DAMAGE is now the main criteria for 10-8 rounds

I listened to the Sheehan show (see Sherdog FP). He was explaining that damage is now the main criteria in judging to get a 10-8 round. He said before that control or striking volume COULD get you a 10-8 but now those really won't be factors.

So of you take a guy down and control him for an entire round but don't damage your opponent you're getting a 10-9.

For the pillow fisted pitter patters that touch their opponents way 70 times in a round and their opponents don't do much to them they are getting a 10-9 (a Colby vs Robbie situation imo).

Damage AKA hurting your opponent is the main criteria.

I agree. I like it. The point is to hurt your opponent so much they can't continue and the fight doesn't go to the judges.

How does everyone else feel?

It's been this way for a while now.

Biggest recent example was Yana vs Ketlen Veira in round 3.

Yana had 4:15 of ground control in the round, but she landed no sig strikes and less than 10 normal ones, while landed 55 weak strikes while being controlled. Then Yana gets up in the final seconds and lands 5 or so sig strikes and busted Ketlen open.

Yana lost that entire round, but won abut 5 seconds of it and did more damage in that time. 2 judges gave her that round just for that. Imagine how easy it would have been to get a 10-8 if she'd been the one in control and had steadily dished out damage all round.
 
I listened to the Sheehan show (see Sherdog FP). He was explaining that damage is now the main criteria in judging to get a 10-8 round. He said before that control or striking volume COULD get you a 10-8 but now those really won't be factors.

So of you take a guy down and control him for an entire round but don't damage your opponent you're getting a 10-9.

For the pillow fisted pitter patters that touch their opponents way 70 times in a round and their opponents don't do much to them they are getting a 10-9 (a Colby vs Robbie situation imo).

Damage AKA hurting your opponent is the main criteria.

I agree. I like it. The point is to hurt your opponent so much they can't continue and the fight doesn't go to the judges.

How does everyone else feel?
Having a triangle or choke locked in at the end of the round should be a 10-8 round as well.
 
If you hug/clinch/control an opponent against the cage or on the ground for most of a round whilst failing to inflict significant damage on thine opponent — the Referee shall deduct a point.
 
I listened to the Sheehan show (see Sherdog FP). He was explaining that damage is now the main criteria in judging to get a 10-8 round. He said before that control or striking volume COULD get you a 10-8 but now those really won't be factors.

So of you take a guy down and control him for an entire round but don't damage your opponent you're getting a 10-9.

For the pillow fisted pitter patters that touch their opponents way 70 times in a round and their opponents don't do much to them they are getting a 10-9 (a Colby vs Robbie situation imo).

Damage AKA hurting your opponent is the main criteria.

I agree. I like it. The point is to hurt your opponent so much they can't continue and the fight doesn't go to the judges.

How does everyone else feel?

Is this an official SAC interpretation of the rules thing or is this just something the judging community(is that a thing?) has decided to move towards in recent years as they've gotten more experience under their belt?
 
So blocking strikes, getting out of submissions and getting back to your feet should be rewarded with the judges? I remember Chael Sonnen going on a big rant about that once, it was hilarious. You can't be rewarded for defending yourself, your reward literally is getting back to your feet, blocking the strike and or getting out of the submission, well unless you're Willie Pep who once won a round without throwing a punch. I see what you're saying, I just don't agree. A td will always count in the eyes of a judges, the rounds are scored as a whole, they can't just forget the guy was getting taken down.

Nik Lentz, in one of the most boring fights in UFC history held Andre Winner against the cage for 15 minutes and did nothing...nothing in an infuriatingly boring fight, but he did control him the entire time, so Nik should have lost or it should have been a draw? I get that you'd be happier if it was a draw but would it feel right in any way? No. It's all part of the game, you get shitty fights too. Maybe your expectations are too high and if you have been watching for so long you should know to always keep your expectations low.

If you are, like you say getting kind of bored with the sport, I suggest during some downtime check out fights, interviews, read up on or whatever about fighters that you don't know on an upcoming card and that should help you feel a little more emotionally invested and probably enjoy the events as a whole more. I think a lot of fans are getting overwhelmed with the sheer amount of mma, especially the older fans, and find it much less interesting when watching fighters you don't know. Just a suggestion, it might breath a little life into the anticipation you might have slowly lost over the years.
I feel like you missunderstand me, im not saying the takedown didnt happen.I believe there was a rule change that pretty much say that if the the one initializing the takedown doesnt keep the other fighter down for a short period (like 5-10 sec or something) and doesnt try to advance to a dominant position the takedown isnt scored as "big". Which is pretty much what i been saying the whole time. If you get the takedown you must secure a dominant position or do something with it for it to "count". otherwise the person whos defending the takedown isnt getting credit enough for defending against it. that was the problem with the old rules, it favored the wrestleres a lot. So im happy they changed it.

