How about judging each round individually?

[Dr. Rose]

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.

Thanks, I was not following him either. I think the downside would be those rounds were someone handily wins, like a 10-8 round, which seems like it should matter.

 

[Cartiac]

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.

For sure, there are rounds where even someone watching for the first time could tell one guy did better than the other and scored a 10-8. Even more so when one on guy beats the shit out of the other particularly in striking rounds and should be scored 10-7. There are also many cases when nothing really happens so neither fighter should be hugely rewarded with a point advantage. If it is too close to call, it is too close to call so stop calling it.

The ABC's wording of the criteria was far from clear in the past but in the latest revision it is very clear, concise, common sense scoring. UFC made a big deal about 12-6 elbows no longer being fouls but not a single hint of ever following the judging criteria.

 

[Cartiac]

Thanks, I was not following him either. I think the downside would be those rounds were someone handily wins, like a 10-8 round, which seems like it should matter.

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!

 

[Doctor Grudge]

The rounds are already scored individually.

 

[gentel]

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

At least they try to, though the earlier rounds still affect how they feel about later ones

 

[Jinx_AA]

Showing the scores after each round would be nice (open scoring)

Would make fighters go for it

But it’ll never happen

Don’t leave it to the judges … boxing is corruptnAF too … tale as old as time

 

[Tweak896]

I swear that some fights have Fighter A and Fighter B having close rounds 1 and 2. Then round 3 fighter B takes over and beats the shit out of fighter A, but a couple judges had fighter A with both the first rounds, so they quietly erase one of the close rounds and give it to fighter B. Atleast that's what I think happens most of the time.

Or judges will just make sure to hand out rounds 1 and 2 to each fighter if they think both were close regardless who really edged it, so if round 3 is dominant they make sure to give the better fighter scored for the decision. We haven't had alot of Rampage/Machida decisions since and I think that's why.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

I swear that some fights have Fighter A and Fighter B having close rounds 1 and 2. Then round 3 fighter B takes over and beats the shit out of fighter A, but a couple judges had fighter A with both the first rounds, so they quietly erase one of the close rounds and give it to fighter B. Atleast that's what I think happens most of the time.

Or judges will just make sure to hand out rounds 1 and 2 to each fighter if they think both were close regardless who really edged it, so if round 3 is dominant they make sure to give the better fighter scored for the decision. We haven't had alot of Rampage/Machida decisions since and I think that's why.

From what I understand, (some? maybe all?) commissions have people checking the scores given after each round to keep that tally going, so that shouldn't be a thing.

But with how unaccountable commissions are to everyone and everything, if a round was retroactively changed, how would that info ever come to light?

 

[SalvadorAllende]

Just have them fight to death

 

[dipstickjimmy]

I swear that some fights have Fighter A and Fighter B having close rounds 1 and 2. Then round 3 fighter B takes over and beats the shit out of fighter A, but a couple judges had fighter A with both the first rounds, so they quietly erase one of the close rounds and give it to fighter B. Atleast that's what I think happens most of the time.

Or judges will just make sure to hand out rounds 1 and 2 to each fighter if they think both were close regardless who really edged it, so if round 3 is dominant they make sure to give the better fighter scored for the decision. We haven't had alot of Rampage/Machida decisions since and I think that's why.

From what I understand, (some? maybe all?) commissions have people checking the scores given after each round to keep that tally going, so that shouldn't be a thing.

But with how unaccountable commissions are to everyone and everything, if a round was retroactively changed, how would that info ever come to light?

This is 100% what I think Mike Bell did in the Grasso vs Schevchenko 2 fight. He wanted Grasso to win and thought retroactively he should have given her a previous round so he made up a 10-8 to make himself a neutral draw. Completely corrupt but not for money IMO.

 

[Smooth Princess]

I don't know if anybody around here used to be on the old mmaweekly forums, but threads like this always feel like a prime opportunity to bring up the unbridled insanity of the Destin Scoring System

 

[milliniar]

To do what TS suggests imo should have more judges. Either random pick three for each round and the judge doesn't know, or 3 of 5 judges majority for that round.

Either way will be bad scores of fights nothing will truly fix bad judging.

 

[BigTruck]

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

I always finish.....

 

[Pequeño Corey]

At first, I thought it was stupid, but that’s bc I didn’t understand it.

