<%=siteName%>

By Joe Ferraro

With UFC 106 now part of the history books, the fallout from the main event and subsequent matchups have joined a variety of stories across the rest of the MMA world to set up a great end to 2009, while setting the foundation for an impactful 2010.

For the third straight UFC main event, and you can also include the recent WVR: Sengoku main event, once again, MMA judging has come under scrutiny.

At the UFC 106 pre-fight press conference, Keith Kizer, the Nevada State Athletic Commission’s Executive Director told me that he agrees, something needs to be done.

After the event had concluded, UFC VP of Regulatory Affairs, Marc Ratner summed it up by saying no matter what, there is will always be issues with MMA judging and when pressed by the media at the post fight press conference, UFC President Dana White told everyone to contact Keith Kizer.

What appears to be a “passing the buck” scenario is really a situation where none of these parties are truly willing to make the necessary changes. If Dana White and Zuffa get ticked off enough, they will make a change.

It starts with Ratner, who can obviously represent the organization, contacting not only Kizer, but all of the commissioners involved with the Association of Boxing Commissions and truly get this ball rolling.

I’ve written and spoke about this on too many occasions - until the powers that be finally decide enough is enough, all of this judging controversy stuff will not end anytime soon. For the record, here are my suggestions ( link to http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2009/11/04/showdown_judging/ ).

Misc News and Notes

* While I scored the Ortiz-Griffin rematch two rounds to one for Tito, the media in attendance at UFC 106 were split down the middle. What that means to me is must sit down and rewatch the fight and rescore the bout. I suggest everyone do the same - post your thoughts in the comments section below with your original score and what you came up with the second time around.

* Welterweights Ben “Killa B” Saunders ( http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum_framed.posts&forum=1&thread=1557826&page=2 ) and Mike “Quick” Swick ( http://twitter.com/officialswick )are having quite the war of words online. Any one else want to see this rematch, or would you rather see Saunders vs Anthony “Rumble” Johnson and Swick take on Martin “The Hitman” Kampmann?

* The “Shane McMahon joining the UFC” story continues to pick up steam. Shane-O-Mac has a serious business acumen behind him and has built a fair amount of global relationships with television stations as well as a wide variety of marketing and merchandising contacts. Should he buy in and join the UFC, one can just imagine the possibilities. Word is he believes that his father’s WWE Sports Entertainment business will never reach the popularity it once had, so Shane is moving to bigger and better things, like the UFC. Will this tick off his old man, or is this a plan to bring his Dad into the picture at a later date? (On a side note, former WWE Canada President Carl DeMarco also met with the UFC - can you say “UFC Offices in Canada”, like the one set up in the UK?)

* Remember the UFC 110 main event between Wanderlai Silva and Yoshihiro Akiyama, set for February 21st in Sydney, Australia? Well, you can scrap Akiyama and replace him with “The Count”, Michael Bisping. I got word that Bisping has replaced “Sexiyama” and might also be joined by a UFC Welterweight Championship bout between Georges St-Pierre and “The Outlaw” Dan Hardy….stay tuned.

* With UFC 113 scheduled for May 01st in Montreal, you can bet Dana White is going to be super ticked if the rumoured Mayweather / Pacquiao superfight is booked for the same day ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxingandmma/6645236/Manny-Pacquiao-v-Floyd-Mayweather-negotiations-begin-for-May-2010-superfight.html ). I think it’s a safe bet that boxing promoters Bob Arum and Richard Schaefer will pick this date, if not solely to steal pay per view buys from the UFC.

* And it doesn’t end there for Zuffa, parent owners of the UFC and the WEC. Strikeforce’s next event “Evolution”, is scheduled for December 19th, the same day as WEC 45. Strikeforce will feature the long awaited rematch between Josh Thompson and Gilbert Melendez, as well as Cung Le vs Scott Smith, Robbie Lawler, as well as the event debuts of Ronaldo Jacare de Souza, Matt Lindland and Muhammed “King Mo” Lawal. The WEC event will feature Donald Cerrone vs Ed Ratcliffe, the debut of Canadian lightweight sensation Chris Horodecki and a plethora of amazing talent from the lightweight and featherweight divisions.

