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

Well Wilhelm the reason Ive bumped this thread is because Haggis has been bitching since Bendo v Edgar that he was called a moron, noob and yelled at for suggesting a drawn round, which isnt the case.

Drawn rounds are pretty rare in MMA imo and as Haggis states in his OP Bendo v Edgar round three falls under in inactivity category, although I had no problem scoring it for Frankie myself and under the rules criteria I posted it earlier, an equal case can be made for scoring it for Bendo due to the heavier punches he landed. That's not a drawn round, it's a difference of opinion, and that's why we have three Judges. And not one of them scored it a draw due to the criteria for scoring a round. If someone cant decide than that's fine, but they are not professional Judges

 

I had Edgar/Bendo 3-1-1 for Edgar, but I can't recall which round was even.

I totally disagree with this. MMA is so complex that there can be many in-equivalent things to judge against one another (at least in the current paradigm) that deciding whether striking dominance is "better" than grappling dominance is too difficult. Much better to score it even than to just pick one based on the your (the judges) background or based on who did what last. I'd say that if someone isn't comfortable scoring such a round even they shouldn't be allowed to be a professional judge. Either way, if even rounds are technically allowed in mma then there shouldn't be any BS about encouraging judges not to score rounds even.

 

Well it's imposable to say in that case if the Judges were uncomfortable scoring a round even or they genuinely thought someone had won it. But the fact that all three scored the round with a winner suggests the latter is true as too my knowledge not one of the Judges has confirmed publicly that they were uncomfortable in taking the drawn round option which was available to them And in the case of Bendo v Edgar it's quite clear the close round in question was mainly an all striking affair and just a case of who was more effective, the volume of strikes, octagon control and aggression for Edgar or effective striking and damage for Henderson if Im remembering that round correctly

As Haggis demonstrated earlier in this thread it's very easy to make up hypothetical situations to suit this argument but the actual scoring system is in place to make this a very rare occurrence. I dont think a strong case can be made for Diaz v Condit 5 being a drawn round with this criteria but a stronger case can be made for Bendo v Edgar, although personally I think Frankie won it

 

If there was a clear definition of what aspect of striking is more "effective" in every case you'd be right, but it's necessarily very subjective. Some people think that one bomb landed outweighs a bunch of sharp and accurate by not harmful strikes, while others see it the opposite. In the absence of the judges being given much more clear instructions ("effective striking" and "octagon control" are way too ****ing vague to be useful) then if someone is unsure I'd much rather they scored it even. It had been mentioned by others that even rounds are problematic because they lead to even fights which are in turn problematic for non-sporting reasons (fans "want" a winner, it's tough for gambling etc) and that judges were encouraged not to give even rounds. I have no idea if that's true, but considering how many close rounds there are out there and how rarely they are scored even, it seems to be something that they don't do for one reason or another. That being the "right" thing just because that's what's happening though it a non sequitur. The whole point of the argument is that it should be done more, not that it is.

 

If you read post #70 the criteria is clearly defined and I was under the impression in this thread that Haggis believed Goldy's blurb for scoring at the start of the event was the definition of the rules rather than the footnotes

Now it's always open to interpretation and people will disagree in close fights, but the criteria is anything but vague and poorly defined in my opinion :conf And if it should be done more then there would be dozens of examples, but Haggis just avoided the request to post some

 

Actually the rules I posted in #70 have been amended and changed from the UFC website since February

* Effective defense is no longer a criteria for scoring. This means that defending takedowns or blocking submissions and strikes don't count for anything. Under the new rules, the only advantage that defense brings to the table is that it keeps you from being finished by offense. The only way you can actually score points is through offense.
* Striking and grappling have been given equal weight. In the past, striking was always listed first as a scoring opportunity, thereby giving it more importance. That's not the case anymore. Striking and grappling are, from this point forward, to be viewed as equal offensive measures.

* Heavier strikes will be given more weight than number of strikes landed. They're now classifying damage as "effective damage," which means strikes that do more damaged will be weighed more heavily than an overall strike count. Of course, this is still a visual thing, as judges don't have access to in-fight statistics.

* Grappling moves that are scored heavily: Takedowns, reversals, submissions, transitions, activity and threatening moves from the fighter on the bottom and attempted submissions that lead to the threatened fighter being tired. In theory, this will put more weight on guys who play a great guard game and constantly threaten submissions off their back. Witness the Miguel Torres vs. Demetrious Johnson fight for example. Torres consistently threatened with submissions, and used plenty of sweeps and reversals from the bottom, but Johnson was awarded the fight because he was on top. This, to me, is one of the more significant rule changes.

* Effective aggression is now defined. Aggression in the cage is now defined as a fighter moving forward and using legal techniques. Attacking with submissions or strikes on the ground is included.

* Control is also defined. "Octagon control" means that a fighter is dictating the pace and position of the fight in the cage.

[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1260886-ufc-rules-new-mma-judging-changes-a-positive-step[/url]

 

Under that criteria Id give the fight to Benson

 

How does that discourage lay-n-pray? Seems to me that if getting stuffed on a takedown isn't counted against you then there's no reason to not endlessly try and fail and then, once you get it, sit there since you've just scored. Endless failed attempts at takedowns is one of the best ways to get a boring clinch fest.

And Edgar won that fight regardless of which set of rules you use. Only one one guy dropped the other and it was Edgar dropping Henderson.

 

Yeah that's' how I read it. Takedowns are scored big but if you stop them who gives a crap... hardly seems fair that.

* Grappling moves that are scored heavily: Takedowns, reversals, submissions, transitions, activity and threatening moves from the fighter on the bottom and attempted submissions that lead to the threatened fighter being tired. In theory, this will put more weight on guys who play a great guard game and constantly threaten submissions off their back. Witness the Miguel Torres vs. Demetrious Johnson fight for example. Torres consistently threatened with submissions, and used plenty of sweeps and reversals from the bottom, but Johnson was awarded the fight because he was on top. This, to me, is one of the more significant rule changes.

I like this one. Another example was nate diaz vs someone can't remember but the other guy just lay on Nate while nate landed a lot of strikes and attempted a few subs from the bottom but I think the decision went the other way.

 

in 5 minute rounds there should very very rarely be a 10-10 round scored, in MMA you don't have that luxury of taking a round off, or getting a rest, because if you do you will be hurt, took down, KO'd or tapped!

Too many things happen for a round to be scored even.

 

Nice post Stoo :good

As stated interpretation is everything, the UFC have zero input to the judges putting ink to paper however.