Why does MMA judging always feel so wrong?

Part of the problem is their obsession with scoring every round 10-9. You gotta damn near kill your opponent to get a 10-8.

I've always entertained the thought of just scoring the entire fight as a whole, but we'd probably still be bitching about the results.

Let's start with having the judges watch in a quiet room so they can actually see wtf is going on, and open scoring. 5 judges instead of 3 could go a long way as well. Glory's on the right track with their judging imo.
 
Close 5 rounders in championship fights where both fighters are fighting tentatively for a round or two, and "taking a round off" are always a scoring crapshoot. All it takes is one of those 5 rounds on some very minor detail to swing the entire decision the other way.
 
I would definitely prefer that they judge the fight as a whole, if they wanna give fighters a break every 5 minutes that's fine, but take the entire fight into account.

IF you're not gonna judge the fight as a whole, then YOU CAN'T just judge every round 10-9.

Yes I know they give a 10-8 once in a blue moon, but not nearly often enough.

For example the 5th round of Erceg vs Pantoja can be a 10-9, it was pretty even and he edged it out with some control on the ground.

But if that's a 10-9, then the round where Erceg clearly won and split his head open should be a 10-8 or a 10-7.

That adjustment alone would be a big step towards better decisions, if they're so obsessed with scoring it by round then they need to be more willing to give a 10-8, a 10-7 or even a 10-1 if it's warranted.

There have been rounds where fighter A is completely dominating fighter B, and it still gets scored a 10-9. Then in the following round fighter B comes back and wins a super close and uneventful round, again 10-9. So now it's technically 1-1 going into the final round, despite one guy doing a ton more... WHYYYYYY.

So yeah, very simple fix, 10-9's should be only for very close rounds, any round where a guy clearly beat the other should be 10-8 or less.
Alright, well I like that we are talking solutions here, that was my intent in engaging you in debate in the first place
(and if I wasn't clear enough from the start, we are on the same team and really I agree with what you are saying).

I would just add that there should also be more 10-10 rounds. Currently there are NONE which is ridiculous.

Just as some of the "10-9"s should be "10-8"s ... some should be 10-10. If neither guy did shit (round 5) or neither guy really clearly had an advantage then neither guy should win the round.

In this case if (for the sake of argument) R5 became 10-10, then you would have a majority draw, which may be a little underwhelming, is also arguably an accurate representation of what happened.

It is definitely frustrating when you watch the guy who looks like he ran face first through a meat grinder get his hand raised. Additionally frustrating knowing that this occurred because out sport uses rules* written in the 1800s for a different sport, which at the time the rules were written had 20-45 rounds, not 3-5.


*10 point must, if my memory is correct comes from Marquess of Queensbury boxing rules written in the 1800s.

______________


Final point- what you are saying about more 10-8 rounds and that should be considered for any rounds with a clear winner with 10-9 for close rounds is almost exactly what the recent update to the Unifed Rules states, so that is the intention and the direction it is SUPPOSED to be going, but change is slow, I would say too slow in this case.
 
Wow Ercegs corner must be dumbasses then

They definitely are.

They told their guy who was clearly at an advantage in the standup to take down a grappler in the deciding round of a title fight.

That was among the worst corner advice I have seen since Greg Jackson told GSP to use his pulled groin as a striking weapon.
 
I've always entertained the thought of just scoring the entire fight as a whole, but we'd probably still be bitching about the results.

Let's start with having the judges watch in a quiet room so they can actually see wtf is going on, and open scoring. 5 judges instead of 3 could go a long way as well. Glory's on the right track with their judging imo.
5 judges rather than 3 would either solve most issues or exasperate them terribly lol
I'm for it
They definitely are.

They told their guy who was clearly at an advantage in the standup to take down a grappler in the deciding round of a title fight.

That was among the worst corner advice I have seen since Greg Jackson told GSP to use his pulled groin as a striking weapon.
"I don't care Georges, hit him with your torn up cock"
Legendary corner advice what do you mean
 
Alright, well I like that we are talking solutions here, that was my intent in engaging you in debate in the first place
(and if I wasn't clear enough from the start, we are on the same team and really I agree with what you are saying).

I would just add that there should also be more 10-10 rounds. Currently there are NONE which is ridiculous.

Just as some of the "10-9"s should be "10-8"s ... some should be 10-10. If neither guy did shit (round 5) or neither guy really clearly had an advantage then neither guy should win the round.

In this case if (for the sake of argument) R5 became 10-10, then you would have a majority draw, which may be a little underwhelming, is also arguably an accurate representation of what happened.

It is definitely frustrating when you watch the guy who looks like he ran face first through a meat grinder get his hand raised. Additionally frustrating knowing that this occurred because out sport uses rules* written in the 1800s for a different sport, which at the time the rules were written had 20-45 rounds, not 3-5.


*10 point must, if my memory is correct comes from Marquess of Queensbury boxing rules written in the 1800s.

______________


Final point- what you are saying about more 10-8 rounds and that should be considered for any rounds with a clear winner with 10-9 for close rounds is almost exactly what the recent update to the Unifed Rules states, so that is the intention and the direction it is SUPPOSED to be going, but change is slow, I would say too slow in this case.
Yeah, I don’t see any change whatsoever, on the whole card last night was there even a single round that was scored anything other than 10-9? I don’t think so.