* Roger Huerta has officially entered free agency ( http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Huerta-Enters-Free-Agency-21155 ) but in reality, he is still stuck under the UFC’s one year “matching” clause. Huerta still wants to fight for the UFC, but has no issues signing for Strikeforce or DREAM, setting up potential bouts with Shinya Aoki, Josh Thompson or Gilbert Melendez. Anyone else get the feeling we won’t be seeing Huerta in a fight, anytime soon?

* Competing Japanese MMA promoters DREAM and WVR: Sengoku have decided to team up and co-promote a New Year’s Eve show next month. Historically, December 31st is the highest rated television day in the land of the rising sun, where it’s generally a cultural thing for many of our Japanese friends. The only thing remotely close for us here in North America is the Superbowl, but many of my friends overseas have told me that even this analogy pales in comparison. Either way, it’s going to be a great card, with a rumoured card of nearly 20 bouts.

* The demographic that watches MMA is seeing some interesting trends. My pal Kelsey Philpott breaks it down ( http://mmapayout.com/2009/11/mma-demographic-young-wealthy-high-tech/ ) and proves that the sport is really going to be seeing big dividends soon.

By Joe Ferraro

It was another fast paced - whirlwind of a day in Sin City, which saw me go from The Mandalay Bay to two of the finest gyms in Sin City, and dare I say it - the world.

The day started with the UFC 106: Ortiz vs Griffin II pre-fight press conference. Right before it was to commence, we got word that UFC President Dana White would not be able to attend. This is the day we generally get to sit White down and ask him a plethora of questions for Sportsnet Connected, as well as MMA Connected.

Just as we started scrambling and changing our plans, the news came out (via Dana of course) that Karo Parisyan had backed out of his fight vs submission specialist Dustin Hazelett. White was incensed to say the least, but after speaking with Nevada State Athletic Commission Executive Director Keith Kizer (as well as my fellow media peers), it was obvious there was (and is) something seriously wrong with Parisyan.

To make a long story short, all of the research I have gathered on this leads me to believe that Karo may need to source out some help, both psychology and physically. I’ve seen this before with my own friends who were fighters, and the signs point to Karo needing a Sports Psychologist and perhaps some help with what seems to be an addiction to pain killers. I may be wrong, but that’s what I’ve been hearing. He’s simply to great as a figher and seriously a wonderfully spirited warrior for his career to be derailed like this.

After the post-fight press conference, we made our way to Xtreme Couture, where we met up with Jason “The Athlete” MacDonald to record our UFC 106 predictions. J-Mac was training with some of Xtreme Couture’s finest, prepping for his December 04th battle at MFC 23: Unstoppable, vs Solomon Hutcherson.

Once we were done recording, J-Mac and I discussed a variety of topics, and with his “insider” information, it confirms why he is always one of our best “Cage Connections” on MMA Connected. I learned more in twenty minutes with him than I can in a month on the internet.

After our trip to Xtreme Couture, I decided to take up an offer from Shawn “The Coach” Tompkins, and headed out to the TapouT training facility - and was I ever impressed. This place was arguably the biggest MMA gym I had ever seen - multiple workout areas, cages, a ring, a store, and a who’s who of the MMA industry.

After interviewing Shawn, we sat down Chris “The Polish Hammer” Horodecki, who was there prepping for his WEC debut vs Anthony Njokuani on December 19th. Chris’ answers sounded as if he had been in the industry as long as Tito Ortiz - an unbelievable amount of professionalism and understanding from a guy who is just 22 years old ( and for the record, neither Shawn and I believe he’s 22 - he’s still the 13 year old I remember from Tillsonburg, Ontario, a long time ago). According to “The Coach”, he firmly believes we may have the next Fedor on our hands here.

The three of us eventually stepped onto the mats and recorded three straight “Fight School” segments, where “The Coach” used Chris and I as examples of how to “keep your opponent guessing”, “three ways to defeat a southpaw”, and more. One of the finer moments was when Chris got some good air with a double leg takedown, with me being the one getting tossed around.

As we were wrapping up, we looked in the next room and we saw both Noguiera brothers, Junior Dos Santos, Ed Soares, Jorge Britto as well as Royler Gracie. I caught up with Big Nog, who was training separately from his brother and the rest of the team due to the fourth staph infection he has incurred during the past twelve months, and for once, we did not argue about which country was superior in soccer - Brazil or Italy.

