DAMAGE is now the main criteria for 10-8 rounds

[HeffDoesWant]

I want to see 10-10s and 10-7s, it's crazy they effectively don't exist.

 

[Fioretti]

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?

To elaborate on this, stuffing a takedown used to (rightfully so) count as effective grappling and Octagon control. They changed that a few years back, and now the guy defending takedowns gets zero credit. That's bullshit. So now, a guy can defend 4 takedowns in a row, get tripped and touch the ground for half a second, stand up and defend another 3 takedown attempts, yet the dude who failed 8 times gets points for aggression and control.

Number 1 bullshit.

 

[Bend NvR Break]

To elaborate on this, stuffing a takedown used to (rightfully so) count as effective grappling and Octagon control. They changed that a few years back, and now the guy defending takedowns gets zero credit. That's bullshit. So now, a guy can defend 4 takedowns in a row, get tripped and touch the ground for half a second, stand up and defend another 3 takedown attempts, yet the dude who failed 8 times gets points for aggression and control.

Number 1 bullshit.

You want to credit the guy for being FORCED to defend but not credit the guy who FORCED him to do something?

So if a guy attempts 10 TD and gets every one defended you score for the guy on defense you didn't no anything offensively at all and had the entire round dictated by his opponent? I'm sorry but that's just stupid in my back.

Defending TD should never be scored because it's defensive in nature. The reward for defending a TD is not getting taken down.

That's like saying in basketball you should get points for steals and blocks.

 

[Domitian]

What is the point of a 10-8 if by the time you get it the fight is already essentially over? Not saying I'm not fine with it just trying to see the logic here. Also how can you determine damage? If a fighter gets an injury mid-fight shouldn't that count as damage?

 

[PPVpoints]

But takedowns should still be important. Like if you take someone down 3 times that should be an easy 10-8

 

[killakillakilla]

It’s been that way for a couple years now. This is nothing new.

 

[Bend NvR Break]

It’s been that way for a couple years now. This is nothing new.

No. Before you could theoretically take someone down, control them for the entire round without doing any damage but clearly control the fight and get a 10-8.

Or you could pitter patter punch and just score way more strikes than your opponent but not really damage them (ex Colby vs Robbie) and get a 10-8.

 

[killakillakilla]

No. Before you could theoretically take someone down, control them for the entire round without doing any damage but clearly control the fight and get a 10-8.

Or you could pitter patter punch and just score way more strikes than your opponent but not really damage them (ex Colby vs Robbie) and get a 10-8.

that can still happen if the judges decide it’s a 10-8. But that doesn’t mean the rule is different. Damage is supposed to be the main driver for effective striking and round scores. This is not new. It’s been that way for years now.

it’s like the debate going on whether Colby scored a td against Kamaru or not. According to the rules, that was clearly not a takedown. But that doesn’t stop fans and other experts like Cormier from arguing it was a takedown.

 

[froggyluv]

Damage is easy to discern -simply wait for Rogan's "Oh he ROCKED EEM!!".
10-7

 

[Sketch]

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.

Should have happened years ago. Great change.

 

[Chappi]

But takedowns should still be important. Like if you take someone down 3 times that should be an easy 10-8

Nope, that is was has to change, a takedown and/or control on itself is meaningless in a fight and shoud score very low if at all.

 

[Masturbin]

The damage should be the reward

 

[Fioretti]

You want to credit the guy for being FORCED to defend but not credit the guy who FORCED him to do something?

So if a guy attempts 10 TD and gets every one defended you score for the guy on defense you didn't no anything offensively at all and had the entire round dictated by his opponent? I'm sorry but that's just stupid in my back.

Defending TD should never be scored because it's defensive in nature. The reward for defending a TD is not getting taken down.

That's like saying in basketball you should get points for steals and blocks.

It's effective grappling and Octagon control. There's an order of importance as far as judging criteria goes, and if there is no striking, the next priority is effective grappling. You believe the guy unsuccessfully spamming takedowns should be rewarded? That shit's weak.

Effective striking
Effective grappling
Aggression
Octagon control

The guy continuously defending the takedowns is demonstrating a higher level of success and effectiveness in 2 out of 3 applicable criteria. If, by chance, there are zero strikes thrown, and that particular round was a grappling match, as we are hypothetically discussing, then yes. 100% the guy defending those takedowns should take the round. You're claiming the guy spamming takedowns should win the round on aggression only? Despite it being only the 2nd highest priority and 33% of the applicable judging? Shit's weak, man.

 

[ExxA]

To elaborate on this, stuffing a takedown used to (rightfully so) count as effective grappling and Octagon control. They changed that a few years back, and now the guy defending takedowns gets zero credit. That's bullshit. So now, a guy can defend 4 takedowns in a row, get tripped and touch the ground for half a second, stand up and defend another 3 takedown attempts, yet the dude who failed 8 times gets points for aggression and control.

Number 1 bullshit.

Yeah the rules are super weird at times. Same with the judges who all 3 see the fight differently somehow.

 

[Kryptt]

I still see no valid News reguarding a change to the Unified MMA rulees since 2019...

 

[kingghidrah]

Nope, that is was has to change, a takedown and/or control on itself is meaningless in a fight and shoud score very low if at all.

You're right, 3 takedowns should be 10-7. Every takedown subtracts another point from the loser's round.

 

[maximus__]

But takedowns should still be important. Like if you take someone down 3 times that should be an easy 10-8

Why? It just means someone was able to get back up 2x?
If you take someone down once and positionally dominate them, that is more effective and impressive.
If you do the above whilst beating the absolute crap out of them or chaining subs, that earns you a 10-8. Neither of the above should.

 

[Kwic]

I'm not a fan of having a clear winners being awarded 10:9 only, because there are these super close rounds that are also 10:9.
In this case they should either be 10:10,or if you are going to score them 10:9 then a clear cut winner, e.g. Control on the ground for the whole round but no damage should equal 10:8.
A close round but one fighter knocking down the opponent could also be 10:8 in that case if we include damage.
If one fighter is dominating the round and is close to stopping the opponent then 10:7.

I can see you criticising my approach but what I hate the most is 10:9 rounds for razor thin rounds and 10:9 rounds for e.g. Positional dominance. If there is a clear cut winner of the round don't make it the same as razon close rounds, unless you incorporate 10:10 into these rounds, as it should be.
Giving the same value for the rounds that are close and those that are not are the major factor for the shitty scorecards and 30:27 one way and 30:27 the other way.

I agree that damage should be counted most,but what is damage? To me, people visibly wobbled or knocked down or absorbing a lot of hard strikes.
But little cuts and bruising shouldn't be counted as much since everyone's skin takes damage differently. Anderson would wear it a lot better than GSP for example.

 

[kenetics]

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?

So basically what pride used to do lol. Man UFC rules and scoring are bad . Glad their finally catching up.

 

[SuperNerd]

I still see no valid News reguarding a change to the Unified MMA rulees since 2019...

Hide your "source" in a unlinked 30+ minute podcast and you can convince these dorks of anything.