Not sure that I agreed with all the 10-8 scores tonight but I'm glad they happened.

Dpro · 12-09-2012, 01:00 AM

I think 10-8, 10-7, 10-6 and so on should be used more regularly instead of 1/2 point systems people have brought up in the past. I must admit I was surprised to see so many tonight but if it became the norm I'm sure fights were one guy scrapes in two rounds by clinching along the cage, point fighting, lay and pray, etc would not piss people off so much if they still lose or draw by getting decisively beaten in the other round and getting a 10-8 or worse.
As I said today's scores surprised me but only because I think we don't usually see enough of them.

MRT · 12-09-2012, 01:17 AM

I was not pleased with the number of 10-8 rounds that were awarded, especially since most of them were borderline, at best (IMHO)

10-8 should be reserved for a CLEAR bell-to-bell tooling, with 10-7 being almost non-existent. 10-7 to me indicates that the guy should have finished the fight.

I had zero problems with the scoring, from what I saw (missed the FB fights and one prelim), but the number of 10-8 rounds handed out were ridiculous. I will have to rewatch a couple of fights, because I saw no 10-8 being necessary in either of the co-main events.

I realize this is my opinion, and not the actual criteria for scoring used by the commissions - I just think 10-8 should be rare, not so easily awarded.

Deadred2 · 12-09-2012, 01:21 AM

I think the 10-7 and 10-6 is really pushing it, that basically means a fighter could literally win the fight in the first round of a three round fight and then just coast to an easy victory which could make for a boring fight.

youngsteinel · 12-09-2012, 01:22 AM

I agree 100%. 10-9 should only be used for relatively close rounds. The way Bendo dominated Diaz was not a 50-45 performance. It was much more dominant than GSP/Koscheck for example.

Blayt7hh · 12-09-2012, 01:23 AM

Im of the opinion that the 10 point system doesn't belong in MMA period. In three rounds, it just doesnt accurately score a fight. it's great in boxing where fight are between 6 and 12 rounds, but in 3 rounds it just isnt up to the task

youngsteinel · 12-09-2012, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRT

I was not pleased with the number of 10-8 rounds that were awarded, especially since most of them were borderline, at best (IMHO)

10-8 should be reserved for a CLEAR bell-to-bell tooling, with 10-7 being almost non-existent. 10-7 to me indicates that the guy should have finished the fight.

I had zero problems with the scoring, from what I saw (missed the FB fights and one prelim), but the number of 10-8 rounds handed out were ridiculous. I will have to rewatch a couple of fights, because I saw no 10-8 being necessary in either of the co-main events.

I realize this is my opinion, and not the actual criteria for scoring used by the commissions - I just think 10-8 should be rare, not so easily awarded.

Why do you think they should be rare? There is a big distinction between what Bendo did to Nate and what GSP did to Koscheck, yet they read the same on the scorecards.

Dpro · 12-09-2012, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadred2

I think the 10-7 and 10-6 is really pushing it, that basically means a fighter could literally win the fight in the first round of a three round fight and then just coast to an easy victory which could make for a boring fight.

You could be right but I think in most cases if a guy dominates that much in the first round he'll probably be confident enough to keep it up. I just feel if a 10-9 is for close rounds there needs to be a bigger distinction for the not so close ones. It's going back a little I know but Rampage v Machida is a classic example of one guy getting two very close rounds and losing the only definitive round yet still winning (plenty more examples, but that popped into my head first) whereas if 10-8,10-7, etc were used more freely that fight would have been a draw at worst.

Magnum1978 · 12-09-2012, 03:53 AM

the unified system is a shambles. Even with 'consistent' 10-9, 10-8's (which wouldn't happen), it still reeks. The criteria are screwed, and the arbitrary 'this is a 10-9' this is a '10-8' which cannot be agreed to by anyone and just adds to the problem. Scoring round by round for such limited round fights (3 rounds), is beyond stupid and unduly influences and changes the way fighters fight. Especially when rounds are on a knife edge and fighters do things against the flow of the fight (like try a takedown and run the clock with 30 seconds to go in a round that's just been standup) for the no purpose other than judging in order to 'steal' the round. Its obnoxious and assists in making a fight more of a 'technical competition for points'

MMA fights need to be scored "overall" (this isn't a technical competition like boxing) with a logical criteria that aligns to the spirit of FIGHTING - MMA is fighting ... that is the way to go.

crowded · 12-09-2012, 04:06 AM

We need more draws. Winning should be clear cut.

cluegoo** · 12-09-2012, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngsteinel

Why do you think they should be rare? There is a big distinction between what Bendo did to Nate and what GSP did to Koscheck, yet they read the same on the scorecards.

Nate went for subs, kos was a dumb punching bag who should have quit after the second round to spare himself damage, you have it the wrong way round.

We should see more 10-10 rounds rather than 10-8s you can win two coin toss rounds but lose decisively in the other but still win the fight without ever really doing anything. If you are in the position to get 10-8s you probably will be winning the fight anyway, its the guys who should be having 10-10s who are losing unfairly. Fights should be judged as a whole no question.