Win only by Large margin or Finish. Close margin = Draw

[Booksmasher]

so they don't have the skill to finish, but you want them to finish?

Uuh what?

when a guy punches his opponent with his best shot and his opponent doesn't go down, what should he do?

Train and improve. Hopefully he evolves into a better fighter.

put his hands down and let his opponent knock him out to excite you?

Did I say that? When did I say that? He should defend ofcourse (duh). But if this fighter is ONLY capable of defending without hurting his opponent, to me that is not enough to deserve a win. He should get a draw at most

 

[Booksmasher]

And a 20% bonus for any finish(theres not a forfeit,injury or disqualification )

20% is nothing. Why would you take more risks if the reward is just 20% increase?

 

[Th3Sav4ge]

thats what we need. a bunch of people losing fights, then getting a draw because of it. yeah that makes sense

 

[randomg1t]

Uuh what?

you said, and i quote: "Some fighters know they dont have the skills to finish the opponent [...] They are not fighting to finish, they are fighting to neutralize."

you don't see how stupid that sounds? if they don't have the skill to finish, what should they be doing?

Train and improve. Hopefully he evolves into a better fighter.

oh, so you think guys like colby and usman don't train. GSP didn't train? in fact, apparently any fighter that goes to the scorecards doesn't train.

edit: besides, i asked you what a guy should do when he hits his opponent with his best shot and the opponent doesn't go down. like literally, what should he do in the fight when that happens? i hope you don't mean he should start training and improving mid-fight.

do give me a few fighters you think fight to finish, i'd love to see who actually trains.

Did I say that? When did I say that? He should defend ofcourse (duh). But if this fighter is ONLY capable of defending without hurting his opponent, to me that is not enough to deserve a win. He should get a draw at most

you complained about the lack of finishes and guys having "the goal to score 10-9 rounds". which fighter wins decisions by defending without hurting his opponent? you're making it sound as if usman is getting the shit kicked out of him and is given 50-45 scorecards afterwards.

everyone is trying to finish. not being able to finish doesn't mean you went into the cage with the plan of doing nothing and squeaking out a decision. and no one except the dumbest motherfucker who's never set foot in a gym would ever think anything like that.

 

[Oooxente]

20% is nothing. Why would you take more risks if the reward is just 20% increase?

Im putting in a percentage that the management would maybe agree with it.
More then that theres no way they would accept it.
Either way it’s more money guaranteed that the fighter KNOW he will get IF he pulls the trigger, which is better then wait for someone to choose his fight for a fight of the night bonus.

 

[Booksmasher]

Im putting in a percentage that the management would maybe agree with it.
More then that theres no way they would accept it.
Either way it’s more money guaranteed that the fighter KNOW he will get IF he pulls the trigger, which is better then wait for someone to choose his fight for a fight of the night bonus.

What do you think about the construction in the opening post? Management can safe money too by doing that.

 

[Protagoras]

Very close fights which end up in decisions are becoming more and more the norm in MMA. I think this is a problem because there is a flaw in the current reward system. Alot of fighters have the goal to get a 10-9 round. 10-9 rounds are very close rounds where nothing decisive really happens actually in terms of ending a fight. This is also a big reason of the existance of boring fights without much action. Why? Because fighters are thinking in points, "I am ahead because I have Octagon Control" or "I am ahead with one takedown more". To make MMA come back to its roots more and make it more fun too, what do you guys think about this following system:

