I finally got around to watching Edgar\Bendo II last night, and while I have no real issue with the scoring in that bout (I had it 48-47 Edgar, but can easily see it for Bendo), it did get me thinking about an adjustment to scoring that I don't recall seeing discussed before.
My advance apologies if I'm wrong and this is a horse that has already been beaten to death, but here goes: use cumulative scoring.
On Saturday, Frankie Edgar lost by scores of 49-46 (Edgar) and 2x 48-47 (Bendo). That means that across all judges scorecards, Frankie won 8 rounds to Bendo's 7, cumulatively scored 143-142. Why not use that cumulative number as the scoring?
I'm not hyptothesizing that this would somehow fix the glut of terrible decisions and questionable scoring we see in MMA. I'm not even saying it would have any net-positive effect whatsoever. What I am saying is that this approach makes more sense to me, and I'm not sure why it isn't the one being used. And I'm interested in what the arguments against it are.
The only fights this would affect are SDs and Draws, but here are a few notables that would have ended differently using cumulative scoring:
Hamill beats Bisping 86-85.
Mighty Mouse beats Uncle Creepy 86-85