FIGHTS need to be scored as a whole not round by round

[Jagan Eye]

TS is gonna get a lot of idiots that are going to disagree with him but he's right.

Trying to utilize a boxing scoring system for MMA is a disaster. Pride had it right where you judge the fight as a whole.

 

[Emjay]

The same way you do now but instead of judging by who had aggression, octagon control damgage etc pr round you judge who did that the best as a whole. You take the same criteria now but make it as one fight instead of 3 or 5 rounds.

So what exactly would a score to a fight look like?

 

[Paralakz]

He's the worst really. Read his post history its terrible.

Alrite man, I'm gonna dive in... I'm blaming you if I come out in worse shape than I enter, though.

 

[Paralakz]

So what exactly would a score to a fight look like?

Jones: W
Gus: L

Maybe?

 

[hoyle1911]

I think the unified rules has many issues, but I'm willing to work with it. The round based system is what we have.

And let's not pretend this isn't about Bones vs Gus. Under Pride, Bones would win due to staggering his opponent with elbows (which would have been banned btw) and knees. Gus had better cut and swelling damage, but Bones did the better job nearly finishing his opponent. The only way Jon would have lost in Japan is if oversensitive doctors ended the fight due to Pride-o cut-oh ippon.

 

[Emjay]

Jones: W
Gus: L

Maybe?

That's not good enough

People are going to want to know why or better yet HOW that conclusion was determined

 

[DCarf]

Imagine if a football game ended like this! 31- 28 Seahawks over 49ers.(just an example) Now lets say the 49ers scored 7 points in all 4 quarters. Lets say the Seahawks scored 3 points the first 3 quarters and 22 in the 4th. So 49ers scored more points per quarter and the Seahawks scored more points in the whole game. Imagine if the winner of that game was the 49ers because they scored more pr quarter. That's how fighting is. If you win the rounds but lose the fight overall you win. Now I scored it for Gus 48-47 but that aside doesn't it seem silly that a fight is scored by rounds. Seriously think about that and imagine if in football you won because you scored more pr quarter even if you had a lower score at the end of the game. That would be insane and there would be riots yet in combat sports that is okay. Yes it is harder to break a fight down into 1 giant piece but it needs to be done!!!!

Pretty Interesting IMO. Let's say though that a guy wins easily for four rounds than gets savagely beaten in the 5th and saved by the bell? Who would you say won?

 

[Demoslasher]

TS is gonna get a lot of idiots that are going to disagree with him but he's right.

Trying to utilize a boxing scoring system for MMA is a disaster. Pride had it right where you judge the fight as a whole.

Your join date says everything to me about how much you actually know or remember about Pride...Pride had bar none the most absolute fucking robberies in the history of MMA

The problem with judging a fight as a whole, as pride did often, was a guy can land one flurry in round one where he stumbles the other fighter and get out stuck the rest of the fight and still win. Under Pride rules, that flurry at the end of round 4 would have won jones the fight and all us fans that actually were around back then know this to be true

 

[Seven30]

Imagine if a football game ended like this! 31- 28 Seahawks over 49ers.(just an example) Now lets say the 49ers scored 7 points in all 4 quarters. Lets say the Seahawks scored 3 points the first 3 quarters and 22 in the 4th. So 49ers scored more points per quarter and the Seahawks scored more points in the whole game. Imagine if the winner of that game was the 49ers because they scored more pr quarter. That's how fighting is. If you win the rounds but lose the fight overall you win. Now I scored it for Gus 48-47 but that aside doesn't it seem silly that a fight is scored by rounds. Seriously think about that and imagine if in football you won because you scored more pr quarter even if you had a lower score at the end of the game. That would be insane and there would be riots yet in combat sports that is okay. Yes it is harder to break a fight down into 1 giant piece but it needs to be done!!!!

