Should the later rounds reward more points?

[Moral Victory]

When I first started watching MMA 15 years ago I just assumed that whoever was winning the fight as if would have continued (performing better towards the end) was the winner in a decision.

Practically though?

At first I thought that it might cause fighters to play it safe early, but it will also keep fighters from coasting or giving up latter rounds.

 

[PC Polly Page]

Whom ever lands the most take downs and does nothing with them wins.

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

If that's how it'll be judged, then fights might look like this

First two rounds:

Last round:

Actually now I think about it, it's not a bad thing...

 

[TempleoftheDog]

No. And your username totally checks out with the premise of the thread.

 

[OneManGang]

Maybe the first round should count more. That’s when real fights are decided. Fights hardly ever last more than a couple of minutes.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Don't do drugs, kids.

 

[13Seconds]

The last round should be scored equally as the first round. Diaz fan detected.

 

[Dog Gynecologist]

Yeah me too i hate when there is a finish in the first round, let's change the rule so everyone fights Diaz's style

 

[Jose Beehive]

Only if the rounds get longer and longer, and they turn the thermostat up for each one too

 

[MyFavSport]

Fuck No

 

[15089371]

It's interesting, but I think it would influence the fight just too much

 

[kibz]

Why waste everyone’s time then. Just have 1 round if that’s the case.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Unpopular opinion: Judges should score every round 10-9, then at the end of the fight, have the opportunity to revise any round to a 10-8 if that round was more dominant than the other rounds on a relative basis.

The notion of an "objective" 10-8 round is too frail with uncertainty. But it's much more common to have two close rounds and one very clear round.

 

[moreorless87]

When I first started watching MMA 15 years ago I just assumed that whoever was winning the fight as if would have continued (performing better towards the end) was the winner in a decision.

Practically though?

At first I thought that it might cause fighters to play it safe early, but it will also keep fighters from coasting or giving up latter rounds.

The last round as a tie breaking for draws(so who wins that round wins the fight) wouldnt IMHO be a bad idea and if you had that in place then arguebly judges might be more willing to give 10-10 rounds which would discourage point fighting.

Public scoring would be a better idea IMHO, It gets the same criticm that it would cause fighters to "fight safe" if they know there ahead but in pratice I think the reverse is true. Its actually MUCH more common that fighters think they are ahead in the scoring more than they actually are, fighters coasting late in fights they think they are winning when in reality they need a finish or a 10-8 to win.

 

[Franklin U.]

Unpopular opinion: Judges should score every round 10-9, then at the end of the fight, have the opportunity to revise any round to a 10-8 if that round was more dominant than the other rounds on a relative basis.

The notion of an "objective" 10-8 round is too frail with uncertainty. But it's much more common to have two close rounds and one very clear round.

I think you're on the right track.... not so much about " 10- 8" s( unless its just) but to make sure you get a close fight right , I think all judges should be able to review stats ( significant strikes in particular) and have the power to change their score of 1 round. Especially if it's a round they weren't too sure to begin with .... their human, it happens.

Let's get it right. A controversial loss stays in your memory a short time( unless it's one of those infamous robberies ) and then after a bit, it just READS LOSS on your record which is huge in this sport as far as that subjective number next to your number.

 

[jitzmonkey]

Unpopular opinion: Judges should score every round 10-9, then at the end of the fight, have the opportunity to revise any round to a 10-8 if that round was more dominant than the other rounds on a relative basis.

The notion of an "objective" 10-8 round is too frail with uncertainty. But it's much more common to have two close rounds and one very clear round.

I've long been a proponent of revising scoring with 10-8s being rounds which were competitive, but nearly impossible to score for the fighter on the losing end; whereas 10-9s would be close rounds where one fighter edged the other.

A 10-7 would be a dominating round (possibly a barely surviving or saved by the bell scenario or something.)

That would generally require a rule or policy change, though.

 

[D'z]

So...Pride rules?

 

[HeDidn'tWantTheFight]

10-10: Figuring out a winner would take significant nitpicking.
10-9: Competitive round, but one guy noticeably edges out the other.
10-8: Clear round winner. Not debatable, but lacks the beatdown that characterizes a 10-7.
10-7: Domination. Little to no offensive output from the loser and/or an extended sequence of being in survival mode.

 

[suffersystem]

I disagree completely with changign the round scores after the fact. They are judging each round seperately, why should they be allowed to change a rounds score due to what happens in another round?

 

[Tito Tapped]

No they should not.

Should touchdowns at the end of a football game be worth more than 6 points just because the clock is almost up? Should a losing basketball team be declared the winner just because they scored more points in the 4th quarter because hey if the game went another 15 minutes they might have won then?