Scoring Aggression and Control

By now, nearly all MMA fans should be familiar with the scoring criteria for mixed martial arts fights: effective striking, effective grappling, aggression and Octagon (or cage) control. What isn’t always so clear is exactly how these elements are scored. You can read the judging criteria for specific athletic commissions to see how fights *should* be scored, but the disparity in scoring by judges shows that everyone has their own philosophy on how to score fights.

Effective striking is easy enough to score (in theory), and grappling is not so bad, either. Sure, with grappling there are questions such as whether an attempted submission should be worth something or whether a submission escape negates the attempt. There are also questions about whether a takedown should be worth anything, whether it should be negated by standing back up or sweeping your opponent, and where guard passes or other improvements to positioning should factor in. Still, the two categories that I think are often misinterpreted are aggression and control.

Now, let’s look at Saturday’s fight between Anthony Pettis and Clay Guida. I personally don’t think round two was as clearly won by Guida as many seem to, and I may have been inclined to give it to Pettis if I had been scoring the fight. Aggression is a huge reason for that.

When most people think of aggression, they think of someone like Guida. Always moving forward, pinning your opponent against the cage, relentlessly working for takedowns, striking whenever possible, right? What about what Pettis did off of his back, though? Throughout their fight and especially in round two, Pettis not only struck off of his back (Guida admitted after the fight that Pettis’ strikes from the bottom were effective, by the way) but attempted submissions. If I may venture into near-troll territory for a second, contrast this to Guida’s go-to offense of performing little two- to three-inch shoulder shots to his downed opponent.

When I think of aggression, I think of trying to finish the fight. Jabs are legitimate punches, but are they as aggressive as a hook? Similarly, is posturing up and throwing shots to your opponent’s body as aggressive as a submission attempt, which is an attempt to finish the fight immediately? How many times in the second round did Guida actually attempt to do anything that could have reasonably been expected to finish the fight? Aren’t submission attempts more aggressive by their very nature than pushing your opponent to the cage or settling into the guard after a takedown attempt without throwing power punches or improving your position?

That’s why I gave aggression to Pettis through most of the fight, and I’m disappointed to know that many would not have done the same thing. Aggression is often misunderstood as “staying busy” when it is anything but. Aggression should be attempting to finish the fight, and that’s that. Power punches and kicks, attempts to improve position on the mat, submission attempts, etc.

What about control? The problem with control is that it always has the word “Octagon” (or outside of the UFC, “cage”) in front of it. This leads people to think that a quarter of the judging criteria should be awarded to the fighter who takes the center of the cage during the standup or who clinches his opponent or takes him down. Should those techniques be weighed that heavily, or should they be a means to an end?

Control should be about keeping your opponent from doing what he or she wants to do, period. Now, when Guida took down Pettis, he was exhibiting control. Once they were on the mat, though, who was in control most of the time, particularly in the second round? Pettis. He had wrist control, preventing Guida from throwing punches or elbows. He kept Guida in his guard, allowing himself chances to focus on fight ending submissions. If that’s not control, what is?

The ugly side of control is that it allows fighters to win entire rounds based upon forcing their opponent against the cage and holding him there for minutes at a time. We saw that in round two for the first three minutes, but what did Guida really accomplish during that time? He avoided the fight and kept Pettis against the cage, but did that provide him with an advantage that allowed him to strike or work towards an advantageous position? No.

The second round went to Pettis in my book largely because Guida did nothing in the first three minutes of the round. Sure, if the referee refused to force any action and let Guida lean on Pettis for five rounds, there’d be no way to give Pettis the round, regardless of your thoughts about the strategy. However, those three minutes are worth so little to me that winning an exchange or two on the feet instantly swung the round in Pettis’ favor at that point.

That’s how I think it should be. I like Clay Guida, but I don’t like the strategy of “grinding away” the fight. I think the reason why this strategy works is that the scoring criteria are not used as they ought to be. Takedowns and clinches should be the means to something, not the end result. If you can’t do anything with the position and your opponent is threatening and/or controlling you, how is it that you can win that round?

E-Mail Jon Hartley

Tags: Anthony Pettis, Clay Guida, horrible judging, UFC