I think that for the most part, the person who dominates the fight does win. But being that human error is a factor, sometimes it gets a lil' f*cked up. In this particular case, I think the fight could have went either way, 48-47. I wouldn't have been mad one way or the other. Even a draw would have been a more accurate outcome than 49-46. At the same time, according to the fight statistics, Jones won....so who knows? Sometimes the team who gets the most yards & does the better job shutting down their opponents offense ends up losing because they don't score enough points. That's kind of the same logic in reverse. The team who dominated the game still loses 10-6 or something.

well, it is more due to the 10-9 *must* system, where winning a round is treated as getting 1 point.

if rounds were judged in a broader scale, where they used all 10 points, this wouldn't be a problem. A "10-9" can be a dominant round or a very close round.

scoring should be done so 1 dominant round outweighs 2 razor thin rounds. this paints a more accurate picture of a fight.

It's not a "10-9 *must* system." It's a "10 point *must* system." I think what you mean is that too often judges just score rounds 10-9 instead of utilizing their right to judge a round 10-10, 10-8, 10-7 or whatever the action calls for. They will throw out a generic 10-9, even when the round may call for a score that reflects what happened more accurately.

 

[knock_you_out]

More 10-10 rounds will end up with more draws and completely fuck it all up.

 

[ferrisjso]

The scoring system isn't the problem it's the way people use it.

 

[dieknowsore]

It's not a "10-9 *must* system." It's a "10 point *must* system." I think what you mean is that too often judges just score rounds 10-9 instead of utilizing their right to judge a round 10-10, 10-8, 10-7 or whatever the action calls for. They will throw out a generic 10-9, even when the round may call for a score that reflects what happened more accurately.

it is a "10-9" *must* system with the precedent that has been set.

 

[Magnum1978]

Yes, absolutely for MMA, fights need to be scored OVERALL, NOT round by round. And this is not just in respect to recent fights like Jones/Gus (I actually think Jones won the fight even if I scored it my way). I've had this opinion for years. As for the "judges need to use the system better" argument, I would argue that a judge can ONLY do as well as the system allows them.

IMO there are so many wrong things with scoring round by round (especially using the rubbish 10-9 must system), its ridiculous. At least in my opinion, these are the main things I feel wrong with "round by round" methodology in MMA:

- Each round (time wise) does not always equal another. 5 minutes of feeling out early on, does not equal 5 minutes of slugging out, or heated exchange in terms of significance of the overall fight.


- One significant event in a fight can be the determining/most significant event of a fight (when its a close each round) , yet often it is lost because it is seen only in context of that round, rather than the whole fight. And often this can be the biggest separator in a fight if everything else is very close.

- One 10-9 does not equal another 10-9 and one 10-8 doesn't equal another 10-8 (or two 10-9's. Its completely arbitrary and most often loses context once you 'tally the score')

- Early rounds should not equal late rounds, period. It's fine in boxing, that is a sport of boxing. MMA should always align to being a FIGHT. If you 'win' the early rounds, but that 'winning' you did really can't be worth much if it didn't help you from losing later on (i.e. gassing, fading out, getting your ass kicked late in the fight means all the work you did early on has been undone). At least logically from an observers perspective, it should. But round by round misses that context.

- Most fights are THREE rounds (way too few for round by round when historically it has been used for boxing with 12/15 shorter rounds). And here often 2 CLOSE rounds lead to a third in which at BEST the fighter who's losing the fight can do (even if he dominates the last round) is get a draw, if it goes to a decision. Then you often get a fighter 'protecting his lead' being defensive, etc and IMO fighting shouldn't be about protecting a lead. Round scoring promotes this mentality. A fighter should fight until the time is up, going for the finish at all times. The methodology should promote this, but it doesn't.


- Fighters (most of the time, especially when there's more on the line) fight with scoring always in their mind and behave with a 'round scoring' mindset, and especially at the end of a round. The system has an undue influence on HOW they fight and WHY are they doing what they are doing (i.e. attempts to land a late takedown with 15 seconds to go in a round to 'steal' the round. There is NO other reason to go for that takedown besides it being scored, you cannot finish with 15 seconds left in the round, the only reason is to try to win the round, and similar antics)

- Scoring each round promotes the mindset of a set time limit (much like a football/basketball game getting X score per quarter, etc). Where as in a fight, focus shouldn't be placed on when it ends, the mindset should be fight until you finish. Having set scoring milestones runs counter to this idea (and plays in the mind of the fighter, i.e like the previous point).