What we did discuss was his love for me wearing a “Pride FC” shirt while I was there, calling me “old school”, while we admired Lil Nog and Junior pounding the pads. For the record, Cigano has some serious speed and power…and Lil Nog’s southpaw combinations are spectacular.

We now prepare for the weigh-ins and on Saturday, the actual event - UFC 106, with the two of the pre-lim fights on Rogers Sportsnet.

You’ll be able to catch Marcus “The Irish Hand Grenade” Davis take on Ben “Killa B” Saunders as well as Jake Rosholt vs Kendall “The Spyder” Grove, both in HD, exclusively on Rogers Sportsnet.

By Joe Ferraro

I knew a fruitful day in Vegas was ahead of us, but little did I know it would have me laughing so hard, that tears would fill my eyes…literally.
We landed on Tuesday and hit the ground running. We met up with WEC Lightweights Donald Cerrone and Ben Henderson, who both shared their thoughts on their epic bout, which may likely win “Fight of the Year”, on a variety of MMA sites.
I’m definitely looking forward to Wednesday’s WEC event, featuring WEC Featherweight Champion Mike Thomas Brown, defending his title against Jose Aldo as well as the featherweight co-main event between Leonard Garcia and Manny Gamburyan.
Wednesday, as always, is UFC Media workout day and it started with a bang, as Tito Ortiz was the first to show up. In typical Ortiz fashion, he had to rip me apart about the shine coming off my bald head. I know, there’s a shocker.
Next up was Josh Koschek and Phil Baroni. Kos was golden in his interview but Baroni was simply classic. His answers were golden - I cannot wait to see his “Getting To Know” segment but the highlight has to be him insulting the my heritage, one which we commonly share, yet he believes his American version is superior to my Canadian one.
We then hit a home run sitting down and chatting with Anthony “Rumble” Johnson - I have an incredible respect for this young man, who is wise beyond his years. He is an inspiration and quite frankly, a wonderful human being with a touching soul. His is a beautiful story I hope we can tell in a future episode of “MMA Connected”.
Our last interview of the day was Forrest Griffin - and what a way to finish off the media workouts. He was up to his old self, answering in paragons while questioning nearly everything I asked. He joined Baroni and Johnson by making the interview experience a memorable one, while keeping the UFC staff and I in stitches, laughing hysterically.
Next up is the WEC, which we are heading to right now, but don’t forget to check out Sportsnet.ca for the UFC 106 pre-fight press conference tomorrow, as well as the weigh ins on Friday.

Don’t forget to vote for Yours Truly, as well as “MMA Connected” @ http://www.WorldMMAawards.com

Regards,

Joe Ferraro
MMA Analyst
Host of “MMA Connected”

Catch all episodes online at http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma
Hear me on “The Showdown” on www.Fan590.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/showdownjoe
On Facebook: Showdown Joe Ferraro
www.SHOWDOWN.ca
C.O.M.M.A.N.D. Certified MMA Referee

By Joe Ferraro

Another UFC main event and another judging controversy. This time it was Randy Couture winning a razor thin decision over Brandon Vera - and ironically enough, I actually agree with judges.Yes, there’s a shocking statement to say the least, but upon further review, I can see how the judges scored the bout.

When I first watched the fight, I knew it could have went either way - in fact - I was actually surprised that Couture won, as I had the bout scored 29-28 for “The Truth”.

I took it upon myself to watch the fight a second time, something I vehemently recommend to everyone, as a second time around, you have to beauty of analyzing it with a fine tooth comb.

The two rounds that come into question are rounds one and rounds three; it’s safe to say that Vera won round two, based on the left leg kick, knee and follow up leg kick that dropped Couture.

In round one, Vera immediately explodes with a combination forcing Couture to clinch and pin Vera up against the cage. From here, he is able to control Vera at one point even taking him down, albeit, isn’t able to control him. One could score this round for either fighter, but in terms of the dreaded octagon control analogy, when I watched it a second time, I gave it to Couture. Mind you, by the narrowest of margins.

In round three, Couture was up to his old tricks again, clinching with Vera but this time, picks up the pace with his dirty boxing. He controls the vast majority of the round until in the final minute, Vera is able to take the former champ to the mat, mount him, but is unable to mount an offence.

