Close Margin Rounds = Destroying MMA

The typical Close Margin Round (10-9), is bad for MMA scoring. Why am I saying this? Because:

-it cant prove a fighter is lethal/dangerous
-it cant prove a fighter is even close to a finish
-it cant produce fear to a fighter

Some benefits if typical 10-9 rounds are scored as 10-10 draw rounds:

-fighters need to showcase more to win a fight
-the winner win álways be the deserved winner
-robberies would be hard for judges
-fighters will develop more into finishing fighters
-the most feared fighters will only climb up the ranks
-harmless pointfighter cant climb up the ranks
-neutralizing (LnP/WnS/SnM) will never be the endgoal
-fighter records will be a more accurate representation

Do you agree too if wins could only be achieved by 10-8s or finish?

And do you agree that insignificant stuff like Octagon Control, Aggression, A Takedown, Harmless Strikes, Just Holding A Position, etc should not be rewarded?




The bookies would hate it though.

A lot of fighters would start fighting for the draw instead of the win. You know the moment a fighter knows hes in over his head? That guy starts fighting for a draw.

I dont think it’s clear cut. But I’m still in favour of it.

I’m also in favour of any nonfinsh being a draw.


But the other fighter wont. He will smell blood and will take more risk. And he will not benefit from just a draw (ranking wise and financial wise). And this will also open up opportunities for the first fighter who was on the defensive.


Im partially in favor for finish-only fights. Only in regional scene and unranked UFC fights. In the top it would be harder to finish so a demonstration of 10-8 is also good enough for me.

1 Like

They should have weapons for a final, decisive round.


I agree there should be way more 10-10 rounds, and more draws as a result.

It’s not so much that the fighters “tied”, it’s just that nobody “won”.


Exactly. It doesnt feel like a win. I also dont understand a fighter cheering so wildly, as if he destroyed the other guy…

1 Like

I’ve been saying this for over 10 years.

10-10 rounds need to be fuckin handed out like candy if fighters are gonna play touch butt and keep the rounds close.


Jon Jones would be in trouble.

I kind of disagree. There’s got to be a winner and a loser, draws are absolute dogshit.

1 Like

Lethal/Dangerous - These things have nothing to do with winning a fight.
Being close to a finish - Has nothing to do with winning a fight by itself. A fighter could be close to finishing his opponent and still lose the fight
Fear - Has nothing to do with winning a fight

-Forcing fighters to show more to win a fight will not prove who the better fighter is, it will prove who is willing to take more risks. I do not want to know who wants to take more risks.
-Robberies would happen more often as many people would see fights that end in draws where a fighter has won all three rounds clearly but only by 10-9’s and as such the fight will end in a draw. Khabib’s fights would mostly end in draws. Same with GSP. Same with Jon Jones. Terrible.
-Fighters would develop into finishing fighters, leaving no room for nuance and strategy. Which as a fan of all styles I like strategy.
-Fear? Who cares about fear? That is some childish stuff.
-Fighter records will be so messy, guys will have 10 draws and be tough and nails, guys will have 10 draws and be useless.

No and No.

I am a judge locally and I think this is a terrible idea. The judging system we have at the moment is actually very good, we just have some judges that should be fired or moved on. New blood in the ranks is the true fix.


First of all, almost you entire post is based on your current definition of “winning”, so that makes it flawed.

“Winning” according to my definition means you have at least demonstrated a undeniable whooping, a large margin of difference between fighter A and B. So my definition of “winning” = scoring a 10-8 round ór a finish. Anything below a 10-8 round is too insignificant, not impressive.

Another flawed argument. Taking more risks doesnt necessarily means you will be better. The better one is still the one who scores 10-8 or finishes.

You see, as I said, you have different definition of WINNING. Octagon Control, Aggression, A Takedown, Harmless Strikes, Just Holding A Position, etc…to me those things is not winning. To mean those things equals NEUTRALIZING.

Wrong. He would win because he scores 10-8s.

Here you are correct for the first time and I agree. In the beginning of their careers they did good. But the last part they mostly became pointfighters who didnt gave us impressive performances.

What kind of nonsense is this? Ofcourse you can use strategy still! You can even Lay and Pray and tire the opponent out till round 5 and finish him or score a 10-8. Thats a quick example. I have no big deal with that. But if you use neutralizing tactics until the end of the fight and you get a win awarded (because of the current flawed reward system), no no no thats not fair.

Isnt Combat all about being more dominant than the other? And making the other fear is a part of being the dominant one. What do you think a face off is all about?

