Taking the Stand: Defending the Ten-Point Must System
by Mike Fagan on Nov 3, 2009 7:00 PM EST
in MMA News
Email
Print
Dave Meltzer lays his solution to the ten-point must system "problem":
I’ve previously advocated a system that is basically identical to the one Nelson "Doc" Hamilton suggested earlier this year when the Association of Boxing Commissioners was looking at MMA rules and regulations in hopes of creating uniformity and making improvements.
Instead of the current implementation, this suggested system would include half-points. If a round is even, it should be scored 10-10. If it’s a close round and someone squeaked it out, go 10-9.5. A 10-9 round would be when there is no doubt who won the round, but the round winner didn’t hurt the other fighter to the point a judge would go 10-8.
There's two issues I have with this line of thinking. First, a similar "system" could be implemented with a more liberal use of the current ten-point scoring. Deducting a point for knockdowns provides boxing with a built-in way to liberalize round scores. For a variety of reasons, that concept cannot be ported over to MMA. Instead, judges should not be afraid to score decisive rounds 10-8 (and current 10-8 rounds as 10-7).
Second, if we can't trust judges to use the current scoring system, what makes us think that adding more data points will make things any better? If adding half-points to score system make it more efficient, surely adding the ability to score fractional tenths of point would make it even better. Yet, I find it highly unlikely that fans would trust judges to try and differentiate between a 10-9.9 and 10-9.8 round.
We can also look at the fight that caused the article to be written (Machida vs. Shogun at UFC 104), and we'll find that Meltzer's system would, in all likelihood, have resulted in the bout being scored a draw. Assume the following scorecards for the three judges under the modified ten-point must system (score listed for Machida first):
| Rosales | Peoples | Hamilton | |
| Round 1 | 10-9.5 | 10-9.5 | 9.5-10 |
| Round 2 | 10-9.5 | 10-9.5 | 10-9.5 |
| Round 3 | 10-9.5 | 10-9.5 | 10-9.5 |
| Round 4 | 9.5-10 | 9.5-10 | 10-9.5 |
| Round 5 | 9-10 | 9-10 | 9-10 |
All three judges would have scored the fight a 48.5-48.5 draw.
Meltzer then his this to say about the "perfect" scoring system:
The best system is the one UFC had from late 1995 to early 2000, where at the end of the fight, the judge wrote down the name of the winner on a piece of paper.
Although that system resulted in the Bas Rutten win over Kevin Randleman for the heavyweight title in 1999, perhaps the one title-fight decision in UFC history worse than Machida vs. Rua, it was probably the only eye-rolling decision of that era. There were close fights that could have gone either way. But UFC judging in that era, even though the sport was in its infancy, was far superior to that of boxing or kickboxing during those same years.
Undoubtedly there are flaws. For example, late rounds are going to mean more than early rounds. And the mentality of having to convincingly beat the champion to win a title would come more into play because you don’t have the numbers, in theory, eliminating that.
...
What often happens in three-round fights is that there are two very close rounds that could go either way, and then a third round where one fighter dominates. In the old system, similar to the system still used in Japan, that fighter would be the clear winner. In the current system, with a little bit of bad luck, that fighter could lose. There have been numerous fights I’ve scored in 10-point must where, after adding up my scores, the deserving winner ended up the loser.
What Meltzer fails to take into consideration is that the UFC put on a mere eighteen fight cards in the period between the use of judges and the implementation of the ten point must system (the first Ultimate Ultimate through UFC 20). For comparison, the UFC will have put on twenty cards this year alone. A deeper look at the number reveals that only 29 of 139 fights (20.9%) even went to a decision during that period. Meltzer is clearly romanticizing a time period in which the mere probability of close, controversial decisions was limited at best.
Oddly, Meltzer stumbles upon the only true "solution" at the end of the piece:
My feeling on judging overall is that the right guy wins most of the time. It’ll never be perfect because there is no such thing, particularly in a sport where the offense is as diverse as MMA.
The most "objective" solution to this mess would be to either award draws to all fights that go to the final bell or eliminate time constraints altogether. Both methods would eliminate the clutter of judging and provide fighters with a very simple goal: finish the fight.
But the beauty of its simplicity is countered by the magnitude of its impracticality. MMA would never survive as a virtual death sport, and no sane person would feel satisfied with Brock Lesnar, for instance, leaving with a draw after his fight with Heath Herring.
Simply, the ten-point must system is a fine way of judging fights for MMA. It's certainly not perfect, and if a method can be conjured that proves more effective, we should not be shy in its implementation. But without a proper alternative in place, we should instead focus our attention on the judges, athletic commissions, and their methods of education instead of attempting to replace a practice that has proven its effectiveness over the last decade-plus.
161 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I've made this suggestion
On BoxRec previously for use in boxing. However, I later found out that other countries utilize this scoring system in boxing right now… Argentina being an example.
One of the popular naysaying comments, which I also got from a pro boxing judge, is that it gives judges more flexibility to shift a fight in the direction they see fit… after a questionable round, or a fight in which they feel is going closer than they have been scoring it.
Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.
But without a proper alternative in place, we should instead focus our attention on the judges, athletic commissions, and their methods of education instead of attempting to replace a practice that has proven its effectiveness over the last decade-plus.
I completely agree, I don’t see much wrong with the ten point must system, its the judges implementing the system that mess it up
Definitely
I had this argument on here a while back and it’s nice to see it being expressed editorially. The system isn’t broken, it’s judges who arguably lack the knowledge to effectively score what they see. The WEC has seen a rash of these fights lately. Henderson/Cerrone was mindblowingly close, but then there’s fights like Curran/Mizaguki and Cardella/Castillo in the WEC as well as Guillard/Tibau and – some people may argue – Serra/Hughes that went the “wrong” way because the losing fighters were on their backs, despite being highly aggressive from their supposedly disadvantageous position – especially since the guys in top position were offering limited offence!
I finish beers at 1:55.
Off topic, but is this website completely messed up right now?
It’s not loading right for me. Stuff is all over the place.
What browser are you using?
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
I’m not quite comfortable with Shogun staring back at me like that.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Nov 3, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
Give the judges flexibility to use whatever system they like
My opinion let the judges pick who they think won the fight. They should have flexibilty to go back on rounds and pick a winner as a whole. Ten point system doesn’t encourage finishing fights just winning rounds. Everyone wants to see a finish let the judges use there discretion on who was working towards finishing the fight.
They can justify there picks at end of fight.
They need to actually use the 10 point must system completely. I don’t remember the last time I have seen a 10-10 round or a 10-8.
I believe Fagan is actually at odds with Kid Nate on this one (perish the thought!). I know Nate has indicated in the past that he opposes measures that he would lead to more draws, and more liberal use of 10-8 rounds would certainly do that.
Personally, I’m in favor of it. Keep the 10-point must so that judges are at least accountable for their round-by-round scores, and encourage a little more flexibility so that the judges aren’t simply choosing which fighter to award the round to. That way, you’ve got a degree of transparency, and a method that allows the final scores to more closely reflect the fight itself.
Yes, this would lead to more draws, and draws are unpopular. But sometimes a draw is the right score, and I’m in firmly in the “pro-right-scoring” camp.
I'm at odds with almost everyone on all this
I’m even leaning towards writing an “You Have to Beat the Champ to Be the Champ” post. LOL.
I kind of agree with Meltzer on this, I think fights should be judged in toto. The 10 point must system was imposed on MMA by athletic commissions who had no understanding of the sport. It never made sense for MMA IMO.
I think a fight has a winner and that’s the one who’s dominant at the end, preferably by KO, TKO or submission.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Why are the last minute, thirty seconds, ten seconds more important than the first minute, etc. in your eyes?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
because it's a fight
it’s the two man version of a war — it’s pretty irrelevant how many “points” the Germans scored when they almost conquered Moscow. By 1945 it was clear the Russians were definitively the more formidable country.
The purpose of MMA to me is to test the ability of one athlete to physically dominate another. That’s why definitive finishes trump points in all cases — it doesn’t matter how badly Big Nog was losing to Cro Cop or Bob Sapp on points, at the end of the fight he made them submit.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Nov 3, 2009 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Two things.
1) It’s a sport. A touchdown in the first quarter is worth the same as one in the fourth quarter.
2) Nog ended the fight.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
i'll have to agree with Fagan here..
sorry.
The 10 point must, isn’t perfect, but It’s better than having judges score fights as a whole.. Less room for corruption, and more space for accountability..
The thing that i would like to change/improve on, is the judges being afraid to score 10-8s, 10-7s and even 10-10s..
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 3, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions
Does it concern you that this would mean a judge can make any final call they see fit? Like, say, a final decision based on one dude having a nasty cut and a black eye and the other looking unscathed?
by JRN on Nov 3, 2009 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
judges already have the power to decide a fight
and still have to defend their decisions one way or another.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Sure, but they can’t make a final decision on a whim. They turn in their scores at the end of a round, and they are beholden to their early round scores at the end of a fight. So final impressions like one guy looking more beat up after the bell don’t enter into it—or at least can’t enter into it for round scores other than the final one.
by JRN on Nov 3, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
I don't see the difference in making 3 decisions on a whim
and making one decision on a whim.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Nov 3, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Hopefully they are making that decision on experience and be reasonably unbiased. I wouldn’t say they are necessarily deciding on a whim
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
for sure
I’m just saying there’s not really much difference between giving the judge power to judge a fight round by round and in toto.
It’s ultimately a subjective opinion.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
true
but in the instance of say sanchez vs. guida, guida really did nothing offensive the entire night, but the fight was a lot closer because of three rounds. The three round separate system allows guy who lose badly in one round to come back the other two rounds and still pull out the victory.
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
And that could be seen as a problem
If Guida had squeaked out those last two rounds in the 10 point must he would have one, but he did not deserve to win that fight.
Well, the idea with round-by-round scoring is that you’re not supposed to do it on a whim, you’re supposed to do it based on certain criteria, and no one round is weighted more than any other.
