10-10 rounds

[Booksmasher]

Turning current 10-9 rounds into 10-10 draw rounds are great, Im cheering for this idea a long time now. So you could only win by 10-8 types of rounds or by finish. Benefits:

-no doubts and controversies
-the winner is the clearcut deserving winner
-the winner has developed real deadly skills
-more attractive fights, less lay and pray
-MMA record (W-D-L) represents the more clearer picture of the fighter
-less developed finishing fighter would never make it to the UFC in the first place

 

[Dbreiden83080]

Should be scored absolutely. Back in the old days even rounds used to be scored in boxing all the time. Then it’s my understanding judges were encouraged to never do that. Pick somebody that won the round. But sometimes honestly it’s just that close. And even rounds are necessary.

 

[Dbreiden83080]

Fuck yeah we need more 10-10 rounds!

In boxing 10–10 rounds were not that rare prior to 1980. In ‘80, when Roberto Duran fought Sugar Ray Leonard, all of the judges scored a bunch of 10–10 rounds. One of the judges, Angelo Poletti, scored 10 of the 15 rounds even. Another judge scored 5 even, and the third had 4 even rounds. This sparked an outcry, and from that point on judges were told to pick a winner each round, and try not to score even rounds. But why? What’s wrong with scoring an even round IF THE ROUND IS EVEN? The argument is that there’s always some small edge for one fighter or another, but my point is, the judges are human, and if the advantage is that small, can they really detect it? So I personally believe in scoring 10–10 rounds, and I think the change has hurt the sport. When you have both fighters feeling each other out in the first round, and very few punches are thrown, but you insist on somehow giving Fighter A a 10–9 round, and then, in the next round, Fighter B smacks the other guy all over the ring and gets a 10–9 round, the fight is now even on the scorecard. But is it really even? Shouldn’t Fighter B be ahead? He would be, if you had scored that first round 10–10, as it should be.
(not my post, reposting from another forum because I 100% agree)

Here's a long but old (2017) article about the issue:
https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2017/03/should-10-10-rounds-exist-in-mma

“If you’re a top-notch, A-plus judge, you should be able to discern, through the scoring criteria, who wins a fight even if it’s razor-thin,” Bennett said. “Does a 10-10 round come up? Yes, but in the almost three years I’ve been director, we have not had a 10-10 round, and I think it’s incumbent upon the judges to be on top of their game and be able to pick a winner in that round. Because one effective strike or kick can determine who wins a round.”

I asked Andy Foster, executive director of the California State Athletic Commission. He said he agreed with Bennett’s comments, adding that he typically regards 10-10 rounds as something that should be reserved for partial rounds in bouts halted by injuries or accidental fouls, and even then only if no significant action has taken place prior to the stoppage.

“If a judge can’t find something to find a winner in five minutes,” Foster told MMAjunkie, “I need a new judge.”

Horrible attitude from both IMO.

TL/DR: Yes, judges are pressured into 10-9 rounds because a 10-10 supposedly shows their "incompetence". BS IMO.

Exactly. Spot on. Great post.

 

[Booksmasher]

The better idea would be typical 10-9 rounds being scored as 10-10 rounds.

 

[sherbro]

imho the scoring system should have way more 10-10 rounds.
But if you have 10 points in a scoring system, why don´t they use them at all?
Why are there no 10-5 rounds or maybe even a rare 10-1. Why do they use 10 if they don´t make any use of it?

 

[youllneverwalkalone]

With the current rules there are just too many scoring criteria for a round to be a true 10-10 in my opinion. Fighters may be tied on 1-2 but if you go down the list you'll eventually find one criterion where one would have done better than the other.

 

[Booksmasher]

With the current rules there are just too many scoring criteria for a round to be a true 10-10 in my opinion. Fighters may be tied on 1-2 but if you go down the list you'll eventually find one criterion where one would have done better than the other.

But thats the whole problem. They do not like the idea of a draw. So no matter how close the margin difference between the fighters is, they insist on giving a 10-9 win round to somebody, which is rediculous.

 

[MrFreeze]

I understand the hierarchy of the judging criteria
But there's something that i just hate about a round where both fighters do nothing and someone wins because of octagon control

 

[Tomasz79]

It's so dumb that a round with the slightiest of advantages, or that could have gone either way is scored the same as a very clear advantage short of domination (10:9).

 

[youllneverwalkalone]

But thats the whole problem. They do not like the idea of a draw. So no matter how close the margin difference between the fighters is, they insist on giving a 10-9 win round to somebody, which is rediculous.