Im not saying there shouldnt be any takedowns or they shouldnt count. im just saying that if you take somebody down then you should do something with it. like advance a position not just laying on them and holding on for dear life. Anyway it feels like we are going in circles now so agree to disagree?
 
If true, great. Just because you lay on a guy for the entire round and do nothing why should you be rewarded with a 10-8? It's just like standing, if you're running around in and out with pitter patter and your opponent blocks a bunch and the strikes do not to damage, while landing a few of his own, why reward that guy with a 10-8?

If you clearly caused damage and dominated, either on the ground or standing, then yes, you deserve a 10-8.
 
I just listened to this despite it being difficult to listen to the guy. Idt this will make any difference whatsoever if it's even a thing that's taken serious in anyway. So there's more of an emphasis on damage and knockdowns. It sounds like this guy was drastically going overboard with the explanation, as if fights are almost all judged on damage. What a waste of time watching that.
 
we'll see. it could cause a lot of draws.


Personally I think a half point scoring system would help MMA remain accurate and Object
I believe that if judges actually scored 10-10 rounds more it would lead to more draws then damage centric 10-8 rounds.
 
It has been that way since the new scoring went into effect years ago. The problem is the judges don't seem to know it or the commentators.

It's pretty simple. The person that does the most damage wins the round. If the damage is equal or there is a stalemate, you then go to grappling. If grappling is equal then you go to aggression. If aggression is equal. Then you go to control.

Based on that, you should be able to easily determine who wins a round. Also, all a 10-8 round means is "clearly winning the round" where as a 10-9 is winning a competitive round.

10-7 exists but is almost non-existent in the new scoring because it means an utter domination and the fight should be stopped.

10-8s should be very common these days but are still treated like 10-7s in the old scoring. Judges and commentators should have a weekend retreat where they are taught the new rules, forced to watch fights and score them. They don't get to leave until everyone scores them exactly the same showing they understand the rules.
Gray Maynard should've gotten a 10-7 first round in the Frankie rematch and 10-8 in the first round of the rubber fight.
 
Is this an official SAC interpretation of the rules thing or is this just something the judging community(is that a thing?) has decided to move towards in recent years as they've gotten more experience under their belt?
Listen to the video. It's on Sherdog FP
 
Absolutely it should. It's insanely tiring to take people who are also good wrestlers down and maybe less points, that's fine ( not imo but tolerable) , but not even considered anything? That's sounds crazy to me. The new generation of fans that want to change the sport and actually think scoring a td should literally mean nothing is baffling. No disrespect but anyone that thinks that imo is probably new to the sport (or a troll) and certainly never wrestled aka have no appreciation for certain skills because they have no clue what they are looking at. Takedowns shouldn't count? Really lol. Again no disrespect, just my opinion and i'm sure a very high % of others opinions.
But what that other poster was saying is already the rule for what a takedown is. You have to hold the person down for an appreciable period of time and move into a more advantageous position. (Note, this is not the same as the definition of "takedown" in amateur wrestling).

That is why Colby was not credited with a TD against Usman in the rematch. He had a body lock ride the whole time (from standing to the ground and back to standing) so he didn't improve position. Is man's hands and knees briefly hit the mat and popped right back up so there wasn't an appreciable amount of time either.

Anyway as for the rest of what you're saying, I interpret the rules as basically saying takedowns count ... if you do something with them. If you do nothing with it it doesn't count. So if you land offense (some strikes or a sub attempt) the offense counts + the takedown is extra credit over and above that.
 
This is great. Take a guy down for most of a round and now you have to actually hurt them to earn a 10-8.
 
Good change

Strikes landed
Poirier: 180
Holloway: 208

Yet, Poirier knocked down Max twice and wobbled him 3 more times.
Holloway bled, bruised, swollen, eyes half closed
Poirier had a few scratches

Everybody knows Poirier clearly won the fight, despite landing less
 
You can't accurately quantify damage
 
UFC should've swapped to PRIDE-style scoring criteria a long time ago, that's very obvious to any real fight fan. Lay-n-pray wrestle humping should not be rewarded, stalling against the fence without doing damage should not be rewarded. Having a light sparring/mittwork session instead of a simulated deathmatch shouldn't be either. They're inching towards it year by year now, Dana is a just bleed fan at heart so I expect it changes for the better over time.
 
Not sure what to think about "pillow" fisted fighters not being able to get a 10-8 rounds.
Seems like a whole lot of subjectivity is involved. Just because someone's head doesn't snap back by a single punch, or they're not bloodied up, doesn't mean you're not doing damage with 100 punches landed. Seems like a fairly casual way to think about striking. Only a punch that makes viewers go wooooaaaah epic gets you points that extra point. I don't think I like it.

The problem has always been judging and application of rules, not the exact criteria on paper.
We should have seen many more 10-8 rounds than we did, even with the current rules.
Judges won't award them as they should.
 
Interesting, I like it, but it’s going to make for a hell of a lot more controversy. Which is good, circumstantially.
 
Back
Top