Should you win points when you don't hurt your opponent?

[Goat Poster]

Ode Osbourne got 1 point for almost killing Lazy Boy. Merab got 4 points in 4 rounds(in 1 judge card) for basically no damage.

Hypothetically If Sean had the same 1st round Osborne had and then got layed on for 4 rounds like he was... he would have gotten 49-46 while clearly winning the fight.

How does this make sense?

 

[usernamee]

I missed Ode fight, how did that go? Lazy boy guy seemed like a prick

 

[Goutfather]

no. but define “don’t hurt.”

what merab did to clown was enough to win because there’s no way to say clown won that fight. merab landed more strikes in every round except the 5th.

but i agree, i do think it’s a problem when fighters bank rounds on control time. they should do something about it, although im not sure what. that will take some thought.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

Ode Osbourne got 1 point for almost killing Lazy Boy. Merab got 4 points in 4 rounds(in 1 judge card) for basically no damage.

Hypothetically If Sean had the same 1st round Osborne had and then got layed on for 4 rounds like he was... he would have gotten 49-46 while clearly winning the fight.

How does this make sense?

Because fights are scored by rounds. That is the way it is. The round you refer to was scored 10-9 and yet the next round was a 10-8 the other way??? Statistically both rounds were Virtually Identical. Then the 3rd went to Ode's opponent.

 

[Spider Ricco]

Some guys hide hurt better than others

 

[GiganticMeat]

The answer is, it doesn't make sense. It's also why fouls are so rarely penalized. 1 point for accidentally kicking someone's cup... 1 point for almost ending your opponent... 1 point for a marginal victory. Round by round scoring doesn't make sense, much less 10 point must system

No points should be awarded for anything. It's either did you finish your opponent or are they hurt enough where after x amount of minutes, that there's no point in seeing more. At 15 minutes it goes to a panel that can only rule unanimously that one fighter is clearly outclassed. No points given. It sends the wrong message. The goal of a combat sport is so clear that it makes it worse. You get people trying to fight and others trying to game a point system.

15 minutes. No damage on either side, draw. Even fight, one round extension. Draw if no finish for fighter safety.

No one will go for trying to control their opponent unless they know the best they can do is a draw. Pretty fair imo

 

[wufabufa]

I missed Ode fight, how did that go? Lazy boy guy seemed like a prick

Ode dropped him bad and had a really tight triangle for like 2 mins in the first round. Landed some good elbows from the triangle choke too but ultimately bailed because he didn't know how to finish the choke or transition to any sort of arm lock.

 

[Bobby00]

What do you do if the other fighter did having nothing for 25 minutes. He didnt have moments that could have stolen a round. Merab exploited his weakness and he is half his size. All shame on Molly.

 

[Mcnugget]

no. but define “don’t hurt.”

what merab did to clown was enough to win because there’s no way to say clown won that fight. merab landed more strikes in every round except the 5th.

but i agree, i do think it’s a problem when fighters bank rounds on control time. they should do something about it, although im not sure what. that will take some thought.

I look at control time like it’s now 51/49 your round. But literally any one big shit by your opponent will swing it the other way.

If you control and do very little but you controlled so well they also did nothing, you obviously get the round

 

[LiQuiD42]

The only way to fix this is by allowing knees to the head of a grounded opponent. Wrestlers are able to be caught in a sprawl with zero consequence in terms of damage.

 

[Lord Pyjamas]

Ode Osbourne got 1 point for almost killing Lazy Boy. Merab got 4 points in 4 rounds(in 1 judge card) for basically no damage.

Hypothetically If Sean had the same 1st round Osborne had and then got layed on for 4 rounds like he was... he would have gotten 49-46 while clearly winning the fight.

How does this make sense?

It is more weird to get points for causing others blood loss.
I bet it would take ten times longer bleeding someone out then wrestling them into cardiac arrest.

