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.