Regarding to wanting more 10-8 and 10-7 rounds, how come no-one talks about this?

[MCS]

You're right, but they will not let us use 10-10 rounds or I have been instructed not to.

When I brought up giving more 10-10 rounds at a commission meeting, they were absolutely opposed to it with zero wiggle room.

10-8's only are then just half a step in the right direction. Not enough. More 10-8's, when clear, are a good thing, but the 3-round system doesn't work well with them. Either encourage complete clear rules or keep the old ones. Can't make a good decision that ends in poor results. If close rounds are still arbitrarily scored 10-9 the scoring problem remains, but now more 10-8's lead to more draws. I'm not against it if that leads to more accurate scorecards, but you'd think the goal here is a good end result for the fans and fighters.

 

[Darwinambrosius]

Yes, but Im not talking about that. Having more 10-8 and 10-7 rounds would not solve anything regarding to the problem with close 10-9s, that problem would still be there just like before, but now you would also have more often the problem with the debate of whether some other round should have been 10-8 or 10-9. You would create controversy more often by making 10-8 more usual because you would have to deal with that subjective line between 10-8 and 10-9 more often (plus 10-8 vs 10-7). I really dont get why it is so difficult to people understand this. It would only create more controversy, it can be considered as a fact.

How often are we seeing 10-8 rounds that should have been 10-9s? You can work on resolving the issues with 10-9 rounds while still using 10-8 rounds; these aren't mutually exclusive things. You don't need to get rid of 10-8 rounds because the judges shit the bed with 10-9 rounds, as they aren't really the controversial ones.

How many controversies decisions involve 10-8 rounds? Look at the biggest controversial decisions and tell me how many of those fights could have possibly had a round scored as 10-8 instead of 10-9. The judging problems simply aren't coming from 10-8 rounds.

However, 10-7 rounds should go; that's basically a TKO or a DQ in my opinion.

 

[Zefram Cochrane]

I was reading through that other read and got a real headache because of it. Why cant you get this? The more complex you make the judging, the more scenarios for controversy it creates because the scoring of each round still remains subjective. You would get more possibilities to disagree with the scoring of each round than now. Are you saying you want that, or that you havent even thought about it?

You would love that confusion and controversy a lot more often than now whether a certain round should have been 10-9 or 10-8 and whether another round should have been 10-8 or 10-7? Really, you want that to happen to this sport? And you would still have the old problem with close rounds of whether fighter A or B won a 10-9. You would not solve anything, you would only create a more mess.

Sometimes I genuinely feel I get a brain cancer someday because of Sherdog.

Agree.

Leave the system as is, just educate the judges.

And agree.

Imo, people need to accept that if we score fights by round anything else then simply declaring the winner by who's won more rounds would lead to very problematic situations. Barring of course the event where one round is totally one-sided, which still creates issues by the way.

I said this many times, judges can barely pick the right winner in 10-9 rounds, with all the new scores they'll go full retard.

 

[Melas Chasma]

How often are we seeing 10-8 rounds that should have been 10-9s? You can work on resolving the issues with 10-9 rounds while still using 10-8 rounds; these aren't mutually exclusive things. You don't need to get rid of 10-8 rounds because the judges shit the bed with 10-9 rounds, as they aren't really the controversial ones.

How many controversies decisions involve 10-8 rounds? Look at the biggest controversial decisions and tell me how many of those fights could have possibly had a round scored as 10-8 instead of 10-9. The judging problems simply aren't coming from 10-8 rounds.

However, 10-7 rounds should go; that's basically a TKO or a DQ in my opinion.

Read the thread title. No-one has said get rid of the 10-8 rounds, this thread is for those who want to see more 10-8s and 10-7s. You are right, at this point 10-8s are not that big of a problem, but if you want to make them more of the norm, and also 10-7s, you are accepting the fact that it will automatically create more room to argue against the official scoring.

 

[Darwinambrosius]

Read the thread title. No-one has said get rid of the 10-8 rounds, this thread is for those who want to see more 10-8s and 10-7s. You are right, at this point 10-8s are not that big of a problem, but if you want to make them more of the norm, and also 10-7s, you are accepting the fact that it will automatically create more room to argue against the official scoring.

I'm just not seeing how asking judges to score a round "when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling" as 10-8 is going to really be that much of a catalyst for controversy. How many controversial 10-8s have we had? I'm not saying make them more of the norm as much I think a more liberal use of them would be appropriate.

10-7s are dumb though.

 

[vᴀᴀʀ.]

Fights should be judged as a whole because 10 point must system doesn't translate well to MMA in my opinion.

Edit. And I agree that this change will only create more controversy. Not really a change to a better judging system.