Basically scoring round by round does not align with the defining spirit of MMA (i.e. of an actual NHB no time limit no rules fight). So that is why I always prefer looking at a fight as a whole, with a criteria to reward effort/intent/proximity to FINISHING and effective damage (i.e. being rocked, showing signs of impairment like limping or gassing, swollen eyes, etc, not just superficial cuts or bruising)

I am happy for rounds to happen to break the action, but not for them to be individually scored.

This is just as I see it, but I do come from the old school days so i can appreciate how people used to round by round and who accept this current system would differ.

In summary fights IMO should be JUDGED, with a panel of judges that use judgement (not 'scored'/tallied up as if this is a football games).

 

[egk]

I've been saying this forever. Pride scored it as a whole and I think did a much better job. Sure, there will always be bad decisions and ones people disagree with but scoring as a whole with damage being the main criteria would help eliminate a lot of the points fighting we're seeing.

Someone could be laid on for 2 rounds and still win the fight if they light him up in the 3rd. As it is now, two rounds of lay and pray or two rounds of running and jabbing with a takedown in the last 10 seconds can win you a fight. As a bonus you can run away for the last round and still do it.

Scoring as a whole, Jones still wins this fight though. He was the only one close to finishing it when he had Gus staggering around the cage at the end of Rd4. The rest of the fight was razor close.

 

[Xyiencemma]

Actually he didn't but thanks for playing dumbass.

Well enjoy making your new sherdog account 9,400 posts down the drain

 

[Magnum1978]

Your join date says everything to me about how much you actually know or remember about Pride...Pride had bar none the most absolute fucking robberies in the history of MMA

No it didn't - name all these robberies and i reckon I could name you 5 for every one that have happened under the unified system, 10 if you count fights unduly influenced by the system (which happens almost every fight).

 

[Xyiencemma]

How do you determine who'd win the fight as a whole?

I don't know man. That's like me asking you who you posting who Jones should fight next then I ask you the Venue and what date. I just think fights should be judged as a whole I don't have all the answers to how it would work figured out

 

[Xyiencemma]

Pretty Interesting IMO. Let's say though that a guy wins easily for four rounds than gets savagely beaten in the 5th and saved by the bell? Who would you say won?

I have no clue I would have to see the fight to judge it. I cant read a typed up description and tell you. There could be 5 different fights where a guy wins 4 rounds easily and demolished in the 5th that could be scored different. Have to see a fight not an example

 

[Xyiencemma]

Yes, absolutely for MMA, fights need to be scored OVERALL, NOT round by round. And this is not just in respect to recent fights like Jones/Gus (I actually think Jones won the fight even if I scored it my way). I've had this opinion for years. As for the "judges need to use the system better" argument, I would argue that a judge can ONLY do as well as the system allows them.

IMO there are so many wrong things with scoring round by round (especially using the rubbish 10-9 must system), its ridiculous. At least in my opinion, these are the main things I feel wrong with "round by round" methodology in MMA:

- Each round (time wise) does not always equal another. 5 minutes of feeling out early on, does not equal 5 minutes of slugging out, or heated exchange in terms of significance of the overall fight.


- One significant event in a fight can be the determining/most significant event of a fight (when its a close each round) , yet often it is lost because it is seen only in context of that round, rather than the whole fight. And often this can be the biggest separator in a fight if everything else is very close.

- One 10-9 does not equal another 10-9 and one 10-8 doesn't equal another 10-8 (or two 10-9's. Its completely arbitrary and most often loses context once you 'tally the score')

- Early rounds should not equal late rounds, period. It's fine in boxing, that is a sport of boxing. MMA should always align to being a FIGHT. If you 'win' the early rounds, but that 'winning' you did really can't be worth much if it didn't help you from losing later on (i.e. gassing, fading out, getting your ass kicked late in the fight means all the work you did early on has been undone). At least logically from an observers perspective, it should. But round by round misses that context.