I dont get it…what do you mean? Lets say Masvidal. His record doesnt look that great (with this current flawed reward system). But the guy has actually a good record. Of the so many fights, he almost never gets finished or loses with a 10-8 + he is a finisher. So almost all his ‘losses’ should be considered draws. They guy is really hard to kill.

1 Like

In most UFC events there are ZERO 10-8 rounds. So most UFC events would end with all draws, maybe 1 fight would end in a decision.

All a champion would need to do to keep their belt is make sure their opponent doesn’t do anything that scores them a 10-8 and the champion would keep the belt. Champions stay on as champion in the result of a draw.

I can’t believe you would want that to happen. And I anticipate you are going to tell me that fighters would change their style so we would not get as many draws? I don’t see fighters suddenly being able to put a 10-8 on their opponents just because they train a little harder. Fighters already want to beat their opponents by 10-8s its just bloody hard to do.

There are so many issues with this idea. I get you are trying to think outside the box but seriously you need to acknowledge that there are huge issues with your idea and it most likely would not make the sport better. Seriously, be honest.

Adesanya vs Silva - Draw
Adesanya vs Travares - Draw
Adesanya vs Romero - Draw
Adesanya vs Blachowicz - Split Draw (One judge had it a draw by your rules)
Adesanya vs Kelvin - Win for Adesanya
Adesanya vs Vettori - Draw

You want this to happen?

No big deal. A draw doesnt equate to a boring fight at all. Draws are very common in football/soccer, the biggest sport on earth.

You can play with the incentives with the salary here. If the champ scores 10-8 he gets 30% more (just an example).

The rankings will sort everything out automatically by time. The harmless pointfighter guys will now be aware to actually either develop finishing skills (if they didnt had any) or to fight to dominate (and not fight to survive/neutralize).

You are só wrong here mate! In their dreams ofcourse! But in reality a smart pointfighting mentality wants to abuse the flaw in the game. What is the flaw? Neutralizing acts are rewarded with 10-9. Thát is the big problem in MMA today.

And yes its harder ofcourse. But that gives meaning to the definition of “winning”. If you see the interviews of Usman about the Masvidal fight you can clearly see he is not satisfied with his ‘win’. We all know nothing special happened. Footstomps and harmless hugging against the cage doesnt mean anything. It only shows you are not thát better than him. You cant control the guy you want to.

Its not really fair to judge past fights of Adesanya without the ruleset being implemented. Adesanya in all those fights is thinking “Yeah Im ahead, great, just a couple of minutes left and I win.”.

Probably if the ruleset would have been implemented he would up the pace in the last rounds, give more power to his shots, and go for the kill (10-8/finish).

If a guy is really good eventually he will still rise the rankings despite having some draws. A win will be a real win, and will make you rise.

Why are draws bad? Draws are totally normal too in football/soccer (the biggest sport there is). And above all else, its much more fair. Remember Ngannou vs Lewis? I mean come on now. Literally nothing happened and still they insist to appoint a winner…

And btw draws dont mean a fight cant be entertaining.

I would rather see a draw than a “win” for a fighter in a close uneventful fight. There was a time when Hendo, rashad, machida, Phil Davis had a bunch of boring fights against each other (minor rashad vs machida), nobody should count those horrible fights for anything.

1 Like

I have seen so many fights end in 30-27 that I just would lose my mind if they were declared a draw. You are so wrong on this its insane.

Sure I have seen fights that could have been called a draw in some ways, I have scored fights personally that have been so close I had to look at aggression and octagon control. So I picked a winner based on that criteria.

But personally I can score well over 90% of the fights I judge based on effective striking and grappling. If you judge a lot of fights and really look at the criteria its easy to pick a winner for each round.

I will say that if I fight can not be decided by effective striking and grappling then MAYBE we could give out more 10-10 rounds. But I am not so sure that is a good idea, I do like the system we have in place.

Our point of difference boils down to this:

You see: Octagon Control, Aggression, A Takedown, Harmless Strikes, Just Holding A Position, etc… = winning acts → reward 10-9

I see: Octagon Control, Aggression, A Takedown, Harmless Strikes, Just Holding A Position, etc… = neutralizing acts → keep neutral 10-10

This is a silly standard to hold if you’re interested in seeing world class competitors face each other. You’ll see large margins of difference when elite fighters face lesser fighters, but when the elite fighters are matched up, the whole idea is that they’re both so incredibly good that it will be a higher level of skill and technique being displayed. This will inevitably lead to fights where there is no “large margin of difference”.

I’m not interested in only seeing beatdowns and people being outclassed. Rounds can be close but clear.