Let's Revisit the Scoring System:

[FireKidWS]

I was reading through comments in another thread I made (which I won't name here as it is perhaps the most controversial fight in UFC history), and it made me want to revisit discussion on the current scoring system.

According to the system now, it is entirely possible for a fighter to outland and have more take downs in a fight and still lose.

For example, if fighter takes a guy down twice in one round, land good strikes but receive a few decent punches back it still isn't always a 10-8, especially if the other fighter wasn't about to quit or get knocked out.

So, you could have a fighter A squek by 2 rounds, basically even, then fighter B dominates last one but not quite enough for a 10-8 and lose...even though from a whole fight perspective should have won.

Does that make sense? Do you guys see a problem with current system, or do you like it?

 

[Jarvan]

I judge it in my eyes and I also try to judge it as the incompetent judges do

My criteria is overall damage, closest to finishing, avoiding damage, implementing moves effectively

I could care less about a takedown, unless you do it like GSP, Khabib or Mark Coleman and you actually use it to inflict damage

 

[613]

They need to score more 10-8s, 10-7s, 10-6s and even 10-5s. There are not enough rounds for the boxing system to work. A very close win should be 10-9 (Conor vs Khabib round 3). A pretty clear win should be 10-8 (GSP vs Penn round 1). A very clear round should be 10-7 (Jones vs Smith round 1), a dominate round should be 10-6 (Chael vs Anderson rounds 1-4)) and a one sided beating should be 10-5 (Frankie vs Gray 2/3 round 1)

 

[SteveColdStone]

I’d just prefer fights to be scored as a whole at this point. Current scoring system is actually quite good but judges are horrible.

 

[Tweak896]

power shots vs volume is hard to judge. there are plenty of fights where no one wants to judge. the one who lands the most shots but soft or the other who does more damage but close.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

I think the judging criteria is pretty fair...

If your taking some down and there getting back up and then get taken down and so on for a round...that doesnt speak dominance to me..thats telling me its a grappling war..

If your taking guys down..controling the fight action by keeping them down and landing shots u win that round...

I think 10-8s need to be used in any round where a fighter is put in a fight ending position more then once though...cuz for a 5 minute period to almost lose twice (it has to be a real threat of stoppage) thats a 10-8 round IMO .. I think judges are alittle stingy on the 10-8 still

I think a 10-7 could be used too and classified as any round where a fighter just skates by and survives for the full round..hurt several times...heavily damaged ..put in dominant positions for the majority of the time but somehow lasted to the bell . this would better depict fights where this happened on the scorecards

 

[Titan1980]

Judges should also not be scared to score fights draws. If you want the win bonus you should go after it. Tired of fighters staring at each other the entire fight punching air and somehow one of them won at it in the judges eyes because they had more of the cage behimd them.than the ither fighter.

 

[maximus__]

They need to score more 10-8s, 10-7s, 10-6s and even 10-5s. There are not enough rounds for the boxing system to work. A very close win should be 10-9 (Conor vs Khabib round 3). A pretty clear win should be 10-8 (GSP vs Penn round 1). A very clear round should be 10-7 (Jones vs Smith round 1), a dominate round should be 10-6 (Chael vs Anderson rounds 1-4)) and a one sided beating should be 10-5 (Frankie vs Gray 2/3 round 1)

A 10-7 or lower is almost impossible to come back from. They need to score more 10-10 if the round is even.
IMO it should be:
10-8 Multiple knockdowns or close submissions attempts. Also being saved by the bell, but only if the rest of the round has been dominant.
10-9 Clearly ahead, knock down but able to recover quickly. Dominated on the ground from mount or back, but no definitive sub attempts.
10-10 Back and forth round that no one has a major advantage in. Lay and pray, wall and stall would sit here also.

Something like that seems better to me.

 

[Bangkok ready d1]

I was reading through comments in another thread I made (which I won't name here as it is perhaps the most controversial fight in UFC history), and it made me want to revisit discussion on the current scoring system.

According to the system now, it is entirely possible for a fighter to outland and have more take downs in a fight and still lose.

For example, if fighter takes a guy down twice in one round, land good strikes but receive a few decent punches back it still isn't always a 10-8, especially if the other fighter wasn't about to quit or get knocked out.

So, you could have a fighter A squek by 2 rounds, basically even, then fighter B dominates last one but not quite enough for a 10-8 and lose...even though from a whole fight perspective should have won.

Does that make sense? Do you guys see a problem with current system, or do you like it?

I don't have a problem with the system itself, more with the judges. I understand that a round where a fighter returns fire can not be a 10-8 even if this fighter was knocked down, but judges are extremaly inconsistent with this 10-8 rounds sometimes they give it for nothing and other times one guy gets almost murdered and it isn't a 10-8. Overall i think there is a disturbing lack of draws in the ufc, many controversial decisions happen because of this, this fighting you're refering to ts is a perfect example of a fight which should be a draw.

 

[DestinedAussie]

The biggest problem with scoring is it is still fairly subjective.

Nowhere does it how much weight to apply to each thing, just the order in what they should be considered. With the way the rules are written you couldn't write a computer program to score because it is so subjective. I often think about for fun taking the UFC official stats and writing a program to determine a winner (purely based on the stats) and see if you can get it to a way which agrees with the judging. It is actually one of the few sports that is that subjective in how it is scored. Sports like Soccer, basketball, baseball etc are are easy because the scoring is so clear

 

[Pious Augustus]

the round by round system is a must
otherwise it would be so inconsistent and 10x times more controversial

 

[TempleoftheDog]

They use a scoring system designed for a different sport. It's far from ideal. But, unless they change it. I have to live with it. So I try not to bitch about it.

