The inherent uselessness of 10-8 rounds.

[highkicknomore]

Fans should vote on the rounds like American Idol.

 

[Elmonstro1]

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."

When talking about the 3 aspects of scoring under this criteria, dominance and damage is easy too asses but how would one score "duration" would that fall under control of the octagon or pace? would it be that a fighter won 3 minutes of the round? so if a fighter gets to control for most of the round he has duration 'time' and dominance 'top control' would that constitute a 10-8 round regardless of damage or effective strikes/submission attempts?

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

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.

I would agree with you, without the 10-7s.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

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."

I confused "more liberal definition", which was in the language, with "more liberal use of".

The point is, why put attention on, ask judges consider (demand it in certain cases), or clarify the language of something which functions to produce less favorable outcomes?

 

[myjohnson9]

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.

This is actually a very good point that I never really thought about before. And with more draws it will be less fighters getting their win bonus...

Conclusion... they need to vote again and judge fights as a whole

 

[chunglii]

When talking about the 3 aspects of scoring under this criteria, dominance and damage is easy too asses but how would one score "duration" would that fall under control of the octagon or pace? would it be that a fighter won 3 minutes of the round? so if a fighter gets to control for most of the round he has duration 'time' and dominance 'top control' would that constitute a 10-8 round regardless of damage or effective strikes/submission attempts?

From my understanding, the Duration criteria of a 10-8 has nothing to do with ring/cage control.

Effective Striking/Grappling will render the high majority of rendered assessments. Effective Aggressiveness is a ‘plan B’ and should not be considered unless the judge does not see ANY advantage in the Effective Striking/Grappling realm. Cage/RingControl (‘plan C’) should only be needed when ALL other criteria are 100% even for both competitors. This will be an extremely rare occurrence. Effective Aggressiveness and Fighting Area Control are back up plans, should the effect of striking/grappling be 100% equal for both competitors.

when a 10-8 round is in consideration, there's definitely measurable offense from striking and grappling to judge the round off of.

A judge shall assess duration by recognizing the relative time in a round when one fighter takes and maintains full control of the effective offense. This can be assessed both standing and grounded.

There isn't a specific number attached to the duration. It's relative.

In regards to 'top control' winning a round 10-8:

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

 

[egk]

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.

Pride had corruption because it was run by the Yakuza not because of the scoring system. The scoring system was still way better than the round by round system which I think promotes points fighting. When did you ever see guys looking at the clock and going for do-nothing takedowns with 15 seconds left in a round in Pride? Critics say Pride's judging gave too much emphasis towards who was winning at the end but isn't that how a real fight would be? Look how often we see someone in the UFC win two rounds then takes the 3rd off? 10-8's don't fix stuff like that. I think in a fight the prime criteria should be damage.

 

[Sherm]

Your assumption that draws are inherently bad is false.

Edgar Maynard II, Hunt Bigfoot I.

Some of the best fights of all time were scored as draws, and it didn't hurt those fights' legacies - it actually helped them. It would have been a travesty to flip a coin after either of those wars.

I do get your point that mathematically, the new rules won't have a major impact besides more draws. I think ideally, they would also call for an increase in 10-10s to go along with the increase in 10-8s. This would fix the dreaded scenario of a guy winning a fight after getting the nod on two coin flip rounds and getting his ass kicked in the other round.

As a fan, there are so many rounds where you just end up saying, "fuck, I'm glad I don't have to judge that round".

 

[Toco]

they should use more draws too. if he round is pretty close and is really hard to choose a winner, just make it a draw, no problem

 

[MCS]

If there's an ass kicking and 10-8's are thus easy to score, the judges' margin of error becomes smaller for the outcome, since 10-9's are closer and therefore harder to score.

A 10-8 put on paper for info tells more about those fighters than it being scored a 10-9, shows one is capable of dominating the other, and also tells something about the loser of that round (match-up, grappling weakness or durability).

Draws are good if that's the most accurate outcome. Fights can be close enough that there's no point in declaring a winner.

But draws are kinda a letdown, even if it's the right outcome. And they can mess up the pecking order for contenders (don't wanna see title shots from draws).

Yet you still want the right outcome. A solution to this is giving more 10-10 rounds to even out dominance and close rounds on the scorecards. A 10-7 creates more confusion, unless there isn't a 10-8, but then again you'll see fights where the better fighter gets caught and pounded on, then comes back, wins the next 2 rounds 10-9 each, and still loses. The good part of this is the 3rd round mayhem if the fighter knows he's down, but them willing to risk it is often more fantasy than reality (see GSP's and Jones' opponents in the 5th).

 

[chunglii]

I confused "more liberal definition", which was in the language, with "more liberal use of".

The point is, why put attention on, ask judges consider (demand it in certain cases), or clarify the language of something which functions to produce less favorable outcomes?

because they don't think it will produce less favorable outcomes.