-still using 3 and 5 round fights
-still using the same time limits
-introducing draws
-win can only be achieved by a finish in unranked fights
-in ranked fights a win can also be achieved by scoring 10-8 rounds (large margin) which include some scored 10-9 rounds which should be 10-8
-10-9 rounds (close margin) do not exist, they are 10-10
-only in titlefights you can win by scoring 10-9 rounds
-showmoney a bit lower
-by a draw or loss no extra money
-finishmoney is 2,5x fold of showmoney against unranked opponent
-decisionmoney is 2x fold of showmoney against #15-#10 ranked opponent
-finishmoney is 4x fold of showmoney against #15-#10 ranked opponent
-decisionmoney is 3x fold of showmoney against #9-#5 ranked opponent
-finishmoney is 6x fold of showmoney against #9-#5 ranked opponent
-decisionmoney is 4x fold of showmoney against #4-#1 ranked opponent
-finishmoney is 8x fold of showmoney against #4-#1 ranked opponent
-by a draw the lower ranked fighter stagnates at his rank (#10 stays at #10)
-by a draw the higher ranked fighter drops 1 rank above the lower ranked opponent (#5 drops to #9)
-only the champion doesnt get any showmoney nor decisionmoney by 10-9 at all so he is not willing to fight for a boring 10-9 decision win.

Im seeing some benefits by doing this:

-more fair to finishing fighters who have developed more impressive skills
-motivation to finish the opponent (or at least make it 10-8 in ranked fights)
-motivation to develop finishing skills
-more exciting fights
-more impressive fighters
-the limited neutralizing fighter who is not willing to develop his finishing game will never be able to climb up the ranks

It wouldn’t work because there are too many fighters where skill and physical levels are close to equal, which is big part of the reason there are close rounds to begin with.

It’s a mistake to think that if fighters were just “more motivated” we’d see more finishes. There are real limitations on why fights are close or there is no finish.

It’s not an exact analogy, but it’s close to saying something like: “if they increased prizes for coming in 1st place in the 100 meter dash more people would beat Usain Bolt.” There’s obviously a psychological element there, but there’s also real physical reasons why it doesn’t happen.

Then you would just end up in a situation with tons of fights with a fairly obvious, if not slightly controversial, winner where draws are called and while divisions just stall out and stagnate because no one is moving up or down the rankings.

 

[Wise1]

This is pretty much how I assess a fighter.

-A finish is a proper loss.
-A dominant decision loss is also a loss but not as damning.
-Anything less than that is a wash which can often be dismissed for a number of reasons including experience, injury, mindset, etc.

 

[Booksmasher]

you said, and i quote: "Some fighters know they dont have the skills to finish the opponent [...] They are not fighting to finish, they are fighting to neutralize."

you don't see how stupid that sounds? if they don't have the skill to finish, what should they be doing?

Neutralize ofcourse! But the problem is not the fighter. I dont blame the fighter for doing that. It is the ruleset which rewards neutralizing equal to finishing.

oh, so you think guys like colby and usman don't train. GSP didn't train? in fact, apparently any fighter that goes to the scorecards doesn't train.

Ofcourse they train. But they dont need to train to be a finisher in this current system. Why would they anyways? You can win by lay and pray for example, thats enough. So training to pefect lay and pray becomes the goal. Or train to score other close margin points....

edit: besides, i asked you what a guy should do when he hits his opponent with his best shot and the opponent doesn't go down. like literally, what should he do in the fight when that happens?

If that KO punch is his only weapon and thag got neutralized, probably he'll defend till the end of the match. But if he could win by some close round nonsense, why should he try and take risks to KO his opponent in the first place?

do give me a few fighters you think fight to finish, i'd love to see who actually trains.

Its about the ability and the intention of the fighter. A more complete fighter has the intention and the ability (potential) to finish the opppnent. EVERY fighter WANTS to finish their opponent in their dreams. But some fighters lack the ability for that. And it is those fighter who realize they cant finish, so their intention and goal turns to win by neutralizing or close rounds.

So you want to know fighters who have the intention and the skills to finish. I dont understand why you are asking that because you know them too: Silva, McGregor, Ngannou, etc.

you complained about the lack of finishes and guys having "the goal to score 10-9 rounds". which fighter wins decisions by defending without hurting his opponent?

Colby Covington. He is busy taking Lawler down the whole fight, but he landed 0 punches on the ground....

you're making it sound as if usman is getting the shit kicked out of him and is given 50-45 scorecards afterwards.

