The current state of judging in Mixed Martial Arts has raised a variety of discussion on how the current system needs an overhaul.

In hopes to generate some discussion, and hopefully some change to the judging criteria listed under the Unified Rules Of MMA ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ), Part One ( http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2009/11/04/showdown_judging/ ) and Part Two ( insert link) examined the following:

Replacing the Ten Point must system with singular points ( and newly suggested definitions ) for “Effective Striking”, “Effective Grappling” and “Ring / Cage Generalship”, while Part II focused on “Effective Aggressiveness”, “Effective Defense”, “Intelligent Defense” and more.

In Part III, I’ll offer up my suggestions on what the Unified Rules of MMA list as “Objective Scoring Criteria”, which defines how a judge scores a 10-10, 10-9, 10-8 and 10-7 round.

Note: In bold, is what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of MMA.

19) OBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA:

10-10 Round

A) When both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round.

A 10-10 round is a rarity and this is simply due to the fact that there is always one fighter who did at least “one” thing to steal the round. Show me a 10-10 round, and I’ll show you a 10-9 winner.

B) When both contestants suffer equal numbers of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes and neither shows clear dominance in a round.

Again, show me a fight where two fighters had an “equal number of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes”, and I am confidant that I can still determine a winner of that round.

10-9 Round

A) When a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers.

B) When a contestant remains in the guard position with no fighter having an edge in striking or grappling, the fighter who scored the legal takedown wins the round.

While I can concur with the term definitions, I still find it difficult to award a fighter 10 points and the other 9 points based on not doing 10 things / items. Read on for my suggestions on what may be a solution to effectively score an MMA fight.

10-8 Round

A) When a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

B) When a contestant adversely affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.

Same as my point above, yet a 10-8 round simply shows dominance by one fighter, rewarding him bonus points that may not be necessary.

10-7 Round

A) When a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

B) When a contestant detrimentally affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.

Show me a 10-7 round, and I can likely make the case that the referee should have stopped the fight.

Time for a  Change

When you combine the 10-point boxing scoring system with the fact that most MMA judges come from the “sweet science” and do not understand the vast majority of what makes up a Mixed Martial Arts fight, you have a recipe for disaster, or dare I say, the current state of affairs the sport is in right now.

First and foremost, I believe that every judge who is licensed by a commission MUST be certified first, and possess a thorough understanding of the aspects that make up MMA. Again, please have a look at what is depicted in the C.O.M.M.A.N.D. course ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ) to see what I am referring to.

On a very basic scale, when judging an MMA fight, I simply draw a line in the middle of a page; the left side designed for “Fighter A” and the right side for “Fighter B”.

I will then place ticks for every EXCHANGE that is won by a fighter, whether it is one punch that is thrown, or a flurry met with counter punch that rocks the fighter who threw more punches. I judge based on Quality of strikes landed, as opposed to quantity of punches thrown.

I definitely place a tick for any “real” submission attempts ( i.e. locking in an arm bar, choke, and/or forcing an opponent to defend or stall ).

I will also place a tick for a successful takedown attempt, as that is dictating where the fight is going and showing ring / cage generalship.

(Do I reward an opponent who continues to attempt takedowns, but is thwarted off with excellent takedown defense? My answer is “no”, but I do keep it in mind if at the end of the round, should both fighters have an equal amount of ticks. I generally make a decision not on the failure of the takedown attempt, but on the fact of how long was the defending fighter fending off the takedown attempt. If it was a quick sprawl, where he then circled away, neither fighter is awarded. But, if a fighter was defending a single leg attempt and was trapped against the cage for a minute or so, defending the takedown, I will consider that. To me, he is defending and thus, the fighter who eventually failed the takedown attempt should be considered with a tick for ring / cage generalship, as he was attempting an offensive move, which in the end, is trying to advance the fight to a finish.)

At the end of the round, whoever has the most ticks, wins the round. The winner gets a “one” the loser gets a “zero”. As opposed to make it to 10-9, it’s a 1-0 round. What we see today is a fighter winning 29-28, but what does that really mean? It means a fighter won 2 rounds to 1. So I’d rather see it simply labeled that way. Why confuse something that should be so simple? 49-46 should be 4-1…that’s it.

I would also recommend that the judges scoring of each round be made public, on display within the venue and broadcast, so everyone is aware of what the scores are going into each round. When a fighter and his camp know what the score is going into each round, you can rest assured the losing fighter will likely pick up the pace to try and win the round or finish off his opponent.

Now, I am not at all suggesting that this Three Part Series is a bullet proof, perfect scoring system, but I do believe it is a better way of scoring an MMA bout.

Your thoughts and suggestions are definitely welcomed. I am all eyes and ears, provided it is a step forward in the right direction.

In hopes to generate some discussion, and hopefully some change to the judging criteria listed under the Unified Rules Of MMA ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ), Part One ( http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2009/11/04/showdown_judging/ ) examined the following:

Replacing the Ten Point must system with singular points ( and newly suggested definitions ) for “Effective Striking”, “Effective Grappling” and “Ring / Cage Generalship”.

In Part II, I offer up suggestions on “Effective Aggressiveness”, “Effective Defense”, “Intelligent Defense” and much more.

Note: In bold, is what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of MMA.

