We need more 10-10 rounds

[FrontNakedChoke]

We don't see enough 10-10 rounds. Especially in close fights ,10-10 rounds can be pivotal.

1. a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;

Example:

First two rounds of a fight are razor close, no clear winner. But the judges give it to fighter A. In round 3 fighter B dominates the round, but only gets a 10-9 because the judges seem to be scared of 10-8 rounds (as we've all seen). That fight gets scored 29-28 for fighter A. In reality the fight should be scored for fighter B, either 30-29, or 30-28 if they accurately gave a 10-8.

I think the current system would work if implemented properly. 10-10 Rounds allow for the more decisive rounds to be the deciding factor in who wins a fight. I'm sick of seeing people "edge" 2 rounds, get smashed in the other round and win the fight. If you were to give a perfomance rating out of 50 per round, that would look like 50-40, 50-40, 10-50. Leaving fighter B with a score of 130, and fighter A with a score of 110. A much more realistic display of what actually happened in the fight.

I just don't think two close rounds should win someone a fight when they get smashed in the other round.

 

[Adamant]

Judging in general needs an overhaul. It's BS that a single take down is worth so much, or a human blanket gets awarded a victory for nothing other than laying on top of an opponent.

 

[saberd]

i completly agree there are rounds or fights that should be have been draw as well but we dont hardly see it

 

[o0obruceleeo0o]

More 10-10 rounds means more draws, especially in a 3-round fight.

 

[Adamant]

More 10-10 rounds means more draws, especially in a 3-round fight.

This is true. And more draws are a bad thing.

But I do agree that fight where a round is ultra close should be awarded 10-10

 

[Kneepocalypse]

Wholeheartedly agree. If there's no clear winner, 10-10. There's too much of a difference between a 10-9 with a clear winner and a 10-9 where one guy might have had 1 extra take-down or a few extra seconds of "octagon control."

 

[INTERL0PER]

My thoughts exactly.

More 10-10s, 10-8s, and even 10-7s etc, would fix many of the gross with MMA scoring.

As it stands, at least 95% of rounds are represented on the score cards by the EXACT same score, despite the fact that this rounds were obviously not exactly the same. That's a problem. More variation in the scores would go a long way to fixing that problem.

 

[Squarechoke]

The more the other scores than 10-9 are used, the larger the inconsistencies with judges will become though. This is a hard sport to judge but I think that's the main issue of the scoring right now, and using more of the scale is a secondary one (even though I've argued for that myself before).

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

Judging in general needs an overhaul. It's BS that a single take down is worth so much, or a human blanket gets awarded a victory for nothing other than laying on top of an opponent.

Especially since it's just a forced change of position. Pushing someone against the cage isn't rewarded the same way as a take down. The fighters who are looking to create action, regardless of position should be rewarded more heavily.

It also bothers me that TDD/getting up seems to go unnoticed in judging for the most part. Someone could stuff 5-10 shots, but as soon as they get taken down the judges are like yep, ok, there it is, 10-9.

 

[INTERL0PER]

More 10-10 rounds means more draws, especially in a 3-round fight.

Then institute a final, fourth, round in the event of a draw, like they do with TUF finales and with the FLY tournament they had (still bothers me that that rule was available, needed and still not used because if a colossal judging fuck up).

Imagine how exciting a sudden death final round would be. You'd see a finish more often than not, IMO, as both fighters would know they needed to really go for it, but also be tired and more vulnerable.

 

[Rvd Slmr]

More 10-10 only if the scorecards are announced round by round and they introduce an extra round in case of a draw. If not, it's only going to generate tons of draws, which is going to fuck everything up in a sport where athletes barely fight three times a year.

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

This is true. And more draws are a bad thing.

But I do agree that fight where a round is ultra close should be awarded 10-10

Are more draws a bad thing? I've seen a lot of fights that I thought should be draws. It doesn't make sense to have fighters go up in the rankings (or down) in fights with no clear winner.

I think 10-10's used properly along with 10-8's would create a more realistic result of the fight, even if that is a draw.

 

[Squarechoke]

Especially since it's just a forced change of position. Pushing someone against the cage isn't rewarded the same way as a take down. The fighters who are looking to create action, regardless of position should be rewarded more heavily.

It also bothers me that TDD/getting up seems to go unnoticed in judging for the most part. Someone could stuff 5-10 shots, but as soon as they get taken down the judges are like yep, ok, there it is, 10-9.

TDD/getting up is not unnoticed. It is factored into effective grappling, but of course it's factored in less than getting a TD and controlling someone.

The reason for that we of course must reward offense over defense. Defense is it's own reward since you don't get hurt or controlled, and if you reward that with points you promote passive fights. Being offensive is harder and riskier as it is, so why should I be offensive if I can earn points easier for defending?

No, continue to reward offensive moves higher.

 

[Zefram Cochrane]

Judges aren't even able to score 10-9 rounds correctly.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

The more the other scores than 10-9 are used, the larger the inconsistencies with judges will become though. This is a hard sport to judge but I think that's the main issue of the scoring right now, and using more of the scale is a secondary one (even though I've argued for that myself before).

this isn't a problem. If a judge correctly picks the winner, it doesn't matter what scoring criteria the other judges use. If 1 judge out of 3 scores fights properly, using 10-10s, 10-8s, and 10-7s when appropriate, then that's better than all three using nothing but 10-9s, regardless of what the other judges score.

 

[loisestrad]

Delete, can't quote correctly apparently. Fuck me.

 

[timoteo]

round winner/loser 1 point, fouls 1 point, dominant round winner/loser 1 point. they really only need 3 points per round. The worst that can happen is to lose a round by being dominated and lose a point for ref violation. If that happened it would be a 3-0 round. The 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 points are there for no reason

 

[HIMBOB]

Agreed.

95% of rounds are scored exactly the same. It is clearly a poor measuring stick.

 

[spinitch]

Would like the current 10pt system improved. Agree should b more 10-10's but also more 10-8's and a few 10-7's. 1 dominant round should >= than losing 2 very close. Add a bonus round for tie breaks can make it shorter 3mins. But doubt will ever see changes in my MMA viewing life span.

 

[HIMBOB]

Judges aren't even able to score 10-9 rounds correctly.

Because if its razor close they have to choose 1 winner and one loser on miniscule differences.