If the judges disagree on a round, should it be a 10-10 round?

A split decision says nothing about whether or not the judges are idiots or not.

Sometimes rounds are simply really, really close, and it's not terribly uncommon for one round to swing a fight, especially in three round fights.

Judge A claiming fighter A won a round by 1 percent and Judge B claiming fighter B won a round by 1 percent is actually a fairly similar opinion in real terms...it just happens to fall in such a way under the 10 point system to cause a judgment difference.

Well that is the key point really, if a round is so razor thin close, it should be a 10-10 round. At least under any subjective scoring system.

If it was objective, ie 1 strike landed = 1 point, 1 kick landed = 1 point etc then yeah razor thin margins are fine. But when the outcome is based on subjective observation, razor thin margins should be 10-10.
 
But it’s better if it’s 5v2 vs 2v1

Shows more people agree.

Obviously it’s not a perfect system, it’s a subjective sport mixed with possible corruption and incompetence. That’s just my solution to helping it even out more. And to whoever said certain mma fighters shouldn’t judge... well obviously.

They should be screened from a panel and chosen. What’s the diff with these random old men or whoever are judging? What if they hate certain fighters? It’s just as much as a possibility. At least w previous MMA fighters they understand and know what’s going on. DC or someone of that sort would be perfect.

I said it before, having fighters as judges is a problem. Mma is a small community. What happens if DC is the judge for a fight with Cain or Rockhold in it? Could he truly be viewed as impartial?
 
A split decision says nothing about whether or not the judges are idiots or not.

Sometimes rounds are simply really, really close, and it's not terribly uncommon for one round to swing a fight, especially in three round fights.

Judge A claiming fighter A won a round by 1 percent and Judge B claiming fighter B won a round by 1 percent is actually a fairly similar opinion in real terms...it just happens to fall in such a way under the 10 point system to cause a judgment difference.

That is the point. It happens all the time, and if the round is so close you can make a valid argument for either fighter winning, the pressing question then becomes why was that not scored a 10-10? All conflicting rounds can't be auto-scored 10-10's(too much opportunity for abuse there), I am advocating for heavily integrating peer-review into the process to further educate the judges on proper scoring, and if/when they find people scoring improperly that they be reprimanded.
 
I said it before, having fighters as judges is a problem. Mma is a small community. What happens if DC is the judge for a fight with Cain or Rockhold in it? Could he truly be viewed as impartial?


Then he doesn’t judge that fight... clearly
 
Yes but it would also change what a split decision meant as there would be more combinations possible.

Say there are 7 judges, is 6-1 going to be seen in the same light as a 2-1? No chance, but 4-3 would probably still be seen as a split decision.

What if it's 4-3?

Is that a worse split decission than 2-1?
 
Well that is the key point really, if a round is so razor thin close, it should be a 10-10 round.

I don't really know the degree to which that is true.

If you had perfect knowledge, it seems extremely unlikely two fighters would have *exactly* the same effectiveness in a round, given all the different ways to "score".

In fact, I'm pretty sure the rules specifically say judges are not allowed to give a 10-10 round because it's extremely close.

Sometimes fighters win rounds by an inch...and if they do it should be reflected in the scoring. Ultra close rounds are really where the judges earn their keep, after all.
 
I think you need a panel of 7 judges , not 3. Will help sort out the variance.

Also should have past fighters judge... not clueless morons who think blood = winning / influenced by crowd noises.
I think we should have past judges fight - want to fuck up someone's career? Every 3 split decisions, you have to do a 3 round fight with one of the guys you fucked over.
 
That is the point. It happens all the time, and if the round is so close you can make a valid argument for either fighter winning, the pressing question then becomes why was that not scored a 10-10? All conflicting rounds can't be auto-scored 10-10's(too much opportunity for abuse there), I am advocating for heavily integrating peer-review into the process to further educate the judges on proper scoring, and if/when they find people scoring improperly that they be reprimanded.

Because the two fighters are *actually* not equally effective. That's almost impossible in reality.

A judge getting an ultra-difficult problem wrong doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer.
 
Because the two fighters are *actually* not equally effective. That's almost impossible in reality.

A judge getting an ultra-difficult problem wrong doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer.

You are just making my point for me. If there is a correct answer, and some/all of the judges aren't arriving at that correct answer, we have a serious problem. I don't believe they should be safe under the protective umbrella of 'it was a close round'.
 
I said it before, having fighters as judges is a problem. Mma is a small community. What happens if DC is the judge for a fight with Cain or Rockhold in it? Could he truly be viewed as impartial?
What if DC is a judge of a fight with a wrestler involved? The other guy would need a finish, and it still might be a split decision... (I exaggerate, but he is terribly biased towards wrestling when he calls fights, I would expect that to continue as a judge.)
 
If there is a correct answer, and some/all of the judges aren't arriving at that correct answer, we have a serious problem.

I don't agree with this at all in a sport as complex as MMA with human judges.

Keep in mind that automatically giving out a 10-10 score in a split round automatically introduces error as well (unless you literally think both fighters were literally equal), so you aren't really solving anything by doing that. All you would be doing is artificially helping one fighter (the guy that "really" lost the ultra close round) at the expense of artificially harming the other fighter (the guy that "really" won the ultra close round).

In a sport with judges, people simply need to have a certain level of tolerance for disagreement among judges from time to time (especially in very close rounds)...there isn't any way around that issue that doesn't introduce other problems. All you can do is making common sense improvements along the way like having better qualified judges who better know what they are looking at, perhaps more judges (which all else equal is more mathematically sound), etc...
 
Because the two fighters are *actually* not equally effective. That's almost impossible in reality.

A judge getting an ultra-difficult problem wrong doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer.

No they are not, but it is also equally impossible to trust subjective judgement to arrive at the right conclusion in those razor thin rounds.

So if we know the judging is not up to the task, and we do, how is 10-10 not a solution?

Draws might be a problem short term, but fighters do not want to draw. They want a win. Fighter attitudes and gameplans will change.
 
What if DC is a judge of a fight with a wrestler involved? The other guy would need a finish, and it still might be a split decision... (I exaggerate, but he is terribly biased towards wrestling when he calls fights, I would expect that to continue as a judge.)

That is absolutely the case, ex-fighters would not make good judges.
 
All you would be doing is artificially helping one fighter (the guy that "really" lost the ultra close round) at the expense of artificially harming the other fighter (the guy that "really" won the ultra close round).

Only if the one who was awarded the round was actually the fighter who performed 1% better. Which is not always the case.

A 10-10 means no-one benefits from a razor thin round.
 
Close rounds need to be 10-10.

That alone would make a HUGE improvement in MMA judging.
 
What if it's 4-3?

Is that a worse split decission than 2-1?

It would neither be better or worse, but it would remove the wildcard 'retard' judge factor to some extent. Assuming that only one brain damaged judge was on the fight of course.
 
So if we know the judging is not up to the task, and we do, how is 10-10 not a solution?

Because a 10-10 is automatically wrong, unless you think both fighters are *literally* equally effective within round.

After taking all the strikes, grappling, submission attempts, control, etc...literally equal to the nth degree.

That's never going to happen. Auto scoring a round 10-10 simply introduces different problems.
 
Back
Top