UFC's point system needs to be improved

[jx820]

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

That depends what you want or what you value. There's no "right" answer here.

While there's still plenty of controversy I think the commissions are going for simplicity to avoid as much controversy as they can. Best 2 out of 3 rounds or Best 3 out of 5 rounds is pretty straight forward and applies to almost every fight unless it's crazy lopsided.

Now if you have a fight on a 10 point system with decimals and one guy narrowly, but clearly wins 4 rounds 10.0 to 9.8 but the other guy got a knockdown and scored a 10.0 to 9.0 in the first round. You're going to have the same debates or worse. And that's if it's clear cut.

As it stands we can't collectively decide if a round is 10-9 or 10-8 in a lot of cases. Now imagine the fans, or worse the gamblers, weiging in on whether a round should have been 10-9.3 or 10-9.5 but the previous round was definitely not a 10-9.6 it should have been a 10-9.8 for the other guy.

If we can't decide who won or lost what round, we are NEVER going to get anywhere near a consensus answer on a decimal scale. It won't make things more clear it will make them less clear.

I think picking who won what round and awarding rounds is pretty straighforward, and I think having 3 judges so theres some consensus is a simple-ish system with some redundancy to cover for the total lack of accountability. I'll take that over any of the alternatives I've heard so far. Although what's I'd really like to see is some accountability when judges turn in an entirely indefensible score card.

 

[Neck&Neck]

Should be a blood splatter point system

 

[fortheo]

The fruitless takedowns still scoring really drives me nuts. They’re not supposed to but they do.

Please let a 215lb man trip your feet out so that you fall on your back with your head hitting the mat with that man's weight adding more momentum to your fall, then fight that 215lb man off you, then let him suplex you, and then fight him off of you again,, then let him pull your legs out from you and throw you on your ass, fight him off of you again, repeat 6 times and then tell him "that was nothing"

It's obviously going to score when the striking is that close, and the rules do allow scoring for takedowns with some form of impact. Regardless, I don't think DDP even got the nod because of those, but they sure as hell were a better look than being put on your back six times.

 

[chinarice]

That depends what you want or what you value. There's no "right" answer here.

While there's still plenty of controversy I think the commissions are going for simplicity to avoid as much controversy as they can. Best 2 out of 3 rounds or Best 3 out of 5 rounds is pretty straight forward and applies to almost every fight unless it's crazy lopsided.

Now if you have a fight on a 10 point system with decimals and one guy narrowly, but clearly wins 4 rounds 10.0 to 9.8 but the other guy got a knockdown and scored a 10.0 to 9.0 in the first round. You're going to have the same debates or worse. And that's if it's clear cut.

As it stands we can't collectively decide if a round is 10-9 or 10-8 in a lot of cases. Now imagine the fans, or worse the gamblers, weiging in on whether a round should have been 10-9.3 or 10-9.5 but the previous round was definitely not a 10-9.6 it should have been a 10-9.8 for the other guy.

If we can't decide who won or lost what round, we are NEVER going to get anywhere near a consensus answer on a decimal scale. It won't make things more clear it will make them less clear.

I think picking who won what round and awarding rounds is pretty straighforward, and I think having 3 judges so theres some consensus is a simple-ish system with some redundancy to cover for the total lack of accountability. I'll take that over any of the alternatives I've heard so far. Although what's I'd really like to see is some accountability when judges turn in an entirely indefensible score card.

I think judging the fight as a whole and doing away with rounds is better than what we currently have

 

[2004 account]

Hey ts don't interfere with the ufcs racket

 

[AmonTobin]

Please let a 215lb man trip your feet out so that you fall on your back with your head hitting the mat with that man's weight adding more momentum to your fall, then fight that 215lb man off you, then let him suplex you, and then fight him off of you again,, then let him pull your legs out from you and throw you on your ass, fight him off of you again, repeat 6 times and then tell him "that was nothing"

It's obviously going to score when the striking is that close, and the rules do allow scoring for takedowns with some form of impact. Regardless, I don't think DDP even got the nod because of those, but they sure as hell were a better look than being put on your back six times.