Basically, if 2/3 judges gave you the round, you have won it and bank 10 points. If 2/3 gave a 10-8, then it will be so.

It would make draws impossible, unless, they allowed judges to award a draw for the round. Frankly, I wish judges were allowed to do that. Concerned about too many draws? Implement an OT round or something, kinda like overtime. Just an idea. Don’t flame me over it.

 

[El Panteron]

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 agree wholeheartedly but I'm not gonna lie I don't trust the judges to be consistent at all. A round squeaked by the tiniest of margins shouldn't count as much as (what is today) a clear 10-9, but where exactly do you draw the line? I have a pretty clear idea and surely you do too, but this judging scares me. At least when judges fuck up a 10-9 you still have wiggle room to recover.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

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....

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

Couldn't be more clear?
I agree it is clear but confusing.
Your opening line:

How about judging each round individually​

I think my response was pretty clear. Not sure WTF your actual point is so it certainly isn't clear.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

I agree wholeheartedly but I'm not gonna lie I don't trust the judges to be consistent at all. A round squeaked by the tiniest of margins shouldn't count as much as (what is today) a clear 10-9, but where exactly do you draw the line? I have a pretty clear idea and surely you do too, but this judging scares me. At least when judges fuck up a 10-9 you still have wiggle room to recover.

I thought it would be interesting to have the following nuance added to the 10-9 system.

Round 1 is a 10-9
Round 2 is a 10-9 is it > then round 1 in dominance? yes or no
Round 3 is a 10-9 is it > then round 2 in dominance? Yes or no

Whichever round is most dominant gets an extra point.

GSP vs Hendricks is a perfect example of a fight where this would help.
Round 3 & 5 were clear for GSP, Round 2 & 4 were clear for Hendricks.
Round 1 was razor thin and could go either way.

However one round stood out statistically by a wide margin. Round 3 had GSP land more then double the significant strikes 31-15. The other rounds were a difference of 1, 2, 4 & 5 significant strikes. With an added point for the most dominant round the outcome becomes clearer.

In a fight where round 1 & 2 are close 10-9s for fighter A and then fighter B has a dominant round 3 it would end in a draw which is totally acceptable and if the round is an actual 10-8 worthy round the bonus point tips the scales to give them the win. A perfect example of this would be Tom Lawlor vs Aaron Simpson. Tom nearly killed Simpson in the first. Significant strikes 32-13 and iirc although he isn't credited with any knockdowns I recall Simpson being floored and almost finished several times. Simpson eeked out 10-9's in the 2nd and 3rd on two scorecards and took a huge robbery IMO.

 

[markg171]

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

The 10 point must system would work fine if we actually used it like boxing did and kept the 1 point deductions in the event of a knock down. Which even our own rules say is supposed to be scored heavily but people handwave away constantly in their scoring.

Too many people out there giving 10-9 rounds to guys who get dropped simply because they think they still did better overall. Okay, well that's a 9-9 round unless you really rallied your way back to a 9-8. And if you lost it's a 10-8 cause you both lost overall and got dropped.

Which is far more defensible than just guessing what the fuck we're supposed to do with KDs or ignoring them. If they happen score them.

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.

People are already confused with the current system. Adding even more rules is just going to confuse people even more, not clarify things.

I say this despite saying the above about ruling KDs properly and adding that wrinkle to the current system. More rules will add more confusion no matter how clear they are - look at how boxing abuses that KD rule by giving that decision to the ref who often makes pretty clearly corrupt/inept calls to avoid that round having to be scored that way.

My ideal judging world is just giving a 1 or a 0 for each round and making it as simple as possible: you either won it or you didn't. That would also get rid of draws, which I mean championship fights already essentially do by the champ retaining their belt in that scenario instead of creating co-champions. Draws already aren't real at the highest level, get rid of them everywhere.

 

[Tweak896]

From what I understand, (some? maybe all?) commissions have people checking the scores given after each round to keep that tally going, so that shouldn't be a thing.

But with how unaccountable commissions are to everyone and everything, if a round was retroactively changed, how would that info ever come to light?

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.

This is 100% what I think Mike Bell did in the Grasso vs Schevchenko 2 fight. He wanted Grasso to win and thought retroactively he should have given her a previous round so he made up a 10-8 to make himself a neutral draw. Completely corrupt but not for money IMO.

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.

 

[Alpha_T83]

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

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.