4) “Effective Aggressiveness”: Moving forward and setting the tempo of the contest while effectively scoring with legal strikes, takedowns, and submissions while blocking the opponents counters.

In essence, this is what MMA (and all combat sports) should strive to score their bouts on. The only qualm I have is “while blocking the opponents counters”. I have never been a fan of defense, nor do I believe it should be rewarded with points, as it does not end fights. It protects from receiving damage, Yes, but it does not end fights. Counter Punching, Counter Kicking and Counter Attacks end fights…not defense.

5) “Effective Defense”: Successful avoidance or defense of blows and submissions by which an opponent is made to miss by definite maneuvers. However, one who demonstrates these skills must also strike effectively to positively influence the judges’ scoring.

It is my belief that this should be removed from MMA judging altogether. As I mentioned above, I do not necessarily agree with awarding defense. It’s a fight, so a fighter should try to end a fight with offence and not be awarded for defense.

Case and point: In his UFC 101 bout vs Forrest Griffin, Anderson Silva did not defeat Forrest Griffin with his defense; he defeated him with his offence. His immaculate display of bobbing, weaving and slipping of Griffin’s attacks assisted him to effectively apply his eye candy of an offense. The bobs, weaves and slips did not cause damage - Silva’s fists did, and that’s what ended the fight. If Forrest attacked all night, and Silva bobbed and slipped for the rest of the time, I would score the round for Forrest, as he is the one attacking and trying to end the fight.

To continue upon the current definition of “Effective Defense”, the statement “must also strike effectively to positively influence the judges’ scoring” refers, once again, to “offence”, so I would suggest it me removed from a term defining “Effective Defense”.

6) “Intelligent Defense”: An active defense that effectively neutralizes an opponent’s attack, particularly when the defender is mounted, either from the front or the back. An intelligent defense minimizes the potential for damage while providing the opportunity for taking back the offense.

Once again, we are awarding a fighter for defending, which in essence, is doing nothing to put an end to a fight. If “Fighter A” is in the turtle position, or has his back taken with “Fighter B’s” hooks both in, how can he be awarded any points for “intelligently defending” himself. Fighter B should be awarded the round as he was in a dominant position, controlling his Fighter A, while trying to put an end to the bout.

Again, awarding a fighter for defense, is simply not something I can agree with.

C) Scoring of the above techniques shall be given the most weight as follows:

1) Effective Striking
2) Effective Grappling
3) Octagon Control
4) Effective Aggressiveness/Defense

Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, grappling, octagon control and aggressiveness/defense.

This section should definitely be re-evaluated. Striking should not be given more weight than grappling or vice-versa. It’s an MMA fight, where at times, one fighter may be more of a grappling practitioner, while his opponent may come from a striking base. It almost seems as if the striker ( or strikers in general ) are already ahead on the judges scorecards before the bout even begins.

I would suggest this section be changed to reflect something to the effect of:

“Scoring of the above techniques shall be given the most weight as follows: Effective Aggressiveness, based on one, or a combination of effective striking or grappling, with the round being given to the fighter who displays a higher effectiveness in Ring / Cage Generalship, while working with the end of the fight in mind.”

D) Judges should use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the contestants are either standing or on the ground, as follows:

1) If 90% of a round was spent on the ground, then:

a) Effective Grappling is weighed first
b) Effective Striking is then weighed

Based on my own experience, research and in speaking with a variety of sources, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of judges simply are not qualified enough to understand the intricacies of what “effective grappling” truly is. From what I’ve seen in over a decade of being a part of this sport, most judges look at which fighter is doing the most “striking” on the ground, perhaps due to the fact that many of these judges come from a boxing background, where striking is paramount.

While I do genuinely believe that most judges know what an arm bar attempt is, as well as a rear naked choke, I cannot help but believe that most may have no idea what a Kimura or American is, unless the crowd begins roaring, signaling a judge to pay attention that something is going on here.

I harkin the aforementioned thoughts based on when I was certified by Big John McCarthy in is C.O.M.M.A.N.D. course. While my certification was geared towards “officiating”, the same criteria for judges is required, to understand a plethora of MMA techniques, positions and submissions. To see what I’m talking about, take a look at the list of over eight-five items that must be understood ( http://www.mmareferee.com/certs.htm ) to pass Big John’s course.

I seriously wonder how many judges know what a Von Flue choke is, or an Iranian Lift, what a “Half guard lock down” is or even what an “Electric Chair Sweep” does to an opponent.

If you cannot name, define or identify all of these techniques, should you really be licensed by a Commission to judge a fight? My answer is a definite and emphatic, “NO”.

2) If 90 % of a round was standing, then:

a) Effective Striking is weighed first
b) Effective grappling is then weighed

Similar to the above, what if four minutes and thirty seconds were spend standing and striking, yet for thirty seconds the fight was on the mat, where “Fighter A”, who didn’t exactly win the standup, nearly finishes “Fighter B”, with a rear naked choke?

I disagree with the criteria above, as the winner of the round should be defined as the one who came closest to finishing the fight, then coupled with who inflicted the most damage.

3) If a round ends with 50% standing and 50% grounded, striking and grappling are weighed more equally.

Having being a judge at various professional and amateur MMA events, knowing “exactly” what 50% is in a round is virtually impossible. I never once stood there and stared at a timer - I was too focused on scoring the round based on which fighter was winning the fight.

