The inherent uselessness of 10-8 rounds.

[Magx951]

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.

your idea sounds interesting, could you elaborate on it?

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Your assumption that draws are inherently bad is false.

I'm ok with anyone that supports more draws, first of all. That's valid.

I think it's a bit lazy, myself. After two guys fight, it's hard to imagine that it was 100% equal. 10 point must merely forces judges to call it even in a very macroscopic way that i don't particularly like.

 

[FlyingKimurabar]

Good, all rounds aren't created equal and should be scored as such. Not perfect but a step in the right direction.

I feel like a lot of fights should be scored draws. If you sqeek out the first two rounds then get dominated in the last you shouldn't get a win.

 

[Flex Plexico]

Was it shooto that always had draws?


More draws wouldn't be the worst thing, imo, as long as they're deserved.

 

[Rondas Pillow]

After 3 rounds, immediately announce it is a draw and have a final minute break. Then sudden death starts where there are no more breaks and you fight until there is a finish.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

A round in which fighter A has fighter B wobbled from strikes and in defensive mode for several minutes should be worth more than a round in which both fighters landed equally and with similar effect.

 

[steny]

10-9 point system is a nonsense. Even if a guy is beaten as fuck while doing no damage in that round, he still gets 80% percent of opponents points.

 

[Kneeuinthenutz]

I have no problem with more draws occurring

There have been too many times judges and fans are pretty much guessing who won, rather than simply state it was too close to call.

More importantly...The 10-9 must system DOES NOT WORK and is an embarrassment it's actually still being used. Round by round scoring is also an extremely bad idea for this sport. The fight should be judged as a whole.


.

 

[Sherm]

I'm ok with anyone that supports more draws, first of all. That's valid.

I think it's a bit lazy, myself. After two guys fight, it's hard to imagine that it was 100% equal. 10 point must merely forces judges to call it even in a very macroscopic way that i don't particularly like.

Theoretically, there's no way that any fight ends up being 100% equal. But in practice, human beings just aren't equipped to tally up all the action that happens with 100% accuracy. The judges are mostly middle aged bureaucrats who've never competed, looking through a fence at guys whose hands move faster than the eye. A lot of these fights are just too close to call. The system should admit that instead of faking confidence.

10 point must is shit. It was made even worse when most judges were interpreting it as "10-9 must". This is incremental progress. The main thing I like about it is that it shows these state bodies are actually willing to change while the sport is still relatively young.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

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

Why not? It would just be like a 10-8 that is worth more than two 10-9s. If you think winning two rounds is more important, then "10-9s only" is reasonable. Wanting 10-8s is wanting more draws.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Was it shooto that always had draws?


More draws wouldn't be the worst thing, imo, as long as they're deserved.

More draws would be terrible imo.

What if a title eliminator ends in a draw? Rematch? Belt gets held up an extra 3 or 4 months.

 

[dr. john lee]

The 10-point scoring system itself, is flawed. You gotta know that 10-point scoring is a function of boxing, where there are 10-12 rounds in a fight. One 10-8 round, does not necessarily determine a fight.

In MMA, you get a 10-8, and you basically got the fight one (especially in a 3-rounder). There needs to be a more holistic approach to scoring... after all, we all have a pretty good idea of who wins/loses after a fight.

 

[Concrete Whale]

Like you said TS the problem with the 10-8 system in MMA is that there are so few rounds compared to (pro) boxing. In boxing you can have 15 rounds but in MMA where most fights are 3 rounds a 10-8 is too overpowering. Once you're down a round 10-8 you can only win by getting a 10-8 yourself or a finish, there's no chance to work your way back into the fight. Even in a 5 round fight if you give up a 10-8 round you need to win 3 to get back ahead, it's too overpowered which is probably why they rarely give them.

 

[Concrete Whale]

More draws would be terrible imo.

What if a title eliminator ends in a draw? Rematch? Belt gets held up an extra 3 or 4 months.

Extra Time.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

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.

It's in the subtext.

Really it is though...

The very addressing of it and taking the time to quantify it and then asking judges to consider it is, by implication, asking them to use it more.

What they should be putting their attention on is whether a 10-8 is more valuable than two 10-9s and how to solve that mess...not clarifying the language of how to create it.

 

[egk]

your idea sounds interesting, could you elaborate on it?

No matter what scoring system is used when it goes to the judges you're relying on their experience and opinions.

The only difference i'm suggesting would be to have the scores carry over from one round to the next more like a football or basketball game. So if round 1 ends at 10-9, round two starts out with that score. Round 2 would end with the score being 20-20 or 20-19 (or less) at the end of the round.

No matter what new system they created they'd need to emphasize judges having more leeway to denote very close rounds or rounds with little action and allows them to give more strength to dominant rounds. I think taking the scoring system from boxing has just screwed judges up because they're still thinking like boxing judges.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

Why not? It would just be like a 10-8 that is worth more than two 10-9s. If you think winning two rounds is more important, then "10-9s only" is reasonable. Wanting 10-8s is wanting more draws.

I don't want more 10-8s and 10-7s are just silly, with hardly any way to make up the score disparity.

The problem is judging education on MMA and not scoring work from the bottom things like that, that are ultimately an issue with education and not rules.

 

[chunglii]

It's in the subtext.

Really it is though...

The very addressing of it and taking the time to quantify it and then asking judges to consider it is, by implication, asking them to use it more.

What they should be putting their attention on is whether a 10-8 is more valuable than two 10-9s and how to solve that mess...not clarifying the language of how to create it.

They stressed the specific order of criteria more than the new 10-8 clarifications. And under the 10 point system, two 10-9s are equal to a 10-8, obviously. You disagree with that, so it means like maybe you want a half point system? That's something that has been brought up in the past, because there can be a big difference between 2 different 10-9s. A 10-9 can be a really close round or a somewhat dominant round. Why would 2 barely 10-9s be the same as a solid 10-8 is a reasonable concern. A half point system is a way to address this.

 

[Toxxus]

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.

You're making a logical flaw - Here are some alternatives:
Rd1 10 - 8
Rd2 8 - 10
Rd3 10 - 9 or 9 - 10
-----------------
Not a draw

Rd1 10 - 8
Rd2 10 - 8
Rd3 10 - 9 or 9 - 10
---------------------------
Not a draw

I agree, to a point, that we'll see more draws, but it is far and away not the only possible outcome.

 

[Toxxus]

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.

It really shouldn't change the outcomes of those fights as the secondary and tertiary scoring points are only considered when effective striking/grappling are effectively a tie. In the majority of rounds the effective aggression won't even be considered.

Imo, it would play out something like this.

Fighter A chases Fighter B around the cage - pushing the action - and by the end of the round they've landed an equal amount of punishing blows on each other. Since there is no clear winner in the striking department then aggression becomes the tie breaker. Because Fighter A was pushing the action and had effective aggression (not running into 101 counter strikes) then he would get a 10-9 nod from the judges.