Explain UFC fighting?

Question

I've really like watching UFC but i'm not sure how its scored and all that stuff. Or how someone wins a match. Would someone please explain it.

Answer 1

Good question, as the judges all seem to have different criteria for scoring fights. Some of them come from boxing and don't possess an appreciation for the grappling aspects.

I rewatched Bisping versus Hamill recently and still can't understand how Hamill did not win. One judge gave him all three rounds (which I would agree with, or he won at least two) whereas the other two said Bisping won two rounds!

Answer 2

dont feel bad half the judges dont know how its scored which is obvious by some of the bone head decsions they make.  Its sposed to be based on effectiveness, aggression, and octagon control but if you ask me I think the judges base it on who they think looks cuter in their shorts

Answer 3

You score by punches and kicks to the face and body, take downs and submission and failed submissions.

Answer 4

Sure:

There are the obvious ways to win: Knockout, (self explanatory) Referee stoppage (fighter is no longer intelligently defending himself), Doctor stoppage (fighter is no longer able to safely continue fighting), Submission,  (verbal or by "tapping") and a corner can throw in a towel (essentially surrendering).

The judges score the fights on a 10 round must system.

Meaning there has to be a winner of a round. One fighter gets a 10. The other guy gets a 9, or if he was completely dominated an uneffective possibly an 8. So in this you hear the judges score a round a 10-9 for fighter A, or a 10-9 for fighter B, or 10-8 for fighter A, etc. Meaning Fighter A won the 10 points for that round, and fighter B won 9 or 8 points.

Since there are 3 rounds, or 5 rounds, being odd numbers, it means that normally it should not end in a draw.

Let's take a 3 round fight.

Round 1. Fighter A wins 10-9       Fighter A has 10, Fighter B has 9 points.

Round 2. Fighter B wins 10-9  Fighter A now has 19 points, Fighter B now has 19 points.

Round 3: Whomever wins this wins the right. Since they would then have 29 to another fighters 28.

The judges are supposed to base this score on effectiveness (i.e. Who is landing more shots, inflicting more damage, landing more techniques) aggression, (meaning which fighter is attempting to fight, not backing off but pursuing the fight) and octagon control (essentially who is keeping the center of the ring, dictating the fight, and essentially using the most ringsmanship)

As many of this is open for intrepretation, especially given a close fight. Even experts are sometimes completely baffled by a judges decision. There is also plenty of times of distinct variance in judging. Due to the fact that certain judges have certain biases about what they like to see, or what they feel is more effective, or what takes priority. One judge may put more worth into a fighter who presses the action, while the other fighter might not be pressing the action but is using better ringsmanship, and landing cleaner shots, therefore another judge favors him for this reason.

That is why there are 3 judges, so that there is a balance, which means that 2 of them have to declare one winner.

A 10 round must system means there can be no draw unless a fighter is penalized a point. Because in a 10 point must system, someone must win the round.

There are those rare exceptions, when you here that a fighter has gotten a "point deducted" it is from this system.

Meaning if he is winning the round where he would have had a 10, if he gets a point deducted he will then have a 9, making the rare 9-9 round.

Also in the event of 10-8 round it can cause a draw.

Fighter A wins round one 10-9

Fighter B wins round two 10-8.

Fighter A wins round three 10-9.

In this case both have a score of 28. Making it a draw.

I am off on the rules here, I believe they have a sudden death round if it is a Championship match, and that it is just a draw in regular.. I am not sure I would have to look that one up...

Hope that helps.

Answer 5

The Winning fighter is the one who KOs his opponent or forces his opponent to tapout.  A winner can also be named when the referee stops the bout to save the opponent from futher punishment.  If no KO, tapout, or stoppage takes place then there are judges who will decide the outcome base on who the more aggressive fighter is.

Answer 6

Sometimes the referee stops the fight too early after a simple flash knockdown as in the case of Houston Alexander fight that was on this season's TUF Fight Night opener.  Then there are cases where the ref gives the fighters a warning like "keep busy" while they are on the ground in the mount position.  As is the case of Lesnar vs Mir and Herring vs Noguiera.  Its all up to the refs discretion when to step in and stop the fight.

From the judging stand point I think it is suppose to be based on "ring generalship" based on the 10 point boxing scoring scale.  So if one fighter is dominating with striking or has made several successful takedowns and submission attempts then that person should get the round.  The problem is how to judge defense!

Answer 7

I think it had a little bit to do with the fight being in England. I think the judges my have leaned a little bit to the Brits side.

Answer 8

Judges are getting better, but MMA is so huge that there are very few qualified MMA judges.  UFC and other organizations use kickboxing, boxing, and grappling judges, who may understand one aspect of the sport, but in many cases do not have a complete understanding of other disciplines.  Depending on who is judging anything can happen.  For example if one fighter is dominant in wrestling and the other in striking,  2 judges will have 2 totally different scorecards because of their backgrounds as judges.  There is no real absolute barometer in MMA if the fight goes the full distance.  

I think this has 2 effects - the wildly inconsistent scoring is one.  But it makes the smarter/better fighters work harder to finish the bout without waiting for the scorecard.  

There is also the un-spoken but true concept of "favorites".  If a guy is the reigning champ, if he's on a winning streak, if he's popular, if the crowd reacts to him...the judges tend to lean that way (unfortunately).  Lastly, damage to your opponent is considered.  A lot of times the person who takes less obvious damage is declared the victor of a given round, regardless of strike count or grappling exchanges.  

It's really subjective on the part of the judges, but the main thing is who they think did a better job - who controlled the other guy, who damaged the other guy, who imposed their will on the other guy.  

Hope that helps - it isn't a crystal clear explanation, but there is none!