- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 22,238
- Reaction score
- 12,148
In what way?
Combine this with open scoring and the scoring laid out in a way that rewards activity and action rather than stalling, and I see no weakness.
What's the point of utterly dominating someone, like lets say you think that one fighter was twice as effective as the other but the judges will MAYBE give a 10-8 there. Instead, I would argue if you were twice as effective as your opponent and only get one or maybe 2 more points if you're lucky, that is absolutely wrong.
But if you're open with the scoring, a guy that loses a round convincingly KNOWS that he needs to push the action to recoup the score, maybe even try to get a finish.
This also has the potential to get rid of the stupid "robbery" arguments, if you actually make the scoring system more marginal in how the fight is scored.
28-24 is way more indicative of the flow of dominance in that fight than the 29-28 was given.
A loose 10-8 essentially decides a 3 round fight.
Making 10-8s arbitrary would dramatically increase the amount of robbery arguments thats why judges don't do them. In a sport with 3-5 rounds there is very little margin for error. Judging doesn't suck it just takes very little to swing a fight.