Your system has criteria too, but the main criterion seems to be who is worse for wear at the end. I think that empowers the kind of gut aesthetic judgments we should be discouraging in favor of judging the content of the fight itself. Under round-by-round judging, the effect of those gut judgments is limited to, at worst, 1/3 of the fight, not the entire thing.
It also has the benefit of locking a judge in to their immediate impressions of early round action. If a judge were biased toward Fighter A but felt that they can’t deny that Fighter B won the first two rounds, then they are locked into giving Fighter B the first two rounds. It’s a check against total subjectivity. With holistic scoring, a judge can take many more liberties with their interpretation of the action to suit their ends.
it's less about who's worse for wear
than about who has established dominance at the end of the fight.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I only think this would make sense if you changed the fight to 1 round (amount of time can be debated).
When there is an arbitrary break (or breaks) in the middle of the fight, it makes your judging criteria hard to work perfectly.
no judging criteria is every going to work perfectly
and the purposes of the rounds is to let the fighters rest and break stalemates. there’s no inherent reason they have to be scored as units.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I agree with this in theory, but I still don’t understand why you seem to feel that round 5 should mean more than round 1.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
because they're cumulative
just like a war and its the end result that matters to me.
carlo gambino may not have been the fiercest godfather, but at the end of the day he died in his own bed as a godfather when most of his peers were gunned down in the street or died in jail. he won.
that’s what i like about mma — figuring out who won.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I really like this concept
A great example is the Henderson Franklin fight. In the ten point must Henderson scored enough to win that competition. But as a fight, Franklin won. He broke Henderson down. If that was in the street everybody would have scored it that way. MMA shouldn’t be about who scores higher, it should determine who won the fight. In my opinion this does that.
I get that. But what if it’s a close fight, and no one has clearly established dominance? Is it just a draw? I thought you didn’t like those. And if it’s not a draw, then how do you decide? I strongly suspect that judges would be apt to look at who’s worse for wear as evidence of dominance, whether it’s warranted or not.
if no one has clearly established dominance
then the judges should vote for the fighter who did the most to win.
I definitely don’t like draws. Preventing draws is the ONLY reason to have judges IMO.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Adding half-points is just silly.
10-10, 10-9, and 10-8 should be the only options. If judges simply can’t make up their mind as to who won the round or are second-guessing themselves, the round is a 10-10. Whyy do judges resist 10-10??!
"He hit like a bitch."
casuals will lose their minds if a fight is declared a draw. Once the sport gets more main stream and more people see the same view points as us (draws not being a bad thing) tehn play with the system right now the sport needs winners and losers, if it gets out that the sport ends with draws alot then it MAY turn casuals from it.
I agree that the right fighter wins MOST of the time
but i still think that the “must” system eliminates any chance of a draw, unless there is a 10-8 round or someone gets a point deducted. There are so many fights that are definitive draws, and there is no clear cut winner. In that case, even though its disheartening, i think it is better to award the draw instead of someone who did not actually lose a fight a loss.
And in a situation that a draw results in a championship match, i think that there should be a tie-breaking, 3 minute round.
The “10-point Must” System does not preclude 10-10 rounds, or indeed, draws. There is a general reluctance on the part of North American judges to award a 10-10 round, but they certainly are allowed to do it.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
No, I'm pretty sure
Round winner gets 10, loser gets 9. At least in the UFC.
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
In Japan and overseas draws are more commonplace, it seems
Because they recognize when two fighters are even
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
And most orgs in Japan use the 10 point must. Like capital L said most judges in America are scared to award them for some reason.
For that matter
Does any organization other than Dream still judge on the whole? I think, with the exception of the odd-balls with no judges at all, all organizaitons in Japan now utilize something similar to, if not exactly, the 10-point must system.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
That is a misconception.
And one that I’m consistently startled to see. Judges under the unified rules absolutely can award 10-10 rounds.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
by capital L on Nov 3, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well i stand corrected then.
I personally think 10-10 rounds would be amazing, especially when there is no clear cut winner. And especially in America, where wrestling dominates
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
I really think the 10-point must system can work just fine if judges utilize it appropriately, and that includes, if not necessitates, 10-10 rounds. Presumably the sport will grow into it’s rules, if we don’t screw them up further first.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
You’ve got to admit, it’s not hard to see how someone might make that mistake! I can’t think of a single UFC fight where there was a 10-10 round that we know of.
by JRN on Nov 3, 2009 8:06 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly, I'm hard pressed to think of one either
However, it’s in there in black and white
NAC 467.796 Method of judging. (NRS 467.030)
1. Each judge of a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts that is being judged shall score the contest or exhibition and determine the winner through the use of the following system:
(a) The better unarmed combatant of a round receives 10 points and his opponent proportionately less.
(b) If the round is even, each unarmed combatant receives 10 points.
(c ) No fraction of points may be given.