 

[Melas Chasma]

10-8's only are then just half a step in the right direction. Not enough. More 10-8's, when clear, are a good thing

Try to get it, if you make it easier to get a 10-8 you are automatically going to see a controversy more often between 10-8 and 10-9. You can only move the line between 10-9 and 10-8, not make it easier to score. If you want to avoid controversy as much as possible, the less situations where you have to decide between 10-8 vs 10-9 the better. This should be very simple to understand.

 

[Melas Chasma]

I'm just seeing how asking judges to score a round "when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling" as 10-8 is going to really be that much of a catalyst for controversy. How many controversial 10-8s have we had? I'm not saying make them more of the norm as much I think a more liberal use of them would be appropriate.

10-7s are dumb though.

Do you read anything what Im saying? My exact point is TO NOT make controversial 10-8s more usual than they are now. By scoring 10-8s easier would automatically lead to that.

Im done explaining this, you either get it or you dont.

 

[Darwinambrosius]

Do you read anything what Im saying? My exact point is TO NOT make controversial 10-8s more usual than they are now. By scoring 10-8s easier would automatically lead to that.

Im done explaining this, you either get it or you dont.

And my exact point is that a 10-8 round is rarely controversial and giving them out a little more frequently doesn't automatically mean they start being judged on inconsistent or poor grounds. Are you simple?

 

[MCS]

Try to get it, if you make it easier to get a 10-8 you are automatically going to see a controversy more often between 10-8 and 10-9. You can only move the line between 10-9 and 10-8, not make it easier to score. If you want to avoid controversy as much as possible, the less situations where you have to decide between 10-8 vs 10-9 the better. This should be very simple to understand.

That's why it should be made easy to understand for the judges. The 10-8 already exists but isn't used properly. If used properly it leads to more accurate outcomes, which is the goal with encouraging them. The close 10-9's are the problem. A 10-8 won't have an affect on those.

 

[BVG]

Leave the system as is, just educate the judges.

No. The 10-8, 10-7 scoring needs to be more liberal.

Take the GSP/Hendrix fight for example. The scorecards do not adequately relay what actually happened in the fight. The rounds Hendricks won were much more decisive then the rounds GSP won. Their should have been at least 1 10-8 round in there for Hendricks.

The problem here is that currently MMA is using boxing's scoring system without having as many rounds as boxing does. 3-5 rounds is not nearly enough rounds to score using that system.

 

[Fahcough]

Cause that shit is for point chasers, not fight finishers.

 

[Melas Chasma]

That's why it should be made easy to understand for the judges. The 10-8 already exists but isn't used properly. If used properly it leads to more accurate outcomes, which is the goal with encouraging them. The close 10-9's are the problem. A 10-8 won't have an affect on those.

And my exact point is that a 10-8 round is rarely controversial and giving them out a little more frequently doesn't automatically mean they start being judged on inconsistent or poor grounds. Are you simple?

Yes, having more 10-8s automatically means you will have more controversial rounds between 10-8s and 10-9s. You have to be fucking retarded to not get this.

God, I hate Sherdog sometimes.

 

[BVG]

Cause that shit is for point chasers, not fight finishers.

We already have that.

 

[BVG]

Yes, having more 10-8s automatically means you will have more controversial rounds between 10-8s and 10-9s. You have to be fucking retarded to not get this.

God, I hate Sherdog sometimes.

Well also already have controversy.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

Honestly what we need is at the end of the fight, we have a separate 10 point must score for the entire fight.

That way you can score round by round and still have the full fight count as well. This will also be more likely to cause justified draws.

I doubt it would ever happen and I won't bring it up unless I get some support here for it, because my lone opinion doesn't justify it.

 

[Melas Chasma]

Well also already have controversy.

So that means adding more controversy would be a good thing.

 

[MCS]

Yes, having more 10-8s automatically means you will have more controversial rounds between 10-8s and 10-9s. You have to be fucking retarded to not get this.

God, I hate Sherdog sometimes.

Having guidelines to correctly score 10-8's don't affect close 10-9's. Robberies happen when close but decisive 10-9's are scored the wrong way. Sometimes because 10-8's aren't scored enough and thus prevent a draw. This is an attempt to fix the latter, has nothing to do with the former. You look at it simply from a numbers standpoint, when the details to what leads to a bad score matter more.

 

[MCS]

Honestly what we need is at the end of the fight, we have a separate 10 point must score for the entire fight.

That way you can score round by round and still have the full fight count as well. This will also be more likely to cause justified draws.

I doubt it would ever happen and I won't bring it up unless I get some support here for it, because my lone opinion doesn't justify it.

How much affect would that separate score have? Would it overrule the judges decision and would there be a 4th judge scoring it?

 

[Big McLargeHuge]

Maybe the problem is trying to put a numeric point value on something subjective, unlike basketball where it's obvious if the ball goes through the hoop and how far away the guy was when he shot it