Issuing a 6th round for title fights that result in a draw or split

[Irishwhiskey119]

The sport is in a good place. I wouldn't say "fix refereeing and judging" because a lot of the time, it's relatively fair. Yes we do get the odd anomolies, and we can have a bitch and moan about them when they come up.

To TS, at the end of the day, some fights are just that close

What?!?!

Reffing and Judging are FUCKED. You need your gauge re-calibrated, boy.

 

[Foppa21]

What?!?!

Reffing and Judging are FUCKED. You need your gauge re-calibrated, boy.

There are good and bad refs as the same as judges. The criteria is somewhat fair, though I still wish the previously proposed half point system was in place rather than more 10-8s being given out. The commissions making poor appointments is not a sign that the system is broken though it is by no means perfect.

Pray tell, how are reffing and judging fucked and what do you suggest is done about it, boy?

 

[Irishwhiskey119]

There are good and bad refs as the same as judges. The criteria is somewhat fair, though I still wish the previously proposed half point system was in place rather than more 10-8s being given out. The commissions making poor appointments is not a sign that the system is broken though it is by no means perfect.

Pray tell, how are reffing and judging fucked and what do you suggest is done about it, boy?

The system is without question broken and i've already posted long posts about it in the past. Not doing that now.

I'll sum it up by referees influenced by crowds which is HIGHLY HIGHLY unprofessional and they also stop fights too early consistently. For judging there is a true proper way to score a fight and you must give a value to each action / dominant physical action in the cage with weight % tied to each. Strong strikes rocking the opponent weighing the heaviest but you need to give value to sweeps, clinch offense, sub attempts, etc etc with clear consistent value in each fight.

Right now there is way too much wiggle room for judges to fly off the handle with bias and not follow the rules that are listed in the rule book.

There is A FUCK TON of improvement that still needs to be made, boy.

 

[MPD-Psycho]

No, the overtime concept won't work with pro-wrestling style PPV model, especially with some sport bars that close at 1 AM est.

 

[Foppa21]

The system is without question broken and i've already posted long posts about it in the past. Not doing that now.

I'll sum it up by referees influenced by crowds which is HIGHLY HIGHLY unprofessional and they also stop fights too early consistently. For judging there is a true proper way to score a fight and you must give a value to each action / dominant physical action in the cage with weight % tied to each. Strong strikes rocking the opponent weighing the heaviest but you need to give value to sweeps, clinch offense, sub attempts, etc etc with clear consistent value in each fight.

Right now there is way too much wiggle room for judges to fly off the handle with bias and not follow the rules that are listed in the rule book.

There is A FUCK TON of improvement that still needs to be made, boy.

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely because the system is evolving. Point me to a post will you, I'm keen to read your insights.

Yep, I agree some of the criteria needs to be tightened however because it is judging by a it's definition they are making a choice on who they felt won the fight via the criteria given upon them. Again, poor appointments by the commissions (those that are not able or qualified to judge etc) is a commission problem and they need to sort that out. Same with refs.

The biggest thing I want to see added is the word "damage" being added to scoring criteria. I think we're at a point where we can without any political fallout. I think the strong strikes are measured but one has to look at the whole round (FWIW, I gave the round where GSP got domed vs Condit to GSP. For the huge knockdown, I still felt that with the take down and work thereafter, he overtook Condit that round is that's the right word). The downside with damage is that it very much favours strikers (same as defined in Pride judging, it's very hard to get a guy's arm to dangle from a armbar to signify grappling damage).

On consistent value of exchanges, how would you do it? Along with a half point system, Doc Nelson also proposed a grappling type scoring. I hated that thought. Listen to the jiu jitsu guys whine about point fighters and I think you'll have a half decent idea that the excitement of the matches will likely drop (may be wrong with mma, but we'll never know until it happens, if it does).

I have wondered for years what judges sit down it under the 10 point must. I compare it to Matt Hume who (allegedly as it wasn't verified beyond him saying it in interviews) used to sit down with a note pad and two stopwatches during Pride matches he judged. He would note down actions from earlier in the rounds to remind himself what happened to he wasn't skewed by late round rallies and worked his stopwatches in a chess clock like manner (who had control by his judging) so he definitively knew. I wonder if the current judges (albeit under a different ruleset) are doing the same or have their own system to keep track.

At this point on, I'm also going to cease with the name calling.

 

[cevo]

NO.

A 6th round for a split? So what happens when that split becomes a draw? A 7th round?

Water with crocodiles around the cage and no time limit imo

 

[Irishwhiskey119]

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely because the system is evolving. Point me to a post will you, I'm keen to read your insights.

Yep, I agree some of the criteria needs to be tightened however because it is judging by a it's definition they are making a choice on who they felt won the fight via the criteria given upon them. Again, poor appointments by the commissions (those that are not able or qualified to judge etc) is a commission problem and they need to sort that out. Same with refs.

The biggest thing I want to see added is the word "damage" being added to scoring criteria. I think we're at a point where we can without any political fallout. I think the strong strikes are measured but one has to look at the whole round (FWIW, I gave the round where GSP got domed vs Condit to GSP. For the huge knockdown, I still felt that with the take down and work thereafter, he overtook Condit that round is that's the right word). The downside with damage is that it very much favours strikers (same as defined in Pride judging, it's very hard to get a guy's arm to dangle from a armbar to signify grappling damage).

On consistent value of exchanges, how would you do it? Along with a half point system, Doc Nelson also proposed a grappling type scoring. I hated that thought. Listen to the jiu jitsu guys whine about point fighters and I think you'll have a half decent idea that the excitement of the matches will likely drop (may be wrong with mma, but we'll never know until it happens, if it does).

I have wondered for years what judges sit down it under the 10 point must. I compare it to Matt Hume who (allegedly as it wasn't verified beyond him saying it in interviews) used to sit down with a note pad and two stopwatches during Pride matches he judged. He would note down actions from earlier in the rounds to remind himself what happened to he wasn't skewed by late round rallies and worked his stopwatches in a chess clock like manner (who had control by his judging) so he definitively knew. I wonder if the current judges (albeit under a different ruleset) are doing the same or have their own system to keep track.

At this point on, I'm also going to cease with the name calling.

Yea i like a lot of your thoughts but the problem with damage is that some fighters skin breaks easier than others and fighters shouldn't be given an advantage based on thinner or thicker skin. Should be on accurate and forceful impacts but yea you said it in the beginning of your post it's evolving and needs work and improvement. We can't accept poor results just because they set the bar so low prior.

I'll try and find the post but it was like a year ago.

 

[Foppa21]

Yea i like a lot of your thoughts but the problem with damage is that some fighters skin breaks easier than others and fighters shouldn't be given an advantage based on thinner or thicker skin. Should be on accurate and forceful impacts but yea you said it in the beginning of your post it's evolving and needs work and improvement. We can't accept poor results just because they set the bar so low prior.

I'll try and find the post but it was like a year ago.

Fair enough. Again, we're seeking a perfect system where perfection doesn't exist.

That's true but I think there's no other way. It's like punching the dumb guy that never ever flinches or just sits down and takes it and like you said, whose skin never breaks. You can count the punches but then force. if a guy is plain tougher, they puncher may not get any credit for it etc etc.

Agreed. But that's a commission thing. At times they've made very poor judge/ref choices OR their pool is too small. I can almost accept point 2 (though it should be growing every day IMO) but point 1, they gotta just be plain unemployed until they come up to scratch. Some people have a bad day, but multiple bad days? Not acceptable.

 

[Irishwhiskey119]

Fair enough. Again, we're seeking a perfect system where perfection doesn't exist.

That's true but I think there's no other way. It's like punching the dumb guy that never ever flinches or just sits down and takes it and like you said, whose skin never breaks. You can count the punches but then force. if a guy is plain tougher, they puncher may not get any credit for it etc etc.

Agreed. But that's a commission thing. At times they've made very poor judge/ref choices OR their pool is too small. I can almost accept point 2 (though it should be growing every day IMO) but point 1, they gotta just be plain unemployed until they come up to scratch. Some people have a bad day, but multiple bad days? Not acceptable.

Perfection does not exist but there is a massive amount of room for improvement and i think that is the factual reality you are ignoring here.

 

[pick999]

too bad this isnt nba,nhl,mlb,nfl.

 

[VVarhead]

I want no more rounds. Or first round 10 minutes.

Sucks when you see guys getting saved by the bell from a submission.

 

[Foppa21]

Perfection does not exist but there is a massive amount of room for improvement and i think that is the factual reality you are ignoring here.

Most definitely not. There's always room for improvement but it's where the improvement in focused on.

There's the two sides to it, the unified rules and the people that enforce the rules on the ground (refs and judges). I would personally prefer looking at those that are judges.

I think the unified rules are in better shape than the people that enforce them in most cases. Yes, they should probably change the wording on the scoring criteria. In essence, judging isn't difficult. A person is essentially told/asked "Who do you think won the fight/round?". Since school yard fights, everyone's been able to tell who go their ass kicked. We can disagree with a judge but it is one person's opinion "I believe A did more on the ground vs what B did standing up". It's where they make multiple "errors" (can't really fault opinion after all) where they is a issue because it leads to "they don't know what they're doing" (ie they put all their stock into one part of the game because that's all they know. Like a person that only knows boxing that completely discounts actions on the ground simply because they don't feel that's important).

I'd like judges to be accountable though for some calls that stand out. Explain their rationale like some refs choose to do on social media.

 

[Foppa21]

I want no more rounds. Or first round 10 minutes.

Sucks when you see guys getting saved by the bell from a submission.

It doesn't matter how long the round is, being saved by the bell will always happen. After awhile, we'll be complaining about guys being saved by the bell because a guy slapped on a sub at 9:55 in a 10 min round.

 

[Zefram Cochrane]

NO.

A 6th round for a split? So what happens when that split becomes a draw? A 7th round?

Sudden death. Literally.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

I'd support an extension round for any fight that gets scored a split

 

[sonhow]

And in the 7:th round they release the chickenman.

'

 

[Johnsonville]

I like the 10 minute first round but damn the must be fucking grueling.

~DaViD~

 

[A.S. Deep]

If I were doing the sport from scratch, I'd argue for all fights being three seven minute rounds.

I think it would give grapplers more time to work, and introduce some interesting strategic elements around cardio expenditure within rounds, without being *overly* taxing on fighters.

I'm also a fan of starting new rounds from exactly where the last round ended. I think it's a bummer that strikers (or whomever) get an automatic reset button at the start of every round.

I'd go one step further and have one 25 min round. If it goes to decision then the fight as a whole is taken into consideration. You could have the commericals that would be between rounds go between fights (and make the time between fights a bit longer)

 

[mma_genius]

I think it would be an interesting thing to do.
It would show who has more heart, grit and of course cardio and it also might show who truly is winning the fight.

Although not a TF a good example would be the Conor vs Nate fight. Although the fight ended in a majority dec for Conor, who knows what could have happened with another round to go: Conor was exhausted while Diaz seemed to still have something in him and ended the 5th round strong. Maybe a 6th round would have determined a clear winner. In my opinion Conor did actually win and giving Diaz the 2nd means people only watched the last 30 secs of that round, which was a good Diaz moment but nothing that would overturn the round in Diaz' favour.

Also, the first Woodley-Thompson fight should have gone to another boring but decisive 6th round

No. A split decision or majority is still a decision.

Sometimes both fighters deserve a draw, nor not to lose. Not that many 5 round draws to put this kind of rule in either.

 

[NotoriousMillions]

I think it would be an interesting thing to do.
It would show who has more heart, grit and of course cardio and it also might show who truly is winning the fight.

Although not a TF a good example would be the Conor vs Nate fight. Although the fight ended in a majority dec for Conor, who knows what could have happened with another round to go: Conor was exhausted while Diaz seemed to still have something in him and ended the 5th round strong. Maybe a 6th round would have determined a clear winner. In my opinion Conor did actually win and giving Diaz the 2nd means people only watched the last 30 secs of that round, which was a good Diaz moment but nothing that would overturn the round in Diaz' favour.

Also, the first Woodley-Thompson fight should have gone to another boring but decisive 6th round

They should just fight until the death, to be honest.