Search:
Please enter a search term to begin your search.
Modified Kankle Scoring System:
Home » Modified Kankle Scoring SystemThere has been a lot of hoopla over scoring in MMA. Couture v. Vera, Shogun v. Machida . . . Sherdog recently ran an article about how a change might be in order. I have long voiced my displeasure about the current application of the 10-point must system. It is a fine basis to score fights, but must be properly applied. The three major pitfalls, and how to correct them are discussed below. The fact is, MMA, when it adopted scoring just reached over to another sport, and grabbed boxing’s scoring system, and tried to make it work. It’s ok, and usually produces the right results, but, still, all too often, it fails. The failures will never be 100% corrected, because we are human and fuck up a lot, but we can cut down on our errors, but changing what doesn’t work. If insanity is doing he same thing, and expecting different results, then insanity is running the MMA show as we speak. So, before the members of the various athletic commissions, Dana White, and varrious promoters start wearing their grandma’s underwear and rubbing feces on the octagon, we need to stop the insanity. And, lucky for them, I have the answers!
1. Judges scoring a round 10-9 while the other two judges score the round 9-10.
The Problem it creates: A 2-pt disparity, when the judges feel they have to decide who won a round, but it was in actuality too close to decisively give to either fighter. Now, a fighter that actually won a round, but at least one judge saw it incorrectly has to win two rounds just to get back to what they already have. In boxing there are usually 10 to 12 rounds in a major fight, which at least allows the chance to recover, and win a decision. Try making a up 2 points after the first round in a 3-round fight, or even worse, a 2 rounder! Good luck. If it happens after the first round, you’re really in scorecard hell.
Change that should be implemented: If you are not Dam sure a fighter won a round, score it 10-10. Even if you’re wrong, the “rightful winner” of the round is not down a point because of your error. Worst case scenario, a two round fight that is scored 20-20 by all three judges, and you have a draw. Isn’t that better than accidentally rewarding the fighter who should have lost with a victory? The margin of error is reduced by 50% in close rounds, not perfect, but it is a good start.
2. Having a pre-determined, rigid outline of what needs to occur to receive a 10-8, or greater margin of victory in a single round.
The Problem it creates is a fighter who wins a fight, doesn’t win a decision. BJ Penn v. GSP I (Pre Grease-Gate) where BJ flat laid hands on GSP in one round, then had two close rounds, which went to GSP, and lost the decision. The above problem played a role in it as well, with judges feeling they had to give the round to somebody, when nobody earned it, but the failure to give a more decisive score to a more decisive round caused the winner of rounds, to be different than the winner of the fight, thus awarding a victory to a man who was soon there after in route to the hospital. All the while, the “loser” was looking to see if their were any blemishes on his incredibly round face.
Change: A more decisive win should be awarded a 10-8 or even 10-7 victory, feel free to use a 10-8 in the first round, and if a fighter deserves it, with a more dominant round later In the fight, adjust you next score to reflect the round. It would also allow for more use of the “10 Pts” in the 10 pt must system. Why have 10-pts if you can only use 3 of them? Have you ever seen a 10-0 round? In fact, in my opinion, most judges would be reluctant to give a 10-7 margin of victory in a snuff film, must less timed, officiated, and sanctioned fight.
3. Judicial Accountability: In the event that a referee scores a round more than one point different than the other two judges (like a 10-9 v. 9-10 round) they would be held answerable to the athletic commission and event organizers, by being required to review the fights with the athletic commission and justify what they saw. Their explanations would be recorded on video and public record.