Couture is able to get back to his feet, and the two exchange punches to close out the round. Based on, octagon control, I give it Couture, solely for the fact that if Vera would have scored that takedown earlier, and controlled Couture on the ground for a longer period of time, I would have likely scored the round for the Pilipino Phenom.

Unlike the robbery at UFC 104, where Mauricio Shogun Rua clearly dominated Lyoto Machida, the Couture-Vera bout was a razor thin one to call. Since the end of the bout and for the full day on Sunday, I have been fielding emails and phone calls from a variety of fans and dignitaries in the MMA industry.

What I found is that it is pretty much split down the middle…half for Couture, and half for Vera. It was simply that close in Manchester. So dare I say it…should the fight have been scored a draw?

Fightmetric.com ( http://fightmetric.com/fights/Couture-Vera.html ), the staple for MMA judging criteria makes a case for the draw. They gave their Strikescore to Couture, their Grapplescore to Vera and their Total Performance Rating to Couture. According to their 10 point must system, the fight should have been scored a draw, but based on their own analogy, Vera won the fight.

Folks…it was simply that close.

This is one fight where I have no issues with the judges decision, not because I agree, because it was one of the closest fights to score in a very long time.

Don’t forget to vote for Yours Truly, as well as “MMA Connected” @ http://www.WorldMMAawards.com

Regards,

Joe Ferraro
MMA Analyst
Host of “MMA Connected”

Catch all episodes online at http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma
Hear me on “The Showdown” on www.Fan590.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/showdownjoe
On Facebook: Showdown Joe Ferraro
www.SHOWDOWN.ca
C.O.M.M.A.N.D. Certified MMA Referee

By Joe Ferraro

While Nate Marquardt (29-8-2) was awaiting a pending bout with Dan Henderson for UFC 108, it appears he has decided to move on and face Chael Sonnen (24-10-1) instead.

Sources have informed me that the two are awaiting bout agreements and will be added to an already stellar card that the UFC is building for their debut in Sydney, Australia.

Marquardt is coming off a stunning KO victory at UFC 102 versus Demian Maia, a bout he ended with a devastating right cross, that looked like video game, highlight reel finish just twenty one seconds into the first round.

For Sonnen, the UFC rewarded him with this contender bout after he dismantled and completely controlled Yushin Okami at UFC 104, earning a unanimous judges decision. Okami had always been considered a highly touted contender and was mentioned many times as a potential challenger to current champion, Anderson “The Spider” Silva. After a variety of injuries and a disappointed performance vs Sonnen, the latter was bumped up the middleweight food chain and is inching ever so close to a crack at the champ.

The hype for UFC 110 is already building with scheduled and rumoured bouts including a middleweight fight between Wanderlei “The Axe Murder” Silva (32-10-1) vs Yoshiro Akiyama (13-1), a heavyweight tilt between Mirko Cro Cop Filipovic (25-7-2) and “Big” Ben Rothwell (30-7), a light heavyweight match up between Canadian Krzysztof Soszynski (18-9-1) and Stephan Bonnar (11-6) as well as the octagon debut of Australia’s own light heavyweight, James Te Huna (12-4).

Don’t forget to vote for Yours Truly, as well as “MMA Connected” @ http://www.WorldMMAawards.com

Regards,

Joe Ferraro
MMA Analyst
Host of “MMA Connected”

Catch all episodes online at http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma
Hear me on “The Showdown” on www.Fan590.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/showdownjoe
On Facebook: Showdown Joe Ferraro
www.SHOWDOWN.ca
C.O.M.M.A.N.D. Certified MMA Referee

By Joe Ferraro

The current state of judging in Mixed Martial Arts has raised a variety of discussion on how the current system needs an overhaul.

In hopes to generate some discussion, and hopefully some change to the judging criteria listed under the Unified Rules Of MMA ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ), Part One ( http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2009/11/04/showdown_judging/ ) and Part Two ( insert link) examined the following:

Replacing the Ten Point must system with singular points ( and newly suggested definitions ) for “Effective Striking”, “Effective Grappling” and “Ring / Cage Generalship”, while Part II focused on “Effective Aggressiveness”, “Effective Defense”, “Intelligent Defense” and more.

