The inherent uselessness of 10-8 rounds.

[Flemmy Stardust]

Given the new rules/language adopted by the ABC, i ask: Would you really want more 10-8 rounds given in MMA? If yes, why?

Without language that prefers a single 10-8 round to two 10-9 rounds (or the other way around), it will certainly result in more fights ending in draws. We already know this...

But the reality is that this is the only mathematical possibility the 10-8 leads to, with one, very specific exception:

In a title fight, two 10-8 rounds for fighter A will beat out three 10-9 rounds for fighter B.

In every other possible example, the 10-8 will either play into a draw, or not play at all.

So is that one, very specific title fight example crucial enough to warrant an overall increase in draws? I say no.

It would make more sense - to me at least - to do away with 10-8s entirely, and use 10-7s in its place.

 

[chunglii]

It's not about giving more or less 10-8s. The change is about clarifying what constitutes a 10-8. The 10-8s given should be deserved. Do you think the new language will result in more 10-8s?

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

It's not about giving more or less 10-8s. The change is about clarifying what constitutes a 10-8. The 10-8s given should be deserved. Do you think the new language will result in more 10-8s?

Didn't it distinctly state "more liberal use of"?

Either way, the clarifying of the language is still superfluous when the idea itself results in undesirable outcomes.

 

[pocket]

Finish fights.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Forgive me, "more liberal definition..."

Shit.

 

[Magx951]

there are lots of 10-8 rounds that aren't scored, period.

More elaboration for the shitty judges can only be a good thing.

 

[n...not crazy]

My wife laughs when they read out points in decisions and rounds. "Yeah that seemed like he got about 9 points there, sure."

ASIAN SCORING FTW

 

[Coconut Joe]

 

[Thunderchild]

Why keep the 10 point-must at all? Its a relic from boxing which has far more rounds so it works, but is ill suited for MMA.

 

[Deleted member 478803]

I'm cool with more draws. Sometimes it makes the most sense.

 

[chunglii]

Didn't it distinctly state "more liberal use of"?

Either way, the clarifying of the language is still superfluous when the idea itself it results in undesirable outcomes.

A 10 – 8 Round in MMA is where one fighter wins the round by a large margin. A 10 – 8 round in MMA is not the most common score a judge will render, but it is absolutely essential to the evolution of the sport and the fairness to the fighters that judges understand effectively utilize the score of 10 – 8.

A score of 10 – 8 does not require a fighter to dominate their opponent for 5 minutes of a round. The score of 10 – 8 is utilized by the judge when the judge sees verifiable results on the part of both or either fighter. If a fighter has little to no offensive output during a 5 minute round, it should be normal for the judge toward the losing fighter 8 points instead of 9.

When assessing a score of 10-8, judges shallevaluate Damage, Dominance, and Duration and, if two of the 3 are assessed to have been present, a 10-8 score shall be considered. If all three are present, a 10-8 score shall beawarded.

Damage – A judge shall assess if a fighter damages their opponent significantly inthe round, even though they may not have dominated the action. Damage includes visibleevidence such as swellings and lacerations. Damage shall also be assessed when a fighter’sactions, using striking and/or grappling, lead to a diminishing of their opponents’ energy, confidence, abilities and spirit. All of these come as a direct result of damage. When afighter is damaged with strikes, by lack of control and/or ability, this can create definingmoments in the round and shall be assessed with great value.

Dominance – As MMA is an offensive based sport, dominance of a round can be seen in strikingwhen the losing fighter is forced to continually defend, with no counters or reaction takenwhen openings present themselves. Dominance in the grappling phase can be seen by fighterstaking dominant positions in the fight and utilizing those positions to attempt fight endingsubmissions or attacks. Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor inassessing dominance. What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed.

Duration – Duration is defined by the time spent by one fighter effectively attacking andcontrolling their opponent, while the opponent offers little to no offensive output. A judgeshall assess duration by recognizing the relative time in a round when one fighter takes andmaintains full control of the effective offense. This can be assessed both standing and grounded

This is the exact wording in the new rules specifically regarding 10-8 rounds. The only difference is, replace the word "damage" with "impact" (an change proposed by the NJSACB which was accepted).

Nothing about "more liberal use of" or a "more liberal definition" in the rules. The author of the mmafighting.com article describes the rules as "The definition of a 10-8 round is also more liberal with the changes, asking judges to look at dominance, duration and impact (or damage). If a round has two of those characteristics, a 10-8 should be considered. If a round has all three of those characteristics, it must be a 10-8 round."

 

[Melas Chasma]

Giving more 10-8 and 10-7 would create more controversy. The more complex you create the judging the more scenarios for controversy it creates. Its simple math.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Why keep the 10 point-must at all? Its a relic from boxing which has far more rounds so it works, but is ill suited for MMA.

Agree, but working within a 10 point-must, and there being so few rounds, the 10-8 is a bane on it.

 

[chitoortiz]

10-7s?

You actually bring up a good point. Ordinarily you're getting a Dom Cruz didn't read gif.

I like this idea. It would work perfectly IMO.

I never even considered this idea in the past.

You might get some flack from other posters here TS...but you sold me

 

[Zefram Cochrane]

Judges can't even give 10-9 rounds to the correct fighter. These changes will either be dead letter or there'll be chaos.
Rules are useless if those who have to implement them are not capable of it.

 

[egk]

They should do away with round by round scoring for MMA and judge fights as a whole anyway. But they won't do it. The commissions will continue to use a scoring system designed for a completely different sport, boxing.

 

[Magx951]

Judges can't even give 10-9 rounds to the correct fighter. These changes will either be dead letter or there'll be chaos.
Rules are useless if those who have to implement them are not capable of it.

IMO its actually a lot clearer when a 10-8 is then a 10-9 could necessarily be

just because of how close a 10-9 can really be. A 10-8 is a pretty clear win. That's kind of the point of a 10-8.

 

[Magx951]

They should do away with round by round scoring for MMA and judge fights as a whole anyway. But they won't do it. The commissions will continue to use a scoring system designed for a completely different sport, boxing.

Scoring fights "as a whole" can lead to just as bad if not worse decisions and corruption, in my opinion

PRIDE had a lot of shady / bad decisions too.

 

[Mittens]

Yeah, that's how it works with three rounds. Personally I find nothing wrong with potential increase of draws, though. If it's a draw, it's a draw. Move on.

*goes to watch yet another exciting 0-0 football match*

 

[Thunderchild]

Agree, but working within a 10 point-must, and there being so few rounds, the 10-8 is a bane on it.

Agree, I see your logic about it causing more draws. It just sucks because as it stands there are no degrees of separation between 10-9 rounds when someone is slightly better than their opponent, and 10-9 rounds where someone clearly won.