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

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

so even a 10-0 should be possible
In theory I definitely agree with you. But since the rules cover so much ground they aren't 100% clear, and the judges often seem incompetent, so with such margin of error you can't really play with such fine detail as all ten points give and get good results.

But since there's so much room on the scale, the suggestion to use half-points was one of the dumber things I've heard in the rule talk.
 
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

That isn't completely true, the hammerlock, and the schultz front headlock come from Freestyle/Folkstyle wrestling, there are pain moves in wrestling. There is also catch wrestling which has tons of submissions but I don't think you were talking about that.
 
I'm not sure which is better I don't want to say, but I think better defining things for example "effective striking/grappling" and "aggression" and "cage control" is more important right now.
 
I think scoring it as a whole would be best but they should sum up each round on paper while the fighters are resting so that they can reread their notes and won't overvalue the last round so much.

The next best way would be the half point system, but I still think the biggest problem right now is the judges themselves, they don't have specific training and have no accountability. The judges need to be trained on how the current system works, right now they overvalue aggression and octagon control, they are the last listed in the scoring criteria because they are the least important but many fighters have won fights on those two categories alone.
 
Most people are probably going to SAY full fight but that's because they just don't really understand what they're talking about.

I mean.. obviously when you hear the question full fight sounds like an obvious answer

So you HAVE to ask yourself... then why did people EVER start doing rounds? Why not judge a fight as a whole from the beginning?

Because... Judges are human; human beings get caught up in the excitement of the moment; human beings forget things

if you go by a whole fight, and someone has the most amazing round 5 of all time (like shogun/henderson) suddenly the judge forgets that the other guy was winning the majority of the fight.

Round by Round insures that the fighter gets credit for each part of the fight and not just one memorable moment.

Keep in mind also, by judging round by round, you are STILL judging the fight as a whole; but you're just making sure to separate that whole into smaller pieces so you can remember correctly. (same as how you eat a full meal... one bit at a time)

I can't stress this enough: MEMORY is the reason fights are not judged as a whole. MEMORY is the reason judging things 5 minutes at a time is very important.

People can have very selective memory in intense situations so being tasked with figuring out who won this particular round is way easier than who won the whole fight; and thus when you check your notes and tally up who won the most rounds; YOU ARE IN EFFECT JUDGING THE WHOLE FIGHT... just in pieces.

get it?
 
Most people are probably going to SAY full fight but that's because they just don't really understand what they're talking about.

I mean.. obviously when you hear the question full fight sounds like an obvious answer

So you HAVE to ask yourself... then why did people EVER start doing rounds? Why not judge a fight as a whole from the beginning?

Because... Judges are human; human beings get caught up in the excitement of the moment; human beings forget things

if you go by a whole fight, and someone has the most amazing round 5 of all time (like shogun/henderson) suddenly the judge forgets that the other guy was winning the majority of the fight.

Round by Round insures that the fighter gets credit for each part of the fight and not just one memorable moment.

Keep in mind also, by judging round by round, you are STILL judging the fight as a whole; but you're just making sure to separate that whole into smaller pieces so you can remember correctly. (same as how you eat a full meal... one bit at a time)

I can't stress this enough: MEMORY is the reason fights are not judged as a whole. MEMORY is the reason judging things 5 minutes at a time is very important.

People can have very selective memory in intense situations so being tasked with figuring out who won this particular round is way easier than who won the whole fight; and thus when you check your notes and tally up who won the most rounds; YOU ARE IN EFFECT JUDGING THE WHOLE FIGHT... just in pieces.

get it?

good point about memory, but you are forgetting (heh) that dominating the fight at the end is actually more significant than dominating at the beginning.
After all - time limits exist because UFC has a show to run, the guy winning at the end would have most likely gone on to win.

10 point system ignores this too.
personally I would scrap judges and make them a draw if it went the distance.
 
Pride had a 10 minute first round. How would you score a round by round fight? Would you weigh the first round as two rounds?
 
good point about memory, but you are forgetting (heh) that dominating the fight at the end is actually more significant than dominating at the beginning.
After all - time limits exist because UFC has a show to run, the guy winning at the end would have most likely gone on to win.

I've never liked that argument because pretend that the time limit is shorter, then you'd say the same thing about the guy who was winning at the beginning, and thus you'd have no idea that if the fight were to go 10 minutes longer the other guy would start winning

so for all we know, if the fight continued, the guy who was losing at the end might get a second win while the other guy gasses.

impossible to say for sure

personally I would scrap judges and make them a draw if it went the distance.
then there would be way too many draws and many fights were someone clearly deserves the victory (like Fedor/Nog) would end in a draw instead
 
Also, people talk about the scoring now like it was so great, but there were a lot of "robberies" in Pride too.
 