No. You are misrepresenting me. I am saying nobody is getting the sh*t kicked out of someone. Usman is busy wrestling the whole fight but has lousy top control and lousy GnP with hardly significant damage. To me these kind of close margin fights where no fighter really gets hurt should be draws. Neutralizing, having "octagon control ", landing a couple of harmless punches more.....all these things are too insignificant to deserve a win.

 

[Booksmasher]

It’s a mistake to think that if fighters were just “more motivated” we’d see more finishes. There are real limitations on why fights are close or there is no finish.

No doubt there will be an increase in wibs by large margin rounds and finishes overal if that is the only way to get the big paycheck + rankings consequenses. Winning fighters will take more risks, losing fighters see more opportunities. Everything will change. And if a fight ends up close, well the draw is the most just decision. Fighters have a more accurate record. I really feel sorry for Romero having 3 of his 4 last fights being registered as losses. Is has so many consequenses for his career, real unfair. If they were draws, everybody would be fine with that decision and Romero still had his chance to show he is the best. Now its probably over for him.

It’s not an exact analogy, but it’s close to saying something like: “if they increased prizes for coming in 1st place in the 100 meter dash more people would beat Usain Bolt.”

Thats looks different. So you only get a bonus if you become number 1. I am talking about bonusses on every level. Way of winning:

Unranked fights: Finish Only
Ranked fights: Large margin rounds or Finish
Title fights: Close margin, Large margin or Finish.

See opening post for details.

 

[randomg1t]

To me these kind of close margin fights where no fighter really gets hurt should be draws.

i was going to respond to your points, but then read this.

if you think usman vs woodley should be a draw, there really is no point debating any of this with you.

 

[Booksmasher]

i was going to respond to your points, but then read this.

if you think usman vs woodley should be a draw, there really is no point debating any of this with you.

Yeah Usman is a better wrestler than Woodley. But thats about it.

 

[bufetadanacara]

Draws will never exist because fans and Vegas want a winner.

I do agree thought that winning by points is stupid, I hate the point system. Point systems should be used for figure skating and gymnastics.
A smarter point system would be awarding points for achievements, like in BJJ, but I don't even want that. The boxing "10 point must" system is for terrible for MMA.

I think the fighters should be further motivated to finish their opponents and, likewise, those more conservative fighters would need to become aggressive. UFC should be encouraging aggressiveness above all else. The way this gets done is by paying them much more for a finish. The current pay structure gives double to the winner. They should change it to less for showing and much more for finish victory.



If they insist on keeping the point scoring system, then any round that is even somewhat debatable should be scored as a draw.

 

[Booksmasher]

If they insist on keeping the point scoring system, then any round that is even somewhat debatable should be scored as a draw.

Exactly.

 

[Booksmasher]

There’s so many things wrong with current MMA. The sport will soon evolve and I will succeed Dana as the president of the biggest promotion in the world after he retires. I will make the organization better.

What kind of changes are you going to introduce mister president?

 

[JarlSkuld]

I'd like to see more 10-10 rounds for rounds that could have gone either way. This would likely cause more draws, but it would reduce the incidences of "That fighter got robbed!"

Jarl

 

[moreorless87]

It wouldn’t work because there are too many fighters where skill and physical levels are close to equal, which is big part of the reason there are close rounds to begin with.

It’s a mistake to think that if fighters were just “more motivated” we’d see more finishes. There are real limitations on why fights are close or there is no finish.

It’s not an exact analogy, but it’s close to saying something like: “if they increased prizes for coming in 1st place in the 100 meter dash more people would beat Usain Bolt.” There’s obviously a psychological element there, but there’s also real physical reasons why it doesn’t happen.

Then you would just end up in a situation with tons of fights with a fairly obvious, if not slightly controversial, winner where draws are called and while divisions just stall out and stagnate because no one is moving up or down the rankings.

A big part of why their are so many close rounds is because fighters realise its advantageous to fight in such a fashion under the current scoring system.

 

[Booksmasher]

Barboza vs Felder, again another example of controversy....its very easy to solve