(d) Points for each round must be awarded immediately after the end of the period of unarmed combat in the round.
etc.
per the Nevada State Athletic Commission
Scoring
The Committee maintains that the 10 point must system is still the preferred scoring method at this time. The 10 point must system is defined as follows:
All bouts will be evaluated and scored by three judges. The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for an even round, which is scored (10-10).
…
The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:
1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round;
etc.
per the Association of Boxing Commissions
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
Also of note
The ABC seems aware at least of the currently less-than-ideal state of judging, as they note in their “Training for Referees and Judges” section of the 06/30/09 report quoted above:
Training should include comprehensive discussions surrounding what constitutes a 10-8 round while also noting that 10-10 rounds are available under the current scoring criteria.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
there have been many instances of 10-8s
and even 10-7s if i remember correctly.. as far as i can recall though, i don’t think there has been a 10-10 round in the UFC.
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 3, 2009 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
i like the finishing idea
realisticly, its the only way there will never be bull-shit descisions. and it is the best way to simulate the “who would win in the streets” spirit of the sport. over the last few years weve lost alot of that spirit with guys like roy nelson “playing the rules” and the fight either being finished or a tie would bring some of it back. i know you mma snobs will disagree, but if that spirit is lost, so is its heritage, and its original purpose.
by masteroftheflyingguillotine on Nov 3, 2009 7:53 PM EST reply actions
Its fine to have the spirt but if it was that way the sport would be dead right now. The orginal purpose is never going to be usful in the sport again because for the simple fact no one who steps in the cage/ring train in only one displine any more. The orginal concept of style vs style was cool but the sport has out grown it
It’s not being a snob. It’s admitting that this is a sport. Sports have rules and methods for winning. If you want to see guys getting injured and killed because they just fight until it ends….then…um…
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 3, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
There are still—or were until quite recently—organizations with no judges. The fights end or are ruled a draw. Nobody is killed.
I’m not saying that’s preferable to the 10-point must paradigm, but let us not go overboard in setting up extremes.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
I'm sorry, but thats just dumb
This isn’t tough man, we’re trying to make this a legitimate sport. And its not legitimate to ask people to fight past exhaustion so that they won’t lose
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not “dumb,” it’s just a fairly obvious alternative to having judges. It has nothing to do with forcing people to fight past exhaustion. There were refs who could—and did—step in for TKO stoppages. The only difference is that guys could get beat pretty convincingly and walk away with a draw because they weren’t stopped.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
Sports have increments of activity.
I wouldn’t even mind a pride like system where the first round is 10 minutes. But it should have a regulated amount of time, and a finish time.
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 8:05 PM EST up reply actions
I think those organizations, like ZST, suggest that having no decisions doesn’t really bring back some lost old school vale tudo spirit. It just makes for more draws.
I don’t see how giving the fight rounds and a time limit and ruling draws when there’s no finish instead of choosing a winner more closely models the "’who would win in the streets’ spirit of the sport" anyway.
by JRN on Nov 3, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
Keep in mind, ZST also does tag team matches. They clearly have slightly different goals in mind all around.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
Well yeah, exactly. Just instituting a draw rule like that doesn’t guarantee anything, except probably more draws.
by JRN on Nov 3, 2009 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
I don’t know that there’s anything necessarily wrong with more draws. I think it would help in the pursuit of accurate judging of MMA if there were more draw rounds awarded, and it would seem logical that there would be more draw decisions as a result.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
all im saying is
the farther we get from the early days, the closer we get to mma becoming submission grappling. yes, it is a sport, i dont want to see it become bare-knuckle pit fighting anymore than any of you. but i also dont want to see it become something that has bares no resemblance to a real fight. which is why (and im bracing for the onslaught of bull shit im gonna get) i dont like boxing. its entertaining, its just not a fight.
by masteroftheflyingguillotine on Nov 3, 2009 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
When you emit bullshit, you'll get it in return every time
The simple fact that we don’t allow small-joint manipulation, eye rakes, or groin shots already takes us irreproachably far from the realm of a “real” fight. Everything from that point on is simply laying out the boundaries. Boxing happens to have a few more than MMA, but in my estimation the sport of boxing is as much of an approximation of a fight as any other sport.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
by capital L on Nov 3, 2009 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually I take that back—some of those early events with no time limits, no gloves, and very open rule sets were pretty clearly closer to a flat out fight than modern MMA.
That being said, and notwithstanding how truly enjoyable such “Vale Tudo”-esque events were, I think it’s good that it’s become a bit more genteel of a sport.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
how is boxing any more of a fight than submission grappling? have you ever been in a street fight? there is alot more grabbing and rolling than anything. i love this sport as much as anyone, i just get worried about the road its going down. the way its structured now has allowed its survival, and for that im grateful, i just see it teetering on a slippery slope. i dont like the fact a fighter can just take his opponent down time and time again and be considered the better fighter (cough gsp alves cough). see where im coming from?
by masteroftheflyingguillotine on Nov 3, 2009 9:40 PM EST up reply actions
You had me up until the gsp remark. GSP dropped alves once and battered him all five rounds. I thnk one of the only reasons why that fight wasent finished because he tore his groin in the 3rd round. A fighter like GSP makes fighters quit, they realize that there only chance to win is to catch him and they cant even get close
Well said.
