Suggestion: New round structure and scoring

[johncola]

TLDR: a 10-minute first round, followed by optional 10-minute second and third rounds. All fights would use these rules, whether they're main events or not, or for championships or not.

After round 1, the judges would determine whether it's necessary for the fight to go to a second round. If one fighter is clearly beating his/her opponent and the fight is generally uncompetitive, they can be awarded the R1 decision. If neither fighter has engaged nor mounted any sort of offense, the fight could be scored a dual loss for both fighters. Both of these outcomes would cap uncompetitive or uneventful fights to 10 minutes, preventing them from going to an unnecessary 15 or 25 minutes. The addition of the "dual loss" score would incentivise fighters to fight. Alternatively, if the fight is both competitive and eventful, judges would take note of which fighter they feel is winning, and it'd continue on to the second 10-minute round...

After round 2, a similar process would occur. If the fight has become uncompetitive, then the fight would end, obviously with the uncompetitive fighter getting the L. If the fighters have stopped engaging, then the fight would be stopped, with the fighter the judges previously noted getting the victory. Or, if the fight is still competitive and still evenful, judges again take note of the fighter they feel is winning, and it'd continue on to the third and final 10-minute round...

After round 3, the judges simply score the fight for who they think won. If the fight has reached this point, there must have been at least two (and possibly three) competitive and eventful rounds. Numbers could be read out (e.g. 2-1 to Fighter A), or they could just keep it simple and announce the fighter whom each judge scored the fight for.

Purposes/advantages of this new system:

• Dynamic fight length based on the way the fight is playing out, rather than it being a fixed length regardless of how it's going
• Reduce unnecessary damage to fighters taking a beating
• Reduce the length of boring uneventful fights
• Increase the length of exciting eventful fights
• Encourage fighters to fight, by avoiding the dreaded "dual loss"
• Longer 10-minute rounds allow grapplers time to work
• Longer 10-minute rounds simulate a real fight more accurately, delaying the artificial round-ending interruptions
  
• Detachment from the unsuitable system brought over from boxing, including the 10-point must system.

Constructive thoughts and criticisms?

 

[Klaavical]

Might prevent dudes from coasting and taking rounds off.

 

[68WCombatMedic]

With the judges in MMA, one fighter can get dropped three times but secure a takedown with 3 minutes left and just ride out the remaining time on top and they’d end up winning.

 

[Joshuaace]

Giving the judges more responsibilities and greater power doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

 

[Jew Jif Shoes]

That would solve some problems while creating others. The main problem I see is how the judges would determine whether the activity in a round justifies a proceeding round. We already have people getting angry when a close decision swings one way or another, or when a fighter gets outright robbed, can you imagine the backlash that would come from some fights being shorted on rounds? Or if a popular guy like Conor is given multiple additional rounds for a chance at a finish regardless of how lopsided previous rounds were.

 

[Not A Real Fan]

Letting the judges decide what is and isn't competitive is problematic.

But I'm all in favor of tinkering with the round structure so kudos for thinking outside the box.

 

[Kowboy Karl]

You’re drunk

 

[NinjaSkillZ]

No

 

[igrofungus]

my suggestion, adopt pride rules
I also think that perhaps having more judges, who are martial artists, and also possibly giving the referee, the person with the best possible view of what actually lands, how much pain it might inflict, a vote on who won the fight

 

[Bacco]

The Minotauro of this alternative universe does'nt like his w/l score lol

 

[tenniswhiz]

Giving the judges more responsibilities and greater power doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Why not?

The judges are experts in grappling and striking. They are required to have at least a masters degree BEFORE becoming a judge.

If anything, MMA judges are overqualified. The world would be better served if they served on the General Assembly of the United Nations.

 

[eternaldarkness]

TLDR: a 10-minute first round, followed by optional 10-minute second and third rounds. All fights would use these rules, whether they're main events or not, or for championships or not.

