Why 49-46 is NOT a crazy score

[Mau]

it's the 10 point must system, you're not supposed to have 10-10 rounds.

You still have 10 points, 10-10 is perfectly fine and happens sometimes. Should be given more imo.

 

[BAM]

They regularly give 10-10 scores.

judges or mma sites? It's pretty rare, I don't recall seeing one from a judge, maybe once. mma sites don't really count, sherdog seems to do it all the time.

 

[billave234]

Exactly. I had it 49-46 Jones with Gus winning the first. I don't think Gus won any other round but there were some close round in there.

10 point must scoring. The winner of the round gets a 10 and the loser gets 9 or less. You're not supposed to score a round 10-10

 

[MilesAbove]

10-10 4th...end this fucking thread right now, this man killed it and raped it in the butt

Actually, dummy, you can make a case for it. Gus controlled for most of the round and was rocked with about 12 seconds left. That could be considered a split round. It is not like he went down. He got tagged and defended until the round ended.

Not a huge deal. No need to go all Joe Son on us.

 

[Donald Keys]

You're right TS.

I thought any of the first 3 rounds could have gone either way, honestly. They were all close rounds where both guys landed lots of shots....so depending on the judge, it could go either way. Rounds 4 and 5 were clearly Jones'.

So really, anywhere from 48-47 Gus, to 49-46 Jones is completely reasonable.

I had it 48-47 Jones. Gained a lot of respect for Gus tonight.

 

[Highflyer]

I hate Jones and want to see him KO'd,,, but I don't really see what some ppl are saying that Gus won the fight. I thought Jones won 49-46 as well. And it wasn't even that great of a fight.

 

[TeamTanner]

it's the 10 point must system, you're not supposed to have 10-10 rounds.

18,000 posts and you still don't know that 10-10 is a valid round score?


I don't score 10-10 rounds myself, or hardly ever, but there's no rule against it, it's a matter of preference.

 

[TeamTanner]

10 point must scoring. The winner of the round gets a 10 and the loser gets 9 or less. You're not supposed to score a round 10-10

You're 100% wrong.


10-10 rounds are valid and in fact have been used by official judges in MMA fights.

 

[BAM]

18,000 posts and you still don't know that 10-10 is a valid round score?


I don't score 10-10 rounds myself, or hardly ever, but there's no rule against it, it's a matter of preference.

you can, but you're not supposed to

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ye-pokes-10-10-rounds-communication-and-focus

regarding the ref -

Rob Hinds is a pioneer in MMA who dates back to the original days of No Holds Barred (NHB) fighting in the early 1990’s. Rob’s extensive background in several martial arts plus, an amateur and professional fight career play a vital role when making decisions affecting the safety of a fighter as an official. Rob fully understands a fighter’s physical, mental and spiritual preparation and mind set.

Since 1994, Rob has refereed and judged for multiple organizations of all levels including: UFC, Bellator MMA, Invicta FC, International Fight League, King of the Cage, Hoosier Fight Club, XFO, Adrenaline MMA and many more.
Rob dedicates much of his time researching and updating rules, regulations and procedures to keep him and the sport current. In 2007, he created Combat Consulting LLC to educate and update MMA Officials on the sport’s current rules, regulations and procedures.

Through training programs for officials, Rob is passionate that continuing education is one of the most important catalysts for the positive growth of MMA. His quest for quality MMA officiating and regulation is always at the forefront.
Rob’s trainings are approved by the Association of Boxing Commissions (www.abcboxing.com). Rob has recently partnered with well-known commentator Sean Wheelock to broaden the education level including (but not limited to): Athletic/Tribal Commissions, fighters, trainers, media and fans.

http://www.combatconsulting.net/RobHinds.aspx

 

[TeamTanner]

10 point must scoring. The winner of the round gets a 10 and the loser gets 9 or less. You're not supposed to score a round 10-10

http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations


The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round: 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

 

[TeamTanner]

you can, but you're not supposed to

That's an opinion. The fact is it's stated in the rules that it can be used and how it should be used.

 

[BAM]

That's an opinion. The fact is it's stated in the rules that it can be used and how it should be used.

that's what the commissions instruct the judges to do. why else do you think the scores are the way they are. You can have it in the rules all you want, but that's the reality of the situation - it's more than opinion, it's policy and it's consistency

 

[TeamTanner]

that's what the commissions instruct the judges to do. why else do you think the scores are the way they are. You can have it in the rules all you want, but that's the reality of the situation - it's more than opinion, it's policy and it's consistency

It's more like a recommendation. But the fact is if a judge were to score a 10-10 round it would definitely stand as a valid scoring, and I strongly doubt he'd lose his job or anything for doing so.


So that being the case, we can score 10-10 rounds here too if we want.

 

[BAM]

It's more like a recommendation. But the fact is if a judge were to score a 10-10 round it would definitely stand as a valid scoring, and I strongly doubt he'd lose his job or anything for doing so.


So that being the case, we can score 10-10 rounds here too if we want.

even the rules you reference state explicitly that the 10-10 rounds are to be rare. So if it's to be rare, it's not to be used unless it absolutely warrants it, i.e. it's an anomaly.

