Should US MMA follow K1's format?

Theres always been alot of debate about scoring systems and lenghts of fights but I am increasily getting the feeling that K1's system maybe the easiest answer for US MMA. It is afterall a system specifically devolped a round by round points format much shorter than boxing.

3 rounds of 5 mins as you have now.

A close round is scored 10-10.

A round in which one fighter dominates without threatening to finish is 10-9.

A round in which one fighter comes close to a finish is 10-8.

Open scoring between rounds.

In the event of a draw(obviously more likely with the scoring) then have either 1 or 2 extension rounds with the judges in a must deside situation at the end.

Open scoring to me is a must in a three round enviroment, a single call has such a big effect fighters should be aware of them and have the chance to react.

Having the extension rounds rather than 5 rounds for all fights would IMHO limate how long we have to watch boring fights. As I see it must really dull matches do tend to have a clear winner, just normally one who wasnt interested/able to threaten his opponant.

 

Well we obviously don't have extension rounds right now and inr eality the scoring is very different.

10-10 barely ever happens in MMA and 10-8 is reserved for extreme ass kickings like Edgar/Maynard Rd 1. A large part of that is IMHO fear of the draw, you add in the extension rounds(although just one round is probabley more realistic) and that fear is gone.

Its an important part of fighting obviously but it should not be treated as equal to landing potentially damaging attacks, using good footwork and cerating angles is obviously a big part of striking yet that alone doesnt win fights it you don't actually land anything.

I don't think the ref's are anything like strict enough when it comes to breaking up clinches and stalling on the ground, whats more standards vary wildly from ref to ref, another reason it shouldnt be scored highly.

Personally I think the Pride setup was close to ideal, it had been created over a number of years without the inertia and politics of the AC's in the way. Reaslistically though its rules, rounds and scoring are ever going to be taken up in the US, K1 seems like a good middle ground and like Pride its been tested over a number of years.

 

I didnt mean drop down to 3 mins, just the scoring and extensions from K1.

That would actually help combat LnP and stalling generally since more close rounds would be 10-10 and aggresive fighters would find it easier to get 10-8's.

As I said thats why K1 devolped the way it did, the extensions are there to allow the judges more freedom with scoring(rather than giving 99% of rounds 10-9)without having to fear the draw aswell as giving close fights longer to run.

 

Stick with 5 and maybe have the option of 1 extension round? realistically 1 extension in 3 rounders is far more likely than 2 in the US aswell and serves much the same purpose.

Speaking of 5 rounders I actually think its noticble that Judges give 10-8's far more often in them than in 3 rounders which seems to back up my theory that its a fear of draws thats holding them back.

 

K1 at its peak was arguebley more sucessful than MMA is now but really I don't see that as being a big reflection on the rounds/judging either way.

I see the current US system as more not less vunerable to bias personally since judges have to give close rounds 10-9 rather than 10-10. Dispite the UFC talking up "legitimancey" I think current judging is bias as hell, damn near every single close(or not so close) decision goes the way the promoter would want it to.

 

Really that has nothing to do with my original point since I was not suggesting the US promoters do the judging themselves.

Personally I think that the seperation between promoters and AC's has often been a good way to deflect criticism(both of bias and indeed of the needs to changes in general). I look at contriversal decisions in the US and the vast majority of them seem to go the way the promoter would have wanted them to before the fight.

As I said though I think judges being compelled to give rounds 10-9 opens the window for more bias. How many times have we seen a promoters favoured guy get a couple of close rounds 10-9 and while getting dominated in the other round before taking the decision?