How about judging each round individually?

[Goat Poster]

Would it help make judging more fair? If you look at a scorecard like this:

The majority of judges agree that Poirier won rounds 2 and 4 and he could have unanimously won round 5 and still lose. So you can have a majority of judges thinking you won the majority of the rounds and still lose the fight.
On the other side if you judge round by round you could have the majority of judges thinking you won the fight and still lose it. Which one is worse?

Judging fights as a whole seems the better option to me but I don't think it is realistic to expect such a big change. It causes too much friction to get rid of the round scoring but a small change like this is easily implemented and could possibly make the judging more accurate.


Are there any fights were judging by round would make for a better scorecard?

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

I always used Condit-Kampmann for this example.

The trouble is treating rounds where a fighter gets the majority of the scorecards (something that exemplifies the variance of those rounds) on equal footing as the rounds where a fighter clearly took the round across all scorecards.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

Would it help make judging more fair? If you look at a scorecard like this:

The majority of judges agree that Poirier won rounds 2 and 4 and he could have unanimously won round 5 and still lose. So you can have a majority of judges thinking you won the majority of the rounds and still lose the fight.
On the other side if you judge round by round you could have the majority of judges thinking you won the fight and still lose it. Which one is worse?

Judging fights as a whole seems the better option to me but I don't think it is realistic to expect such a big change. It causes too much friction to get rid of the round scoring but a small change like this is easily implemented and could possibly make the judging more accurate.


Are there any fights were judging by round would make for a better scorecard?

I think they already do score rounds individually don't they?

 

[milliniar]

I think they already do score rounds individually don't they?

Yep each judge scores each round. This thread is brought to you by commentary or Rogan and Cruz who talk like a fighter could steal the fight by winning the third round.

 

[djacobox372]

Scoring won't change... both boxing and MMA like the current system as it makes it easier for the house to manipulate the outcome.

More accurate scoring could only be achieved by increasing the scoring intervals. That could only be done with a massive change to the system (decoupling scoring from rounds).

 

[Goat Poster]

I think they already do score rounds individually don't they?

Who cares man?English is not my 1st language but if Mohawk Banditó got it, why can't you?

The purpose of the thread is clear....

Scoring won't change...

Literally the 1st response of the thread is a guy showing that the scores would change.

 

[SuperNerd]

This how judging should be done

Jon Jones, Ronda and Georges.

 

[Cartiac]

I think they already do score rounds individually don't they?

Yes each judge score rounds individually, but OP's is regarding how they aggregate the round scoring to determine the decision. Instead of adding up all of the round scores to the fight level so each judge determines who they thought won the fight as a whole, making the final decision based on the total number of rounds the fighter won across the judges. It is an interesting nuance to think about, but pointless to consider in real life.

The best thing to improve scoring would be to start using at least a couple more of those numbers in the 10 point system not just the 10 and 9.

 

[markys00]

Man, I must be too high for this thread.

Like, what?

 

[Luthien]

Scrap decisions and you either get a finish or you both lose

 

[markys00]

Yes each judge score rounds individually, but OP's is regarding how they aggregate the round scoring to determine the decision. Instead of adding up all of the round scores to the fight level so each judge determines who they thought won the fight as a whole, making the final decision based on the total number of rounds the fighter won across the judges. It is an interesting nuance to think about, but pointless to consider in real life.

The best thing to improve scoring would be to start using at least a couple more of those numbers in the 10 point system not just the 10 and 9.

No. The complete opposite. Liberal use of 10-8s or less will make whole sport worse. Please, stop pushing this.

 

[BEATDOWNS]

Scrap decisions and you either get a finish or you both lose

Sudden death Power Slap match

 

[laleggenda27]

The 10-point must system wasn't designed (and doesn't work) for mma.

If the sport insists on keeping this system, then I'd make 2 changes:

1. Add half points, so rounds with a clear winner can be distinguished from 50-50 rounds.
2. Add more judges (minimum of 5 total judges), with the outlier scorecards being discarded.

