http://www.insidefighting.com/betwee....aspx?uid=2829
------------------------------------------------------------
Can someone please articulate exactly how a takedown impacts the scoring of a round of mixed martial arts fighting in the State of Nevada?
Anyone….don’t be shy….no hand raising is necessary…. just blurt out the answer.
While I’m sure my inbox will get flooded with well-written diatribes on the subject, I’m in search of an official answer, one from the Nevada State Athletic Commission or its myriad of approved judges. I almost don’t even care about the substance of the answer, just that we get some sort of official, unified guidance from those who ultimately decide the outcome of fights that last the predetermined number of rounds.
Guess what?
That ain’t gonna happen.
Why? Because there is no possible way that Nevada judges can offer up a solitary voice on the subject because there is no uniformity among them. In short, they don’t have a collective clue how to score a takedown.
Sorry, but it’s true.
That was very evident after seeing the official scorecard (click here) for Georges St. Pierre’s win over B.J. Penn at UFC 58. Allow me to explain.
The first and third rounds were very easy to score. In the opening stanza, Penn imposed his will on his younger foe, dominating the action with good, clean striking. The final period, by contrast, was all St. Pierre, who took the fight to Penn on the feet, landing with greater frequency and scoring two takedowns in the round. Accordingly, both rounds resulted in unanimous scoring by the judges (and the scribes surrounding me in press row).
Why didn't Trevor Prangley's takedowns and ground-and-pound attack
carry as much weight with the judges as St. Pierre's did at UFC 58?
But what about the extremely competitive second round? That’s where things get a bit dicey.
The second round was a tale of two fights. In the first half of the round, St. Pierre came out striking with surprising energy. Though his attack didn’t appear to cause much damage, it set up an early takedown.
Once on the ground, Penn quickly began working for a triangle choke, so St. Pierre stood up out of his opponent’s guard and attempted a crowd-pleasing axe kick to the body that did more damage to the Octagon mat than it did Penn. He also attempted a few punches and elbows after jumping back into Penn’s guard. But none were very effective. Still, up to that pointing the round, St. Pierre controlled the action with the takedown and ensuing ground control.
However, about halfway through the round, Penn scrambled back to his feet, initiating an exchange of punches that saw St. Pierre throw more, but Penn landed the cleaner, more damaging blows. From there, St. Pierre bullied Penn to the Octagon fence, presumably to stop the oncoming punches.
After a brief respite where neither man did anything along the cage, Penn forced the fight back to the center of the Octagon with a flurry of punches. Once again, St. Pierre fired back, and possibly fired more shots, but Penn landed the bigger, more damaging blows.
With the round coming to a close, St. Pierre scored a second takedown, riding out the last few seconds until the bell sounded.
So, who gets the nod on the scorecards?
Maybe St. Pierre landed a few more strikes, but Penn did much more damage on the feet. St. Pierre executed two takedowns, the first led to no real damage on the ground before Penn scrambled back to his feet. The second takedown happened at the end of the round with the Canadian doing nothing afterward.
Thus, the round came down to Penn’s effectiveness on the feet and one scramble versus St. Pierre’s two takedowns and momentary ground control.
Judges Nelson Hamilton and Marcos Rosales scored the round 10-9 for St. Pierre. Cecil Peoples scored it 10-9 for Penn. While I agreed with Peoples, my well-respected colleague at UFC.com, Thomas Gerbasi, sided with Hamilton and Rosales.
Matt Hughes versus Renato Verissimo at UFC 58 yet another example of
how takedowns can influence the judges in Nevada
Honestly, it doesn't matter much to me whether someone called the round for Penn or St. Pierre, the disagreement described above is enough to convince me that the round was close enough to go either way. But what I do care about is holding judges to a consistent scoring standard and applying said standard uniformly across all fights.
Unfortunately, that’s not happening.
When a fight involves multiple takedowns or a significant amount of time on the ground with nothing happening, there is no way to say with any degree of certainty how the Nevada judges will score the round. And that is problematic.
Two examples shed a bright light on the situation:
Scenario 1. Let’s assume that both men land a few decent shots on the feet in the opening seconds of the fight, but Fighter A scores a takedown 30 seconds into the round. Even though Fighter B is a known jiu-jitsu expert, he never pulls off any decent submission attempts, never sweeps Fighter A and never scrambles back to his feet. Fighter A’s ground-and-pound attack is very conservative, maybe even ineffective. The referee calls for two stand ups. Both times Fighter A executes quick takedowns followed by the same conservative attack.
And the winner is....Fighter A, right? Wrong. Scenario 1 is a rough sketch of the second round from Trevor Prangley (Fighter A) versus Jeremy Horn (Fighter B) at UFC 56. Two of the three judges sided with Horn.
Scenario 2. Let’s assume that neither man lands anything of consequence before Fighter A executes an early takedown. Fighter B, who is a jiu-jitsu black belt, works for a triangle choke repeatedly for the next three minutes. Having come dangerously close to succumbing to a triangle in the previous round, Fighter A defends the submission hold, but does virtually nothing in terms of offense for the round. Content to work from the guard for a triangle choke, Fighter B never attempts to scramble to his feet or sweep Fighter A. The referee calls for a standup due to inactivity, but the scenario plays itself out exactly like in the first three minutes.
Who wins? Based on the Horn-Prangley fight, Fighter B wins, right? Wrong again. The second scenario is a thumbnail description of Matt Hughes (Fighter A) versus Renato “Charuto” Verissimo (Fighter B). Two of the three judges scored it for Hughes.
Confused yet? Well, join the club!
The UFC needs judges who apply the same scoring standards to takedowns. Do they count as much as a knockdown? Does a sweep or scramble to the feet nullify a takedown? If the guy taken down is a jiu-jitsu expert who forces his attacker to do nothing on the ground except defend submissions, does that change things?
Right now, nobody can give a definitive answer to any of those questions, and that is a problem. Maybe Nevada needs to hold training seminars for the referees to ensure consistency. Maybe the scoring criteria should be amended so that everyone can get a clearer understanding of the way it is to be applied.
I’m not sure what the correct answer is, but something needs to be done.
-------------------------------------------
Throwing fuel on the fire...discuss
Tito v Vitor
Hughes v Charuto
Horn v Prangley
Penn v GSP
Tito v Forrest