Again, where it says “grappling”, we are under the assumption that athletic commission licensed judges know what “grappling” is…the majority do not.

In Part III, I’ll offer up my suggestions on what the Unified Rules of MMA list as “Objective Scoring Criteria”, which defines how a judge scores a 10-10, 10-9, 10-8 and 10-7 round.

I will also offer up my final suggestions on how I believe Judging for MMA should be redefined and used in the sport.

Your thoughts and suggestions are definitely welcomed. I am hoping in the end, a new judging system for MMA can be defined so as to make it more modern and perhaps, more geared toward truly scoring an MMA bout as opposed to adopting a system based loosely around that of boxing.

It’s no secret that I believe the judging criteria in Mixed Martial Arts needs to be amended, and perhaps move away from the 10-Point Must system that was adopted from boxing.

Mixed Martial Arts is not boxing, so I am of the belief that the scoring of MMA bouts should reflect the sport and what is happening inside the ring or cage.

Over the next few days, I will break down what is currently in place, according to the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts ( http://www.mmareferee.com/faq.htm ), and offer up suggestions on how I would like to see the bouts judged.

In bold, is what is currently in place:

SCORING TECHNIQUES:

A) Using the 10-Point Must Scoring System; judges are required to determine a winner of a contest that ends after the Initial scheduled number of rounds have been completed. 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

The awarding of 10 points is something I have always found strange. If there were “ten” things, points of action or techniques that must be completed in the round, then I can understand getting ‘graded’ on a scale that results in a fighter achieving 10 points. In reality, it’s a fight, so I would much rather see rounds scored based on what a fighter did in that round ( in comparison to his opponent ), and award a score based on which fighter deserved to receive “points”. I’ll explain more…read on.

B) Mixed Martial Arts Techniques are defined as:

1) “Effective Striking”: The total number of legal heavy strikes landed

I do not have an major qualm with this description, but as I’ve said in the past, some consideration ( and proper training of judges ) should reflect and define “the winner of an exchange”.

Too often, fighters are rewarded with the number of strikes thrown ( quantity ) as opposed to being awarded for the “heavy strikes landed” (quality).

In preparing our Amateur MMA presentation to the Ontario Government, Terry Riggs ( manager to Carlos Newton ) and I sat down to define what we believed “effective striking” should reflect. Riggs made an exceptional point, and one that has stuck with me ever since. During an exchange, the winner should be defined as the one who “won the exchange”. If one fighter throws a five punches, but the other throws an incredible strike that was more of a “heavy strike”, he should be awarded that exchange. If there were five exchanges, where fighter “A” threw a total of five punches per exchange (total of 25) and fighter “B” only threw one per exchange ( total of 5 ), but all of fighter “B’s” punches were “heavy”, then he won all five exchanges, even though he through twenty fewer punches.

At the end of the round, I believe “one point” should be awarded to the fighter who demonstrated “effective striking”, and “zero” to the fighter who did not.

2) “Effective Grappling”: The successful execution of a legal takedown and/or reversal including the following maneuvers:

Takedowns are not grappling - they are “takedowns”. They are a part of a grappler’s arsenal but perhaps this should be removed from “effective grappling”, and left with “Octagon Control” ( listed below )

a) Takedowns from standing position to mount position

Remove mount position - there are fighters who do not need the mount position to be successful and can work well from within the guard, half guard, half mount, north-south, or even right to back control, with or without any hooks in. I believe this should be redefined as simply “effective takedowns and / or throws” and again, moved to “Octagon Control”.

b) Passing the guard to mount position;

While I agree a fighter does increase his chances of ending a fight if he can pass the guard, there are many fighters who do not need to do so to be successful. Perhaps redefine this to better reflect something to the effect of “damage within the guard” as well as “working to improve position”.

c) Bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.

I do not have any real issue with this term - but perhaps to improve upon it, a description that might state “Bottom position fighters using an active / threatening ground game”. Not all fights stay in guard - some end up in half-guard and can stay there for quite some time.

At the end of the round, “Effective Grappling” should be awarded a point to the winner and no point to the other fighter, based on working on the ground in attempt to finish off an opponent. Striking Damage vs Submission attempts should also be defined and weighed against one another to determine who should be awarded the point of “Effective Grappling”. If fighter “A” locked in an arm bar or triangle and fighter “B” was forced to defend for half the round, eventually survives, and works some ground and pound for the rest of the round, landing a plethora of punches but not causing “real damage”, who should be awarded the round? In my opinion, the fighter that should receive the “point” is the one who was closer to finishing off his opponent. In this case, I would score it for the fighter who attempted the submission attempts.

Now if the fighter who survived the submission attempts ends up punishing the other fighter with his ground and pound, one could make a case that he wins the round instead.

3) “Octagon Control”: Dictating the pace, location and position of the contest using the following maneuvers:

Not all fights are in the “octagon.” MMA bouts occur in a cage and ring as well. Perhaps “Ring / Cage Generalship” may be a better term?

a) Countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown to remain standing and legally striking effectively;

These are two separate techniques - it basically means that a fighter not only has to defend the takedown AND punish his opponent afterwards. Usually, a fighter will likely stifle his opponent’s offence with a sprawl, then circle out. Or perhaps a whizzer, under hook, overhook, then get out of dodge. I am of the opinion that “Countering a fighter’s attempt at a takedown, to remain standing” is a better definition.

b) Taking down an opponent to force a ground fight;

No issues at all with the above term.

c) Creating threatening submission attempts pass the guard to achieve mount, while on the ground;

This term should also be rewritten. Attempting a submission, passing the guard and achieving mount are three separate techniques.