Sure, I agree with you about the 10-10 as well, an average Fight card realistically should have rounds scored anywhere 10-10 right down to 10-6 and everything in between.

This obsession with scoring every round 10-9 is the biggest contributor to bad decisions in my opinion.
 
Yeah, I don’t see any change whatsoever, on the whole card last night was there even a single round that was scored anything other than 10-9? I don’t think so.

Sure, I agree with you about the 10-10 as well, an average Fight card realistically should have rounds scored anywhere 10-10 right down to 10-6 and everything in between.

This obsession with scoring every round 10-9 is the biggest contributor to bad decisions in my opinion.
2f4a2cca-774f-4b62-a913-bdbbefd97421_text (1).gif
 
maybe good on paper, but i think it would end up with a lot of stalling and with the fighter losing just holding on to not get finish and be happy with a "draw"
No draw. Loss.

The fighter loosing is already loosing but would win with a finish.

Both fighters need to finish, pushing them to try stuff. Always.
 
I've always entertained the thought of just scoring the entire fight as a whole, but we'd probably still be bitching about the results.

Let's start with having the judges watch in a quiet room so they can actually see wtf is going on, and open scoring. 5 judges instead of 3 could go a long way as well. Glory's on the right track with their judging imo.

Agree on Glory.

If I am not mistaken I believe in addition to 5 judges, they are also doing open scoring.
What are your thoughts on open scoring?

For me:

Pro: fighters know where they stand and could be encouraged to go for the finish.

Con: could lead to coasting and stalling.
Maybe it should be accompanied by yellow cards to prevent this.
 
Why is it that they all just kinda accept the lame and obviously flawed system that's in place, and why does there seem to be no urgency whatsoever to tweak it into something that makes more sense?

Last nights main event was so bizarre for me, it was probably the best example of just how flawed the criteria is, you sat there and watched a fight where it was obvious that one guy was getting the better of the other guy, yet at the same time because you understand the system you just knew that the guy who was getting his ass handed to him was actually winning on the score cards.

Post fight we all kinda unanimously agreed that Erceg is the better fighter, who did all the damage and looked like the winner throughout the fight, but blew it because he lost the grappling position in the final minute of the fight.

And we just kinda accept it, we've been watching it for so long that we're perfectly OK with lying to ourselves and pretending that the guy who managed to hold certain grappling positions for about 20% of the fight while doing virtually zero damage, won despite actually getting his ass kicked from start to finish.

It's just really stupid, it's always been really really stupid, but last night's example perfectly demonstrates just how stupid it is.

By the way, I had no dog in that fight and zero preference who wins, I like both guys just the same if I'm honest, but I couldn't say with a straight face that Pantoja won that fight, while I could easily admit that he probably did enough to get the decision based on the current UFC judging criteria.

That's a big problem IMO, when in this sport the guy who we all know clearly lost the "fight", can easily make a case that he won the "decision", that's a big problem.
It's the consistency of the judging that causes the issue. The judging is very clear. Impact(damage) scores highest and control time is the lowest criteria.
By the scoring criteria Pantoja lost that fight and would have outside of Brazil. Wrestling and grappling is a part of MMA, but you need to use it to land offence.
Even in the 5th round when Erceg got his first takedown, Pantoja escaped it with a groin shot upkick that went unnoticed.

Pantoja got outstruck, damaged multiple times and then just held Erceg until the bell with no real good ground and pound or even a single sub attack.
He lost that 5th round and the fight, but we knew it would go the other way because of where it was.
 
Agree on Glory.

If I am not mistaken I believe in addition to 5 judges, they are also doing open scoring.
What are your thoughts on open scoring?

For me:

Pro: fighters know where they stand and could be encouraged to go for the finish.

Con: could lead to coasting and stalling.
Maybe it should be accompanied by yellow cards to prevent this.

Read the post you quoted again in regards to open scoring.
 
If you think MMA decisions always feel wrong you should try boxing. LOL
 
Last night Pantoja out stuck and out grappled the ugly fan favorite but biased and dumb fans are really crying talking about an robbery that never existed.
 

To go a little more in-depth, I do like your yellow card idea with the anti-stalling. I hadn't really thought of the cons. Open scoring just makes a lot of sense.

I think the judges being cageside vs. watching on tvs is a more important difference though. It's just harder to see when you're cageside and half the time the judge's view will be blocked.
 
It's a sport with rules and scoring criteria.

Based on those criteria I think you give 1 and 5 to Pantoja, and I had 2 and 4 to Erceg.

So round 3...

More landed strikes and some grappling vs one really damaging shot.

Was it enough?
Enough to outweigh the volume?
Enough to take a round off a brazillian champ at home?
Judges said no.


____________

You can make a case for Erceg 234.

I am not sure it is the correct score.
It is debatable at best. (As current rules are written)

________

I havent rewatched, but my impression live was that Pantoja did literally ZERO damage with all of his grappling exchanges he was "winning."

So I can understand the frustration.
But also, I tend to think by the written rules Pantoja did win.

It is what it is. Thankfully the sport is changing towards a damage first scoring but it isn't gonna just flip 180 overnight.
This is the exact right answer and guess what if he didn’t like the outcome then go win 1-2 fights and get another shot

I hate the idea that people can’t fight after 2-3 fights

If you win the spot you get the shot

The Super Bowl could be against the same two teams every year it’s based off performance this is where PFL does have a good model

My point is it’s not like erceg can’t get another shot
 
Back
Top