The scorecards in MMA bouts have been under fire recently. In such a varied and unpredictable sport, determining a winner on points is far easier said than done. That’s why, in the earliest days of the UFC, winners were decided only by knockout or submission. Neither Michael Bisping nor Dominick Cruz is ever short of an opinion, and of course it didn’t take long for the commentary team to weigh in on the issue.
Cruz commended Sean Woodson’s defensive work against Youssef Zalal: “He’s keeping Zalal on his heels and he’s stuffing the takedowns, it’s a much different fight by this third round than it was in the first.”
Bisping vs Cruz… on MMA Rules
Bisping pointed out the great paradox of MMA judging: “It’s just interesting to know how the judges score it when somebody’s trying to take you down against the fence and you’re defending. Because on one hand they may say they are controlling the octagon, they’re controlling the action. But, for my money, Woodson’s stopping him from achieving what he wants, which is getting the takedown.”
Bisping continued: “Well, at the end of the day, we’re trying to damage our opponent, it’s as simple as that.”
It’s not surprising that two former UFC champions would have so much to say about the ruleset. Both know what they’re talking about, both from a fan’s perspective and as athletes.
But who was right in this instance? The Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts don’t care at all about defensive nous when it comes to scoring:
“MMA is an offensive based sport. No scoring is given for defensive maneuvers. Using smart, tactically sound defensive maneuvers allows the fighter to stay in the fight and to be competitive.”
In other words, Woodson gets no points for defending takedowns. Staying on his feet is its own reward because it allows him to rack up his own points. It prevents Zalal from completing his successful offense.
The logic behind this seems to be making MMA a more exciting sport to watch. For years, fight fans complained that Floyd Mayweather was boring to watch. Too defensive, not chaotic enough. By only rewarding offensive maneuvers, the MMA rules attempt to discourage that approach in the Octagon. Michael Bisping was absolutely correct in prioritising damaging the opponent. The MMA rules reward aggression, not reticence.
In the end, Woodson wound up defeating Zalal by decision. Woodson’s higher strike rate and two submission attempts won him the bout, not his defensive nous.
Who do you think was right? Should defensive ability be more heavily rewarded in the Octagon, or are the current rules enough to encourage exciting, aggressive fight strategies?
Remember to stay up to date with the latest news on TheOvertimer. Don’t forget to visit Gamestingr for great videos, news, and gameplay!