 

[Kwic]

Yes each judge score rounds individually, but OP's is regarding how they aggregate the round scoring to determine the decision. Instead of adding up all of the round scores to the fight level so each judge determines who they thought won the fight as a whole, making the final decision based on the total number of rounds the fighter won across the judges. It is an interesting nuance to think about, but pointless to consider in real life.

The best thing to improve scoring would be to start using at least a couple more of those numbers in the 10 point system not just the 10 and 9.

Unfortunately even Shermanos think that you have to kill the person to get a 10:8.
So if Shermanos think that then no wonder the judges give 10:9 for a super close round and 10:9 for a round where there was a super clear winner of the round and 10:9 where there were 7 knockdowns but the other guy scored a takedown 2 second before the round ended.
Shermanos agree, they nod in approval of that saying that it correct because the other guy still can see though his eyeballs, if he didn't see and he was bleeding from BOTH of his eyeballs and had a seizure then MAYBE 10:8 is warranted, but only if that loss of vision and bleeding was for at least 4 minutes and 45 seconds, then 5 seconds for the seizures. Then all Shermanos agree it's a 10:8 (maybe almost all).

 

[TheMoa]

I think I prefer the old pride method of scoring the fight as a whole instead of round by round, I know it has it's drawbacks but I dont like how a pretty even round that can go either way is scored the same 10-9 as a round where a fighter outstruck and knocked down the opponent (but didnt kill him to get a 10-8)

 

[GrantB13]

They already do.

 

[Hymen Crusher]

After 3 if no one wins have them play rock paper scissors. It would be more fair and make sense more often then these shit judges cards

 

[Cartiac]

Unfortunately even Shermanos think that you have to kill the person to get a 10:8.
So if Shermanos think that then no wonder the judges give 10:9 for a super close round and 10:9 for a round where there was a super clear winner of the round and 10:9 where there were 7 knockdowns but the other guy scored a takedown 2 second before the round ended.
Shermanos agree, they nod in approval of that saying that it correct because the other guy still can see though his eyeballs, if he didn't see and he was bleeding from BOTH of his eyeballs and had a seizure then MAYBE 10:8 is warranted, but only if that loss of vision and bleeding was for at least 4 minutes and 45 seconds, then 5 seconds for the seizures. Then all Shermanos agree it's a 10:8 (maybe almost all).

Yea, looks like you've covered the full gamut of arguments presented here.

It is crazy that most commissions officially adopt the ABC suggested rules for combat sports pretty closely, but not a single one of them executes anything close to the Judging Criteria section of those rules that are spelled out extremely clear. Even = 10-10 Close = 10-9 Clear = 10-8 Dominant = 10-7. The scoring needs to reward the behavior they want and reflect what we all can clearly see, we shouldn't constantly have this confusion about which hair the judges split to decide the fight.

That scale is very clear and would make much more sense to everyone watching that currently have no idea how the guy that laid on top of his opponent for the first 10 minutes, but 5 minutes later has his skull showing and eyeball hanging is still declared the winner of the fight.

 

[ncboy]

heard this 10000 x in the past 20 years, such a unique idea. It's like socialism, we know it fails but everyone wants to try again and again

 

[Hymen Crusher]

Yes each judge score rounds individually, but OP's is regarding how they aggregate the round scoring to determine the decision. Instead of adding up all of the round scores to the fight level so each judge determines who they thought won the fight as a whole, making the final decision based on the total number of rounds the fighter won across the judges. It is an interesting nuance to think about, but pointless to consider in real life.

The best thing to improve scoring would be to start using at least a couple more of those numbers in the 10 point system not just the 10 and 9.

I am someone who thinks there are so many 10 10 and 10 8 that are never scored. Judges need to get a boxing 10 8 out of their head. They think you need a ko or near ko and a beating for 10 8. Merab had 1 or 2 1 rounds against Sean for example that aren't scored like that.