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

If you're digging deep to find one or two pieces of action in order to find a reason to split the difference between competitors in a closely-fought 5 minute round, then yes that **** suddenly does become very relevant.

I've never yet heard a commentator in boxing OR MMA (sitting cageside, same as the judges) who didn't sometimes get all excited about a strike and how it wobbled a guy, and then watch the replay between rounds and realize that it wasn't the flush, damaging strike he thought it was.

And if you're scoring a round on individual moments like that, then you can give a five minute round (and potentially a world title) to a guy purely because during a very close round he half-landed one grazing shot while his opponent was off-balance and you thought it was a significant moment in the fight, when really it wasn't at all. :-(

You don't have to agree with this point of view, but it IS a fair point, backed up by logical statements. :nono

:hat

 

Right, so I guess that the 10 point must system is a very satisfactory way of scoring three-round MMA fights then?

Everyone is very clear on how to score a round and what the most important facets are, it's quite simple and clear-cut and individual preferences for fighting styles is not a real concern?

And there is no widespread belief that the system as it stands (which was imported wholescale from a completely different sport for the sake of convenience) is too vague and ill-defined?

Okay then, I guess the 10 point must system as it is currently used for three-round fights involving striking, wrestling AND submission fighting has no problems then. Even though nobody ever has any idea what the hell has been going on in the minds of the judges when a close fight goes to the cards, or even what they were looking for in the first place.

Thank you for your wisdom, I guess I can now disregard every complaint I've ever heard a fighter or commentator make about the 10 point must system as used in MMA. :good

:hat

 

Yep, it is.

But you can still get unsighted, and you can still think a punch landed flush when in fact it was blocked and only made solid contact with an arm instead of the side of a head. Especially if it happens on the other side of the cage. Which is why every commentator (who sits ringside) sometimes makes mistakes, watches the replay and changes his opinion about how effective a damaging-looking or sounding strike actually was. :good

Hell, your perception of how solid and effective a strike or combination was can be heavily influenced just by the crowd's response to it. How many times do you see the home fighter win a close decision, especially in boxing? Most times, because every time they land anything, the crowd roars in appreciation. Whereas whenever the opponent lands, they don't respond. This gives the impression that the hometown guy has had the better of the action.

:hat

 

All I've said is that the scoring system is loosely-defined, that everybody interprets different levels of importance for different aspects of the sport, and that it often leads to scorecards that are all over the place.

You have one judge who is always going to give a close round to the more aggressive fighter, even if he can't land anything significant and is constantly getting peppered with jabs and leg kicks. Another judge might give the same round to the guy who hits and doesn't get hit. A third judge might have the deciding factor be workrate, not effectiveness. They are all judging on massively different criteria, and they are all finding excuses to justify scoring very close, non-decisive rounds according to their personal preference for what a fight "should" be.

Then there's massive dispute about the significance of takedowns and unsuccessful submission attempts, **** there's heaps of things that nobody has a clue about how significant they are or should be.

It's so loose and vague that it means you can find a reason to give any close round to one guy or the other.

I gave round 5 to Condit, because he was easily in control for 80% of it and escaped his one minute of danger without harm. But I can see that Diaz was closer to finishing the fight than Condit was. So it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. I gave the round, and therefore the fight, to Condit. But it was close and that was purely my personal preference talking, because the scoring system is so loose and ill-defined. :bart

:hat