Ridicolous or not those are the rules we have at the moment and that judges need to go by. Ranting and raving about how "we need more 10-10 rounds" without addressing the ruleset is moot.

 

[Booksmasher]

Ridicolous or not those are the rules we have at the moment and that judges need to go by. Ranting and raving about how "we need more 10-10 rounds" without addressing the ruleset is moot.

We gotta change the ruleset, thats my whole point. 10-9 rounds should be 10-10 rounds. So the only way to win is by 10-8 type of rounds or finish.

 

[youllneverwalkalone]

We gotta change the ruleset, thats my whole point. 10-9 rounds should be 10-10 rounds. So the only way to win is by 10-8 type of rounds or finish.

That means even a 30-27 UD would be a draw. I don't think that makes any sense, sorry.

 

[Booksmasher]

That means even a 30-27 UD would be a draw. I don't think that makes any sense, sorry.

Yes, if it is the typical 10-9 round where not much damage has been done to the opponent, I would score it a draw.

Real Damage > Pointfighting

 

[sherbro]

Yes, if it is the typical 10-9 round where not much damage has been done to the opponent, I would score it a draw.

Real Damage > Pointfighting

that would mean around 90% of rounds are draws.
I think it would be better to make what today is a 10-9 round a 10-10 to 10-8 depending on if and how much better one was than the other. A 10-8 today would be a 10-7 to 10-4. And 10-7 today would go form 10-3 to 10-1.

 

[Booksmasher]

that would mean around 90% of rounds are draws.

Yes, but that would not be a problem. It gives way more value to Wins and champions. And it will rule out controversies. It would have alot of benefits.

 

[sherbro]

Yes, but that would not be a problem. It gives way more value to Wins and champions. And it will rule out controversies. It would have alot of benefits.

just out of curiosity, what is this typical 10-9 round for you?


e.g. Justin Gaethje vs. Tony Ferguson

Would you have scored the first 4 rounds as 10-10 in you judging criteria or was there enough difference in some of them?

Because right now nearly every round is a 10-9 except if there is a complete and utter domination of one guy.

Like another example Poirier vs Holloway

50-50 draw?

 

[Otto!]

If the round was even then it should be scored a draw. Sometimes the difference between the two is not really noticeable, so a 10-9 is not warranted.

 

[Booksmasher]

just out of curiosity, what is this typical 10-9 round for you?

To make things easy. I would make a 10-8 type of round a round where one fighter gets to fight ending damage but somehow survives to the bell. So it could be a big knockdown and a beating from topposition for instance but he luckily survives. Or one fighter gets such an amount of signifcant beating, being a punching bag + the fighter himself doesnt pose a threat anymore, and the ref could stop it anytime.

A 10-9 round I would say no fighter was close to a fight ending scenario. Both fighters still are threats to another. Even if one fighter outpoints another, without real fight ending damage.

So Poirier vs Holloway I would make it a draw. But Gaethje vs Ferguson if the bell for instance rang 5 seconds before the ref stopped it, that 5th round would be a 10-8, because Ferguson was a harmless punching bag. All the rounds before it 10-10. By this system you really appreciate the winner. The winner won by big margin. Gaethje build his way up to that 10-8 deserving round by constantly building up damage.

I always give the example of Wilder vs Fury 1, because it makes things more clear. Fury outpointed Wilder almost the whole fight, but he hardly gave any damage. Where as Wilder was always posing a threat the whole fight. And lo and behold, he knock em down cold, which to my standards proves Wilder is the more deserving winner. He did the most life threatening damage.

 

[youllneverwalkalone]

Yes, if it is the typical 10-9 round where not much damage has been done to the opponent, I would score it a draw.

Real Damage > Pointfighting

Well I disagree and I don't think you'll get much support for a ruleset that will produce draws in such a large (possibly the majority) of fights.

I also I don't quite understand the point about damage vs pointfighting. 10-9 doesn't mean no damage was inflicted, it just means the round was competitive as opposed to one-sided beating. All five rounds in Weili vs Joanna for an example were super violent, yet none would grant a 10-8 score.

 

[Booksmasher]

I also I don't quite understand the point about damage vs pointfighting. 10-9 doesn't mean no damage was inflicted, it just means the round was competitive as opposed to one-sided beating.

But the most important criteria to me of margin difference between two fighters should be significant damage which has fight ending potential. Anything lower than that means the fighter is not a dangerous human being.