Attempted submissions should be awarded as their intention is to end the fight; and that’s exactly what should be happening in a contest between two athletes.

Passing the Guard, achieving mount, half-mount, rear mount, or on the flipside, moving an opponent to cage (or even centre of ring / cage ), etc, are positional intricacies that are simply set-ups to move the action to a better location for fighter looking to finish the fight with either strikes or submissions. These all qualify as “octagon control” in my position and should be listed in the item below.

d) Creating striking opportunities, while on the ground.

As I mentioned above, controlling your opponent is crucial while on the ground and is an attempt to “begin” to end the fight.

In the end, “Ring / Cage Generalship” should be awarded to the fighter who demonstrated that he was dictating the pace, area and location of where the fight was taking place. Fighters should not necessarily be awarded for sprawling and avoiding takedowns, if they have done nothing else, like effective striking, etc. I would much rather award a fighter a point if he failed to takedown his opponent ten times, even if his opponent was successful with his defence, yet did nothing to try and end the fight.

In Part II, I’ll offer up my suggestions on what the Unified Rules of MMA list as “Effective Aggressiveness”, “Effective Defence”, “Intelligent Defence” and much more.

Your thoughts and suggestions are definetly welcomed. I am hoping in the end, a new judging system for MMA can be defined so as to make it more modern and perhaps, more geared toward truly scoring an MMA bout as opposed to adopting a system based loosely around that of boxing.

The aftermath from the controversial decision in the main event at UFC 104 continues to raise questions surrounding the judging that robbed Shogun Rua from his well deserved title win.

Public records will forever show that Rua lost the fight, but the reality is simple - he won a minimum of three rounds, and according to yours truly, I believe he won four rounds.

The fact the policies currently in place cannot change a decision from a loss to a victory, and at best, a “no contest”, is completely absurd.

Judges are human, they make mistakes, so why fighters who have been robbed of a decision have to suffer from an idiotic technicality that prevents their record from showing the truth is quite simply a travesty; all members of the Association of Boxing Commissions should throw away this archaic belief and do the right thing. Review all decisions that are controversial, and award the right fighter the victory.

As I sat octagon side with my producer and fellow media peers, I jotted down what each fighter was doing both offensively and defensively. In essence, I was breaking down the fight, moment by moment, to determine who won each round.

Based on my notes, and the overall feeling from being at arms length from each corner, it was completely evident that the tide of the fight quickly changed from the opening bell.

Shogun continued to pick up momentum, round by round, until in the end, it was completely obvious - he won the fight, fair and square and should have been awarded the UFC’s Light Heavyweight Championship.

According to my notes…

Machida wins round one, as he started with some excellent knees, defends two Shogun takedown attempts, is hit with Rua kick to the body, but closes the round off with a left cross / kick trip attempt.

In round two, Shogun begins to take over. Both fighters trade leg kicks, Machida lands a knee off a Rua takedown attempt but Shogun lands another crisp kick to the body. The action continues with Machida landing a left kick, but then Shogun makes him pay with a right kick, getting the clinch and wins the round, even though both fighters trade knees in the final seconds against the cage.

I also gave round three to Shogun. Machida does land a punch and kick early on, but Rua peppers the champ with multiple muay thai cut kicks and even winning an action packed exchange.

Round four was definitely Shogun’s, as he hurts Machida with knees, more kicks and a brutal left elbow. (Note: at the post fight press conference, Machida basically admits he was cruising in this round to save energy for the fifth round, yet, one judge inexplicably scores the round for Machida.)

The final round sees my short hand penmanship with the words “Shogun lands kick” multiple times. Add in a left punch and left elbow, and it was painfully obvious that Shogun won that round, and also the right to have his arms raised in victory.

The old adage that states “the challenger must take the belt away from the champion” is one that drives me insane. Facts are facts - according to FightMetric.com, Shogun won the fight, and this is the gold standard in scoring MMA bouts.

Taking a belt away from a champion is simply a poor way of looking at an overall fight. Score the fight the way it should be scored, based on who wins each exchange, as well as who did what to try and finish the fight.

Shogun did just that and today, should have the light heavyweight strap by his wayside. Machida is still a stud in my book, but his fellow countryman defeated him at UFC 104.

As for what the UFC, the ABC and everyone in between needs to do about the current state of judging (and officiating) in MMA? Don’t get me started!!

“MMA CONNECTED” Mon, Tues and Thurs at 11:30pm on Sportsnet.

Since our arrival to Los Angeles earlier this week, we have been running non-stop all across the State of California, let alone the City of Angeles.

Tuesday morning, we landed at LAX and hit the ground running to The Black House Gym, home to Lyoto Machida, Anderson Silva, the Nogueira brothers, Junior Dos Santos and Mark Munoz….just to name a few. 
Machida was there with his two brothers, as well as his father, who now goes out of his way to pick me out in a crowd. The founder of Machida Karate may appear to be a humble and kind soul but one look into his eyes and one can quickly see that he can probably still school his son in the cage.