Is the real issue the system or the idiots they hire to actually judge? Because no matter what you're scoring you should be able to see who actually won MOST fights.

 

[DestinedAussie]

A 10-7 or lower is almost impossible to come back from. They need to score more 10-10 if the round is even.
IMO it should be:
10-8 Multiple knockdowns or close submissions attempts. Also being saved by the bell, but only if the rest of the round has been dominant.
10-9 Clearly ahead, knock down but able to recover quickly. Dominated on the ground from mount or back, but no definitive sub attempts.
10-10 Back and forth round that no one has a major advantage in. Lay and pray, wall and stall would sit here also.

Something like that seems better to me.

I think more use of the 10-10 would make scoring better. If the decision to give to one fight is marginal better to go 10-10 than go 10-9 and would stop so many controversial decisions. It would however leave to more unsatisfying draws. You could go golden round like they have in the ultimate fighter before except round 4 would be the golden round.

 

[Harlekin]

The UFC system for 3 - 5 rounds was copied from boxing from fights with 6 - 12 rounds. 15 rounds or more back in the time.
Even boxing does have a different scoring system, in fact had several different scoring systems for fights with just 3 rounds.

The Ufc system got adjusted a bit, but not enough. Major changes needed.
Less robberies in the UFC though, compared to boxing. Because it's 1 big promoter having everybody under contract.
Instead of "the side with the promoter company who helds the event, decides if the judges are bought"

Some boxing judges have been bribed like over 100 times.

 

[RockyLockridge]

Do you guys see a problem with current system, or do you like it?

Both. I like the scoring system as it is, but I can acknowledge that it has flaws. The flaws come down more to who is wielding the pen that marks the score card, not exactly the system it's self. It also leaves fights open for a more diverse set of outcomes.

I'm sure any other scoring system you, I or anyone else could think of would likely have flaws too.

 

[Straatblaffer]

I was reading through comments in another thread I made (which I won't name here as it is perhaps the most controversial fight in UFC history), and it made me want to revisit discussion on the current scoring system.

According to the system now, it is entirely possible for a fighter to outland and have more take downs in a fight and still lose.

For example, if fighter takes a guy down twice in one round, land good strikes but receive a few decent punches back it still isn't always a 10-8, especially if the other fighter wasn't about to quit or get knocked out.

So, you could have a fighter A squek by 2 rounds, basically even, then fighter B dominates last one but not quite enough for a 10-8 and lose...even though from a whole fight perspective should have won.

Does that make sense? Do you guys see a problem with current system, or do you like it?

If you score by round, that is a possibility. I think Volk vs Max is a good example. The scoring was fine, but cause max was so good and dominant the first 2 rounds, it felt weird he lost the fight. I don't mind it personally. It's better than to judge a fight as a whole. I do like open scoring being tested out a bit more. Some promotions do it, and I like it a lot

 

[Rajon Rondo]

-have 5 judges instead of 3
-make 10-6 or 10-5 the minimum
-have more ex-fighters as judges

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

I was reading through comments in another thread I made (which I won't name here as it is perhaps the most controversial fight in UFC history), and it made me want to revisit discussion on the current scoring system.

According to the system now, it is entirely possible for a fighter to outland and have more take downs in a fight and still lose.

For example, if fighter takes a guy down twice in one round, land good strikes but receive a few decent punches back it still isn't always a 10-8, especially if the other fighter wasn't about to quit or get knocked out.

So, you could have a fighter A squek by 2 rounds, basically even, then fighter B dominates last one but not quite enough for a 10-8 and lose...even though from a whole fight perspective should have won.

Does that make sense? Do you guys see a problem with current system, or do you like it?

I always thought of it like a percentage issue. It's like, Wonderboy's rounds over Woodley were like 60-40 him at best. But if Woodleys rounds were even just 70-30, then he's already won the majority of the fight. Is that fair to lose? Its "winner take all" equaling unequal rounds. I guess an argument is that its somehow less subjective, cuz with bad judges, the winner of the fight seems more random and unjustified than the winner of the rounds, but bad enough judging makes anything unjustified.

A small fix now without uprooting the whole system would be, only use 'winner of the fight' with draws. Then just give more 10-10's if a round did not produce significant striking/grappling.

 

[2004 account]

I was reading through comments in another thread I made (which I won't name here as it is perhaps the most controversial fight in UFC history), and it made me want to revisit discussion on the current scoring system.

According to the system now, it is entirely possible for a fighter to outland and have more take downs in a fight and still lose.

For example, if fighter takes a guy down twice in one round, land good strikes but receive a few decent punches back it still isn't always a 10-8, especially if the other fighter wasn't about to quit or get knocked out.

So, you could have a fighter A squek by 2 rounds, basically even, then fighter B dominates last one but not quite enough for a 10-8 and lose...even though from a whole fight perspective should have won.

Does that make sense? Do you guys see a problem with current system, or do you like it?

What's a squek? Sounds like shreks sister

 

[Masturbin]

Does a takedown score point by itself?

Fighter A take fighter B down but B get on his feet in seconds and then defend a takedown.


In a vacuum who won the exchange?