The inherent uselessness of 10-8 rounds.

[Flemmy Stardust]

Yes, more draws will happen but your solution is shit. I'd rather stick with the old 10-9 system.

What counts as a 10-7 in this case? one 10-7 round pretty much wins you the fight in a 3 round fight if you can make it to a decision.

Draw's will still be pretty rare, and even if there is a draw, it'll be deservedly so and we wont see as many robbery threads on sherdog.

I'm simply suggesting we call a 10-8 a 10-7 instead.

You should have to do more than squeak by in 2 rounds to compete with getting your ass beat in one of them. That is the point.

 

[xMaxPower]

I'm simply suggesting we call a 10-8 a 10-7 instead.

You should have to do more than squeak by in 2 rounds to compete with getting your ass beat in one of them. That is the point.

You still have to add up the rounds at the end of the fight, so changing a 10-8 to a 10-7 will change things a lot. A 10-9 round still wont be a squeak by round, as fighters who clearly won a round but did not come close to finishing will still probably be scored 10-9. So in this instance you're comparing 2 rounds where you clearly won to a round where you got raped, which to me... is probably a tie (in most cases).

 

[bubby]

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*

"Exciting" soccer games, lol.

That's like exciting grass growing.

 

[The MM Analyst]

I'd rather see a draw when it's warranted than a coin-flip decision.

 

[phatron]

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.

why is it ill suited for mma?

the system works just fine.....when applied correctly.

How many 10-8 rounds have actually been given in mma? 10-7's?

I've been watching since ufc1 and don't recall ever hearing a 10-7......

If the system hasn't been employed correctly, we can't really fault the system.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

Given that judge education is a problem, 10-7s instead of 10-8s is how you limit their lack of of sophistication.

Fighter A wins a relatively close first round.
Fighter B kicks the shit out of Fighter A in the second.

You want to battle back? Get the finish or kick the shit out of your opponent to earn the 10-7. If you don't do enough you should lose.
That's how i see it anyway.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't really agree.

Each round scored is relative to that round. One fighter might do well and you give him a 10-7, then next round the other fighter does better, but you give a 10-7, you end up with the same problem.

This doesn't change anything. The same result will happen, except there will now be excessive draws because of math with 10-8s.

To address the core problem is the only way to solve it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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.

More draws are fine. Sometimes there's not a clear winning and drawing is a fair outcome.

 

[grimballer]

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.

Bad judges aside scoring fights as a whole >>>> 10-9

Perfect example is gsp vs Hendricks

While you can make an argument gsp won that fight under 10-9 system there's no way he would have been declared a winner if fight was judged as a whole.

 

[grimballer]

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.

For all this to work out there needs to be

10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7

Clearly defined rounds

 

[Fedorgasm]

I love the possibility of more 10-8 rounds. If it leads to more draws then great. I'm sick of two guys who don't hurt each other and one of them gets to be declared the winner.

 

[grimballer]

why is it ill suited for mma?

the system works just fine.....when applied correctly.

How many 10-8 rounds have actually been given in mma? 10-7's?

I've been watching since ufc1 and don't recall ever hearing a 10-7......

If the system hasn't been employed correctly, we can't really fault the system.

It's literally meant to score (or deduct) points for every kd (n in some cases clear one sided rounds)

Mma is much more complex

Rounds are longer, but there's less of them

Getting kd doesn't have as much impact as it does in boxing

N there are other elements to consider besides who landed more punches

 

[ThePunisher]

Why not just do a 3 point must system?

Hell, how about 2 point must system? It's not like these fuckers are ever going to go that low on a 10 point scale anyway (e.g., what's the point of the numerals 1-7?).

So just let that shit be 2 points for the winner, 1 point for the loser.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

they happen all the time if you listen to the numbers given on the scorecards. actually, some judges erroneously give 9-9's too. id say you'd get at least 1 draw round per 1 or 2 ufc events on average

I'll take your word for it. I recall 0 in the ten years I've been watching...and i mean that.

if the fight deservingly ends in a draw, then it ends in a draw..

Yeah...i don't care what you guys are saying...you don't want to see more draws.

if a judge thinks a round fits a 10-8's description and is worth as much as two 10-9s, then they give a 10-8. A round would have to be pretty crazy to warrant being worth as much as 3 10-9s.. and not all 10-8s i'd say would fit that billing.