Wednesday was spent in downtown LA, where we focused our attention on the UFC 104 media workouts, where we sat down with Joe Stevenson, Spencer Fisher, Cain Velasquez and Ben Rothwell.
While Velasquez was all business, his opponent was very laid back. Rothwell was joined by his wife who assisted with throwing Ben “under the bus” a few times, launching a tidal wave of laughter throughout the interview.

Fisher was in a reserved state when we commenced our conversation, and eventually loosened up. As for Joe Daddy, he was his typical comedic self, dropping witty and well crafted words of sarcasm that had us all in stitches.
At Thursdays pre-fight press conference, I caught up with Mauricio Shogun Rua, who appears calm before the storm. He is focused on proving all the naysayers wrong, and bring the title home to Curitiba, Brazil.

We also caught up with Dana White, who brought us all up to speed on the situations with Dan Henderson, Rampage Jackson, why he disliked the Simpson MMA episode so much as well as a plethora of other topics we will showcase on Monday’s epissode of “MMA Connected”.
Friday was an early start, as we had brunch and a sit down interview with both Shane Carwin then Brandon Vera, followed up by a visit from Dan Miller.

Carwin is very excited to take on Brock Lesnar at UFC 106, while Vera is training specific greco-roman techniques to neutralize his UFC 105 main event opponent, Randy “The Natural” Couture, while making the living legend pay for signing on the dotted line.
The highlight of the day, by far, was an exclusive interview with UFC owner, Lorenzo Fertitta, who shared with us some interesting thoughts on the business of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, as well as his relationship with company president Dana White.

Look for a special feature incorporating both Fertitta and White in an upcoming episode of “MMA Connected”, one which highlight not only their working relationship, but what motivates them to wake up in the morning and what the future holds for the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

“MMA CONNECTED” Mon, Tues and Thurs at 11:30pm on Sportsnet.

After seeing Henry Winkler at the airport in Toronto, our smooth flight got us to LA early enough that we were able to hit the ground running at make the twenty minute drive to Machida’s training facility, where a large entourage of media assembled to speak with the UFC’s Light Heavyweight Champion.

Lyoto, his two brothers, Father and others lined up for the press to ask questions of the champ, ranging from his preparation for his first title defence vs Shogun Rua, set for Saturday night, to one strange question, where “The Dragon” was asked if he was interested in following in the footsteps of UFC Hall of Famers Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn, and one day move over to the world of professional wrestling.

Machida smiled his way through many of the questions, as manager Ed Soares translated the majority of them, but it was definetly great to see (and hear) Lyoto’s growing command of the English language. He’s really coming along way and his dedication to being a true ambassador to the sport is paying dividends. He is beginning to remind of GSP - all class and always working his charm for the media.

Lyoto is not only acting like a seasoned veteran of the sport, but granted yours truly some extra time while he was doing some basic sparring with one of his brothers. We were first told that Machida would do some more sparring on the mats, where we would then record my stand ups for our Connected feature that will air on Wednesday. Then we found it, that the only sparring he would do was in the cage, and that he was getting ready to close shop. We rushed over to find a spot to quickly shoot, and as Machida was shutting it down, I asked if he minded doing one more round, and he immediately obliged.

“The Dragon” looks very smooth with his combinations  and appears very calm prior to his first title defence. When I asked him about the consistent backlash karate practitioners take for doing “katas” and that karate was perceived as a waste of time to infuse into one’s mma training, he smiled, and wanted to inform his critics that “karate was back”.

I also discussed Machida’s attacking strategy and ground game with UFC middleweight Mark Munoz, who also teaches wrestling at The Black House Gym. Munoz, who will be fighting Ryan Jensen at UFC 108, and I mutually agreed that trying to defend Machida’s attacks are extremely difficult, based on his stance, footwork, range and unorthodox striking combinations. In essence, he basically throws punches and kicks, that are simply not taught at your regular boxing, muay thai and mma gyms.

I also caught up with Chase Gormley, who will making his UFC debut on Saturday night vs heavyweight striker Stefan Struve. Gormley is a very intelligent wrestler, who is undefeated and someone who has the skills to really make some noise in the UFC’s heavyweight division.

Also in attendance was someone I have respected and looked up to for a very long time - Josh Gross, who currently writes for Sports Illustrated, and was formerly with Sherdog. Gross is arguably the gold standard in MMA Journalism, and one of only a handful of my peers who has been around the sport for over a decade, long before what many of us call “The Ultimate Fighter” generation. Before there was a TUF reality show, before there was Dana White and the current UFC, there were only a handful of fans and analysts working through the dark days of the UFC, when it was banned on pay per view…Gross is one of those pioneers, and also one who understands the sport from a fighter’s mind, their perspective, strategies and especially the business of the sport.

Finally, when I got the news that Big John McCarthy would not be working UFC 104, part of me was torn while the other simply knew it was just wishful thinking. Big John is not surprised that he did not get the assignment, but I am. I was hoping this would be the opening of a new chapter for the best referee in the sport, but alas, it will not happen this time around. Hopefully, soon enough, all the commissions, and the big show will come to terms that BJM deserves to not only be in there, but for the sake of the sport and the safety of the fighters, it’s just simply better to have him in there, than to have someone else officiating a bout, who simply does not have the knowledge that McCarthy has.