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.
Well I disagree with this. At least it wasn't when MMA was born. Perhaps you think points should be rewarded for fighters pushing their opponent outside the inner octagon line, to cater for the Sumo fighters? Or an ippon throw should be considered a submission for the Judo guys? No this is a fight, the scoring system should align to the spirit of it. NOT a technical contest of BJJ/Wrestling/Striking, because that ISN'T what MMA should be about.

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.

Its isn't about not being rewarded for doing well early on in the fight. This is of course scored and considered, but IN CONTEXT. Context is key here and one of the things missing by such an arbitrary 10-point must round by round system.

If a fighter attacks aggressively early on and damages their opponent with significance, then by virtue of that enough should be done to ensure their opponent WONT be doing damage back later in the fight. If they do come back, then how much value can you place on the 'winning' that the fighter did? It must be significant enough. Its up to judges here. Perhaps the opponent coming back later on still does not do enough to sway the judges, but that's the crux, you look at the fight as a WHOLE and a judge makes up their mind with complete consideration for the fight.

This doesn't happen with the Unified System. Its added up period by period, as if the fighters are fighting 3 or 5 separate fights. The significance of two 10-9 rounds in most cases do not equate to each other, and one 10-8 round does not often equate to two 10-9's. And one highly significant event in a 4th round should be enough to undo everything in three earlier close rounds that are scored 10-9 for one fighter, but it never is.

These are the continual and ongoing problems that occur again and again with the Unified System. Not only that, fighters pander to it, but attempting to 'steal' a round by doing out of the ordinary things against the flow of the fight (such as attempt a takedown in the last 15 seconds of a round in a round that has been entirely striking) for NO OTHER REASON but to pander to the score cards. This isn't fighting, thats 'competing' ... this isn't the MMA I fell in love with.
 
Well I disagree with this. At least it wasn't when MMA was born. Perhaps you think points should be rewarded for fighters pushing their opponent outside the inner octagon line, to cater for the Sumo fighters? Or an ippon throw should be considered a submission for the Judo guys? No this is a fight, the scoring system should align to the spirit of it. NOT a technical contest of BJJ/Wrestling/Striking, because that ISN'T what MMA should be about.



Its isn't about not being rewarded for doing well early on in the fight. This is of course scored and considered, but IN CONTEXT. Context is key here and one of the things missing by such an arbitrary 10-point must round by round system.

If a fighter attacks aggressively early on and damages their opponent with significance, then by virtue of that enough should be done to ensure their opponent WONT be doing damage back later in the fight. If they do come back, then how much value can you place on the 'winning' that the fighter did? It must be significant enough. Its up to judges here. Perhaps the opponent coming back later on still does not do enough to sway the judges, but that's the crux, you look at the fight as a WHOLE and a judge makes up their mind with complete consideration for the fight.

This doesn't happen with the Unified System. Its added up period by period, as if the fighters are fighting 3 or 5 separate fights. The significance of two 10-9 rounds in most cases do not equate to each other, and one 10-8 round does not often equate to two 10-9's. And one highly significant event in a 4th round should be enough to undo everything in three earlier close rounds that are scored 10-9 for one fighter, but it never is.

These are the continual and ongoing problems that occur again and again with the Unified System. Not only that, fighters pander to it, but attempting to 'steal' a round by doing out of the ordinary things against the flow of the fight (such as attempt a takedown in the last 15 seconds of a round in a round that has been entirely striking) for NO OTHER REASON but to pander to the score cards. This isn't fighting, thats 'competing' ... this isn't the MMA I fell in love with.

Well said on all counts and I agree with your sig on the knees and kicks but would include soccer kicks as well.
 
Well I disagree with this. At least it wasn't when MMA was born. Perhaps you think points should be rewarded for fighters pushing their opponent outside the inner octagon line, to cater for the Sumo fighters? Or an ippon throw should be considered a submission for the Judo guys? No this is a fight, the scoring system should align to the spirit of it. NOT a technical contest of BJJ/Wrestling/Striking, because that ISN'T what MMA should be about.
What MMA was when it was born is pretty irrelevant because it's a different entity now. When the UFC started it was also intended as single style vs single style (to market BJJ), which is just as obsolete.

You're just being silly with your examples so please stop that and be serious, you're just actively trying not to get my very simple point which is a terrible way to argue. Every single thing won't get into the sport and the winning criteria of sumo wrestling, and judo (in the sense of scoring an ippon), doesn't fit with the other rules. The primary goal is to force your opponent to stop/give up, and the secondary is to look at technical superiority. The things you talk about of course lands in the second area.