In Part III, I’ll offer up my suggestions on what the Unified Rules of MMA list as “Objective Scoring Criteria”, which defines how a judge scores a 10-10, 10-9, 10-8 and 10-7 round.

Note: In bold, is what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of MMA.

19) OBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA:

10-10 Round

A) When both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round.

A 10-10 round is a rarity and this is simply due to the fact that there is always one fighter who did at least “one” thing to steal the round. Show me a 10-10 round, and I’ll show you a 10-9 winner.

B) When both contestants suffer equal numbers of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes and neither shows clear dominance in a round.

Again, show me a fight where two fighters had an “equal number of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes”, and I am confidant that I can still determine a winner of that round.

10-9 Round

A) When a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers.

B) When a contestant remains in the guard position with no fighter having an edge in striking or grappling, the fighter who scored the legal takedown wins the round.

While I can concur with the term definitions, I still find it difficult to award a fighter 10 points and the other 9 points based on not doing 10 things / items. Read on for my suggestions on what may be a solution to effectively score an MMA fight.

10-8 Round

A) When a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

B) When a contestant adversely affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.

Same as my point above, yet a 10-8 round simply shows dominance by one fighter, rewarding him bonus points that may not be necessary.

10-7 Round

A) When a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

B) When a contestant detrimentally affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.

Show me a 10-7 round, and I can likely make the case that the referee should have stopped the fight.

Time for a  Change

When you combine the 10-point boxing scoring system with the fact that most MMA judges come from the “sweet science” and do not understand the vast majority of what makes up a Mixed Martial Arts fight, you have a recipe for disaster, or dare I say, the current state of affairs the sport is in right now.

First and foremost, I believe that every judge who is licensed by a commission MUST be certified first, and possess a thorough understanding of the aspects that make up MMA. Again, please have a look at what is depicted in the C.O.M.M.A.N.D. course ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ) to see what I am referring to.

On a very basic scale, when judging an MMA fight, I simply draw a line in the middle of a page; the left side designed for “Fighter A” and the right side for “Fighter B”.

I will then place ticks for every EXCHANGE that is won by a fighter, whether it is one punch that is thrown, or a flurry met with counter punch that rocks the fighter who threw more punches. I judge based on Quality of strikes landed, as opposed to quantity of punches thrown.

I definitely place a tick for any “real” submission attempts ( i.e. locking in an arm bar, choke, and/or forcing an opponent to defend or stall ).

I will also place a tick for a successful takedown attempt, as that is dictating where the fight is going and showing ring / cage generalship.

(Do I reward an opponent who continues to attempt takedowns, but is thwarted off with excellent takedown defense? My answer is “no”, but I do keep it in mind if at the end of the round, should both fighters have an equal amount of ticks. I generally make a decision not on the failure of the takedown attempt, but on the fact of how long was the defending fighter fending off the takedown attempt. If it was a quick sprawl, where he then circled away, neither fighter is awarded. But, if a fighter was defending a single leg attempt and was trapped against the cage for a minute or so, defending the takedown, I will consider that. To me, he is defending and thus, the fighter who eventually failed the takedown attempt should be considered with a tick for ring / cage generalship, as he was attempting an offensive move, which in the end, is trying to advance the fight to a finish.)

At the end of the round, whoever has the most ticks, wins the round. The winner gets a “one” the loser gets a “zero”. As opposed to make it to 10-9, it’s a 1-0 round. What we see today is a fighter winning 29-28, but what does that really mean? It means a fighter won 2 rounds to 1. So I’d rather see it simply labeled that way. Why confuse something that should be so simple? 49-46 should be 4-1…that’s it.

I would also recommend that the judges scoring of each round be made public, on display within the venue and broadcast, so everyone is aware of what the scores are going into each round. When a fighter and his camp know what the score is going into each round, you can rest assured the losing fighter will likely pick up the pace to try and win the round or finish off his opponent.

Now, I am not at all suggesting that this Three Part Series is a bullet proof, perfect scoring system, but I do believe it is a better way of scoring an MMA bout.

Your thoughts and suggestions are definitely welcomed. I am all eyes and ears, provided it is a step forward in the right direction.

The current state of judging in Mixed Martial Arts has once again stirred up a brew of discussion - some for the current system and some against it.