The “real fight” fetishization amongst some MMA fans (they’re particularly numerous on the U.G.) is confusing to me. Personally, I don’t like real fights. I like sport fights. Real fights are stupid at best and disturbing at worst. Most vale tudo fights weren’t even “real fights.” They were fights between trained martial art practitioners where an agreement existed to end the bout in the event of a tapout. How often do you see that on the street?
A degree of artifice is inevitable. If we’re going to have it, we might as well have it in a way that ensures safety and sportsmanship to the extent possible.
by JRN on Nov 3, 2009 8:55 PM EST up reply actions
no your right boxing isnt a real fight but not because of the rules presay (besides the obvious one that you can only use hands) but in MMA it is a real fight the ability to take someone down and beat on them, the ability to take limbs and crank them until they break is all things that happen in a real fight. MMA is a controled real fight, i know for me even when i spar self defence (basically get the person off no matter what) i still tend to not be a dirty fighter and go for eyes and nuts.
Boxing is a limited form of fighting.
finishing forces guys to be too aggressive and not play to their strengths. I think that winning a tactful battle by neutralizing an opponents strengths and playing to your own is as good a win as a finish. Maybe not as exciting, but just as good in terms of quality. Think Sonnen vs. Okami. He couldn’t finish Okami, but he was on top of his game, and didn’t leave many openings. He took a look more chances than he usually would, but i hope Chael doesn’t start taking too many chances, because I think he could be a top fighter at 185. We put too much emphasis on the finish.
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 7:57 PM EST up reply actions
took a few*.. dont know why i said look
by Austin Martin on Nov 3, 2009 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
The finishing idea isn’t going to fly anymore. It’s not about being a snob. It’s about realizing that there are certain realities, especially if this sport is to become legitimate and mainstream. If we go with the tie idea, then a good chunk of fights would end up as a tie just by one fighter surviving until the final bell. If we go with the no time limit idea, then you can kiss any mainstream or PPV goodbye. Imagine a casual fan paying $50 for a PPV that’s supposed to have 5 or 6 fights, then only half that because the fights drag on forever. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to see something like a Clay Guida fight where I have to watch him mug someone on the ground for an hour. Fighters would be going until exhaution. It’s just not safe or fun to watch.
I love me some Sexyama!
In all honesty it doesnt matter
The judges today know how the system works. They shouldn’t back themselves in a corner using the 10 point must system anyway. In a 3 round fight if the fight is close as a judge you should score rounds accordingly to give yourself an out if the other fighter takes charge. That way you can always pick who the winner is. Thats the way I would judge anyway.
Although answering to your score cards could get tricky though.
Second, if we can’t trust judges to use the current scoring system, what makes us think that adding more data points will make things any better?
This is the whole center of the argument, IMO. There’s no point in giving more tools to someone when a) the tools they have to begin with are, while flawed, enough to get the job done properly, and b) they don’t use the original tools to their fullest potential to begin with. Judges not only need to be fully educated in the multiple aspects of MMA, but they should also be utilizing the full resource of judging criteria.
I love me some Sexyama!
This might not be a good option but....
What if a completely different scoring system was used; one that used the scoring standards today (control, effect stirking, grappling ect) and scored each out of 10.. those scores added up round by round and then the winner was the highest point scorer… simlar to gymnastics or diving ect… would that sovle the inconsistancies..?
just throwing it out there.
To much room for error
What if the fight is standing the whole time. You gets dominated on feet but wins small grappling exchanges. Put another twist and say you controlled the cage and was out counterstriked. It was obvious you got picked apart on the feet and that was where most the fight was at.
however you controlled grappling and ring therfore could win rounds.
That wouldn’t work because those things are not supposed to be given equal weight in a fight. They are supposed to be applied in order, depending on what takes place in the round.
If a guy is getting tooled on his feet for 4:30 and then gets a takedown, giving him a 10-9 edge in the grappling portion is way too much credit
Again. Judges can have trouble scoring the round by itself, why make it any more complicated with more datapoints?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
If the fight goes to a decision...
…they should just roshambo each other until a winner is decided.
Kind of like penalty shoot outs in basketball and soccer.
I finish beers at 1:55.
Instead of 1/2 points...
Go to tenths and add an artistic impression round. Then throw out the highest and lowest… Yeah, this ain’t ice skating.
I’ve always thought that rounds should be shortened to 4 minutes, with 5 rounds and 7 for title fights. I find it intersting that in the past 15 months we;ve had 4 title fights go to decision with two clear-cut winners and two very close and thus controversial decisions. I like the 10-point must system more the more rounds there are. Close rounds tend to even out when the sample size is larger.
No way, man. 4 minute rounds? Grapplers are at a disadvantage with the stand-ups as it is. The shorter the round, the closer we get to cage kickboxing with occasional bouts of lay and pray.
by JRN on Nov 3, 2009 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
I think we all know my stance on five round fights by now.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
It never works out that way. The judges end up scoring the fight on the last 5 minutes, and whoever is winning at the very end of the fight usually gets the decision.