But yes, MMA is a technical contest of martial arts. You also need to learn to separate fact and opinion. It's your opinion that it shouldn't be about that, it's not a fact. You can't really argue against opinion but I can note that your opinion is pretty irrelevant since the sport has evolved from that for quite a long time now.

The sport is called mixed martial arts and there are almost no martial arts that don't take technical superiority into account. You're thinking about something more in the line of Vale Tudo/NHB fighting. That's not the same thing.

Its isn't about not being rewarded for doing well early on in the fight. This is of course scored and considered, but IN CONTEXT. Context is key here and one of the things missing by such an arbitrary 10-point must round by round system.

If a fighter attacks aggressively early on and damages their opponent with significance, then by virtue of that enough should be done to ensure their opponent WONT be doing damage back later in the fight. If they do come back, then how much value can you place on the 'winning' that the fighter did? It must be significant enough. Its up to judges here. Perhaps the opponent coming back later on still does not do enough to sway the judges, but that's the crux, you look at the fight as a WHOLE and a judge makes up their mind with complete consideration for the fight.

This doesn't happen with the Unified System. Its added up period by period, as if the fighters are fighting 3 or 5 separate fights. The significance of two 10-9 rounds in most cases do not equate to each other, and one 10-8 round does not often equate to two 10-9's. And one highly significant event in a 4th round should be enough to undo everything in three earlier close rounds that are scored 10-9 for one fighter, but it never is.

These are the continual and ongoing problems that occur again and again with the Unified System. Not only that, fighters pander to it, but attempting to 'steal' a round by doing out of the ordinary things against the flow of the fight (such as attempt a takedown in the last 15 seconds of a round in a round that has been entirely striking) for NO OTHER REASON but to pander to the score cards. This isn't fighting, thats 'competing' ... this isn't the MMA I fell in love with.
To call the ten point must system arbitrary is really pointless because it doesn't matter what kind of numbers you use to score. What matters are the rules, which can just as easily be called arbitrary. Since you want a real fight you might as well question the rules against groin shots, small joint manipulation, biting etc.

There's also a flaw in thinking that just because someone has the upper hand in the fight means that he'd win. What if Silva vs Sonnen 1 was three rounds? Was the end of the fight any indication of who would win within an extra 10 minutes? No.

And no, round scoring doesn't score it as separate fights. It just helps the judges put down milestones so they can actually remember what happens but when you add the rounds together you still get a score for the entire fight. Sure, it gets a bit rough around the edges but that will always be the case anyway due to the difficulty of judging. It will probably never be really precise since there's so many aspects. Everyone must have noticed by now that even within rounds judges are at times easily swayed by what happens later in the round because that's more fresh on their minds. It's quite easy to see that if that happens during a five minute span, it will be even more prevalent in a 25 minute span. Not much sense in trying to make the judges work harder as they have enough trouble as it is.

Fighters always fight with the rules in mind. If you allowed the generally banned techniques you'd get a different style of fighting. If you reward one thing more and another less you'll get fighters trying more for the first and less for the other. It's inevitable and we've seen it in all organizations. Your suggested rules would mean that as well and it's very easy to see. As for this not being the MMA you want, too bad for you. Not much else to say about that.
 
Last edited:
I understand the reasoning for scoring rounds to avoid corruption and have more accountability for a decision but I like judging by the fight as a whole.

I think a better way of keeping rounds is making 10-8 and 10-7 used more often in order to give certain rounds more significance. I think it would help a lot with fights like Sonnen-Bisping where some rounds were way stronger than others. However, the problem with that is it makes it easier for ties. I think to fix that, you can just give the judge the option overriding the total round score with their choice on who won the fight entirely.

I mostly agree with you.

I just don't see why having more ties would be bad.

If both athletes couldn't finish or showed they were better, it should be a tie.

In soccer there are a lot of ties, and it is still the world's most popular sport.
 
Also, people talk about the scoring now like it was so great, but there were a lot of "robberies" in Pride too.




Agreed, but a percentage of those robberies were to setup bigger fights. Rampage "lost" in his fight again Ninja Rua, but was given the split dec. to setup Shogun vs Rampage.
 
I definitely wouldn't wanna see 15 and 25 minute fights with no rounds. As for the scoring, it's bad enough as it is, and I'm afraid no round scoring would add even more subjectivity into the equation. That being said, if they could find some real quality judges I think a combination of the two could work best. Meaning if a guy edges his opponent in rounds one and two, but loses round three badly, he shouldn't win that fight, but with the current system he likely would 29-28. I think for the most part an unbiased and knowledgeable viewer can watch a fight and tell you who won. A compromise might either be 10-10 rounds or half points. If I'm a judge and fighter A wins rounds 1 and 2 by going for an extra takedown or two, but then gets dropped twice and nearly finished in the 3rd, all I can do is give fighter B a 10-8, and the fight is a tie, but everyone knows fighter B won. There should be a way to remedy that.
 
