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

[SocraticMethod]

I don't have as big a problem with scoring round-by-round as a lot of other people do. While I agree that scoring the fight as a whole is certainly enticing - and there have been plenty of fights that have turned out with Fighter A won the match, but Fighter B won the fight - it would open a whole new can of worms. More importantly, though, I don't see those changes ever being made to MMA in the US. There will be rounds and fights will be scored round-by-round because that's what everyone is used to. And the UFC is going to put its resources into expanding, and getting better TV deals, etc., not into trying to convince the commissions to make major changes to the ruleset. Remember - the UFC has failed to get MMA sanctioned in NY with the current rules. I don't see them doing anything to make the sport seem less like a "sport" to the uneducated masses before that happens (i.e., knees/kicks to downed opponents).

For now, I think the best hope is to continue getting better judges in there who understand the intricacies of the sport from dominant positions to submission attempts to landed strikes versus wild Garcia flurries. And then we need to see more 10-10, 10-8 and 10-7 rounds. Will it be perfect? No, but I think it's the best we can hope for any time soon.

 

[R0bert0Lu0ng0**]

judges cant even get round by round right

we will see a lot more robberies with whole fight scoring

whoever looks the most impressive in the last 5 mins of the fight wins!

 

[Lars]

Yea, it seems like the sport still is young not because of the level of talent any more or even the orgs. It's the commissions that still haven't upped their game to make MMA a truly mainstream professional product. We still have dumbasses like Peoples judging fights no matter how bad his scoring is.

It will take possibly 10-20 years to fix something like this when we will start seeing more trainers/former fighters scoring fights instead of these ditsy judges from stupid disciplines.

the problem now is that every one is used to score fights that way , just count the number of kevin should have one over bas threads.

an example is the use of gloves, the fight should be bare knuckle , a closed fist punch in the had is an idiotic idea heads are hard, but every where you train they will teach to broke your hand punch hard stuff ,

gloves are terrible for grappling

 

[zephid]

Pride's scoring was the best.

This^

 

[Son of Sonnen]

I agree with the people saying how it doesn't fit the 3 round as well as the 10. Honestly I have always thought every fight should be 5 rounds. Don't like at all that the nature of the contest changing just because its the last fight of the night and or a title is on the line. However, the real answer is Judges actually using the scoring correctly. 10-10, 10-8 even 10-7s when it is warranted.

 

[Lars]

judges cant even get round by round right

we will see a lot more robberies with whole fight scoring

whoever looks the most impressive in the last 5 mins of the fight wins!

shogum v hendo a 6th rnd who would have won ?

 

[Lars]

I shouldn't need to say it again, I'm like a broken record around here about scoring.

Overall scoring is the ONLY way to score MMA fights. It also needs to be coupled with the right kind of methodology that aligns to the spirit of a FIGHT. The Pride style system was far and away more sensible and appropriate for MMA than the Unified System. I could write an essay on the reasons, but I won't bore you all.

Matt Hume was spot on with his interview a few days back

Terrible judges are certainly part of the problem, but the system itself still seriously flawed.

A judge can only do as well as the system allows them to.

A judge can only do as well as the system allows them to.

that is the point

 

[Squarechoke]

The main problem isn't even remotely close to being about if you score per round or per fight. If you just have 5 good minutes in a 15 minute fight you're not likely to win.

The problem mainly lies with bad judging and after that it's about what should score points. If you think TD's score too many points it doesn't matter if you score per round or for the entire fight, the guy scoring the TD's will score a lot of points no matter what.

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.**

That sounds more like a draw. Two 10-9 vs one 10-8.

 

[Magnum1978]

In a way though, "who finishes stronger" says a LOT about a fight. In the real world, who cares about the "winning" a fighter did early on, if it did not stop them from getting their arse kicked later in the fight? - so how much can it REALLY be worth?

Its not about only scoring the last period of a fight, but scoring it as a whole, noting that early domination can evaporate if a fighter starts to gas and is cleary being beaten, as a timelimit is simply a forced end to the fight. The fight needs to be looked at with the assumption that it would have kept going.

A question that should always go through a judges mind is 'who would have won the fight if it had have kept going' - and if they have a strong feeling that one fighter was taking over the fight and the time limit stopped them from doing it, well that fighter should get the nod. If they can't decide, then a lot more DRAWS shoudl be given out. This aint rocket science. A simple system that aligns with the fundamentals of actual fighting needs to be in place. Judges need to actually JUDGE, not tally up/allocate points.

A technical point scoring contest this is not, like a game of basketball. A boxing match this is not. We have a very limited number of rounds (3 or 5), so a round by round tally up system just doesn't really work. Its way too arbitrary and hasn't much room for "common sense". AT least how I see it, but I have an 'old school' mentality so it's just my opinion.

Get competant judges (ex-fighters who know their shit) and use an overall methodolology with coherent and simple criteria which has a heirachical priority for reward -

1. Effective Damage (damage that has an effect, not just superficial scratching/cuts)
2. Proximity/Threat of being finished by Submission or KO

and lesser priorites if the first two are deemed equal:

3. Techical skill shown (striking combinations/grappling/transitions/takedowns to dominant positions)
4. Ring Generalship/Implementation of gameplan
5. Aggressiveness
6. Control / Dominant Position

 

[SILVAREDEMPTION]

A recent example is Mach vs Baroni. Phil spent most of the first and part of the second on top of Sakurai, but Sakurai outstruck him from the bottom, had the harder shots and literally kicked Baroni's ass for the last minute.
With the unified rules Baroni could have been the winner

 

[Squarechoke]

A recent example is Mach vs Baroni. Phil spent most of the first and part of the second on top of Sakurai, but Sakurai outstruck him from the bottom, had the harder shots and literally kicked Baroni's ass for the last minute.
With the unified rules Baroni could have been the winner

Not necessarily. Effective striking is the criteria that weighs the highest (just a slight nod above effective grappling though) so if you're beating someone up from the bottom you could certainly win under the Unified Rules. The problem is the judging as I don't see many judges daring to go that way, but the rules in themselves don't prevent such an outcome at all. I haven't seen Mach vs Baroni so I won't comment on that fight in particular.

