How about judging each round individually?

If that's the case then makes sense why some judges randomly score opposite for the opponent when the first 2 are close. There's ways to deal with anyone watching. I couldve sworn we've had judges who had mistakes on scorecards and rescored after the fight was over.



To be honest when I score at home I rewrite my own score cards or start to doubt my own score for previous rounds when 1 fighter takes the fight over. It sort of makes sense, like you think one aspect of the fight is most damaging but then later you realize it didn't affect the other guy.

Recently was Pereira Ankalaev where I thought Alex kicks were brutal and going to stop Ank and chop him down. But as the fight went on I didn't see him really affected. Judging is a hard job sometimes.
In GSP Hendricks so many cried robbery because Johnny did so much supposed damage. If that was the case why was GSP able to completely dominate him in the 5th? That's why judging each round as to whether or not it was more dominant then the last adds a layer to separate one razor close 10-9 from a clear 10-9. Would also incentivize dominance in a round which is more likely to lead to a finish.
 
I think he means if 2 or more judges score a round for a fighter, they get that round. In the example scorecard he showed, Islam is up 3-1 on two scorecards. But what he is proposing is that the "consensus" scorecard would give Poirier rounds 2 & 4 because he got 2 judges to give him each of those rounds.

So the fight would be scored 2-2 going into the 3rd, and whoever gets 2+ judges to give them round 5 wins the fight.
Yeah I get that. Doesn't take away from his thread title "They should score fights by the round" when they score fights by the round already. Even with his method the judges will find a way to fuck it all up.
 
Man, I must be too high for this thread.

Like, what?
No joke. I'm confused. What does this mean? Fights are already judged by round. Only in Japan and in ONE are fights judged as a whole.
 
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.

It doesn't work because of how few rounds there are. Adding half points won't change that.

I do like the idea of more judges, but I suspect that would just mean we'd have more bad judges judging more fights. And no one wins if that happens.
 
No joke. I'm confused. What does this mean? Fights are already judged by round. Only in Japan and in ONE are fights judged as a whole.

What TS means is that the victor of a round should be based on who took that round on at least two scorecards. Then, after you've determined the "average" winner of all three or five rounds, that's when you see who won the most rounds, and consequently, the fight.

In the example, Islam was up 3-1 on two scorecards, so no matter what happened in the fifth round, he was going to win the fight, because two judges had scorecards that had him winning. However, TS reasons that there could instead be an aggregate scorecard compiled on a round-by-round basis. By that method, Dustin won Round 2 and Round 4, because two judges had scored those rounds for him. Islam, meanwhile, would have taken Round 1 and Round 3 by way of being 3-0 on the scorecards for those rounds. (Put another way, he had won those rounds on at least two scorecards.) Scored that way, the winner of the fifth round would win the fight, because as an aggregate, each fighter had won two rounds apiece.
 
Last edited:
Thats...how it is already?

Only if you stopped at the title and didn't actually read the post. TS is saying you award each round based on who won it on more scorecards, then you total those results to find the overall winner.
 
No the way it is it makes more sense.
 
In GSP Hendricks so many cried robbery because Johnny did so much supposed damage. If that was the case why was GSP able to completely dominate him in the 5th? That's why judging each round as to whether or not it was more dominant then the last adds a layer to separate one razor close 10-9 from a clear 10-9. Would also incentivize dominance in a round which is more likely to lead to a finish.
That's another good pick of a fight where judging is very controversial. I think there are unspoken methods of judging that are implied but not written down which we can accept. Especially for that fight I remember the mantra being "to be the champ you have to beat the champ" and Hendricks took off the gas at the end. Another good one is Jones/Reyes.
 
That is a great point that explains exactly why they calculate the scoring the way they do. And even though, as I have been harping on in this thread, judges don't currently use the scoring system as they should, your point completely destroys OPs premise since it does not allow for any measure of performance differential scoring. You are a genius Doc!
Thank you for the kind words!
 
Back
Top