What MMA was when it was born is pretty irrelevant because it's a different entity now. When the UFC started it was also intended as single style vs single style (to market BJJ), which is just as obsolete.

It is the entity now because the rules that in place have created it so - that's circular logic. Sure MMA is an 'industry' now and the NHB era long gone, but that doesn't mean the scoring can't go back to realign to the SPIRIT of from what the sport originated from.

Surely you don't believe there are no tweaks or improvements to be made to the current Unified methodology? Are we really at the pinnacle of MMA scoring because the UFC is currently using it and its at the top of the industry?

Pride was a fairly recent show, in the "industry" age of MMA, and OneFC is currently operating - both using differing (and to most in this thread, more appropriate) scoring methodology/criteria. Just because the UFC is the biggest and are forced to abide by the Unified Rules, it doesn't mean it is the 'correct' or best system, does it? Or do you honestly believe the Unified System is the best system around?

You're just being silly with your examples so please stop that and be serious, you're just actively trying not to get my very simple point which is a terrible way to argue. Every single thing won't get into the sport and the winning criteria of sumo wrestling, and judo (in the sense of scoring an ippon), doesn't fit with the other rules. The primary goal is to force your opponent to stop/give up, and the secondary is to look at technical superiority. The things you talk about of course lands in the second area.
I am being serious. I used those examples to illustrate my point that its not about "considering" all martial arts in the scoring of a FIGHT.

But yes, MMA is a technical contest of martial arts. You also need to learn to separate fact and opinion. It's your opinion that it shouldn't be about that, it's not a fact. You can't really argue against opinion but I can note that your opinion is pretty irrelevant since the sport has evolved from that for quite a long time now.
So you offer your opinion in the first sentence (no that is NOT a fact) and then lecture me about separating fact from opinion! All the while I have been offering my arguments AS MY OPINION - clearly read my previous posts. Come on man.

The sport is called mixed martial arts and there are almost no martial arts that don't take technical superiority into account. You're thinking about something more in the line of Vale Tudo/NHB fighting. That's not the same thing.
Yes I am talking about aligning the SCORING of the sport with the spirit of Vale Tudo. ITS MY OPINION, that scoring in such a manner is the better way to go - to address the subject of the thread. I didn't think that my argument was too hard a concept to grasp.

To call the ten point must system arbitrary is really pointless because it doesn't matter what kind of numbers you use to score. What matters are the rules, which can just as easily be called arbitrary. Since you want a real fight you might as well question the rules against groin shots, small joint manipulation, biting etc.
That is outside the realms of this discussion. Perhaps we can talk about that in another thread dedicated to that topic. Lets keep on topic.

There's also a flaw in thinking that just because someone has the upper hand in the fight means that he'd win. What if Silva vs Sonnen 1 was three rounds? Was the end of the fight any indication of who would win within an extra 10 minutes? No.
Of course it doesn't, but you can only go on what you can go on. Remember my point about using common sense. Nog may have subbed Fedor if the fight had have kept going on, I don't see your point.

And no, round scoring doesn't score it as separate fights. It just helps the judges put down milestones so they can actually remember what happens but when you add the rounds together you still get a score for the entire fight. Sure, it gets a bit rough around the edges but that will always be the case anyway due to the difficulty of judging. It will probably never be really precise since there's so many aspects. Everyone must have noticed by now that even within rounds judges are at times easily swayed by what happens later in the round because that's more fresh on their minds. It's quite easy to see that if that happens during a five minute span, it will be even more prevalent in a 25 minute span. Not much sense in trying to make the judges work harder as they have enough trouble as it is.
As I've said, part of the problem is getting better judges. But there are more issues with scoring by the round for MMA fights (with such few rounds - mostly 3) than there is scoring as a whole. Any half decent judge, look at Matt Hume will note things as they analyze and observe the fight as it unfolds and know in their mind who is in front as the fight progresses. And if they can't decide, then its a draw. You do that until the end of the fight. As I said before its not rocket science. Without blowing my own trumpet I think I could be a judge and do a decent job of it, given the appropriate methodology to work with.

Fighters always fight with the rules in mind. If you allowed the generally banned techniques you'd get a different style of fighting. If you reward one thing more and another less you'll get fighters trying more for the first and less for the other. It's inevitable and we've seen it in all organizations. Your suggested rules would mean that as well and it's very easy to see. As for this not being the MMA you want, too bad for you. Not much else to say about that.
I have no problem with what you say here. I think you'd get better, more true to life and less exploitable fighting if you put in place the system I advocate, that is all. Cheers.
 
Back
Top