It has to be considered a must win for Team Rampage on tonight’s broadcast of The Ultimate Fighter - can they really start off the reality show 0-5?

If they do lose, the remaining three fighters left on their team would have to win eight of the next ten fights to come out victorious.

As we know, there are fifteen fights per Ultimate Fighter Season…they win tonight, they are on the right path. If they lose, there will be ten fights left, and only three guys left on Team Rampage that can pull it off. Unless fighters from Team Rashad get injured and can ONLY be replaced by members of Team Rampage, I do not like the chances of Quinton and Crew.

While I sit here and countdown the hours until tonight’s broadcast on Sportsnet, there are a whack of MMA stories making headlines that have caught my eye:

Chuck Liddell is dancing days are done ( http://abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars ). Well at least on “Dancing With The Stars”. For what it’s worth, I thought it was a great run for “The Iceman”. While I’ve been known to get my groove on (rarely), I give Liddell two thumbs up for trying to pull off some of those routines that I for one, would likely have no shot at executing.

After his controversial win over Donald Cerrone at WEC 43, newly crowned interim lightweight champion, Ben Henderson is likely going to be matched up with current champion, Jamie Varner in 2010 ( http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=9759&zoneid=13 ). If it was up to me, Henderson would be fighting Cerrone again, as I believe Cerrone won the fight 47-46. Henderson won rounds two and three, while Cerrone pulled off rounds four and five. It is the first round that has many of the MMA blogs and fans split down the middle.

It was definitely a tough one to call, but I gave it to Cerrone based on his submission attempts and near finishes over Henderson’s ground and pound. I tend to score bouts based on which fighter was closer to ending the fight (isn’t that the purpose of a fight?) and I believe Cerrone was far closer to ending the fight in round one than Henderson.

It looks like the Anderson Silva - Vitor Belfort title fight at UFC 108 is in jeopardy ( http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=9762&zoneid=13 ). Silva underwent arthroscopic surgery to his elbow on Monday, with Doctor’s noticing other damage they were unaware of. We will know more about the reality of this fight on Friday, after Silva goes for a “check-up” with his doctor, but when you have “The Spider” and his management disagreeing with Belfort as a title contender, I start getting visions of Silva’s performances over Patrick Cote and Thales Leites. The only difference here, is Belfort has serious speed that can potentially catch Silva if he starts messing around during their (potential) bout.

The UFC confirmed two of their December cards and I am pumped to see these bouts. First we have the confirmation of Jon “Bones” Jones vs Matt “The Hammer” Hammill in the main event of The Ultimate Fighter Ten Finale ( http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=news.detail&gid=23036 ) and second, the main event for UFC 107 in Memphis, featuring a lightweight title fight between BJ “The Prodigy” Penn and Diego “The Nightmare” Sanchez. UFC 107 also features a monstrous heavyweight bout between Frank Mir and Cheick Kongo, which was first reported right here on Sportsnet.ca.

Xtreme Couture in Las Vegas is always making news - some good and some not so good. First is that gym founder Randy Couture’s latest movie appearance in “The Expendables”, finally has a trailer for all of us to see ( http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php ). Second is the sad story of Xtreme Couture lightweight Junie Browning, who speaks for the first time since being arrested last week after assaulting three nurses, after trying to commit suicide ( http://www.rawvegas.tv/watch/junie-browning-issues-apology/f63e2bd61744b466c5fa9ed45b2c41 ). Lastly, we can remove the tag Xtreme Couture Coach from Shawn Tompkins, who has now migrated over to the TapouT gym in Vegas ( http://www.rawvegas.tv/watch/junie-browning-issues-apology/f63e2bd61744b466c5fa9ed45b2c41 ).

There is so much more MMA news out there, but this what I was reviewing during my morning coffee. I now look forward to lunch and dinner.

It will be two former UFC light heavy weight champions squaring off in the co-main event at UFC 106, as “The Huntington Beach Bad Boy”, Tito Ortiz is set to square off against Forrest Griffin, in a rematch from their bout at UFC 59, which Ortiz won via split decision.

Ortiz broke the news via his twitter on Thursday night, stating “So the match has been set!!!! Forrest vs Ortiz 2 live Nov 21st Las Vegas PPV. Let the Punishment begin!!!!”

This latter part of Ortiz’s statement will be likely be the first of many, as the former champion is a master and playing mind games, using various forms of trash talking in an attempt to get into his opponent’s head.

This will be Ortiz’s first fight in the octagon since May 24th, 2008, where he suffered a unanimous decision loss to Lyoto “The Dragon” Machida at UFC 84: ill Will.

Since that bout Machida went on to become the (current) UFC Light heavyweight champion, while Ortiz was engulfed in a bitter contract dispute with the UFC and forced to go under the knife, electing to have back surgery, a procedure he says has brought a renewed sense of life to his MMA game, as he is pain free for the first time in years.

Griffin, who is currently on his honeymoon, will be stepping in for Mark “The Hammer” Coleman, who was forced to withdraw from the bout with Ortiz after suffering a knee injury during training.

The former champion will be looking to rebound from a devastating loss at UFC 101 in August, suffered at the hands (and fists) of Anderson “The Spider” Silva, which saw Griffin immediately run from the octagon, even before the official decision was announced.

UFC 106 will be headlined by a heavyweight title fight between champion Brock Lesnar and challenger Shane Carwin, and is scheduled for Novenber 21st, at the Mandalay Bay Events Centre, in Las Vegas, Nevada.

