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

[Emjay]

I just think fights should be judged as a whole I don't have all the answers to how it would work figured out

So you don't really know what you want. You just think you want something that isn't what's currently happening because you weren't happy with the result of a recent event.

Typical

 

[Peregrine01]

Fights should be judged in totality. The problem is that there are no points scored in fights, which makes it hard to keep track throughout the course of a fight. Which is why fights are scored on a round by round basis.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

1-3 were a one sided beatdown...

Forget your Alpha Brain this morning?

 

[Xyiencemma]

So you don't really know what you want. You just think you want something that isn't what's currently happening because you weren't happy with the result of a recent event.

Typical

Like I said that would be like you saying who Jones should fight next and I ask you the date and venue and how many tickets will sell. I don't know I just know that the 10 point system is not fair to the fighters and we have a lot of judging problems. I don't know what the physical score card would look like

 

[egk]

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).

Pride had a lot of things wrong with it and had a reputation for shananigans but that's nothing to do with the scoring system itself. I believe it was much better.

As much hate as BJ gets on here, I think he had it right a couple of years ago when he talked about the scoring system being screwed up and how fights needed to be based more on damage. His ideas were pretty similar to how Pride's system was supposed to work.

 

[egk]

Fights should be judged in totality. The problem is that there are no points scored in fights, which makes it hard to keep track throughout the course of a fight. Which is why fights are scored on a round by round basis.

The thing is, rounds are supposed to be scored in a vacuum. Totally removed from the others. When you score the fight as a whole you can still keep track of who you think is winning but light hitting rounds with little action or damage shouldn't count the same as ones where someone is obviously hurt but they often do.

Boxing has an almost automatic 10-8 for a knockdown but you don't see that in MMA.

 

[trident]

And you know what as a whole fits one more of that fight and only got a draw. And I'm a penn fan. Penn one the first and half of the second, fitch one half of the second and one the third more than bj one the first yet it was still a draw. If you judge that fight as a whole fitch wins yet that was taken away from him and it was a draw because of the 10 point system

Dude, it's "won".

Anyway, I agree with you.

 

[Magnum1978]

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

No I'm not saying that it DOESN'T MATTER. What I'm saying is IF a fighter wins the first (say 3) rounds in a five round fight, but the winning they did early on did not stop their opponent from taking over the fight and beating them in the last 2 rounds, then how much can the early 'winning' REALLY be worth? In a logical fight scenario, like in NHB contest, if a fighter is only 'hanging on' in the last 2 rounds, how much significance does his early 'winning' do? Its certainly not helping him win the fight when he's under mount getting pounded on (aside from it just being 'oh he won the early rounds').

And obviously I'm not saying that if a fighter is being beaten for 18 out of 20 minutes and makes is successful with a late flurry, there's got to be some common sense applied, its more in the case where a fighter goes all out, and dominates early proceedings (which might earn him three rounds), but clearly his opponent gets the better of things towards the end of the time.

Personally I think a fighter 'taking over the fight' is more important than early winning, but it would have to give me the impression that he was 'saved' by the bell. The judge would ask themselves "is there little doubt to me who would have won the fight, if it kept going?". I think that's an important question that is lost if you simply tally up rounds, as it is a question of judgement. And obviously with any system it must be backed up by competent judges. The UFC is the olympics of MMA, any system I would envisage would be backed up by EXPERT judges, such as is the case in the olympics.


@Emjay you and I have argued this many times before. I respect your opinion, but we are never going to agree, so I'll save my typing Not that I don't respect your opinion, just that we've done if before so it's no real benefit to either of us!

How about this, this is another idea which I think caters for a bit of common ground between overall and round by round:- what about if the fight was decided with a panel of experienced fight judges using a 'worm' style technology. Above and below the line, for a fighter's level of dominance at any period through the fight (forget the criteria, that's a separate matter) and at the end of the fight, the area under the graph is tallied to make the decision.

Any takers?

 

[ManofSteel]

Under Pride rules, Jones obviously won last night, but under Unified Rules, I do not see how Jones won...

But I prefer round-by-round basis.

 

[Shaungotti]

That's why there is possibility for different scoring.

The current scoring system isn't bad, it's just used improperly.

10-9 for everything 10-8 for absolute destruction.

Should be. 10-10 for a toss up. 10-9 for a close round with a clear winner. 10-8 for a dominant round. 10-7 for destruction.

I agree with this. A lot of judges are so reluctant to score a 10-8 round, even when it's warranted. I mean, one judge scored round 1 of Sanchez/Guida 10-9. I mean, WTF? I realize that's one fight, but that kind of shit happens.

 

[SSJ16]

That's why there is possibility for different scoring.

The current scoring system isn't bad, it's just used improperly.

10-9 for everything 10-8 for absolute destruction.

