10 point system is flawed. There have been probably less than 10 10-8s ever which makes a 10-7 as likely as seeing a unicorn. Even if a guy fought the perfect round for a 10-7, that would probably lead to a finish anyway seeing as Lombard-Magny couldn't even get a 10-8 after 50 unanswered punches.
I think there should be 5 judges, and clarification of the rules in the differences from a 10-7 to a 10-8 as well as qualified judges who know the nuances of fighting like former fighters such as Ricardo Almeida. They should also be more liberal with 10-8s and not reward wall n stall/lay n pray.
Pretty much my thoughts on the matter too. Although I think we should do away with the 10pt system altogether.
My ideal is a 5pt system, where rounds would be scored like this:
5-5 = Draw round. A winner cannot be reasonably picked. Too close to call.
5-4 = Very close round, with one fighter edging it.
5-3 = Close round, but a clear winner.
5-2 = Dominant round. Losing fighter was stuck in a very bad position for a large portion of the fight and/or was rocked/dropped/caught in a sub.
5-1 = Very dominant round, where the fight could very nearly have been stopped either due to strikes or submission attempts, possibly multiple times.
5-0 = Extremely dominant round, entirely one sided, very close to being stopped multiple times.
The vast majority of rounds would be 5-4 and 5-3, with 5-2 and 5-5 being slightly less common, 5-1 being rare and 5-0 being the rarest of them all, where a fighter only just survives by the skin of their teeth (first round of Frankie v Gray championship fight, for example)
If judges were to implement a 5 point spread in the scoring system instead of what is now an essentially binary system, we would have a much better reflection of what an MMA fight actually is.
I think if a guy is so dominate to have required a score of 10-7 then the fight probably should not have made it to the end of the round.
Only if you go with the current way that judges score fights, which is ineffective and nonsensical. Basically, as it stands now, 95% of rounds are scored 10-9, which is absurd. 95% of MMA rounds are not EXACTLY the same, yet they are given exactly the same score. Right now, a fighter damn near has to kill someone to get a 10-8 score and I honestly don't think I've ever seen a 10-7... And in that case, what is the point of even using the 10pt system? Why not just make it a 2pt system? Because a 2pt system obviously would not work for MMA... Yet that's basically what we're using.
A wider scoring spread is necessary to accurately reflect the dynamics of an MMA fight.
Big John lost me when he said that nobody wants a draw.
Whatever scoring system is used has to accurately reflect what happened in a fight.
If two fighters are equally good, then a draw is what you would expect.
Realistically, something like 40 % of all split decisions should have been draws.
Agreed.
Although with the scoring system I laid out in this post, I believe that there would be less split decisions and even less draws (which are like unicorns in MMA anyway).
However, there are always going to be close fights in MMA. It's just the nature of the sport.
IMO, we need an overtime round. If a fight comes back with a draw (or even a split decision), there should be a final, deciding round.
The UFC has had this system in place for TUF finale fights, like the first MM v McCall fight, which was meant to be a draw that went to a final round, but apparently Australia can't count properly. I don't know why they don't implement it in all fights, or at least championship fights.
I think it's be fucking great. Imagine the buzz of a close 5 round fight that went to a split and therefore a final 5 minutes. The tension would be insane.
