The Association of Boxing Commissions has made changes to the Unified Rules of MMA

[LordZardoz]

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/17...oring-mma-news

Interesting.

From the linked article:

1.) Effective Defense removed as a criteria.

2.) Striking and Grappling are now considered to be given equal weight.

3.) The term "damage" will no longer be used as a descriptor when discussing the scoring of a round. It will be replaced by "effective".

Finally, the ABC has clarified and amended the definitions of several terms in the Unified Rules of MMA

1.) "Effective Striking" - Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed.

2.) "Effective Grappling" - judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown, reversals and submission attempts.

3.) "Effective Aggression" - moving forward scoring with a legal technique or attacking from the guard with threatening submissions.

4.) "Cage/Ring Control" - dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.

Regarding scoring:

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows superiority by even a close margin. This score should rarely be used.

2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, demonstrating effective grappling, and utilizing other effective legal techniques.

3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins by a large margin, by effective striking and or effective grappling that have great impact on the opponent.

4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by effective striking and or effective grappling, which put the opponent in great danger throughout the round. In a 10-7 round referee stoppage may be eminent. This score should rarely be used.

Your thoughts?

END COMMUNICATION

[HugeMMAFan]

They need to add "Effective" to Cage/Ring Control. Actually, is should just be "Effective Control" period. But otherwise, it looks good.

[LordZardoz]

More from article: (actually at this point it is pretty much all in thread now).

Removal of effective defense:

1. The committee believes that offensive actions should be the only criteria used to score MMA matches. Offensive fighters are fighters which carry the fight and push the action, and make the fight happen.

2. Defense is its own reward. A fighter who chooses to avoid using defensive actions will invariably suffer the consequences. For example if a fighter decides that they do not want to block or avoid a strike, protect themselves from a submission, or avoid a throw or takedown then they will suffer the results of those offensive actions being used against them. The only role defensive action plays is to keep a fighter in the fight longer so that they can attempt to score using offensive actions.

3. Having two fighters avoid offensive actions and rely solely on defense goes against the basic primary consideration of any combative sport: To score using offense.

Equal consideration of Striking and Grappling:

The old scoring system rewarded striking (as a primary consideration) more than grappling. Mixed Martial Arts is based on two skill sets - striking and grappling. The committee felt that grappling should not be a secondary factor in determining the outcome of a match. Grappling has a definitive skill set and athleticism and offensive capabilities which when used correctly can effectively end a fight. As such grappling skills should be rewarded and given equal weight to striking.

Removal of "damage" as a scoring descriptor:

1. The legal considerations surrounding the term "Damage" as a descriptor were given considerable weight and as such the committee felt that using the word "Damage" may contribute to the potential for liability in the event of any litigation that commissions may find themselves involved in.

2. The sport of MMA is still relatively new and has not received sanctioning in various jurisdictions. The committee felt that "Damage" as a descriptor may play a factor in helping to determine future sanctioning if the term was taken out of context with many opposed to MMA as a sport.

3. ABC Instructors who currently use this as part of their teaching curriculum are advised to make any and all subsequent modifications to their course material.

New definition of "Effective Striking":

Judged by determining the impact of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the number of such legal strikes. Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed. These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain. Cumulative impact on a fighter will also be weighed. If neither fighter shows an advantage in impact of strikes, the number of strikes will determine the most effective striker.

New defnition of "Effective Grappling":

Judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown, reversals and submission attempts. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to a dominant position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard to create submission attempts. Submission attempts which come close to ending a fight will be weighted more highly than attempts which are easily defended. Submission attempts which cause an opponent to weaken or tire from the effort required to defend the technique will also be weighted highly in scoring. High amplitude takedowns and throws which have great impact will be scored more heavily than a takedown which does not have great impact.

END COMMUNICATION

[Tallica1981]

I was wondering when someone would get around to posting this. Overall, not much that I think makes a huge difference. In theory, it should help making grappling and striking equivalent and the Effective striking does seem more skewed towards damage now.

I just don't think this changes much.

[JC-Freakhead]

In before Cecil Peoples posts a "Didn't read! LOL!" gif.

[HugeMMAFan]

In before Cecil Peoples posts a "Didn't read! LOL!" gif.

I don't always watch the fights I'm scoring.

But when I do, I score it 29-28.

Stay ambitious, my friend.

[Tallica1981]

I suppose it could be argued that the new definition of effective striking could have made a difference when scoring the Tito/Forrest III fight. The real question is will judges actually adjust their scoring as a result?

[LordZardoz]

In before Cecil Peoples posts a "Didn't read! LOL!" gif.

I don't always watch the fights I'm scoring.

But when I do, I score it 29-28.

Stay ambitious, my friend.

Ok, both of those cracked me up.

As far as fights that may have been different under the tweaked rules:

Tito vs Forrest 3 would have been affected by this.

Plenty of decision fights that had very dominant rounds might be nudged from 10-9 to 10-8 (ie, Dan Henderson vs Shogun).

There is a big chance that Frankie Edgar and Dominick Cruz would not be a champion as both of them tend to go for quantity over quality with their striking. Any number of fights that went to a decision may have had more 10-8 rounds.

I am not sure if Diaz vs Condit would have been affected though. The striking is probably a wash as Diaz never really seemed to hurt Condit much. It comes down to how you interpret ring control: Was Condit in control by making Diaz follow him, or was Diaz in control by making Condit back up?

I am pretty sure Omigawa would not have been robbed at UFC 131 under these rules. Yeah, that was a curtain jerker prelim but I saw that in person and that result really pissed me off.

END COMMUNICATION

[Emmery Myers]

This could have also potentially effected the scoring of Faber Cruz II. I forget how many rounds Faber knocked Cruz down in, but it was at least 2 and maybe 3. Tito would have won the fight according to this. I am happy for this. Knockdowns, aggression count more than pitter patter that doesn't stun and dance and dodge.

[Tallica1981]

This could have also potentially effected the scoring of Faber Cruz II. I forget how many rounds Faber knocked Cruz down in, but it was at least 2 and maybe 3. Tito would have won the fight according to this. I am happy for this. Knockdowns, aggression count more than pitter patter that doesn't stun and dance and dodge.

Faber/Cruz II is another good example.