After round 1, the judges would determine whether it's necessary for the fight to go to a second round. If one fighter is clearly beating his/her opponent and the fight is generally uncompetitive, they can be awarded the R1 decision. If neither fighter has engaged nor mounted any sort of offense, the fight could be scored a dual loss for both fighters. Both of these outcomes would cap uncompetitive or uneventful fights to 10 minutes, preventing them from going to an unnecessary 15 or 25 minutes. The addition of the "dual loss" score would incentivise fighters to fight. Alternatively, if the fight is both competitive and eventful, judges would take note of which fighter they feel is winning, and it'd continue on to the second 10-minute round...

After round 2, a similar process would occur. If the fight has become uncompetitive, then the fight would end, obviously with the uncompetitive fighter getting the L. If the fighters have stopped engaging, then the fight would be stopped, with the fighter the judges previously noted getting the victory. Or, if the fight is still competitive and still evenful, judges again take note of the fighter they feel is winning, and it'd continue on to the third and final 10-minute round...

After round 3, the judges simply score the fight for who they think won. If the fight has reached this point, there must have been at least two (and possibly three) competitive and eventful rounds. Numbers could be read out (e.g. 2-1 to Fighter A), or they could just keep it simple and announce the fighter whom each judge scored the fight for.

Purposes/advantages of this new system:

• Dynamic fight length based on the way the fight is playing out, rather than it being a fixed length regardless of how it's going
• Reduce unnecessary damage to fighters taking a beating
• Reduce the length of boring uneventful fights
• Increase the length of exciting eventful fights
• Encourage fighters to fight, by avoiding the dreaded "dual loss"
• Longer 10-minute rounds allow grapplers time to work
• Longer 10-minute rounds simulate a real fight more accurately, delaying the artificial round-ending interruptions
  
• Detachment from the unsuitable system brought over from boxing, including the 10-point must system.

Constructive thoughts and criticisms?

dual loss? in boxing it used to be declared a no contest, if both combatants were deemed to not be trying hard enough. it used to happen a fair bit. a lot of modern fights would be declared non contests if they still used this rule.

 

[giantveggie]

I agree, but it has to be 8 minute rounds or it makes no sense.

 

[SuperNerd]

10min round was a great start.

I like the idea of 1 long round having consequences, but where are the rocky moments that make combat sports so epic?

Gonna pass

 

[Joshuaace]

Why not?

The judges are experts in grappling and striking. They are required to have at least a masters degree BEFORE becoming a judge.

If anything, MMA judges are overqualified. The world would be better served if they served on the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Sherdog would melt. Constant bitching about early referee stoppages now. Imagine what it would be like with judges stopping a majority of fights after 1 round. Have you watched many fights with rounds longer than 5 minutes? 10 minute rounds aren't exactly going to promote a higher paced fight, just the opposite imo.

 

[MakeSherdogGreatAgain]

I like pride rules as much as the next guy, but we all know that's not gonna happen.

I think one thing judges definitely need to do is score more rounds even. If a round is uneventful, they don't have to give it to anyone. It would avoid a lot of controversial decisions.

The system in place isn't terrible, it's just been misused.

 

[Joshuaace]

I like pride rules as much as the next guy, but we all know that's not gonna happen.

I think one thing judges definitely need to do is score more rounds even. If a round is uneventful, they don't have to give it to anyone. It would avoid a lot of controversial decisions.

The system in place isn't terrible, it's just been misused.

Agree 100%. Just using available 10-10 and 10-8 scores would make a world of difference.

 

[HaulParris]

I like the idea of restructuring the current system, with a “something borrowed/something new” approach:
- take points off for stalling
- take points off for each knockdown, no matter if it’s from a strike to the head/body/leg
- take points off for takedowns only if there is a guard pass / legit sub attempt / legit ground and pound
- let fighters/corners know real-time how the judges scored the previous round

 

[GranNaniwa]

Full Pride rules (with Royce Gracie stipulations for special fights)

Get rid of all belts, fighters will compete for a spot on a 1 day tournament held once a year for each weight division.

Cut the roster in half and have the remaining fighters compete twice as often.

Get rid of Reebok uniforms. Bring back gis and wrestling shoes.

Cease all drug testing.

That would be my perfect MMA org.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Meh. Pride rounds was better than this

10 min round, extra 5 min round if needed

Fight judged as a whole