- Most fights are THREE rounds (way too few for round by round when historically it has been used for boxing with 12/15 shorter rounds). And here often 2 CLOSE rounds lead to a third in which at BEST the fighter who's losing the fight can do (even if he dominates the last round) is get a draw, if it goes to a decision. Then you often get a fighter 'protecting his lead' being defensive, etc and IMO fighting shouldn't be about protecting a lead. Round scoring promotes this mentality. A fighter should fight until the time is up, going for the finish at all times. The methodology should promote this, but it doesn't.


- Fighters (most of the time, especially when there's more on the line) fight with scoring always in their mind and behave with a 'round scoring' mindset, and especially at the end of a round. The system has an undue influence on HOW they fight and WHY are they doing what they are doing (i.e. attempts to land a late takedown with 15 seconds to go in a round to 'steal' the round. There is NO other reason to go for that takedown besides it being scored, you cannot finish with 15 seconds left in the round, the only reason is to try to win the round, and similar antics)

- Scoring each round promotes the mindset of a set time limit (much like a football/basketball game getting X score per quarter, etc). Where as in a fight, focus shouldn't be placed on when it ends, the mindset should be fight until you finish. Having set scoring milestones runs counter to this idea (and plays in the mind of the fighter, i.e like the previous point).

Basically scoring round by round does not align with the defining spirit of MMA (i.e. of an actual NHB no time limit no rules fight). So that is why I always prefer looking at a fight as a whole, with a criteria to reward effort/intent/proximity to FINISHING and effective damage (i.e. being rocked, showing signs of impairment like limping or gassing, swollen eyes, etc, not just superficial cuts or bruising)

I am happy for rounds to happen to break the action, but not for them to be individually scored.

This is just as I see it, but I do come from the old school days so i can appreciate how people used to round by round and who accept this current system would differ.

In summary fights IMO should be JUDGED, with a panel of judges that use judgement (not 'scored'/tallied up as if this is a football games).

I like everything you said minus the stuff about early rounds. So your saying the beginning of a fight doesn't matter and only what happens towards the end? Am I reading this right or what. You cant just forget about part of a fight

 

[Emjay]

One significant event in a fight can be the determining/most significant event of a fight (when its a close each round) , yet often it is lost because it is seen only in context of that round, rather than the whole fight. And often this can be the biggest separator in a fight if everything else is very close.

If everything else is very close then that significant event will actually mean something because it most likely determined the winner/loser of the round. It works in both systems.

- One 10-9 does not equal another 10-9 and one 10-8 doesn't equal another 10-8 (or two 10-9's. Its completely arbitrary and most often loses context once you 'tally the score')

There's got to be a 'score' somewhere. How else are judges going to keep track of who's meeting the criteria to win the fight?

- Fighters (most of the time, especially when there's more on the line) fight with scoring always in their mind and behave with a 'round scoring' mindset, and especially at the end of a round. The system has an undue influence on HOW they fight and WHY are they doing what they are doing (i.e. attempts to land a late takedown with 15 seconds to go in a round to 'steal' the round. There is NO other reason to go for that takedown besides it being scored, you cannot finish with 15 seconds left in the round, the only reason is to try to win the round, and similar antics)

It's almost like they feel like they're competing in a sport...

- Scoring each round promotes the mindset of a set time limit (much like a football/basketball game getting X score per quarter, etc). Where as in a fight, focus shouldn't be placed on when it ends, the mindset should be fight until you finish. Having set scoring milestones runs counter to this idea (and plays in the mind of the fighter, i.e like the previous point).

Again, something has to be 'scored' to meet the imposed criteria.

Basically scoring round by round does not align with the defining spirit of MMA (i.e. of an actual NHB no time limit no rules fight). So that is why I always prefer looking at a fight as a whole, with a criteria to reward effort/intent/proximity to FINISHING and effective damage (i.e. being rocked, showing signs of impairment like limping or gassing, swollen eyes, etc, not just superficial cuts or bruising)

The problem with "looking at the fight as a whole" is that it sounds like you could easily be swayed by one moment being more "significant" than any other moment in the fight and reward a winner based on that.