The problem is that people talk about the rules while not even understanding them. I know I don't know all of the Unified Rules (according to Herb Dean no fighters do either). What's worse is that the judges don't know the rules well enough, or at least don't interpret them the same ways.

 

[Lars]

A recent example is Mach vs Baroni. Phil spent most of the first and part of the second on top of Sakurai, but Sakurai outstruck him from the bottom, had the harder shots and literally kicked Baroni's ass for the last minute.
With the unified rules Baroni could have been the winner

gegard v king moe

 

[Squarechoke]

In a way though, "who finishes stronger" says a LOT about a fight. In the real world, who cares about the "winning" a fighter did early on, if it did not stop them from getting their arse kicked later in the fight? - so how much can it REALLY be worth?

Its not about only scoring the last period of a fight, but scoring it as a whole, noting that early domination can evaporate if a fighter starts to gas and is cleary being beaten, as a timelimit is simply a forced end to the fight. The fight needs to be looked at with the assumption that it would have kept going.

A question that should always go through a judges mind is 'who would have won the fight if it had have kept going' - and if they have a strong feeling that one fighter was taking over the fight and the time limit stopped them from doing it, well that fighter should get the nod. If they can't decide, then a lot more DRAWS shoudl be given out. This aint rocket science. A simple system that aligns with the fundamentals of actual fighting needs to be in place. Judges need to actually JUDGE, not tally up/allocate points.

A technical point scoring contest this is not, like a game of basketball. A boxing match this is not. We have a very limited number of rounds (3 or 5), so a round by round tally up system just doesn't really work. Its way too arbitrary and hasn't much room for "common sense". AT least how I see it, but I have an 'old school' mentality so it's just my opinion.

Get competant judges (ex-fighters who know their shit) and use an overall methodolology with coherent and simple criteria which has a heirachical priority for reward -

1. Effective Damage (damage that has an effect, not just superficial scratching/cuts)
2. Proximity/Threat of being finished by Submission or KO

and lesser priorites if the first two are deemed equal:

3. Techical skill shown (striking combinations/grappling/transitions/takedowns to dominant positions)
4. Ring Generalship/Implementation of gameplan
5. Aggressiveness
6. Control / Dominant Position

I don't think you view the sport the same way as most that have any responsibility. MMA isn't about simulating a real fight under a set of rules, it's about competing in most of the aspects of unarmed martial arts and mixing the various rules from those sports into one cohesive whole.

So yes, point fighting is very much something that would be a natural part of MMA. Wrestling and submission grappling is about scoring points for the most part, and scoring points is of course a big part of striking as well.

Your notion that it's relevant who looks the best at the end is something I would very strongly disagree with. As said, this isn't a real fight, it's fighting under a set of rules and the competitors prepare to be their best with those rules in mind. Not to mention it would make for a lot more boring fights if attacking strongly at the beginning of the fight is rewarded less than doing so at the end.

 

[Lars]

the current value of the TD and the wrestling biassed rules are all to blame on jeff blatnick , and on Americans having wrestling as main martial arts,

asides a slam KO , wrestling can't win a fight , i'm not saying that wrestling is not important , it's fundamental , but it isn't a finisher technique on it's own

 

[Chramelated]

Rampage beat Machida, get over it.

 

[youngsteinel]

The 10 point scoring round could work IF they score more 10-8, 10-7 rounds, hell maybe even 10-6. For example, Rampage wins round 1 and 2 10-9, and Machida wins the 3rd round 10-7. It makes sense, and Machida wins 28-27. It is WAY too hard to get a 10-8 round. And the judges suck balls too.

 

[Squarechoke]

The 10 point scoring round could work IF they score more 10-8, 10-7 rounds, hell maybe even 10-6. For example, Rampage wins round 1 and 2 10-9, and Machida wins the 3rd round 10-7. It makes sense, and Machida wins 28-27. It is WAY too hard to get a 10-8 round. And the judges suck balls too.

I don't know if there needs to be that many 10-7 but definitely more 10-8. I liked the judging at UFC on FOX: Henderson vs Diaz, where there were quite a lot of 10-8's given out.

One judge even scored Siver vs Phan 30-24.

 

[Lars]

I allways say is there is a 10 can be a 0

so even a 10-0 should be possible

 

[myhumbleopinion**]

Pride's scoring was the best.

i agree

 

[youngsteinel]

I don't know if there needs to be that many 10-7 but definitely more 10-8. I liked the judging at UFC on FOX: Henderson vs Diaz, where there were quite a lot of 10-8's given out.

One judge even scored Siver vs Phan 30-24.

But the difference between some 10-9 rounds and others is ridiculous. Rampage/Machida rounds 1 and 2 should be 10-9s, and the 3rd round should be 10-7 because of how much different he won that round. 10-8 doesn't do it justice, that fight wasn't a tie. They need to open up the scoring so you can't steal 2 rounds and barely win.