I see a fighter winning a round by 10+ significant strikes deserving of a score of 10-9 and not 10-10 which is what you are proposing.
-10-9 rounds are rarely close rounds as you are implying.
-As I said I look at octagon control and aggression very rarely (much less than 10% of the time)
-Its next to impossible to know which strikes are harmless, you would know that if you sparred and or talked to some real fighters. I have been rocked by glancing jabs and floored by glancing strikes to the ribs.
-Just holding a position is only scored as octagon control and is a very rare judging criteria (you would know that if you were a judge or understood the rules)
-A takedown being the deciding factor in a decision is also super rare, the takedown would have to lead to a solid amount of control time to be counted as octagon control (which again is a very rare criteria for judges to go to as most fights can be judged by effective striking and grappling alone)
-A takedown can for sure be the deciding factor in a round where two fighters striking is perfectly even, say 10 jabs to 10 jabs, one fighter lands a clean double leg and controls his opponent for the remainder of the round I have no issue saying the guy who took the opponent down performed better, showed more skill and technique, controlled his opponent, and hopefully did some damage with the takedown to hurt his opponent. Granted in a fight that close, where the deciding factor was 1 takedown, I would most likely look at octagon control and aggression to help my decision along.
Judging is hard mate, you should sign up for a judging course and see how you go.
Do you honestly believe that most 10-9 rounds are close rounds? Personally I have judged many fights where for example it was clear as day one fighter won a round by 10+ strikes and 2 attempted submissions, but their opponent put up a good defense landing some strikes on their own and taking the fighter down, in that instance it would only be a 10-9 round. So you would say to the fighter, nah mate thats a draw. Even though you are up by 10+ strikes and 2 submission attempts.
Do you have any idea how much a fighter really needs to do to score a 10-8? There are heaps of fighters that will never ever score a 10-8 in their lives.
You are proving my point. If the margin of difference is not large, both fighters do not deserve a loss on their record. A draw would be most fair.
And whats also true is that if on the highest level a fighter dĂłes accomplishes a large margin of difference (10-8 or finish) against another world class opponent (example: Khabib vs Poirier) that counts as a even larger legit big win (instead of 10-9 decision).
You still dont get the point. I dont consider connected strikes which do not give much damage as a significant strike. A significant strike should be such a damaging strike which leads to being rocked or becoming handicapped. You see?
The way they use the term significant strike is nonsense. If a fighter can eat 1000 connectes harmless strikes, it doesnt effect him, why reward it then???
Ofcourse you can know in a way! If he is still fighting, and he is still a danger, there are no signes he cant fight at all, well why punish him because he just ate some punches without effect???
So how is topposition (without doing much damage) scored?
You are exactly making my point mate! A takedown should never be rewarded! What use doesna takedown have if the guy pops back up a littke later, or you cant progress towards a finish, or you cant give damaging GnP??? Thats what we call pointfighting and thats exactly my complain!
You are making it hard because you have to score insignificant stuff. Judging would be a lot easy if you just wait until somebody starts whooping somebody (10-8 style).
The harmless strikes I already addressed. Now I dont think its a good idea to reward just sub attempts as well if the fighter could escape. He erased the danger so, no problem anymore.
Well thats the whole purpose. Fighter who lack some skills cant just climb to the top anymore. If you already struggle consistently to score 10-8 rounds in unranked fights, welll thats proof you are not good enough for the top yet. Keep on developing. So automatically the fighters who have consistent succes in 10-8s and finishes will rise to the top.
Not true at all. If you lose a close but clear fight, you have lost. You deserve to have a loss on your record.
Your argument seems to be from a viewpoint that doesnât interpret subtlety or nuance. It would be like someone winning a race by .5 seconds, and you go âI donât know man, he didnât beat him by 10 seconds, every race should be a draw unless the winner leaves the competition in the dust.â
Thatâs not how sports operate. Winning is winning whether itâs by an inch or a mile. If youâre not able to assess the winner of a close but clear round, you should work on your ability to understand whatâs taking place within a fight.
If its close, well thats not good enough to award you with a win. You have to at least impress us with some dominating skills. What did you think about Usmans performance against Masvidal? Is that (harmless hugging) a fair definition of âwinningâ?
My point is to inprove the definition of âwinningâ. To you neutralizing acts already constitute âwinningâ. Thats the difference between you and me.
If anything more 10-8 rounds should be given for dominant rounds.
Under your proposal to ensure the most feared fighters climb the ranks, what would stop the lay and pray? Winning a round is still winning a round if fighter A lays on fighter B the entire round he still wins the round.
How many fights do you not want a conclusion from, Lewis v Ngannou was a shit fight yes but look at the stats the fight wasnât even, there was a winner.
Yes to your stupid definition âwinningâ thats a âwinâ. Cant you see Im arguing here to change the definition of âwinningâ? Just must try your best to read better next time.
You see, another example you didnt get the message. The answer is: because lay and pray would be scored 10-10 so you wil never climb up the ranks if you can only to lay and pray!!!
Oh yeah sure according to your stupid definition.
âFighter A had 23 harmless jabs vs Fighter B had 22 harmless jabsâŠtherefore 10-9 to Fighter Aâ
Exactly. So there are fighters out there who are mostly pointfighters and lack some ability to progress to give a beating. Like Volkanovski, Colby, and even Usman (but now he is developing into the good direction). These guys are/were examples of neutralizing fighters who have a hard time beating someone up (10-8/finish).
But lucky for them there is a flaw in the current reward system which rewards neutralizing acts (lay and pray, wall and stall, stick and move) with 10-9. So these fighters are able to abuse the system and climb up the ranks by âwinningâ. Understand the point now?
I think thatâs unfair mate. At that level you donât just walk in and blast people out.
Some fighters will take the path of less resistance and yeah itâs not as exciting as a finish but that doesnât mean that those fighters are any less skilled.
Another piece of evidence you have a hard time reading and understanding. Where did I suggested that? You still use tactics and strategy ofcourse!
An example: you lay and pray 4 rounds to make him tired, in the 5th round you finish him or you give him a 10-8 beating. Im fine with this! Thats great fighting.
Or if you are heavily under attack and you utilize wall and stall just to get things back. No problem.
But the part where I disagree is if lay and pray (and all other 10-9 nonsense) becomes the goal and not the purpose. So lay and pray till the end. So you wanna score 10-9 because you know you will get the win by the judges. This is the flaw in the system which should be changed. Thats not winning, thats neutralizing.
We all saw Usman utilizing Wall and Stall with Lay and Pray the whole fight. We all saw he couldnt do more than that out of fear and/or lack of ability to advance.
And he knew it was enough to get the fake âwinâ. And he himself admitted it didnt felt like a win.