“MMA CONNECTED” Mon, Tues and Thurs at 11:30pm on Sportsnet.

The long awaited Dream 11 Card finally came to be. It was a long time coming for yours truly as there were so many bouts with so many of my favourites on this card. Joachim Hansen, a sentimental favourite due to his ties with my own MMA family here in the Greater Toronto Area, Tatsuya Kawajiri - who I would love to see fight BJ Penn, and of course, Kazushi Sakuraba…one of the greatest MMA fighters of all time.

Let’s get to the bouts in chronological order:

Featherweight Grand Prix Reserve Bout: Kazuyuki Miyata vs DJ. Taiki

The winner of this bout would be placed on stand by reserve, with hopes to fight in the finals, should one of the semi-finalist winners be unable to compete.

Miyata’s first takedown attempt from the clinch was very well executed, as he transitioned to the rear mount. He started working for a “twister” and lucky for Taiki, he saw it coming. If he didn’t keep his head flat on the mat and stopped Miyata’s left arm from reaching around, the fight would have ended very quickly.

Miyata’s wrestling and positional control was excellent. He’s left knees to the body while inside Taiki’s half-guard were awesome. Miyata ended the first round by passing to side, getting mount, pounding Taiki from the top until he was able to gain his back and close of the round with some bombs.

In round two, Miyata starts with a strong left knee and left hook, followed by another left hook and double leg takedown. Sort of reminded me of how GSP took Penn down in their third or fourth round at UFC 94. He tried to ground and pound his way to victory but to no avail. They eventually get stood up and after another Miyata takedown, Taiki secures a tight guillotine, but Miyata escaped.

With forty seconds left, Miyata lands a suplex and is caught in Taiki’s guard. Both guys end the round swinging leather at each other.

Winner: Kazuyuki Miyata via unanimous judges decision

Featherweight Semi-Final Bout: Hiroyuki Takaya vs Hideo Tokoro

Both guys came out very intense and focused, with Tokoro beig far more precise with his attacks, that is, until Takaya lands an excellent three punch combo just over two mins in. The tide appears to be changing and Tokoro shoots in, but Takaya sprawls and brushes him off.

By the midway point of the first round, Takaya is in complete control, landing hard punches that are hurting Tokoro. He punishes Tokoro in every facet of the game. He stuffs a takedown and makes him pay with knees, leg kicks and when they are standing, more punches and knees. A few Takaya punches land around Tokoro’s left ear and you could just see the damage they caused.

After Tokoro landed a few of his own, he decides to pull guard, and pays a serious price, with Takaya pounding up out bigtime, to close off the first frame. Round one goes to Takaya

The second round was a disaster for Tokoro. A left hand from Takaya drops him and subsequent punches finish off his night. Takaya advances to the finals.

Winner: Hiroyuki Takaya via TKO

Featherweight Semi-Final Bout: Joe Warren vs Bibiano Fernandes

Although he is only 2-0, Joe Warren arrived at DREAM 11 as the favourite to win the tourney. Standing in his way en route to the finals, was Bibiano Fernandes, a veteran of seven professional fights and one whose record lists only two losses; defeats to the highly ranked Urijah Faber and Kid Yamamoto. Originally from Brazil, Fernandes now resides in Langley, BC and is one of the star instructors at Revolution Martial Arts.

Ironically enough, it was Warren who defeated Yamamoto in just his second fight, so on paper, he should be able to outlast Fernandes, but that was not the case.

As the fight begins, both guys immediately clinch with Warren getting the takedown, but Fernandes able to get back to his feet. Warren eventually comes in for another takedown and with Fernandes jumping to guard, Warren slams him down to the mat.

With his left arm posted on Fernandes torso, he begins to rain down punches, but Fernandes uses Warren’s arm as a tool to spin around an lock in a lightning fast arm bar that ends the bout in a flash. Controversy ensues as Warren stated he did not tap, with Fernandes losing his marbles, storming out of the ring.

Regardless, the transplanted Brazilian-Canadian earns a right to fight Hiroyuki Takaya in the finals.

Winner: Bibiano Fernandes via arm bar

Super Hulk Tournament Semi-Final Bout: Hong Man Choi vs Ikuhisa Minowa

Minowaman, who has the unfortunate history of being part of some of the most historic MMA bouts where he was outweighed by nearly double, was paired up against a giant, in Hong Man Choi.

Minowaman starts with a shoulder roll (there’s a shocker) and begins to size up the distance between he and Choi. At one point he runs away from Choi and performs one of his acrobatic rolls in hopes to catch Choi’s leg for a leg lock or at least to get the fight to the mat. Choi has none of it and wanted to keep the fight standing.

After a couple of instances where both fighters do end up on the ground, they stand up and Minowama shuffles his fists forward, to which Choi mocks him back by doing the same thing. The crowd laughs but I’m glad the referee informed both of them to “fight”.

Minowaman lands a stiff overhand right that Choi responds with a nice knee to the face, but Minowaman secures the takedown and gets into side control. He ground and pounds but does not cause enough damage so the referee stands them up.

The next few minutes are spent with Choi picking apart his smaller opponent. There is an actual classic moment where after being on the mat, Minowaman stands up and trades punches, with Hong, who is on his knees - they were nearly the same height. The first round closes out with both fighters visibly gassed and in desperate need to catch their breath.

