Was Rampage-Machida a good example of why boxing's 10-point system doesn't suit MMA?

One of the dozens.

Most of the judges, maybe not all, do not know what in the hell it is they're talking about and watching. It's similar to me trying to judge international gymnastics. I know nothing about gymnastics, and yet me judging it as horribly as I would would (interesting, first ever would would) have some consequences on people's athletic careers and even more far reaching. Here it's more extreme as it's people's lives, ultimately.

 

i thought page won the fight first 2 rounds machida did nothin but run! Being elusive is his game but them 2 rounds were just a joke

 

TPMS doesn't work in boxing either.

 

There will never be a perfect system. Scoring has to remain subjective or else you will literally see people playing the game to score rather than trying to win the fight. It would be horrible. What both boxing and MMA need are reference books for standardized judging criteria that should be required reading for anyone that is going to judge a fighting sports match.

 

Based on this logic wouldn't you say that the 10 point system is bad for boxing as well considering the exact same thing could and has happened.

 

It works fine but takedowns need to be scored in context of the fighter that socres it doing something with it once on the ground IMO.

 

+1

10-9 for a close round where one guy did just a bit more.
10-8 for a clear round.
10-7 for a dominant round.
10-6 for a one sided beatdown round.

 

I agree completly.

for instance, in boxing a knockdown counts for a point loss to the guy who was dropped. In mma it is meaningless. only the winner of the round gets the 10 points and the loser 9 nothing else matters.

rounds are rarley scored 10-8 and rounds are not often scored even, 10-10. As you say rounds where a fighter scraps by and does nothing really damaging but out positions or out points his opponent = a round where one fighter completly dominates his opponent.

I was watching a fight today: Rory MacDonald vs Carlos Condit, in which macdonald out fought condit the first two rounds, then in the third macdonald started to fade, and condit picked it up and completly destroyed macdonald in the final round. hurts him badly with strikes standing and on the ground, mounts rory twice ect... 10 seconds before the round ends the fight is stopped condit wins by tko. but if it hadnt been,(and many including myself didnt think it should have) in all likelyhood, it would be the broken, busted up, bloodied fighter who would have had his hand raised.

I know that their can never be a perfect system but the current scoring system and criteria is just not suitable for something like mma.

 

Pride's system was perfect, right down to the ropes instead of the ring (which can act as a third man in there, especially if you're a wrestler). If they're unwilling to 86 the octagon in favor of the ring, at least adopt the ruleset and scoring system.

 

something like this is nessesary.

it is clear that each 5 min round should hold more weight than a 3 min round would, especially considering non title fights only have 3 rounds.

however, I would make the judging criteria more clear than a close round, clear winner, dominate round, and beatdown. judges will find a way to **** it up.deal

in my opinion knockdowns should be scored a point, full mount should be scored a point if damage is done in the position taking someones back should also be scored if damage is done/ submissions attempted.

takedown without damage done should be scored with the weight of ring/cage generalship (not much) not how long you can stay on top of your opponent. points should be taken away for stalling as well.

 

It doesn't work in boxing either.

 

Fighters used to get hurt falling out of the rings all the time. The octagon is the better alternative. It is an advantage for wrestlers - but fighters can compensate by learning to wall walk or by using good jiujitsu.