No, in Japanese judging the Japanese fighter usually wins.
If you think this system works, watch Arona-Silva I or Hunt-Silva.
I’ve seen those fights and have no idea how they relate to what you said, perhaps you could pick one and elaborate?
Hometown decisions don’t happen in Japan anymore than any country. Given how Gomi/Solyev, Takaya/Fernandes, and Yamamoto/Warren played out I’m not sure where people get this stuff about Japanese bias.
I would say it’s happened in SRC/WVR/Sengoku, whatever you want to call it, more than DREAM, Sandro/Omigawa was a terrible call, I think Gomi beat Solyev IMO. DREAM has made some pretty good calls, I agree that Fernandes and Warren both won their fights…
The bias happens more in K-1 or SRC.
The Omigawa decision was problematic because they made up a new scoring system for that very event, otherwise they would have scored the fight a draw (which is how I had it). Giving Omigawa the extra point for agression is obviously silly though.
The real case for bias in SRC would be Kanehara/Korean Zombie anyway.
If you want completely ambiguous results that often times make absolutely no sense, then yes this system is the way to go.
I am sorry, but simply writing a guy’s name down on a piece of paper at the end of the fight, really gives no explanation as when and for what portion of a fight that a fighter was dominant and earned the win.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 9:36 PM EST up reply actions
Mike, you make a number of faulty assumptions.
Instead, judges should not be afraid to score decisive rounds 10-8 (and current 10-8 rounds as 10-7).
For fights that only go 3 rounds most of the time, a 10-8 round is a death sentence. For a fighter losing a 10-8 round it means, usually, that you draw at best when going to a decision. Using 10-8 rounds more often when there are so few rounds to make up a deficit means more subjectivity at the end of the fight, not less, because there are no clear guidelines on what constitutes a 10-8 in MMA.
If adding half-points to score system make it more efficient, surely adding the ability to score fractional tenths of point would make it even better. Yet, I find it highly unlikely that fans would trust judges to try and differentiate between a 10-9.9 and 10-9.8 round.
This is taking a suggested moderate improvement and pushing it to it’s ridiculous extreme. Adding half-points would improve judging in MMA because 1. There are many more facets to MMA, adding more range in scores reflects this, 2. There are no clear guidelines for what 10-10, 10-9 and 10-8 rounds look like in MMA, while in boxing only the 10-10 and 10-9 rounds are judgement calls, and 3. There are much fewer rounds in MMA than in boxing, more range in scoring gives fighters a better chance to make up deficits in scoring and will cut down on a fighter winning a fight they deserved to lose by having one really good round.
All three judges would have scored the fight a 48.5-48.5 draw.
You’re taking the 10-9 scores and making them 10-9.5. That’s not what Meltzer is proposing, and it’s disingenuous. There were rounds in the Machida-Shogun fight that were closer than others. Under Meltzer’s guidelines of what constitutes a 10-9 versus 10-9.5 round, it’s entirely possible (I’d even say likely) that Machida would have won rounds 1-3 by scores of 10-9.5, while Shogun would have won the last 2 rounds 10-9, at least for judges not named Nelson Hamilton. That would give Shogun the fight 48-48.5, and in my opinion that reflects better the outcome and competitiveness of the fight.
For fights that only go 3 rounds most of the time, a 10-8 round is a death sentence. For a fighter losing a 10-8 round it means, usually, that you draw at best when going to a decision.
This isn’t an issue if more rounds are scored 10-8. You’re basing your assumption on the current SOP of judges.
This is taking a suggested moderate improvement and pushing it to it’s ridiculous extreme.
There’s definitely a slippery slope argument there, I won’t argue that.
Adding half-points would improve judging in MMA because 1. There are many more facets to MMA, adding more range in scores reflects this,
How does adding a half point validate the additional facets of MMA?
2. There are no clear guidelines for what 10-10, 10-9 and 10-8 rounds look like in MMA, while in boxing only the 10-10 and 10-9 rounds are judgement calls
Make it clearer.
3. There are much fewer rounds in MMA than in boxing, more range in scoring gives fighters a better chance to make up deficits in scoring and will cut down on a fighter winning a fight they deserved to lose by having one really good round.
You mean like liberalizing use of 10-10, 10-8, etc.?
You’re taking the 10-9 scores and making them 10-9.5.
No, I’m scoring the fight how it objectively should have been scored in that fight. Rounds 1-4 were all close rounds. Round 4 in particular was an anemic, slow round.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I think you’re making the faulty assumption that Fagan thinks the lack of clear criteria for 10-8 and 10-10 is just fine. I’m sure he’s aware that a push for more 10-10s and 10-8s would require giving judges a very good idea of what those rounds are like. Just like a half-point system would require giving judges a very good idea of the difference between 10-9 and 10-9.5. Those criteria don’t exist at the moment either.