 

[Elmonstro1]

From my understanding, the Duration criteria of a 10-8 has nothing to do with ring/cage control.



when a 10-8 round is in consideration, there's definitely measurable offense from striking and grappling to judge the round off of.



There isn't a specific number attached to the duration. It's relative.

In regards to 'top control' winning a round 10-8:

Just to make it clear under these rules TJ would have gotten the nod vs DC or Frankie would have gotten the nod against aldo? Simply because both were the active aggressor?These rules sound like a blow too counter style strikers and grapplers. on the flip side its sound like a fighter who is on bottom but is more active can win a round which is nice to finally see.

 

[Magx951]

Pride had corruption because it was run by the Yakuza not because of the scoring system. The scoring system was still way better than the round by round system which I think promotes points fighting. When did you ever see guys looking at the clock and going for do-nothing takedowns with 15 seconds left in a round in Pride? Critics say Pride's judging gave too much emphasis towards who was winning at the end but isn't that how a real fight would be? Look how often we see someone in the UFC win two rounds then takes the 3rd off? 10-8's don't fix stuff like that. I think in a fight the prime criteria should be damage.

I actually love pride-era, don't get me wrong.

I think that you're right about the last round coasting. However, I think that if you're gonna talk about Pride's corruption with Yakuza, you should be honest about the UFC corruption that's pretty clear as well.

PRIDE also had too much emphasis on shallow damage and blood. A lot of the times the bloodier person isn't the one who was actually more significantly damaged throughout the fight.

GSP would have lost a lot of decisions in pride, not because he didn't dominate, but because of how bloody he looked after one punch landing on him.

 

[Mike]

10 point must sucks for mma. Judging the fight as a whole isn't a lot better tho. Mma fights need more rounds honestly. Then it's not automatically a robbery if one close round is scored wrong.


I'd say three minute rounds but I don't think that would be very good for grappling.

 

[billharford]

I think of a lot of splits as basically being draws. I'm fine with them picking a winner, but in many cases not much was really settled. i don't think more draws would necessarily be a bad thing

 

[chunglii]

Just to make it clear under these rules TJ would have gotten the nod vs DC or Frankie would have gotten the nod against aldo? Simply because both were the active aggressor?These rules sound like a blow too counter style strikers and grapplers. on the flip side its sound like a fighter who is on bottom but is more active can win a round which is nice to finally see.

How the fuck would I know? But you only weigh "Effective aggressiveness" if you think the striking and grappling is 100% equal in a round.

 

[Elmonstro1]

How the fuck would I know? But you only weigh "Effective aggressiveness" if you think the striking and grappling is 100% equal in a round.

Sounds like a mess. Cheers

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

because they don't think it will produce less favorable outcomes.

I am disagreeing with it.

I'm wondering if they consciously understand that mathematically, 10-8s will almost always lead to draws or have no affect in the first place.

 

[chunglii]

Sounds like a mess. Cheers

It needs to be stated that criteria is to be used in specific order and may not move from one criterion to another without the prior criterion being 100% even in the judges’ assessments.In other words, Effective Striking/Grappling will render the high majority of rendered assessments. Effective Aggressiveness is a ‘plan B’ and should not be considered unless the judge does not see ANY advantage in the Effective Striking/Grappling realm. Cage/RingControl (‘plan C’) should only be needed when ALL other criteria are 100% even for both competitors.

I disagree, I think this makes things clearer.

I am disagreeing with it.

I'm wondering if they consciously understand that mathematically, 10-8s will almost always lead to draws or have no affect in the first place.

They don't think this new wording will create more 10-8s. They didn't bring it up at the convention and none of the ACs reps expressed a potential for more 10-8s as a concern. We'll have to see what happens.

 

[egk]

I actually love pride-era, don't get me wrong.

I think that you're right about the last round coasting. However, I think that if you're gonna talk about Pride's corruption with Yakuza, you should be honest about the UFC corruption that's pretty clear as well.

PRIDE also had too much emphasis on shallow damage and blood. A lot of the times the bloodier person isn't the one who was actually more significantly damaged throughout the fight.

GSP would have lost a lot of decisions in pride, not because he didn't dominate, but because of how bloody he looked after one punch landing on him.

A fellow named Fedor did pretty well in Pride and he cut and got marked up as bad as anyone. Superficial damage isn't what I'm talking about anyway. It's inflicting damage that comes closest to ending the fight that should count.

I'm not saying they should totally adopt Pride's scoring system. It could be made better. I just agree with people who say it's silly that MMA hasn't created it's own system and instead relies on the pts system used by boxing, which is a completely different sport. Boxing has many more rounds to even out badly scored ones.

I've mentioned on here before that my ideal system would be one in which they score round by round but have each round's score carry over to the next rather than each round being scored like a totally separate fight. That way someone would always be in the lead in case a fight was stopped for an accidental foul like a headbutt or something.