opponent up against the cage for as long as they can until the referee separates them. Zuffa (UFC/Strikeforce) and the rest of the MMA world needs to tack on the word "effective" to both the aggression and Octagon Control scoring criteria. Shouldn't the purpose of two fighters entering the Octagon be attempting the finish their opponent, not just do enough to win? Clinching your opponent up against the cage for nearly fifteen minutes, while doing nothing at all to end the fight (see Rashad Evans vs. Rampage) should not be a way of obtaining a victory.

Overall Thoughts
These are just my thoughts and opinions on the scoring system in mixed martial arts. If you interpret a rule or judging criteria differently, let me know. If either Dave Hagen or Nelson "Doc" Hamilton read this and are upset by what I have to say about their scoring this past Saturday, please, email me and I will gladly listen to your explanation of your scoring at UFC 131 or even do an interview with your explanation.

While I realize this is a total change in format to the typical "Gessner's Ground and Pound," I felt it was necessary based on this past weekend's PPV. I'll be back this weekend with my coverage of the continuation of Strikeforce's Heavyweight World Grand Prix and the usual news of the week in next week's "Ground and Pound."

Thank you very much for checking out "Gessner's Ground and Pound" this week. I'll be back (typically) every Wednesday with the news and my opinions in the world of MMA over the past week. If you have any thoughts, feel free to email at Kliq4Life28@gmail.com or shoot me a tweet @MarkGessner.

RECOMMEND THIS ARTICLE: