Scoring idea to replace 10-point must system (Whittaker/Romero II update)

[johncola]

Your scoring system is useless, if one of the fighter didn't crush the other one, the judge review the whole fight.
Just review the whole fight, you'll get the same result.

My scoring system isn't useless. I'll go through each of the 8 3-round scoring possibilities to explain. Actually, I only need to go round 4 of the 8 possibilities, since they're symmetrical depending on whether Red or Blue won (so RRR = BBB for scoring purposes).

RRR or BBB
In the current system, this would be scored anywhere from 30-30 to 30-24. Normally it'll be 30-27 or 30-36. Either way (aside from that extremely rare 30-30 score), the winner of the fight is clear. My system is the same as the current system, so yeah, it doesn't add anything for fights where a fighter won every round.

RRB or BBR
This score means one fighter won 2 rounds, both of which were the most dominant of the fight. So, they clearly won the fight. In the current system, this would be scored anywhere from 30-30 to 28-26. Normally it'll be 29-28 or 29-27. Like in the above paragraph, either way (aside from that extremely rare 30-30 score), the winner of the fight is clear. My system is the same as the current system, so again, it doesn't add anything.

RBR or BRB
This score means one fighter had the most dominant round, PLUS he won another round. So again, they clearly won the fight. In the current system, this would have similar scores to the above paragraph. 30-30 to 28-26 are possible, but 29-28 or even 29-27 is likely. Again, it doesn't add anything.

RBB or BRR
This is where my system adds something. This is what it's for. One fighter had a strong round, the other fighter had two less strong rounds. Which should be weighed more? Judges' discretion decides. In the current system, 29-28 and 28-28 are the most likely scores. 29-28 would mean the dominant round hasn't been given any credit for being better than the 2 weaker rounds. 28-28 would give the dominant round 10-8 and thus is giving it credit, but the obvious problem is that there's no winner. My idea solves these problems.

 

[dickcheney]

The thing is, you might as well just have the judges pick a winner as a whole since you are already telling the judges to be subjective and place colors to the left if they are more dominant than othercolors brbbrbrbrb

 

[Smooth Princess]

RRB and RBR means that R definitely had the better fight. Since "R" is furthest to the left, R had the best of any of the rounds, plus 1 additional round on top of that.

For BRR, it's debatable who won. B had the best round, but how dominant was it in comparison to the 2 rounds that R won? This is a bit like B getting a 10-8 versus R getting 2 10-9's. Sometimes that 10-8 can be particularly strong while both 10-9's are marginal, so the 10-8 guy should win. Sometimes both 10-9's are clear and the 10-8 is only marginally 10-8, so the 10-9's deserve to win.

Re: the rest of your post, you clearly misunderstood my idea somewhat so I can't respond.

So now the judges have to go back at the end of the fight and decide which round was the most dominant without replay in order to render a live decision?

 

[Based and White Pilled]

In theory this is interesting, I guess? In practice, it is extremely similar to the 10 point system. One guy wins the round and the judges decide how decisively he won it. Not much changes

 

[Thug Rose]

get rid of round scoring, give points for every clean strike landed like in amateur boxing. its the most accurate system

 

[johncola]

OK you're right I didn't read it carefully enough

The only real problem I see with it is that it seems to work well enough for 3 round fights, but when you get to 5 round fights, you're basically just leaving it to judges' discretion unless the winner is completely obvious. So the "system" seems to pretty much disintegrate at that point.

Judges' discretion will only be used for the close fights. And it's actually a good thing. That's when judge discretion is useful in MMA. Here's the stats for how common it'd be:

There's 2 combinations of 5-0, and they don't require judge discretion
There's 10 combinations of 4-1, and they don't require judge discretion
There's 10 combinations of 3-2 that don't require judge discretion
There's 10 combinations of 3-2 that do require judge discretion

10 out of 32 combinations require judge discretion. 5 out of 16 if we remove the symmetrical scores (e.g. RRRRR is the inverse of BBBBB). Those 5 instances are all examples of close fights that'd be well served to have the judge score the fight as a whole. This judge discretion would only ever really be used for close 48-47 fights or 47-47 fights or even 47-46 fights. And that's actually the point of my idea, and that's where it'd be useful. It'd allow judges to choose a winner in fights like Woodley/Wonderboy. The alternative would be to either fail to award dominant rounds, or to score lots of draws. My idea is a solution to these problems. I don't feel I've explained myself well, but I made a similar point earlier in response to @TruthMaker.

 

[johncola]

The thing is, you might as well just have the judges pick a winner as a whole since you are already telling the judges to be subjective and place colors to the left if they are more dominant than othercolors brbbrbrbrb

Not true. Most of the time, results will be a same as in 10-point must. For extremely close fights, it'll differ. Specifically, it'll remove the possibility for judges to fail to score 10-8's (or to score them TOO liberally), OR it'd remove the possibility of draws. See my replies to @Gun'n'Run and @TruthMaker for further explanation.

 

[johnnyroastbeef]

more 10-10 rounds. if it's too close to call 10-10

 

[johncola]

So now the judges have to go back at the end of the fight and decide which round was the most dominant without replay in order to render a live decision?

I didn't explain well enough in my original post. After each round, the round is added to the score. Here's an example:

Round 1: Red wins. Score is R
Round 2: Blue wins, even better than R did round 1. Score is BR.
Round 3: Blue wins, most dominant round yet. Score is BBR.
Round 4: Red wins, better than round 2 but not better than round 3. Score is BRBR.
Round 5: Red wins, in a similar fashion to round 4. Score is BRRBR.

Yes, the judge has to keep track of rounds that happened earlier. But calculations are done as the fight progresses. It isn't all done at the end. It's done round by round. The above fight would require judge discretion to determine whether that dominant round 3 is worth more than Red winning more rounds.

 

[johncola]

In theory this is interesting, I guess? In practice, it is extremely similar to the 10 point system. One guy wins the round and the judges decide how decisively he won it. Not much changes

You're right, it's similar to the 10-point must. Most of the time, it'll produce the same results as the 10-point must.

The area my system shines though is in the area it differs from the 10-point must. The really close fights. The BRR or RBB fights. Is that 1 dominant round worth more or less than those 2 lesser rounds? 10-point must doesn't answer that question well. It either fails to score 10-8's, or scores them too strongly (rare), or it scores draws.

 

[TruthMaker]

Yep, I can read...
RRR or BBB or RRB or BBR or RBR or BRB
Here you have a clear winner, if a judge give the fight to the wrong fighter the problem come from the judge not the scoring system.
RBB or BRR
Here, things might be confuse so it's where a scoring system might be useful to make thing more objectif.
But, here, you just say let's score the fight as a whole.

So, like I said before you re scoring system is the same as scoring the fight as a whole (except your scoring system doesn't allow to score a draw if both fighter sit on their hands for 3 rounds).

 

[johncola]

I'd like to remind people who argue that it's a bad idea to ask judges to remember action from previous rounds, that this isn't boxing. Fights are 3-5 rounds, not 10-12 rounds like in boxing. In boxing, my idea would be a big problem, and thus the 10-point must is superior. But in MMA I don't think that's the case.

 

[Rondas Pillow]

After reading a few sentences I realized why they let smart people make these decisions.

Otherwise you'd have a dumbass like ts making things up.

 

[MMA]

Judges' discretion will only be used for the close fights. And it's actually a good thing. That's when judge discretion is useful in MMA. Here's the stats for how common it'd be:

There's 2 combinations of 5-0, and they don't require judge discretion
There's 10 combinations of 4-1, and they don't require judge discretion
There's 10 combinations of 3-2 that don't require judge discretion
There's 10 combinations of 3-2 that do require judge discretion

10 out of 32 combinations require judge discretion. 5 out of 16 if we remove the symmetrical scores (e.g. RRRRR is the inverse of BBBBB). Those 5 instances are all examples of close fights that'd be well served to have the judge score the fight as a whole. This judge discretion would only ever really be used for close 48-47 fights or 47-47 fights or even 47-46 fights. And that's actually the point of my idea, and that's where it'd be useful. It'd allow judges to choose a winner in fights like Woodley/Wonderboy. The alternative would be to either fail to award dominant rounds, or to score lots of draws. My idea is a solution to these problems. I don't feel I've explained myself well, but I made a similar point earlier in response to @TruthMaker.

See, that's exactly what I'm saying is the problem though.


Unless it's obvious who won, your system defaults to "judges' discretion."

That's not really much of a system.


All your system seems to do is classify which outcomes (by round) produce close fights, and it does an imperfect job even at that.




In a sense, it's not terribly dissimilar from my own idea http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/how-to-fix-the-10-point-must-system.2611991/


The advantage is that it's more simple. The disadvantage is that, like I said, unless it's completely obvious who won, the judges just decide at the end, which effectively castrates the system.

We STARTED with judges just deciding who won at the end, when it was all said and done. Round by round scoring was implemented later, because we realized that asking judges to score a fight as a whole at the end came with some inherent problems. Judges are way too likely to overweight what happened at the end of the fight, because of recency bias and an over-inclination to just "call it even" and let the last minute of the fight decide it.


You actually see the ghost of this in MMA today, particularly when the first two rounds are really close. Most judges will give the second round to whomever lost the first, just to square things up (OK I'm being somewhat presumptuous here, but I don't think it's out of line.)


Round by round scoring, in theory, should be no different than scoring the fight as a whole except that by doing it piecemeal, you reduce the risk of tendencies like recency bias affecting fight outcomes. The problem is, as we both agree, the system of making most rounds 10-9 does a poor job of capturing the fight as a whole.

 

[johncola]

Yep, I can read...
RRR or BBB or RRB or BBR or RBR or BRB
Here you have a clear winner, if a judge give the fight to the wrong fighter the problem come from the judge not the scoring system.
RBB or BRR
Here, things might be confuse so it's where a scoring system might be useful to make thing more objectif.
But, here, you just say let's score the fight as a whole.

So, like I said before you re scoring system is the same as scoring the fight as a whole (except your scoring system doesn't allow to score a draw if both fighter sit on their hands for 3 rounds).

My scoring system isn't the same as scoring the fight as a whole. Most of the time, judge discretion won't be used. 3 out of 4 3-round combinations don't need judge discretion. 11 out of 16 5-round combinations don't need it. My system is actually closer to the 10-point must system than it is just scoring the fight as a whole. Though in a way, it's a mixture of both. It judges fights round by round, unless it's close enough that it needs judge discretion.

You also just flat out said some incorrect stuff in your post. You said my system is "useless". I gave you some uses. You said if "one of the fighter didn't crush the other one, the judge review the whole fight", which isn't true. Hyperbole, TruthMaker. you said "Just review the whole fight, you'll get the same result", which isn't true, as like I said, most of the time, rounds are scored and factor into the final result.

Your final complaint doesn't appear to me to be a real problem in MMA. I hate boring inactive fights as much as anyone. But the scoring of them hasn't really been an issue in my mind. I don't require that those fights be a draw. Even in boring fights, one fighter often does more than the other. I think you're arguing "no one deserves to win in those boring fights". But you could just as easily argue that it's stupid for neither of those fighters to be given a loss.

 

[johncola]

After reading a few sentences I realized why they let smart people make these decisions.

Otherwise you'd have a dumbass like ts making things up.

A few things...

1. You didn't read my post
2. You haven't critiqued my post
3. I don't think you're capable of critiquing my post (I predict you'll be running soon)
4. You're a typical negative, hateful Sherdog scumbag
   
5. Look

 

[Smooth Princess]

I didn't explain well enough in my original post. After each round, the round is added to the score. Here's an example:

Round 1: Red wins. Score is R
Round 2: Blue wins, even better than R did round 1. Score is BR.
Round 3: Blue wins, most dominant round yet. Score is BBR.
Round 4: Red wins, better than round 2 but not better than round 3. Score is BRBR.
Round 5: Red wins, in a similar fashion to round 4. Score is BRRBR.

Yes, the judge has to keep track of rounds that happened earlier. But calculations are done as the fight progresses. It isn't all done at the end. It's done round by round. The above fight would require judge discretion to determine whether that dominant round 3 is worth more than Red winning more rounds.

I like it we'll enough in theory, but in practice I don't think it would be any more accurate than the 10 point must system, especially in 5 round fights where the judges have to go back after 20 minutes of fighting and decide whether that round was more or less dominant than round 1 or 2.

 

[Rondas Pillow]

A few things...

1. You didn't read my post
2. You haven't critiqued my post
3. I don't think you're capable of critiquing my post (I predict you'll be running soon)
4. You're a typical negative, hateful Sherdog scumbag
   
5. Look

Of course

 

[johncola]

Of course

Call me Mystic Coke I guess. I predict deez tings.

 

[georgekillian]

Every time one of these shit threads pops up it's worse than the last one.