 

[tucan89]

Chael was a couple of mins away from doing this

 

[whocares]

Way more rounds should be scored 10-10 if getting it right mattered. MMA is too nuanced for the 10 point must system yet its the one they use and it has flaws relative to the sport. Refs are disincentivized from taking a point because it has such an outsized impact on the scoring and outcome of a fight. Also this "damage" criteria is asinine, the judges can barely agree on who's winning a round, they don't have a fucking clue who's actually hurt and how much. There's a lot of problems with the way points are tallied.

So to answer your question, "It is what it is". Just trying to make the best of a broken system. Because they are implored to approach scoring from a perspective that somebody has to win the round, they will weight very minor things if no major things happen and that's not the best approach for accurate scoring.

 

[Goutfather]

I look at control time like it’s now 51/49 your round. But literally any one big shit by your opponent will swing it the other way.

If you control and do very little but you controlled so well they also did nothing, you obviously get the round

iirc it’s supposed to be like a tie-breaker, right? that is, it counts for nothing unless there’s no other way to score it.

personally i think some kinds of control are basically a way of avoiding the fight, and they really serve no purpose. i view it as a sort of timidity, which is against the rules.

 

[GiganticMeat]

I look at control time like it’s now 51/49 your round. But literally any one big shit by your opponent will swing it the other way.

If you control and do very little but you controlled so well they also did nothing, you obviously get the round

But... Why? We used to have standups/separations to deal with this. They were just a way of saying "hey, we don't have all day for this." It's being broadcast and watched. And it's arguable they also fill in the gap for the techniques that WOULD be used if you could literally do anything while holding your opponent down. We don't want either of these scenarios (eye pokes, headbutts, etc; infinite time matches), though we want it to be as close to a real fight as possible. What's in danger of happening here is people get so used to and pigeonholed down the "MMA" route for so long it degenerates into something like Olympic karate

It's time for change.

The issue with what you said is how often the scenario happens that fighters trade 1 round each, and then someone "wisens" up and goes for a control round. Then we all quietly applaud in the dead Apex while Cormier awkwardly mumbles something about how "yeah, wrestling's the best." Both fighters probably left that third round fresher than if they had stopped after the second.

Remember when fighters would just take a breather while clinching or grappling? They knew a standup was coming

 

[tritestill]

You have a horrible name

 

[Lycandroid]

The answer is, it doesn't make sense. It's also why fouls are so rarely penalized. 1 point for accidentally kicking someone's cup... 1 point for almost ending your opponent... 1 point for a marginal victory. Round by round scoring doesn't make sense, much less 10 point must system

No points should be awarded for anything. It's either did you finish your opponent or are they hurt enough where after x amount of minutes, that there's no point in seeing more. At 15 minutes it goes to a panel that can only rule unanimously that one fighter is clearly outclassed. No points given. It sends the wrong message. The goal of a combat sport is so clear that it makes it worse. You get people trying to fight and others trying to game a point system.

15 minutes. No damage on either side, draw. Even fight, one round extension. Draw if no finish for fighter safety.

No one will go for trying to control their opponent unless they know the best they can do is a draw. Pretty fair imo

that would just make the sport worse, if half of the card gets finished every time then fighters are going to be much more inactive if the are getting finished more often.

 

[Poirierfan]

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Unfortunately this is a byproduct of round by round scoring and the unified rules attempt at minimizing the number of potential draws.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Defending things doesn't score points. Little cumulative damage scores little points. Damage towards the near-fight ending part of the scale scores lots of points.

When you have a round where a guy has the control for 4 minutes and does minimal damage and the other guy reverses in the last minute and rains down hell: Imagine the running fare on a cab that is slowly going up and has to take you all the way through downtown, over the bridge, and to long island, then imagine a quick helicopter ride the same distance. One's gonna rack up much faster, but only for a small amount of time, while the other is very little for a very long time. In the end, which is gonna be more expensive? Depends