For fights that only go 3 rounds most of the time, a 10-8 round is a death sentence. For a fighter losing a 10-8 round it means, usually, that you draw at best when going to a decision
What’s wrong with this? If you lose a round very decisively, you have to win a round very decisively to make up the deficit. Makes sense to me.
w/r/t the Machida/Shogun example: take any two of Machida’s 10-9.5 rounds and switch them to 10-10, and change the other one to 10-9 (or not), and you’ve got Shogun winning. This is an easily conceivable outcome in a system where good guidelines exist for 10-10 rounds.
by JRN on Nov 3, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
People who suggest that the judges “just use the tools they are given” seem a bit naive to me. There is an ingrained stigma in the U.S. against awarding 10-10 rounds. You can’t MAKE these guys do it. You can talk and write about how they SHOULD do it all you want. Its not going to happen.
They aren’t likely to change their minds as to what constitutes a 10-8 in MMA either, which means they will rarely use it, no matter how many times they are reminded that it is a viable and necessary option.
Half-points give current judges something tangible they can use with no stigma attached and no pre-determined ideas as to how frequently a .5 can be applied. It gives them tools they will actually use regularly. The alternative is a bunch of elitist sitting around 20 years from now sipping brandy, debating about how U.S. judges don’t use 10-10 scoring enough.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
This doesn’t make sense.
How would you get them to use something different?
If you tell them, “what you think is a 10-9 round is 10-9.5 and what you think is a 10-8 round is 10-9,” they’ll just score every round 10-9.5.
You would tell them to score anything they wanted to score a 10-10 but were afraid to, a 10-9.5.
Seriously, any competent person can look at an MMA fight and see that some rounds are very close(10-9.5) and some rounds are very clear(10-9). The rounds Machida won on all the judges scorecards(2nd and 3rd) would/should have been scored 10-9.5 while at least the 5th round should have been scored 10-9 for Shogun on every card. The 4th and the 1st are still up for debate.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
You would tell them to score anything they wanted to score a 10-10 but were afraid to, a 10-9.5.
How is this significantly different from telling them to just score the damn 10-10?
Because they won’t listen if you tell them to score a 10-10.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
I’m eagerly awaiting when the 10-9.5 becomes the new 10-9.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I think they will use it because they want to use it and they will not be afraid to use it.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
Why though? All it will do is change the numbers. I don’t see any explanation of how this will be different. Why would they want to use a more complicated system when they don’t use the current system the way you would want them to?
Because 10-10 rounds are seen by judges as not judging anything…at least in the U.S. This perception is not likely to change anytime soon either. It was institutionalized in boxing and carried over to MMA.
If a judge scores a 10-10 round, it is as if he could not decide so he did nothing. I am not saying I agree w/that mentality but it clearly exists and will not change any time soon. My bother w/all that baggage? Give them an alternative.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
But the alternative does nothing.
If the judge won’t score a round 10-10, they have the options of scoring it 10-9, or 10-8, yet they hardly every use the 10-8. Adding decimals would do the same thing. They’d just have more options that they are choosing to ignore, that’s why I think it’s pointless.
10-9.5 and 10-9 rounds are more applicable than 10-8 rounds. 10-8’s, even used correctly, do not occur w/the frequency that a 10-9 or 9.5 would occur.
I mean you might see a proper 10-8 once every several events while 10-9s and 10-9.5s happen on every card. I don’t see the comparison between the two.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
I see a few 10-8.5s. That should liven things up a bit!
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions
It’s their job! If commissions (and promoters, fighters, fans, sponsors, et al.) want to take this sport seriously, they have every prerogative to enforce the standards on their judging officials! Why bother to make up new rules when the officials aren’t using the current ones as written?
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
The reality is, there is no one in the commissions getting up in arms about judges not using 10-10 rounds. Why? The likelihood of a draw is one good reason. Americans don’t want to see a draw which means promoters don’t want to see a draw which means…
Anyway, a half-point system would also increase the likelihood of a draw so that tells me that ultimately, we would rather have less accurate scoring w/a decisive winner than more accurate scoring w/more fights ending in a draw.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
Who says American’s don’t want to see a draw? They never see a draw to disapprove of in the first place. If the fans can stick behind guys who “just let it all hang out there” despite accumulating lots of losses, they can easily adjust to the idea that some 3-round fights don’t have definitive winners.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
There is a prevailing idea in combat sports and other sports for that matter, that Americans demand a winner more so than say are Japanese counterparts.
Perhaps this is fallacious but there are enough people in positions of power who believe it to be true. I wonder if the masses would have been less outraged if Machida/Shogun had ended in a draw?
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 11:00 PM EST up reply actions
The reality is, there is no one in the commissions getting up in arms about judges not using 10-10 rounds
Did you read this Capital L comment above?
Also of note
The ABC seems aware at least of the currently less-than-ideal state of judging, as they note in their "Training for Referees and Judges" section of the 06/30/09 report quoted above:
Training should include comprehensive discussions surrounding what constitutes a 10-8 round while also noting that 10-10 rounds are available under the current scoring criteria.
That may not constitute “getting up in arms,” but evidently the Association of Boxing Commissions wants to do something about this.