Should be. 10-10 for a toss up. 10-9 for a close round with a clear winner. 10-8 for a dominant round. 10-7 for destruction.

Not a bad suggestion at all but i feel like the commissions are always so slow to change. Whenever it's left in the hands of the judges, there will always be room for controversy sadly.

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

Significant is probably the worst word you could have used...

They're called significant strikes for a reason...

I bet you're one of the morons who think Machida beat Shogun (and should have), aren't you?

I never thought Machida beat Shogun, so I don't know wtf you're talking about.

Jones landed some good elbows, that great spinning elbow, and that's about it. All of which were in the last 2 rds.

Most of the elbows he threw against Alex before rd 4 missed. Therefore the majority of his strikes that he landed which a lot of people point to why he won the fight were kicks to Alex's legs that didn't effect Alex in any way, shape, or form.

While Alex landed a bunch of punches to Jon's face that clearly shook Jon up and busted his face up.

That's what I mean when I say significant. The strikes that actually did visible damage, whether it is reflected on the fighter's face or with the way he reacts to the strike.

NONE of those kicks to Alex's legs did anything to even deter Alex from pushing forward. That's why I think it's bullshit to say he was outstruck, if you watch the fight Alex is pushing the pace, landing a lot of strikes, and not getting hurt by anything in the first 3 rds.

I do think however Jon landed the best strike with the spinning elbow that caused the most damage in the fight, but landing 1 big strike doesn't overtake the 100 or so strikes that clearly bothered Jon for rds 1-3.

In my opinion the strikes have to do damage to count for significant strikes. Jones landed maybe a handful in rds 4 and 5 while Alex landed a ton of them in the 1st 3 rds.

 

[fernandom]

If a round was an absolute destruction then why wasnt it a finish

 

[Dionysian]

I hate when people defend the 10-point must system insisting it works. It doesn't. It really doesn't. Especially not for 3 round fights. More 10-10s and 10-8s would simply mean more draws. How is that a good thing? Score the fights on a whole. I've used the scored by quarter analogy before too, it wouldn't make sense in other sports and it doesn't make sense in MMA.

This. 10 round must is terrible for MMA and was never meant for it.

 

[Emjay]

Like I said that would be like you saying who Jones should fight next and I ask you the date and venue and how many tickets will sell. I don't know I just know that the 10 point system is not fair to the fighters and we have a lot of judging problems. I don't know what the physical score card would look like

This makes absolutely no sense

 

[phoenixikki]

What a stupid thing to post.

Jon had an injury that was hindering his mobility, of course he was in a bed you jackass...

Truth hurts doesn't?

 

[MilesAbove]

That's why there is possibility for different scoring.

The current scoring system isn't bad, it's just used improperly.

10-9 for everything 10-8 for absolute destruction.

Should be. 10-10 for a toss up. 10-9 for a close round with a clear winner. 10-8 for a dominant round. 10-7 for destruction.

It actually is 10-10 through 10-7... but judges are almost as bad as sherdoggers when it comes to idiocy and so they do it sparingly and inconsistently.

 

[spinitch]

Do not like Scoring rounds 10 point system as determination of winner. An unfortunate carry over from boxing.

Would prefer fights be judged like Pride. Even then quite subjective, so inevitable disagreements when close. Should have more ties or extra round.

As a fan I do not care much for judging in UFC, unfortunately affects fighters next match and pay. So would like addressed.

 

[Emjay]

Jones landed some good elbows, that great spinning elbow, and that's about it. All of which were in the last 2 rds.

Jones didn't kick Gus in the head 100 times throughout the fight... nah that didn't happen

...kicks to Alex's legs that didn't effect Alex in any way, shape, or form.

Sup Gus. Didn't know you posted on Sherdog

While Alex landed a bunch of punches to Jon's face that clearly shook Jon up and busted his face up.

Shook him up? WTF does that even mean. Jones was coming forward 90% of the fight.

That's what I mean when I say significant. The strikes that actually did visible damage, whether it is reflected on the fighter's face or with the way he reacts to the strike.

The strike that cut Jones was a grazing one.

NONE of those kicks to Alex's legs did anything to even deter Alex from pushing forward. That's why I think it's bullshit to say he was outstruck, if you watch the fight Alex is pushing the pace, landing a lot of strikes, and not getting hurt by anything in the first 3 rds.

Jones was never hurt in the first 5 rounds.

In my opinion the strikes have to do damage to count for significant strikes. Jones landed maybe a handful in rds 4 and 5 while Alex landed a ton of them in the 1st 3 rds.

You can't quantify damage. That's why it's not part of the criteria. It would put certain fighters at an inherent disadvantage to allow stuff like cuts or bruising to factor into the how the outcome of the fight is determined by the judges.

 

[Xyiencemma]

Dude, it's "won".

Anyway, I agree with you.

ha ha can't believe I did that