In hopes to generate some discussion, and hopefully some change to the judging criteria listed under the Unified Rules Of MMA ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ), Part One ( http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2009/11/04/showdown_judging/ ) examined the following:

Replacing the Ten Point must system with singular points ( and newly suggested definitions ) for “Effective Striking”, “Effective Grappling” and “Ring / Cage Generalship”.

In Part II, I offer up suggestions on “Effective Aggressiveness”, “Effective Defense”, “Intelligent Defense” and much more.

Note: In bold, is what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of MMA.

4) “Effective Aggressiveness”: Moving forward and setting the tempo of the contest while effectively scoring with legal strikes, takedowns, and submissions while blocking the opponents counters.

In essence, this is what MMA (and all combat sports) should strive to score their bouts on. The only qualm I have is “while blocking the opponents counters”. I have never been a fan of defense, nor do I believe it should be rewarded with points, as it does not end fights. It protects from receiving damage, Yes, but it does not end fights. Counter Punching, Counter Kicking and Counter Attacks end fights…not defense.

5) “Effective Defense”: Successful avoidance or defense of blows and submissions by which an opponent is made to miss by definite maneuvers. However, one who demonstrates these skills must also strike effectively to positively influence the judges’ scoring.

It is my belief that this should be removed from MMA judging altogether. As I mentioned above, I do not necessarily agree with awarding defense. It’s a fight, so a fighter should try to end a fight with offence and not be awarded for defense.

Case and point: In his UFC 101 bout vs Forrest Griffin, Anderson Silva did not defeat Forrest Griffin with his defense; he defeated him with his offence. His immaculate display of bobbing, weaving and slipping of Griffin’s attacks assisted him to effectively apply his eye candy of an offense. The bobs, weaves and slips did not cause damage - Silva’s fists did, and that’s what ended the fight. If Forrest attacked all night, and Silva bobbed and slipped for the rest of the time, I would score the round for Forrest, as he is the one attacking and trying to end the fight.

To continue upon the current definition of “Effective Defense”, the statement “must also strike effectively to positively influence the judges’ scoring” refers, once again, to “offence”, so I would suggest it me removed from a term defining “Effective Defense”.

6) “Intelligent Defense”: An active defense that effectively neutralizes an opponent’s attack, particularly when the defender is mounted, either from the front or the back. An intelligent defense minimizes the potential for damage while providing the opportunity for taking back the offense.

Once again, we are awarding a fighter for defending, which in essence, is doing nothing to put an end to a fight. If “Fighter A” is in the turtle position, or has his back taken with “Fighter B’s” hooks both in, how can he be awarded any points for “intelligently defending” himself. Fighter B should be awarded the round as he was in a dominant position, controlling his Fighter A, while trying to put an end to the bout.

Again, awarding a fighter for defense, is simply not something I can agree with.

C) Scoring of the above techniques shall be given the most weight as follows:

1) Effective Striking
2) Effective Grappling
3) Octagon Control
4) Effective Aggressiveness/Defense

Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, grappling, octagon control and aggressiveness/defense.

This section should definitely be re-evaluated. Striking should not be given more weight than grappling or vice-versa. It’s an MMA fight, where at times, one fighter may be more of a grappling practitioner, while his opponent may come from a striking base. It almost seems as if the striker ( or strikers in general ) are already ahead on the judges scorecards before the bout even begins.

I would suggest this section be changed to reflect something to the effect of:

“Scoring of the above techniques shall be given the most weight as follows: Effective Aggressiveness, based on one, or a combination of effective striking or grappling, with the round being given to the fighter who displays a higher effectiveness in Ring / Cage Generalship, while working with the end of the fight in mind.”

D) Judges should use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the contestants are either standing or on the ground, as follows:

1) If 90% of a round was spent on the ground, then:

a) Effective Grappling is weighed first
b) Effective Striking is then weighed

Based on my own experience, research and in speaking with a variety of sources, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of judges simply are not qualified enough to understand the intricacies of what “effective grappling” truly is. From what I’ve seen in over a decade of being a part of this sport, most judges look at which fighter is doing the most “striking” on the ground, perhaps due to the fact that many of these judges come from a boxing background, where striking is paramount.

While I do genuinely believe that most judges know what an arm bar attempt is, as well as a rear naked choke, I cannot help but believe that most may have no idea what a Kimura or American is, unless the crowd begins roaring, signaling a judge to pay attention that something is going on here.

