View Single Post
Old 04-13-2011, 07:43 PM   #3
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Default Re: the scoring system.

The problem is the 10 point must system does not work in the three round fight. Rampage Machida is a perfect example. Rampage won the first two rounds, barely. He was moving forward more, he connected more, and he controlled the clinch against the cage more. But they were not clear rounds, no significant damage was done, nobody made any submission attempts and from memory there were no takedowns or ground control. Given what they had to work with, Rampage was rightfully given both rounds.
However, the 3 round was very clearly and dominantly Machida. Wasn't quite enough to give him a 10-8, but he clearly won the round. Rampage ends up getting the decision, because there's not enough leeway in the 10 point must system.

IMO, they should either be more willing in handing out 10-8 and even 10-7 or 10-6 rounds, or they should start scoring close rounds with a 10-10 or a 9-9.

Two recent examples of 10-8 rounds are round 1 of Edgar-Maynard II and round 2 of Fedor-Silva. Edgar-Maynard ended up in a draw (and rightfully so, the fight was a draw if I ever saw one), but that first round could've very easily been scored a 10-7, I think the scoring guidelines even state something like 'clear dominance with one fighter being close to finished multiple times' (or something). Same with Fedor-Silva, Fedor was totally and utterly and without question dominated in that round. It would have sucked for Silva to come out for a very close third round and have that fight scored a draw.

Anyways, for the most part, the judging in MMA sucks, you've got guys like Cecil Peoples and Tony Weeks who aren't held accountable for their actions at all, just look at the Phan-Garcia fight, which was totally ridiculous. Another reason is the 10 point must system just does no work for MMA, there are too many grey areas and no room to move in a three or even a 5 round fight.

I liked someone from Sherdogs idea about awarding percentages of each round.
Like Rampage-Machida would be scored, round 1: 55% Rampage, 45% Machida, round 2: 60% Rampage, 40% Machida, and round 3 25% Rampage, 75% Machida, so you'd get a score of like 160-140 for Machida. It more accurately reflects the % of control or dominance a fighter has in a given round. I quite liked that idea, better than the half points.

It still won't stop incompetent judges, though.
Primate is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links