There are closer rounds than this multiple times on every card, thousands of rounds happen during the year that are equal to or closer than this fight's rounds. If a mere close round was sufficient, then it would be common place and not rare at all. There was nothing anomalous in this fight, it was just close.

It's not a mere recommendation, it's reading the rules in context and applying them. Refs rarely give 10-9 rounds as a result.

What happens on mma blogs is that writers feel that 10-10 rounds are a more accurate representation of the fight, fair enough, but that's not how mma fights are scored. So it would be inappropriate to criticize a score that actually follows policy and the scoring criteria in the rules. Same goes with people posting. Rather, it would be more appropriate to criticize the rules and the decision makers in the commission that make this happen.

 

[rjmbrd]

Round 1 was a close round in the sense that you can get someone 'a little pregnant'

I scored it 3-2 for Gus, arguably 4-1.

Saying that Jones won 4 rounds is wildly absurd. Pro's on twitter:

Gus
Leben
Bocek
Kampmann
Barnett
Alessio
Sotiropolous
Ed Soares
Lentz
Hardy
Lamas
Rockhold
Bisping

Jones
Cormier
Bendo
Zingano
Swanson
Doomsday
Sozynski
Kaufman

 

[Doughbelly]

I had it 48-47 Jones.

But, 49-46 is NOT a crazy score. People seem to not understand the 10 point must system and how it results in scores like this.

Jones clearly won the last 2 rounds.
Gus won the 3rd round.
Rounds 1 and 2 were CLOSE rounds.

Even if you gave rounds 1 and 2 to Gus, you can't deny they were close rounds. Any close round has a very good chance of going either way. The judges are sitting ring side and often not looking at the screens provided, they are watching the fight live. It gives a totally different view than what you and I see. For them to give a close round to the guy you don't agree with is perfectly reasonable.

I think people were so surprised to see Gus doing well, they immediately gave the first 3 rounds to him. The fact is they were close.

I see this the same way and remember thinking to myself in round 3 that there was going to be a lot of butthurt if the fight went to a JD.

I was likewise rooting for Gus and had it 48-47. On the whole, round 1 was Gus, but if you saw it for Jones, that's not absolute insanity.

This fight hinged on that one spinning elbow that Jones landed in round 4. If that one shot hadn't landed, it would have been a split decision, 48-47 and 48-47 for Gus, 48-47 for Jones.

 

[Kneeuinthenutz]

The fact one can actually justify this score as legitimate only further highlights why the 10-9 must system must die.

 

[TeamTanner]

even the rules you reference state explicitly that the 10-10 rounds are to be rare. So if it's to be rare, it's not to be used unless it absolutely warrants it, i.e. it's an anomaly.

There are closer rounds than this multiple times on every card, thousands of rounds happen during the year that are equal to or closer than this fight's rounds. If a mere close round was sufficient, then it would be common place and not rare at all. There was nothing anomalous in this fight, it was just close.

It's not a mere recommendation, it's reading the rules in context and applying them. Refs rarely give 10-9 rounds as a result.

What happens on mma blogs is that writers feel that 10-10 rounds are a more accurate representation of the fight, fair enough, but that's not how mma fights are scored. Same goes with people posting.

Like I said, I don't score 10-10 rounds. That's just my preference. But given that we're not the real judges to begin with, I think using as much latitude as one wishes to score a fight for purposes of discussion so long as it's still confined within the rules is perfectly acceptable. It never occurred to me that scoring a fight from home is to first pretend that Keith Kizer is your boss or some shit.

 

[BAM]

The fact one can actually justify this score as legitimate only further highlights why the 10-9 must system must die.

10 point must system doesn't really work in mma as well as it does in boxing because there are far less rounds and the rounds themselves are longer, so you'll have uneven scoring because you could have 2 strong clean rounds for one guy, 2 very close rounds for the other guy and have an even fight going into the 5th despite a guy controlling 70% of the fight.

That said, Pride scoring wouldn't have made it any easier, if anything it would have been more controversial.

 

[Doughbelly]

I had it 49-46 Jones as well

1. gus - clean
2. jones - close
3. jones - very close
4. jones - was losing the round until the last 2 minutes
5. jones - clear win

I could see 2 & 3 going either way. So I'm fine with anything from 49-46 Jones to 48-47 Gus. But robbery? you guys don't know shit about mma or boxing if you think a razor close fight is a robbery under the 10 point must system.

And I think this fight actually may have been harder to score under the pride criteria as it scores the entire fight as a whole rather than rounds, which would favour Gus, but puts emphasis on the end of the fight, which would favour Jones.

it's a close fight, hard to judge. Most media people had Jones 48-47, but a few mma media guys including mmajunkie and one of the sherdog guys had it 49-46 Jones

Agreed. Robbery is what happened to Roy Jones Jr at the Olympics. People need to stop using this for every close fight that doesn't go the way they want.

This was a close fight with a small edge to one fighter.

That said, I don't see how you could have seen 3 for Jones.