UFC's point system needs to be improved

[jx820]

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

That's a perfectly acceptable opinion. My opinion is giong fully qualitative and "open to interpretation" with it would make things MUCH worse than a quantitative method. But I can absolutely see how that kind of system addresses some problems in the 10 point must system (e.g. no coasting after rounds are banked, taking a point for a foul doesn't automatically give the fight away).

I'd also say that you have fights like Rico Rodriguez vs Nog and Rampage vs Ninja Rua that were contested under those rules that are commonly regarded as some of the most blatant robberies in MMA history.

But there are no right answers here.

 

[swarrrm]

We should be seeing 10-10 and 10-7 scores regularly.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

ONE FC - Judge the fight as a whole. A takedown can seal you a round in a 10-pt-must system, but a judge may see it as a throw away when judging the entire events of the fight all at once.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

That's a perfectly acceptable opinion. My opinion is giong fully qualitative and "open to interpretation" with it would make things MUCH worse than a quantitative method. But I can absolutely see how that kind of system addresses some problems in the 10 point must system (e.g. no coasting after rounds are banked, taking a point for a foul doesn't automatically give the fight away).

I'd also say that you have fights like Rico Rodriguez vs Nog and Rampage vs Ninja Rua that were contested under those rules that are commonly regarded as some of the most blatant robberies in MMA history.

But there are no right answers here.

I think that has to do more with a corrupt system rather than ignorant judging. ONE FC doesn't get too many of their decisions wrong, from what I've seen. There are a couple that I haven't agreed with, but for the most part, I haven't seen any massive robberies.

 

[Zanmato]

There is the occasional outrage but a very significant majority of fights are judged and scored correctly, I imagine it's not worth the time an expense of trying to figure out this (when it would probably still result in a similar margin of error and/or corruption). You just have to accept that sometimes a win is a subjective decision and you might not always be in agreement with it. It's part of the game

 

[skylolow]

Biggest issue is judges hate giving 10-10 rounds and no one is a fan of draws. Unfortunately, in MMA there is a lot of 10-10 rounds and potential draws. Maybe more of that would influence fighters to take a little more risk.

 

[jx820]

I think that has to do more with a corrupt system rather than ignorant judging. ONE FC doesn't get too many of their decisions wrong, from what I've seen. There are a couple that I haven't agreed with, but for the most part, I haven't seen any massive robberies.

Perhaps.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'd argue that One FC has the "benefit" of pretty lobsided matches and they don't do too much MMA at this point so they also aren't over burdened with MMA decisions. In their last 5 cards I think there have been 3 MMA decisions and I don't think any have been especially close (but I could be misremembering). The last 5 UFC cards had 24 decisions. UFC 297 alone had 7 decisions.

If we assume even 1 in 20 decisions are really questionable or controvercial regardless of match making, ruleset or judging criteria you'll see one questionable decision every 4 or 5 UFC cards. If I did my numbers right that's every 33 or 34 One FC cards, just because they don't really have MMA decisions on every card.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

Perhaps.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'd argue that One FC has the "benefit" of pretty lobsided matches and they don't do too much MMA at this point so they also aren't over burdened with MMA decisions. In their last 5 cards I think there have been 3 MMA decisions and I don't think any have been especially close (but I could be misremembering). The last 5 UFC cards had 24 decisions. UFC 297 alone had 7 decisions.

If we assume even 1 in 20 decisions are really questionable or controvercial regardless of match making, ruleset or judging criteria you'll see one questionable decision every 4 or 5 UFC cards. If I did my numbers right that's every 33 or 34 One FC cards, just because they don't really have MMA decisions on every card.

While that is some great homework (although unverified numbers on my end) that's still assuming the same curve exists. It isn't just MMA that gets graded on the fight as a whole, and there are less places to make a mistake when it's just the one decision. We've seen it come down, too many times, to a single take down at the end of one round. When a person who is a certified judge is asked to look at the fight as a whole, and not in sections, I firmly believe they will make the right choice more often than not.

 

[Safton]

This event is probably not the best one to use as for one's exhibit regarding modern MMA scoring. The fights on the card weren't even contested under the Unified Rules; a lot of the scoring criteria in Ontario is quite different if not the opposite of how other UR-compliant venues do it.

That being said, I do nominally agree with the sentiment. It's a big part of why I like the idea of half-points.