I harkin the aforementioned thoughts based on when I was certified by Big John McCarthy in is C.O.M.M.A.N.D. course. While my certification was geared towards “officiating”, the same criteria for judges is required, to understand a plethora of MMA techniques, positions and submissions. To see what I’m talking about, take a look at the list of over eight-five items that must be understood ( http://www.mmareferee.com/certs.htm ) to pass Big John’s course.

I seriously wonder how many judges know what a Von Flue choke is, or an Iranian Lift, what a “Half guard lock down” is or even what an “Electric Chair Sweep” does to an opponent.

If you cannot name, define or identify all of these techniques, should you really be licensed by a Commission to judge a fight? My answer is a definite and emphatic, “NO”.

2) If 90 % of a round was standing, then:

a) Effective Striking is weighed first
b) Effective grappling is then weighed

Similar to the above, what if four minutes and thirty seconds were spend standing and striking, yet for thirty seconds the fight was on the mat, where “Fighter A”, who didn’t exactly win the standup, nearly finishes “Fighter B”, with a rear naked choke?

I disagree with the criteria above, as the winner of the round should be defined as the one who came closest to finishing the fight, then coupled with who inflicted the most damage.

3) If a round ends with 50% standing and 50% grounded, striking and grappling are weighed more equally.

Having being a judge at various professional and amateur MMA events, knowing “exactly” what 50% is in a round is virtually impossible. I never once stood there and stared at a timer - I was too focused on scoring the round based on which fighter was winning the fight.

Again, where it says “grappling”, we are under the assumption that athletic commission licensed judges know what “grappling” is…the majority do not.

In Part III, I’ll offer up my suggestions on what the Unified Rules of MMA list as “Objective Scoring Criteria”, which defines how a judge scores a 10-10, 10-9, 10-8 and 10-7 round.

I will also offer up my final suggestions on how I believe Judging for MMA should be redefined and used in the sport.

Your thoughts and suggestions are definitely welcomed. I am hoping in the end, a new judging system for MMA can be defined so as to make it more modern and perhaps, more geared toward truly scoring an MMA bout as opposed to adopting a system based loosely around that of boxing.

By Joe Ferraro

It’s no secret that I believe the judging criteria in Mixed Martial Arts needs to be amended, and perhaps move away from the 10-Point Must system that was adopted from boxing.

Mixed Martial Arts is not boxing, so I am of the belief that the scoring of MMA bouts should reflect the sport and what is happening inside the ring or cage.

Over the next few days, I will break down what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ), and offer up suggestions on how I would like to see the bouts judged.

In bold, is what is currently in place:

SCORING TECHNIQUES:

A) Using the 10-Point Must Scoring System; judges are required to determine a winner of a contest that ends after the Initial scheduled number of rounds have been completed. 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

The awarding of 10 points is something I have always found strange. If there were “ten” things, points of action or techniques that must be completed in the round, then I can understand getting ‘graded’ on a scale that results in a fighter achieving 10 points. In reality, it’s a fight, so I would much rather see rounds scored based on what a fighter did in that round ( in comparison to his opponent ), and award a score based on which fighter deserved to receive “points”. I’ll explain more…read on.

B) Mixed Martial Arts Techniques are defined as:

1) “Effective Striking”: The total number of legal heavy strikes landed

I do not have an major qualm with this description, but as I’ve said in the past, some consideration ( and proper training of judges ) should reflect and define “the winner of an exchange”.

Too often, fighters are rewarded with the number of strikes thrown ( quantity ) as opposed to being awarded for the “heavy strikes landed” (quality).

In preparing our Amateur MMA presentation to the Ontario Government, Terry Riggs ( manager to Carlos Newton ) and I sat down to define what we believed “effective striking” should reflect. Riggs made an exceptional point, and one that has stuck with me ever since. During an exchange, the winner should be defined as the one who “won the exchange”. If one fighter throws a five punches, but the other throws an incredible strike that was more of a “heavy strike”, he should be awarded that exchange. If there were five exchanges, where fighter “A” threw a total of five punches per exchange (total of 25) and fighter “B” only threw one per exchange ( total of 5 ), but all of fighter “B’s” punches were “heavy”, then he won all five exchanges, even though he through twenty fewer punches.