Round two starts off slow until Minowaman gets the fight to the ground and eventually a scramble ensues, where he turns Choi onto his back, while securing his left leg underneath his right arm. He eventually transitions to heel hook finishing off the giant and securing himself a birth in the finals.

Winner: Ikuhisa Minowa via heel hook

Super Hulk Tournament Semi-Final Bout: Ramaeu Thierry Sokoudjou vs Bob Sapp

Sapp starts off strong, but Sokoudjou eventually gets the takedown. He lands in side control and begins the ground and pound. It didn’t take long for Sokoudjou to finish of “The Beast”, whose ground game is, well, never was.

The one disturbing factor in this bout was Sokoudjou’s continued punching of Sapp, even after the bout was stopped by the referree. He did the same thing in his bout with Jan Nortje. As much as I like Sokoudjou, he should be fined heavily for that.

He now moves onto the finals of the tournament, and will take on Minowaman, New Year’s Eve at Dynamite!

Winner: Sokoudjou via TKO

Kazushi Sakuraba vs Ruben Williams

Sakuraba, an MMA legend, who at this point is past the twilight of his career, was matched up against Ruben Williams, a pro-boxer making his MMA debut.

The Japanese icon immediately started throwing leg kicks, which immediately frustrated Williams…he almost looked confused that Sakuraba was allowed to do that in a fight. Sakuraba intelligently confuses Williams until he eventually goes for an ankle pic, transitions to a single leg, gets the takedown and immediately gets side control.

At this point, it’s a cat playing with a mouse as Sakuraba lands punches and knees while setting up an arm bar. He then starts playfully slapping Williams on the head and back, more or less to keep the American guessing as to what’s next.

What’s next is not an arm bar, but a Kimura on William’s right shoulder…I wonder if this was his easiest professional victory to date?

Winner: Kazushi Sakuraba via Kimura

Tatsuya Kawajiri vs. Melchor Manibusan

This was an obvious mismatch, something very typical to matchmakers in Japan. On paper, Manibusan was simply no match for Kawajiri.

To his credit, Manibusan starts of strong, throwing bombs and backing Kawajiri into the corner. The Japanese lightweight, nicknamed “The Crusher” eventually reverses him and takes him down to the mat. He lands in half guard and after a minute or so, passes to side control and immediately transitions to mount.

I look at my watch and start counting backwards from 60 seconds…as the ground and pound begins, it’s just a matter of time. Kawajiri pounds his way to victory in a bout that should have been stopped much sooner by the ref. Manibusan had no answer and could not escape. He covered up and that is the only answer he had. Late stoppage but an easy workout for Kawajiri.

Unfortunately, this does nothing for his rankings in the lightweight division but simply keeps him in line for a crack at the Dream Lightweight Title, and face the winner of tonight’s title fight between champion Joachim Hansen and Shinya Aoki.

Winner: Tatsuya Kawajiri via TKO

Dream Lightweight Championship Match: Joachim Hansen vs Shinya Aoki 

The long awaited lightweight championship match between Hansen and Aoki has been one many of the hardcore MMA fans have had circled on their calendars for a very long time.

The bout saw both guys on the ground, with Aoki controlling from the top. Hansen kept the Japanese submission wizard humble though, with a slick arm bar attempt, a barrage of elbows and up kicks, one of which hit Aoki in the groin, halting the bout.

With seconds left in the final round, Hansen was trapped by an Aoki arm bar attempt The champion had to be careful as to which way he moved, as a wrong decision would see Aoki potentially finish the fight.

And that he did - Aoki locks in the arm bar, earning himself the title, as the new Dream Lightweight Champion. Here’s hoping Hansen now drops down to featherweight.

Winner: Shinya Aoki via arm bar.

Featherweight Finals: Bibiano Fernandes vs. Hiroyuki Takaya

This was a spirited affair with both fighters going back and forth landing various punches and laying it all on the line. Takaya nailed Fernades with a left hook that split the Brazilian open. It did not matter as Fernandes kept pushing forward engaging in any slugfest that Takaya was offering.

It appeared as if Takaya was getting the upper hand, but ironically enough, the Japanese judges were split on their decision.

It was a razor thin choice to make, but in the end, Bibiano Fernandes had two judges on his side, and was awarded the victory, earning himself the title as the winner of the DREAM 11 Featherweight Grand Prix Tournament Champion

Winner: Bibiano Fernandes via split decision

UFC Light-heavyweight Krzysztof “The Polish Experiment” Soszynski will have to undergo elbow surgery to clean out bone chips from his right elbow.

The surgery is set for Wednesday, October 14th, and will sideline the Canadian for a period of four to six weeks.

The injury was aggravated during his last bout in the octagon when he lost a tough decision to Brandon “The Truth” Vera at UFC 102 in Portland, Oregon.

This may be a blessing in disquise for Soszynski, who will use the time off to ease all the other battle wounds that come from MMA training (and fighting) considering he has taken his fair share of fights on short notice. With the surgery and recovery time required, fans of the Team Quest fighter can rest assured that when he does return to the octagon, he will likely be as fresh as ever.

As for when will “The Polish Experiment” expects to make his return to the octagon? He hopes to be “back in the cage in January or February”.