Should there be one scorecard the Judges vote on?

[RayA]

The title says it. As is right now, each judge has their own scorecard, but would it be better if there was one scorecard where the judges had to vote on each round? As in to win a round, 2 judges had to score it for you.

I was looking at the Dillashaw vs Sandhagen scorecards, and I realized 2 judges scored round 4 for Cory, and 2 judges scored round 5 for Cory. If each round was won by a majority vote, Cory would have won the fight. This thread isn't about their fight in particular, but is just an example.

The current 3 scorecard system is a bit of a randomized mess. Doing it this way would pretty much eliminate split decisions aswell.

 

[koquerelle]

That's actually a pretty good idea

 

[sdpdude9]

Only problem with this imo is you could have 2 judges that agree fighter A won but fighter B ends up winning. For example…

Judge 1

10-9
9-10
10-9

29-28 Fighter A

Judge 2

10-9
10-9
9-10

29-28 Fighter A

Judge 3

10-9
9-10
9-10

29-28 Fighter B

So in this scenario, Fighter A won the fight on 2/3 judges cards and won the only unanimous round, but would still lose. I’m not saying I’m against your idea, but it has flaws of its own.

 

[orgazmo]

I saw people pitching that idea after the Sandhagen fight, although it probably would have problems of its own, my idea is that you could somewhat combine the current system with that one.

Add one judge so each fight is judges by 4, and in the event of a draw, you go to this system as the tie breaker.

That way you'd need three out of 4 to agree on the contested rounds to make it clear, or they would end up as draw rounds if split 2-2

 

[RayA]

Only problem with this imo is you could have 2 judges that agree fighter A won but fighter B ends up winning. For example…

Judge 1

10-9
9-10
10-9

29-28 Fighter A

Judge 2

10-9
10-9
9-10

29-28 Fighter A

Judge 3

10-9
9-10
9-10

29-28 Fighter B

So in this scenario, Fighter A won the fight on 2/3 judges cards and won the only unanimous round, but would still lose. I’m not saying I’m against your idea, but it has flaws of its own.

That's a good point and scenario. The way I proposed would maintain better round consistency but sacrifices a judges ability to say who won the fight overall.
I think with how some decisions have been going lately, we need to focus on more consistency in simpler steps. Letting a judge score the whole fight seems like too much responsibility sometimes.

 

[sdpdude9]

That's a good point and scenario. The way I proposed would maintain better round consistency but sacrifices a judges ability to say who won the fight overall.
I think with how some decisions have been going lately, we need to focus on more consistency in simpler steps. Letting a judge score the whole fight seems like too much responsibility sometimes.

There’s always going to be flaws in any system, that’s the way it is. Definitely compounded by the fact judges don’t know what they’re doing. I think we just have accept there are close fights and in a sport that has criteria that is pretty subjective, there are bound to be controversies. Which system has the least problems though? Not sure there is a definitive answer, but we can’t find out without implementing other rulesets.

 

[Satan's Daddy.]

Replace all the judges with a sherdog poll... pay us all 15% more of their wages equally ofc.

 

[pv3Hpv3p]

Have 5 judges... Throw out the two most outlying scorecards... Done

 

[RayA]

Replace all the judges with a sherdog poll... pay us all 15% more of their wages equally ofc.

At that point just have the audience vote on who won like American idol lol.

 

[Satan's Daddy.]

At that point just have the audience vote on who won like American idol lol.

True true, tickets should be free for the audience for doing a better job than the judges themselves. American idol and got talent don't got the best judgment either.

 

[RayA]

True true, tickets should be free for the audience for doing a better job than the judges themselves. American idol and got talent don't got the best judgment either.

Only problem is the audience would lean rowars who is more popular/liked. Even I have to admit trouble being unbiased sometimes.

 

[Satan's Daddy.]

Only problem is the audience would lean rowars who is more popular/liked. Even I have to admit trouble being unbiased sometimes.

I just hate how singers usually win at america got talent because the judges give them the nod to go far, when any joe blow and their grandma can do that.. it's not really talent imo.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Liberal 10-10 rounds is the best solution. If there's no clear winner of a round, the judges shouldn't be forced to pick someone.

Even round: 10-10

Clear winner: 10-9

Clear winner with near finish: 10-8

 

[christopher]

Only problem with this imo is you could have 2 judges that agree fighter A won but fighter B ends up winning. For example…

Judge 1

10-9
9-10
10-9

29-28 Fighter A

Judge 2

10-9
10-9
9-10

29-28 Fighter A

Judge 3

10-9
9-10
9-10

29-28 Fighter B

So in this scenario, Fighter A won the fight on 2/3 judges cards and won the only unanimous round, but would still lose. I’m not saying I’m against your idea, but it has flaws of its own.

I'm not quite sure this is a flaw though, because if there isn't more than 1 judge to agree that fighter A won round 2 or 3, than technically with this new judging format he really didn't win that round.. who cares if judges scored the fight for him on 2/3 cards... I like the idea that at least 2 judges have to give the fighter the round in order for them to win that round.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Why not award each individual round via scoring majority?

 

[DS66]

If the 10 point scoring system was utilized correctly, there wouldn't be nearly as many issues. If a round is close with no clear winner, it should be a 10-10. Instead of judges arbitrarily choosing a winner of a round that had no clear winner. This happens in so many fights and creates so many wacky decisions, where a round is even but they have to chose a winner. There also should be way more 10-8's when a lot of damage is done, and even 10-7's when someone dominates a round. This would solve almost all of the judging issues. Along with much better training and a rigorous judge certification program and accountability when fights/rounds are scored incorrectly.

 

[maximus__]

Another option would be open scoring and just penalising stalling in the last round heavily.
So Fighter A 10-9 Round 1, 10-9 Round 2 and everyone knows.
3rd round fighter A tries to run and refuses to engage to try and win the decision. Fighter A refuses to engage and actively runs before losing the round 10-8 because Fighter B is pushing for the finish.
Mix this with more 10-10 rounds and you might have less controversy.

I actually think the current system is fine, but only offence that leads to potential fight finishing sequences should really score.

Fighter A lands a punch that leads to Fighter B getting rocked and landing a panic takedown. Fighter B stays on top for the rest of the round and lands pitter patter ground and pound, but Fighter A isn't anywhere near being finished. Fighter A wins the round.
Same with subs. Fighter A catches Fighter B in a tight extended armbar, Fighter B escapes, gets to the feet and controls the stand up with jabs and leg kicks for the rest of the fight. Fighter A wins.

 

[RayA]

Why not award each individual round via scoring majority?

That's what I was advocating for.

 

[Prologue]

Just rid of judging all together and have a "shoot out" if the match ends without a finish.

 

[knees2ribs]

I don't know why they don't all use the same info we get when watching fights eg. Significant strikes, strikes attempted etc. so they can just focus on the shit that matters - damage, aggression and dominance.

Or just get rid of round by round scoring. Would make things more fun and stop so much lay and pray or running from taking place.