At the end of the round, I believe “one point” should be awarded to the fighter who demonstrated “effective striking”, and “zero” to the fighter who did not.

2) “Effective Grappling”: The successful execution of a legal takedown and/or reversal including the following maneuvers:

Takedowns are not grappling - they are “takedowns”. They are a part of a grappler’s arsenal but perhaps this should be removed from “effective grappling”, and left with “Octagon Control” ( listed below )

a) Takedowns from standing position to mount position

Remove mount position - there are fighters who do not need the mount position to be successful and can work well from within the guard, half guard, half mount, north-south, or even right to back control, with or without any hooks in. I believe this should be redefined as simply “effective takedowns and / or throws” and again, moved to “Octagon Control”.

b) Passing the guard to mount position;

While I agree a fighter does increase his chances of ending a fight if he can pass the guard, there are many fighters who do not need to do so to be successful. Perhaps redefine this to better reflect something to the effect of “damage within the guard” as well as “working to improve position”.

c) Bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.

I do not have any real issue with this term - but perhaps to improve upon it, a description that might state “Bottom position fighters using an active / threatening ground game”. Not all fights stay in guard - some end up in half-guard and can stay there for quite some time.

At the end of the round, “Effective Grappling” should be awarded a point to the winner and no point to the other fighter, based on working on the ground in attempt to finish off an opponent. Striking Damage vs Submission attempts should also be defined and weighed against one another to determine who should be awarded the point of “Effective Grappling”. If fighter “A” locked in an arm bar or triangle and fighter “B” was forced to defend for half the round, eventually survives, and works some ground and pound for the rest of the round, landing a plethora of punches but not causing “real damage”, who should be awarded the round? In my opinion, the fighter that should receive the “point” is the one who was closer to finishing off his opponent. In this case, I would score it for the fighter who attempted the submission attempts.

Now if the fighter who survived the submission attempts ends up punishing the other fighter with his ground and pound, one could make a case that he wins the round instead.

3) “Octagon Control”: Dictating the pace, location and position of the contest using the following maneuvers:

Not all fights are in the “octagon.” MMA bouts occur in a cage and ring as well. Perhaps “Ring / Cage Generalship” may be a better term?

a) Countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown to remain standing and legally striking effectively;

These are two separate techniques - it basically means that a fighter not only has to defend the takedown AND punish his opponent afterwards. Usually, a fighter will likely stifle his opponent’s offence with a sprawl, then circle out. Or perhaps a whizzer, under hook, overhook, then get out of dodge. I am of the opinion that “Countering a fighter’s attempt at a takedown, to remain standing” is a better definition.

b) Taking down an opponent to force a ground fight;

No issues at all with the above term.

c) Creating threatening submission attempts pass the guard to achieve mount, while on the ground;

This term should also be rewritten. Attempting a submission, passing the guard and achieving mount are three separate techniques.

Attempted submissions should be awarded as their intention is to end the fight; and that’s exactly what should be happening in a contest between two athletes.

Passing the Guard, achieving mount, half-mount, rear mount, or on the flipside, moving an opponent to cage (or even centre of ring / cage ), etc, are positional intricacies that are simply set-ups to move the action to a better location for fighter looking to finish the fight with either strikes or submissions. These all qualify as “octagon control” in my position and should be listed in the item below.

d) Creating striking opportunities, while on the ground.

As I mentioned above, controlling your opponent is crucial while on the ground and is an attempt to “begin” to end the fight.

In the end, “Ring / Cage Generalship” should be awarded to the fighter who demonstrated that he was dictating the pace, area and location of where the fight was taking place. Fighters should not necessarily be awarded for sprawling and avoiding takedowns, if they have done nothing else, like effective striking, etc. I would much rather award a fighter a point if he failed to takedown his opponent ten times, even if his opponent was successful with his defence, yet did nothing to try and end the fight.

In Part II, I’ll offer up my suggestions on what the Unified Rules of MMA list as “Effective Aggressiveness”, “Effective Defence”, “Intelligent Defence” and much more.

Your thoughts and suggestions are definetly welcomed. I am hoping in the end, a new judging system for MMA can be defined so as to make it more modern and perhaps, more geared toward truly scoring an MMA bout as opposed to adopting a system based loosely around that of boxing.