UFC's point system needs to be improved

[Gamer2k4]

No it doesn't, all it needs is judges that give close rounds a 10-10.
There is no winning a round or a fight because of a single takedown or a few strikes, that is borderline retarded. Such a round needs to be scored 10-10.

Try it, score very close rounds in recent controversial decisions a 10-10. You'll end up with far more satisfactory results.

The rules explicitly say you're not supposed to score 10-10 rounds unless you have no choice, and it's primarily there for edge case scenarios like incomplete rounds. The situations where a round should get scored 10-10 are pretty much limited to rounds like this:

And even for that one, all three judges managed to find something to tip the balance one way or the other. The whole reason that there are multiple scoring criteria in descending order of weight (effective striking/grappling, then aggression, then octagon control) is so that there's always SOMETHING that allows you to score the round for one fighter over the other, even if things seem even at a glance.

 

[Kourtland]

Nothing wrong with having rounds. That's almost like saying get rid of quarters in other sports

 

[Black Blood]

The eternal struggle between the art and the science.

 

[sdpdude9]

The rules explicitly say you're not supposed to score 10-10 rounds unless you have no choice, and it's primarily there for edge case scenarios like incomplete rounds. The situations where a round should get scored 10-10 are pretty much limited to rounds like this:

And even for that one, all three judges managed to find something to tip the balance one way or the other. The whole reason that there are multiple scoring criteria in descending order of weight (effective striking/grappling, then aggression, then octagon control) is so that there's always SOMETHING that allows you to score the round for one fighter over the other, even if things seem even at a glance.

And it’s for good reason imo. I think the “give more 10-10 rounds” argument is a disaster waiting to happen. You’ll have judges use it basically as a cop out in any remotely close rounds, especially if it’s the deciding round. It will not end debates, it will just be another factor people will argue over.

 

[StonedLemur]

Well, in an even striking situation like above, you are supposed to then go to aggression. Who was more aggressive in the round? That would have been DDP. Also, it's not about cumulative strikes but quality of strikes. Fighter A can land 10 strikes but if Fighter B landed 5 with more impact, they win the round.

I think the scoring criteria is written pretty well now. Judges and fans just haven't adapted and still score like the old days because that's what we were used to for a decade.

Going to aggression is the old criteria.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Going to aggression is the old criteria.

Effective Striking/Grappling shall be considered the first priority of round 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/Ring Control (‘Plan C’) should only be needed when ALL other criteria are 100% even for both competitors. This will be an extremely rare occurrence.

Direct from the new scoring criteria, homie.

 

[StonedLemur]

Direct from the new scoring criteria, homie.

Plan B

 

[Pierced7681]

Just add a 10/9.5 for close rounds that could go either way. This will give the affected fighter a .5 extra to work with. Simple fix, easy solution.

10/9.5 for razor close rounds
10/9 for definite round
10/8 for ass whooping
10/7 for near death almost finish, fighter shouldn’t be allowed to come out for the next round

 

[chardog]

they can start with a unified rules that's actually unified.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

The rules explicitly say you're not supposed to score 10-10 rounds unless you have no choice, and it's primarily there for edge case scenarios like incomplete rounds. The situations where a round should get scored 10-10 are pretty much limited to rounds like this:

And even for that one, all three judges managed to find something to tip the balance one way or the other. The whole reason that there are multiple scoring criteria in descending order of weight (effective striking/grappling, then aggression, then octagon control) is so that there's always SOMETHING that allows you to score the round for one fighter over the other, even if things seem even at a glance.

This fight should be used in training (and I think it actually is) because it's a litmus test for how to score a fight. The striking was DEAD EVEN and they still gave the round to Carla. Why? Because in the scoring, you are only supposed to give 10-10 if everything is completely even. That's virtually impossible. There's always something you can point to. In this case, even aggression was even. Neither were attacking. So now what? You go to Plan C. Who had the control and that was Carla. She was moving forward and controlling the octagon. That won her the round.

10-10 is a lazy score. There should never be a 10-10 score - especially with the new/current scoring criteria.

