Is the 10-Point Must System really the best way to judge MMA?

So the Diego - Pearson decision has me wondering if the current 10-Point Must System is the best way to score a fight. The UFC's own rules about scoring have always seemed vague and weird to me (UFC judging rules can be found here )

For example in sub-section B the rules state, "The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10)."

However, this is seemly contradicted in sub-section J in which it 10-10, 10-9, 10-8, and 10-7 rounds are discussed.

Basically if you start with confusing rules you're going to get bad decisions more often than you should in my opinion.

 

Yes. Judging is based on opinion. The judges would've scored it for Diego whatever system they were using. You gotta fix the judging before the judging criteria.

 

I really don't like the aggression an octogon control rule
They shouldn't get rid of it just stop putting so much stock into it

 

PRIDE rules>10 point must system.

It's not perfect but its clearly the superior system

 

This

 

No, and that should be quite clear to everyone who watches MMA.

 

At the least, they should have to write down why they gave the fighter the nod. It's more frustrating to have no idea what they are thinking.

 

This. About 10 8 rounds. The system certainly isnt perfect. But they ought yo award more 10-8 rounds. Even the occasional 10-7.

Imo 10-8 should be the norm. With 10-9s used for reallu close rounds, and 10-7 rounds for the beatdowns.

 

I've always said the 10pt must system sucks for MMA. It sucks for boxing too but at least there they have many more rounds to make up for badly scored ones. In a 3 round fight, all it takes is 2 badly scored rounds and you get a robbery.

MMA doesn't utilize 10-8 rounds as much as they should. Rounds with nothing happening can be equal to rounds where one guy gets beaten half to death.

It was far from perfect and could use some tweaks but I've always favored scoring fights as a whole the way they did in Pride.

 

There's no contradiction, if you're confused you need to read what you quoted again; for example "9 points or less"

 

I disagree, judging shouldn't be based on pure opinion. While it will always be subjective by its nature, judging should reflect the judging criteria. The two are intertwined and one giving a poor showing reflects poorly on the other. For example a judge could easily argue that Diego was the more effect aggressor since he was the one pushing forward, and hence that is why he scored the striking in this bout in his favor, even though in reality Diego wasn't landing anything meaningful and Ross was picking him apart with counter strikes.

 

not when they only go as low as 9 in the vast majority of the time. they have 10 points to use and only use 1 or 2.

it makes sense in boxing because with knockdowns you can make a HUGE difference, and its across more rounds so you have time to make up lost rounds. in mma, you have to almost kill the guy to differentiate between edging him out., if you get a point deducted, you have to have a shut out or finish in order to win the fight.

10-9 should be for very close rounds
10-8 should be for clear winner
10-7 should be for very dominant rounds
10-6 should be for absolute destruction (lesnar vs carwin, rd.1)
10-5 should be frankie vs maynard rd.1

you'll get more draws but imo the current system is pretty stupid

 

Your right, that was a bad example on my part.

 

There's nothing wrong with the 10 pt must system itself, what's broken about MMA judging is the idea in many judges, fighters, coaches, fans and promoter's heads that if one guy lands one more punch or hits a TD he has "won" the round. That mentality produces point fighters who's goal is to land one more punch than the opponent and win boring sparring contests.

What MMA really needs is to separate real wins (finishes and dominant performances) from "one punch more" wins by counting the latter as no better than a draw.

 

The system is ok if it were used right. I'm almost certain from most judges to get a 10-8 Round in MMA you'd have to get a huge slam takedown, wrench a guys arm from his shoulder, then proceed to score about three knockdown's beating him with his own arm.(You see more 10-8's in boxing because it's clearly defined, knock a guy down once 10-8, twice 10-7, three times he blows out his knee and the ref allows to to brutally beat him for 8 more rounds, seriously though MMA needs some clear criteria on what IS a 10-8 or better round.)

Also strange defense seems to have no impact. If someone had the gas tank and odd mix of skill it could require they could just shoot for takedowns for 15 minutes while getting stuffed and probably win the fight. Oddly enough though a submission attempt seems to count for basically nothing even if you sink a face turning purple choke and the guy pops out at the last second before taking a nap or so it's the one type of offense that's worthless.

In short ten point system is fine, the judges, the judging criteria, and things of that ilk need some serious work though to make a more clearly defined picture.

 

Pretty much this. When you read the criteria for scoring under the 10 point must system it's pretty clear the judges aren't following it. They're the problem. In the hands of the current judges we'll get shit decisions no matter what system we get because they're just not seeing the fights as they should. Fighters and coaches will pick up on what wins rounds in the judges eyes and adjust accordingly to give themselves a better chance at winning. These commissions never discipline their judges or hold them accountable when they screw up which further exacerbates the situation.

 

This, all day.

The words in the rules/criteria don't matter.
The people scoring it are clueless.

 

No the system is nonsensical. They should scrap it, but the system is corrupt and these people are plebs.

 

I'm indifferent about scoring the fights as a whole vs. the 10-point must system (scoring the fights as a whole produced more than its share of head-scratcher decisions too) but what I did really like about Pride's scoring system was the hierarchy which was applied to judging criteria. For example, damage and attempt to end the fight carried more weight than control.

The problem is, was, and always will be, incompetence in the judges. Don't ever expect this will change under the athletic commissions either - they're bureaucracies with practically no oversight, so they have no incentive to increase accountability.