Aha. See, but it wouldn't even matter in that case....

10-7 cannot beat four 10-9s. The fighter who got the 10-7 would still need an additional 10-9 round to win. 10-7 will never equal three 10-9s in this way, because there are no 4 round fights. It will always just amount to being "> two 10-9s".

 

[phatron]

It's literally meant to score (or deduct) points for every kd (n in some cases clear one sided rounds)

Mma is much more complex

Rounds are longer, but there's less of them

Getting kd doesn't have as much impact as it does in boxing

N there are other elements to consider besides who landed more punches

but the 10 point must system isn't applied to mma the same way. the scoring includes effective striking, grappling, octagon control, damage.....its not just based on knock downs.

The scoring system does not need to be ultra complex just because there are many facets to mma.....

Its simpy did one guy win the round or did he win the round be a wide margin or did he fucking completely dominate and almost finish his opponent 20 times.

10-10's, 10-8's and 10-7's should be used more. And the judges should understand teh sport more. There really isn't anything wrong with the scoring itself

 

[Thunderchild]

Why not just do a 3 point must system?

Hell, how about 2 point must system? It's not like these fuckers are ever going to go that low on a 10 point scale anyway (e.g., what's the point of the numerals 1-7?).

So just let that shit be 2 points for the winner, 1 point for the loser.

It happens every once in a while. I think one of the judges scored one of the Nate Quarry vs Khalib Starnes rounds 10-6 at least 10-7. I remember a 30-24 score in that one.

 

[grimballer]

but the 10 point must system isn't applied to mma the same way. the scoring includes effective striking, grappling, octagon control, damage.....its not just based on knock downs.

The scoring system does not need to be ultra complex just because there are many facets to mma.....

Its simpy did one guy win the round or did he win the round be a wide margin or did he fucking completely dominate and almost finish his opponent 20 times.

10-10's, 10-8's and 10-7's should be used more. And the judges should understand teh sport more. There really isn't anything wrong with the scoring itself

Well I hope it's not applied the same way being it's a different sport...

It's, however, still a boxing scoring system.

In boxing it's not that hard

1 kd = 10-8
2nd = 10-7
3rd = 10-6

N yet we still see judges mess things up

In mma there's even less clarity on what's a 10-8 round?

Is it when the guy is taken down n dry humped entire round?

What about getting dropped once? How about twice? What if thd guy who got dropped finishes the round strong?

What about subs? How deep the sum has to be in order to get 10-8?

That's why mma judges try to avoid 10-8 as much as possible

Where do you draw a line between a strong 10-9 n weak 10-8?

 

[pocket]

Do everything as the Japanese did in Pride.. Would be no problems.

 

[THECYNDlCATE]

I love the possibility of more 10-8 rounds. If it leads to more draws then great. I'm sick of two guys who don't hurt each other and one of them gets to be declared the winner.

That's not what will happen.

Those two guys will still have a winner declared, because they didn't fight very hard and will have 10-9 rounds. The guys that fight harder will get more draws.

 

[flurbi**]

Rounds score need to be finalised at the end of fights, not after each round.

There something wrong with 3 extra strikes in one rnd being worth as much as 30 extra strikes in another. Allowing later rounds to give context to earlier rounds will result in the superior fighter winning more often

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

10-7 cannot beat four 10-9s. The fighter who got the 10-7 would still need an additional 10-9 round to win. 10-7 will never equal three 10-9s in this way, because there are no 4 round fights. It will always just amount to being "> two 10-9s".

i never said all that. all i said in short is that 10-8s and 10-7s have different values (we both agree) and that a judge should be able to award a fighter as he sees fitting.

another thing that isnt being factored in is the effect on a fighter if he knows he is down a 10-8 or knowing he can fight more aggressively to earn more merit. you say we dont want to see more draws, which may be in part true, but ill sacrifice that over a fighter edging a round by 6 jabs and coasting because if he worked 10x as hard, he probably still wouldnt get a 10-8 or a finish.

more 10-10s, more 10-8s, and clearer, less arbitrary, and more precise definitions is what i want.