I think they are putting a fresh coat of paint on rotten wood. On the outside, it looks brand new!
Seriously, if I start seeing a bunch of 10-10 rounds being scored in the near future, I will know who to thank.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Nov 3, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t get it. I thought your argument was that half-points represented a scoring practically similar to greater use of 10-10s and 10-8s, but was something that judges would actually implement. But now you’re saying that more 10-10s and 10-8s with clearly established criteria would still just be “a fresh coat of paint on rotten wood.”
So what’s intrinsically wrong with more 10-10s and 10-8s?
There is nothing wrong with the 10 point must system, simply put judges simply just don’t know how to use it and that’s why we’ve gotten so many bullshit decisions this year.
These people should be made to pass a class taught by mma experts to ensure that they know just what the hell they are seeing in a fight. Because it’s obvious that many of the people calling fights have little to no idea how to score a fight.
I don’t know about there not being anything wrong with the system because I feel like there has to be a better way to score an mma bout, my problem is with the inconsitstency of judges take the Rua/Machida fight I know Machida’s backpeddling is apart of the way he fights and he’s been successful at it but scoring that as ring control because Rua’s following him doesn’t sit well with me and I feel like there has to be a better way to score takedown attempts and takedown defense.
Per the rules:
Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
I don’t think Machida or Rua should have won a round based on ring control, per the definitions outlined in the rules. Why try to make impossible distinctions in order to grant somebody a round—an angels-on-pinheads dilemma which would only be exacerbated by allowing judges more leeway via some sort of half-point or decimal system. Per the rules, ring control was largely a draw as well.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
I actually thought Rua
showed almost utter cage control throughout the fight. That’s how he threw Machida off his game.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I think cage/ring control is one of the most ambiguous aspects of the scoring criteria and should probably go away entirely.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
The point I was getting at above, though I probably picked a poor example, is that “Fighting Area Control” (you know you want to use that whole phrase—it’s awesome, just imagine Goldberg blurting it out) shouldn’t be shoehorned into use for deciding close rounds that probably should be a draw.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
I was just pointing out that since it is a part of the judging criteria it should be judged correctly without bias and should be weighted into the outcome of a fight
That’s kind of the reason it shouldn’t be used at all, in my opinion. You aren’t going to be using it in clear rounds, and it’s too ambiguous to be deciding close rounds on its own.
Plus, if you’re effectively striking/grappling, you’re probably “controlling the fighting area.”
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Actually
I too think Rua did an excellent job keeping Machida from getting “set”—therefore I must concede that he set the pace and achieved fighting area control.
Not sure what I was thinking above.
"Yeah we came up short today but I'm cool with things." -- Juan Pablo Montoya
okay cool also I heard Cecil Peoples say he had scored effective grappling for Machida’s takedown defense but I think something should be said about takedown attempts especially in this case where Machida was not able to mount any kind of offense during the attempt and situations like that should factor into scoring.
the 10 pt. must is adequate but by no means the best method to judge 3 round fights. When 90 plus % of all rounds are scored exactly the same way (good ole 10-9) is it any wonder why there are occasional scoring problems. We will charge our judges with determining the winner of rounds and of the fight but we wont give them the tools to do it in the most accurate way possible.
Mike, if you were a judge do you want to score a round were one fighter was in complete control throughout, did more damage, and controlled the pace EXACTLY the same as a round were one fighter just edged out the other? I suspect you wouldn’t. This is MAJOR problem because most MMA fights are only 3 rounds. Ths means each round is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE. If you dominate a round you should be given more cedit for it than if you just barely did more than your opponent. The fact that this is not the case now results in some dissapointing decisions where the fighter who does more damage and control still loses. Of course your point is that the judges should just do more 10-8 and 10-7 to address these problems. I think you’re right because it results in more accurate scoring results. Just as alloowing judges to use fractional scoring will result in more accurate scoring results. We need to give judges the tools and instructions neccessary to score a fight in the most accurate way possible.
1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round;
2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
If judges aren’t using these criteria now, giving them more options to ignore will not exactly address the issue.
Fighting Area Control
by capital L on Nov 4, 2009 6:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That sounds nice but a closer look shows that there is large gap between the definition of 10-9 and 10-8. So what happens as a result? You see 90 or 95% of all rounds scored exactly the same. Is that a desireable outcome to you when we are only talking about 3 round fights?
The purpose of judging fights is to come to a determination of who, if anyone, won the contest. The 10-point must system can do a very admirable job of that, if applied correctly.
Calculating gradations of victory or defeat for comparison across bouts is not the point.
Fighting Area Control
I’m afraid you missed my point. Since the majority of MMA fights are only 3 rounds , it becomes imperative to score each one as accurately as possible. When you lump 90 or 95% percent of all rounds in the same scoring catagory (10-9) you are NOT scoring each round as accurately as possible. When you have 10 or 12 round fights it is less neccessary to score each round as precisely as possible but that is not the case with MMA and that’s the cheif reason why the 10-9 system does not work as well in MMA as it does in boxing.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