 

[HoelHomero]

The rules explicitly say you're not supposed to score 10-10 rounds unless you have no choice, and it's primarily there for edge case scenarios like incomplete rounds. The situations where a round should get scored 10-10 are pretty much limited to rounds like this:

And even for that one, all three judges managed to find something to tip the balance one way or the other. The whole reason that there are multiple scoring criteria in descending order of weight (effective striking/grappling, then aggression, then octagon control) is so that there's always SOMETHING that allows you to score the round for one fighter over the other, even if things seem even at a glance.

Yes, and that is the issue. I don't agree with this. I think the sentiment of someone HAVING to win a round is false. There are many rounds in the UFC where I'd say the fight is still on equal footing after that round, so I have to score it 10-10, no matter if the other dude landed a couple of jabs more

 

[HoelHomero]

This fight should be used in training (and I think it actually is) because it's a litmus test for how to score a fight. The striking was DEAD EVEN and they still gave the round to Carla. Why? Because in the scoring, you are only supposed to give 10-10 if everything is completely even. That's virtually impossible. There's always something you can point to. In this case, even aggression was even. Neither were attacking. So now what? You go to Plan C. Who had the control and that was Carla. She was moving forward and controlling the octagon. That won her the round.

10-10 is a lazy score. There should never be a 10-10 score - especially with the new/current scoring criteria.

That is crazy. How can you support this? lol
Giving someone a round of a FIGHT because of something like "control" even without any damage occuring? That is not how a winner or loser is determined in a fight. If a fight plays out on the streets and nothing happens in 10 minutes except for one guy walking forward and the other one walking backwards - you think the guy walking forwards is the winner? The winner in a walking contest, maybe. But that's not a fight. And UFC tries to emulate "real" fights as closely as possible.
I know it's in the rules, I'm well aware of how fights are scored - but it's still dumb.

10-10 is not lazy scoring, it's a score that lazy point-fighters get that try to edge a round by a takedown or a few jabs.

 

[skylolow]

Also keep in mind this the AC's job not the UFC's. The UFC help set the ground work initially. But to change stuff now would be a massive undertaking as every state operates a little different. Many though do follow suit with Nevada.

 

[BEATDOWNS]

No more rounds, no more breaks.

1 fight for 15 or 25 minutes. Winner is determined based on who they believe won in those 15 or 25 minutes.

I know this way is flawed but really, there is a flaw in every way i've ever seen posted.

Pride got it right first round ten minutes second round five minutes. Usually around the five minute mark the action is definitely picking up and the fighters are getting adjusted so why break the action at that point? it's dumb. UFC owns Pride so why can't they just switch over to that system. I think it would help.

 

[ferrisjso]

1 fight for 15 or 25 minutes. Winner is determined based on who they believe won in those 15 or 25 minutes.

I know this way is flawed but really, there is a flaw in every way i've ever seen posted.

All this does is remove the need for judges to show their work.

 

[chinarice]

All this does is remove the need for judges to show their work.

Since when have they ever had to own up for their work, regardless of how obviously terrible it was?

 

[Killer Kadoogan]

It will never happen and thats the worst part. UFC wont change the rules, wont be able to get every governing state athletic commission to adopt them, it's all over. you can only wish for consistenty in interpreation of these worlds come fight night, and that aint ever happening either. the only answer is ONE or RIZIN for the purest MMA ruleset. otherwise we just watching the top 2-3 per divisoin in the UFC, hoping they get judged consistently.

 

[chinarice]

For that you could have a 100 point system instead of a 10 point. But it wil just make scoring more wildly inconsistent and result in more indefensible scores, not less. It will create deficits that are far more difficult to come back from.

Shouldn't there be more deficits instead of all 10-9s are created equal?

 

[PEDRO IVO RUSSO MIRANDA]

I think we can have 6 judges.
3 score 1st round, them they could rewatch the figth, and watch more closely some key moments, while another 3 judges the 2nd round.
In the end of the 2nd , the previous 3 judges came back.
The negative point is, all figths will last 5 more minutes... But they can fulfill that time with commercials and highlights of the figth.
I dont mind if we have less figths in the card to have a better judgement.

 

[ragreynolds]

I don't get why they can't just use more scoring options. What is currently a 10-9 should be the score given to a fighter if he wins a super close round (the type of round that people will argue about who won it). 10-8 should then become what we currently call a 10-9. 10-7 should be for dominant rounds, then 10-6 should be what 10-7 currently is.

If they did it this way, then fighters would rightly gain more points for clearly winning a round than they do for only barely winning a round.