Granted. I wasn’t referring to that fight specifically. I’m seeing it scoring all the time in different fights not just in Ontario. I’m not talking about suplexes. I’m talking about drag downs to the mat and then the guy just makes his way back up. An impactful TD is one thing but we see some really inconsequential TD’s that amount to nothing. Often tiring the wrestler out more than the guy who got back up. I tend to think effective grappling is its own reward. A means to an end. I mainly agree In the case of Dricus in Ontario, yes there was some of it that makes a difference in a close fight but a lot of that was also largely ineffectual.

 

[markys00]

Stop the nonsense. More 10-8s and 10-7s will ruin the sport. Leave that shit off this board please. Do us all a favor.

 

[markys00]

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

No. Stop it. The judges have a tough time with 10-9s. Giving them more power and a wider range to mess things up is straight up retarded

 

[Pierced7681]

No. Stop it. The judges have a tough time with 10-9s. Giving them more power and a wider range to mess things up is straight up retarded

Agree to disagree, 10/9.5 is direly needed imo

 

[Paulsp]

Keep 3-5 rounds but judge the fight as a whole

 

[Iroh]

- Yes it got improved with 10-8 and 10-7
- Yes we got better criteria now


BUT

It's still a system made for 6 - 15 rounds in boxing

That just doesn't work with 3-5 rounds.
Amateur boxing with 3 rounds doesn't have that system either.


Strickland vs DDP showed this.

Example:
Fighter A lands 20 more punches in round 1, but not enough for 10-8
Fighter B lands 1 more punch in round 2 and 3 and he wins.
Or even if fighter B lands 3 punches less in 2nd and 3rd, he still could get the win via judges.

Bruh, it's not just about the number of punches. It's about the immediate impact of any kind of legal strike. You should win a round if you have landed the fewer strikes but those strikes were also significantly more impactful, than your opponents' strikes.

 

[2004 account]

The faulty scoring system continues to be used for a reason, it's by design.

 

[z99]

Someone tell me what occurs in a 10-2 round? A limb falling off?

They're using a 3pt must system.

 

[Levi_]

10-8s all but clinch fights and make draws much more likely thats why they are so seldom used.

True, but that would change if there was more leeway to give them. A point system not so stuck on 10-9 would be better IMO. That way rounds could be more reflective of differences. 10-9 would be reserved for very close rounds that weren't a draw.

 

[ferrisjso]

True, but that would change if there was more leeway to give them. A point system not so stuck on 10-9 would be better IMO. That way rounds could be more reflective of differences. 10-9 would be reserved for very close rounds that weren't a draw.

How would they be given "more leeway"? It is my understanding the judging community chose to mostly use 10-9s. There is nothing in the rules telling them not to use the other scores.

 

[ferrisjso]

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

The point is we have a record of their card and how they got to the answer they did and we can determine whether that made sense or not. If we go to the Pride system there will be no explanation.

 

[Doctor Grudge]

The most obvious change should be that there shouldn't be a 10-9 system...

MMA is supposed to resemble a "fight", so it should just be scored as a whole. There shouldn't even be rounds but I guess the ad space is needed.

A straight up 15-25 minute fight though would have better flow and lead to more finishes. One can dream.

 

[Levi_]

How would they be given "more leeway"? It is my understanding the judging community chose to mostly use 10-9s. There is nothing in the rules telling them not to use the other scores.

There is a specific description of what constitutes each score, whether it's 10-9, 10-8, etc.; judges are not just using them as they see fit (at least not within the rules). That description could always change, which would change what constitutes each score.

 

[Hog-train]

I can't stand when fighters get a 10-9 round just because they did a takedown and then did nothing with it and the opponent gets right back up.

I want half points allowed.

 

[Dana's Conscience]

Here's what we need:

10-10: Coinflip. Round requires squinting to determine a winner. Arguments for both.
10-9. Competitive, but one guy has a noticeable edge over the other.
10-8. Not particularly competitive, but the prolonged violence needed for a 10-7 isn't there.
10-7: Complete asskicking.