Scoring the fight as a whole (PRIDE, DREAM etc) vs Round by Round (UFC, Bellator etc)

[Mooner]

Which do you prefer, and why?

I prefer scoring the fight as a whole because if you barely edge someone in the first two rounds and get severely beaten up and damaged in the third, do you really deserve the nod?

Also, unlike boxing where it has 10+ rounds, MMA rounds are generally 3~5 rounds maximum. The 10 point boxing system does not seem applicable in MMA.

**I think the best solution is 1 round 15 mins for normal fights and 1 round 25 mins for championships personally. The winner if it goes to a decision is judged on the holistically (based on damage/efforts to finish fights etc) The boxing model in MMA is annoying because it does not work in my opinion.**

 

[vuco KJV***]

Pride's scoring was the best.

 

[Son of Sonnen]

I do like the scoring by round. I don't like the unwritten rules of scoring by round (no tie rounds, almost always 10-9 etc.)

 

[TFanatic]

Fight as a whole for 3 rounders, r by r for 5 round fights.

 

[Mooner]

I do like the scoring by round. I don't like the unwritten rules of scoring by round (no tie rounds, almost always 10-9 etc.)

I don't think the 10 point system works in MMA when there are only 3~5 rounds.

 

[mrsinister]

Best solution is to only score the final round. Give people 2 to 4 rounds to go crazy and do whatever the f*ck they want to finish. Then, if it has to be decided on points, so be it.

 

[youngsteinel]

It makes more sense, especially in a fight like Machida vs. Rampage. But I think it is too vague personally.

 

[Mooner]

Best solution is to only score the final round. Give people 2 to 4 rounds to go crazy and do whatever the f*ck they want to finish. Then, if it has to be decided on points, so be it.

I think the best solution is 1 round 15 mins for normal fights and 1 round 25 mins for championships personally. The winner if it goes to a decision is judged on the holistically (based on damage/efforts to finish fights etc) The boxing model in MMA is annoying because it does not work in my opinion.

 

[JKS]

Full fight and not roundly round. Watch Matt Humes video on the front page from a few days ago and he explains why full fight is better

 

[shonuf]

pride did it right with whole fight scoring based on damage and yellow cards.

 

[Movieman]

The fight as a whole for sure. In MMA you can have fights like Machida vs Rampage where basically nothing happened for 2 rounds and someone gets a 10-9 for it, then the last round where Machida rocks him, almost armbars him, etc and it's also just a 10-9. Score that fight as a whole and Machida won it. Score it by round and it could go either way even though Machida was never hurt or in trouble and Rampage was.

 

[kallebaah**]

the 10 point scoring is horseshit

 

[m25105]

Scoring by the whole fight.

 

[Mooner]

Scoring by the whole fight.

the 10 point scoring is horseshit

The fight as a whole for sure. In MMA you can have fights like Machida vs Rampage where basically nothing happened for 2 rounds and someone gets a 10-9 for it, then the last round where Machida rocks him, almost armbars him, etc and it's also just a 10-9. Score that fight as a whole and Machida won it. Score it by round and it could go either way even though Machida was never hurt or in trouble and Rampage was.

Then would you guys rather have 1 round 15 mins in normal fights and 1 round 25 mins in championship fights as opposed to having 3 rounds or 5 rounds? Because for me, I feel that getting rid of this 3~5 rounds is essential for fights to be judged holistically. Get rid of this boxing crap.

 

[youngsteinel]

Then would you guys rather have 1 round 15 mins in normal fights and 1 round 25 mins in championship fights as opposed to having 3 rounds or 5 rounds? Because for me, I feel that getting rid of this 3~5 rounds is essential for fights to be judged holistically. Get rid of this boxing crap.

No I think that is a terrible idea.

 

[Lanshire]

As a whole. Pride's system was better but it even it had its flaws. There were a couple snoozefests in Pride too, just not as many.

Scoring a fight by rounds is just another senseless distortion of reality. Arbitrarily assigning scores within a small range each round as if assuming both fighters are going to have an output within 10-20% of each other is a level of stupidity just asking for controversy.

