Why does nobody ever score 10-10 rounds? What's the problem?

Oh really?

Well if it's that ****ing simple to pick a winner of a round, how come professional fighters disagree with each other about who deserved the decision in a close fight? Wouldn't everyone who knows the sport have the same card? Wouldn't Randy Couture judge every round of every fight exactly the same as Bas Rutten does? Or if they disagree on who won a round, does that mean that one of them "knows **** all about the technicalities of the sport"? And let me guess - that one would be the one who disagrees with your opinion on who won it, right? atsch

In Diaz-Condit, who controlled where the fight took place? Diaz was moving forward, but he was never controlling where the action was. He wanted to fight with Condit's back pressed against the cage, but he couldn't manage to get it there. Condit was reacting to Diaz's movements. But whenever he thought, "Hmmm, I think I'll go back to the centre of the cage now", he went to the centre of the cage and Diaz was powerless to stop him. I view that as controlling where the fight took place. Others view that as running from Diaz. It's OPINION, see? :nono

But everything else is never equal, you simpleton.

What about if one fighter isn't even interested in landing strikes at all, he just wants to control position on the ground and attempt submissions, but he's getting arm-punched all the time and ignoring it while he's working? You give the round to the guy who landed 50 ineffective nothing punches, while ignoring the guy who was in control of the fight? atsch

:hat

 

If it's that easy to know who won the round, why have three judges? If it's close enough that pro fighters and experts who are professionally involved with the sport disagree over which man got the better of the round, why isn't it close enough to say "Neither man had a clear advantage over the other. They share the honours."???

I came up with a real example. The last round of the last big fight, to be precise. I outlined the argument for why Diaz should have won it, and why Condit should have won it. Both of them are perfectly valid. In reality, neither man did enough make a strong claim that he definitively got the better of the round as a whole. Diaz had the best single minute out of the five minutes, (although he did no damage and nothing came of it), but for the other four minutes he was ineffective and Condit was controlling him with ease.

Why should Diaz win the round merely for taking Condit's back for one minute and being unable to do anything from that position, and spending the other four minutes shuffling forward like a zombie, getting potshotted at will and landing nothing of consequence?

And why should Condit win the round when he was fighting off submissions for part of it and never had Diaz rocked or backpedalling during the rest of it?

Neither man clearly got the better of the other, and that is why opinion on it is so divided. Because both men have a good argument for why they got the better of that round. And if both men have a good argument for getting the nod, to me that sounds like a round that was fought on even terms. :bart

:hat

 

Hold on, I thought "its pretty ****ing simple in mma to pick a winner of a round based on all the criteria they give"?

Now you're saying it's not that simple, that the criteria is loosely defined and it all comes down to how you see it?

Well, when I see a round in which neither fighter gets the better of the other, I have a tough time giving it to one guy for some trivial bull**** reason. I'm not in the habit of awarding a guy 1/3rd of the fight just because he landed one flashy-looking, mostly-blocked head kick that had no effect at all on his opponent.

For me, the single most important criteria is a simple "Which one is closer to fighting the type of fight that he wants it to be?" Octagon generalship, in other words.

Awesome. I don't take part in the prediction league, but if you look at my vcash total, I know a thing or two about picking fights myself. A return of better than $33 to the dollar suggests I might not be a ****** at analyzing combat sports myself eh?

:hat

 

Where have I lied or twisted your comments? :huh

All I did, was ask a question.

MMA scoring with the 10 point system is universally acknowledged to be badly flawed. This is due to the complexity of the sport and the many and varied ways to gain advantage in a fight. Agreed?

Now, IN MY OPINION, there are MANY rounds where neither fighter has a clear advantage over the other.

In such rounds, I don't think it's particularly fair to give a guy a round (and 1/3rd of a fight), simply because (for example) he was ineffectively walking forwards and I personally like come-forward fighters better than I like counterpunchers.

If you can make a serious case for why EITHER fighter deserved to win the round, then IMO it is better to acknowledge that and call it even rather than have your own personal stylistic preferences dictate who gets a close round. ESPECIALLY when fights are decided over only three rounds. Because then you're essentially saying "That round was certainly very ****ing close, but I give it to Fighter A because I like him better."

That's all I am saying. I fail to see how this is such a moronic and ignorant stance. :-(

:hat

 

Exactly. And this is the part I have an issue with.

Say that fighter A is a brawler and fighter B is a slick mover and counterstriker, and all three judges are known to favour pressure fighters. Now fighter A knows that all he has to do is not clearly lose any rounds, and he'll win the fight by 30-27 shutout. He can be ineffective, he can get picked apart, but as long as he keeps moving forward swinging at air, getting most of his strikes blocked but keeping his opponent on the backfoot, he'll win the round.

Conversely, a different set of judges might mean that in the same exact fight, fighter B wins a 30-27 decision because he hit without getting hit and showed a broader skillset. Every round was close, you can argue all of them for either fighter. But judge's personal preference for what fighting style they personally like to see led them to score a shutout. IMO that's not right.

:hat