For example:
Round 1 - Fighter A outlands Fighter B by 3 strike and 1 takedown
Round 2 - Fighter A outlands Fighter B by 5 strikes
Round 3 - Fighter B outlands Fighter A by 30 strikes and 5 takedowns

Even before we take other factors into consideration that can skew it even more (damage of the strikes, sub attempts, aggression, etc), let's just assume all those things are equal, looking at the rounds above it's clear that Fighter B should've won by a wide margin. However, under current rules with current judges, the best he could hope for would be to get a 10-8 round in the 3rd and come out with a draw. It can get even more distorted in a 5 round fight.

Imagine if in football, basketball, soccer, hockey, or baseball, they said "At the end of each quarter, we're just going to give the team that scored the most 10 points and give the other team 9 points, or maybe in extremely rare circumstances 8 points." People would wonder who let Forrest Gump decide the rules.

 

[mrsinister]

Then would you guys rather have 1 round 15 mins in normal fights and 1 round 25 mins in championship fights as opposed to having 3 rounds or 5 rounds? Because for me, I feel that getting rid of this 3~5 rounds is essential for fights to be judged holistically. Get rid of this boxing crap.

Guys would regularly exhaust themselves with rounds that long. It'd be Royce vs. Shamrock type stuff.

 

[Iron Leg]

I loved watching Pride, but I hate how it's become popular today to place its scoring on a pedestal that it in no way deserves.

Scoring the fight "as a whole" is a big problem, because it has zero transparency. There is no "score", just a winner and a loser. The judges just pick who they want at the end, and everyone else is just left to speculate as to how they reached that conclusion.

While this type of flexibility could potentially allow the "right" person to win, in situations where rigid round scoring would not, rarely would this actually be the case. Pride still had plenty of controversial decisions, and given the revelations about Yakuza influence, you have to wonder how many of those decisions had more to do with who they were told to pick, than who rightfully deserved to win.

Even in cases where Pride judges were acting in good faith, it's just human nature to place greater emphasis on the very end of the fight than what happened in the beginning. This way of scoring puts a bias on how a judge felt at the very end, and devalues what happened in the beginning. Heck, even the commentators on Pride often stated that the way you ended the fight was the way to earn a judges' decision, which of course was NOT part of the official rules and contradicted the way it was supposed to be scored.

I think the real fix is to start using a greater range in the rounds, to prevent a guy from winning who wins 2 "squeakers" or borderline rounds, and loses one round big. Use half points that would more effectively score the "whole" fight, placing greater point discrepancies in rounds where more happened or the margin was greater, and encourage judges to use the full range much more.

That way, you get a more representative score based on the "whole", while still keeping judging process more honest and more transparent.

 

[youngsteinel]

I loved watching Pride, but I hate how it's become popular today to place its scoring on a pedestal that it in no way deserves.

Scoring the fight "as a whole" is a big problem, because it has zero transparency. There is no "score", just a winner and a loser. The judges just pick who they want at the end, and everyone else is just left to speculate as to how they reached that conclusion.

While this type of flexibility could potentially allow the "right" person to win, in situations where rigid round scoring would not, rarely would this actually be the case. Pride still had plenty of controversial decisions, and given the revelations about Yakuza influence, you have to wonder how many of those decisions had more to do with who they were told to pick, than who rightfully deserved to win.

Even in cases where Pride judges were acting in good faith, it's just human nature to place greater emphasis on the very end of the fight than what happened in the beginning. This way of scoring puts a bias on how a judge felt at the very end, and devalues what happened in the beginning. Heck, even the commentators on Pride often stated that the way you ended the fight was the way to earn a judges' decision, which of course was NOT part of the official rules and contradicted the way it was supposed to be scored.

I think the real fix is to start using a greater range in the rounds, to prevent a guy from winning who wins 2 "squeakers" or borderline rounds, and loses one round big. Use half points that would more effectively score the "whole" fight, placing greater point discrepancies in rounds where more happened or the margin was greater, and encourage judges to use the full range much more.

That way, you get a more representative score based on the "whole", while still keeping judging process more honest and more transparent.

I agree completely.

 

[Mooner]

No I think that is a terrible idea.

Yet you think scoring holistically is better. Keeping the 3~5 rounds and wanting the fights to be holistic cannot happen.