“There are either people who don’t understand ONE scoring or do and think two rounds of doing a little overall counts more than almost getting finished.”
Luke Thomas on the Eddie Alvarez loss in ONE
Amosov vs Lima…another piece of evidence we need to change the flawed scoring criteria!
Adesanya vs Vettori…evidence of another easy way to get a ‘win’. You want to keep seeing ‘winning’ without impressing???
Without reading the entire thread:
-
I agree that rounds are given a 10-9 score WAY too often. There are lots of rounds that are so close they seem nearly impossible to score a winner. 10-10 is a way to get guys to take more risks.
-
I disagree about the non-finishing draw situation. We don’t want draws…as bookies, as fans, as promoters, as fighters. None of those people want draws. What we DO want is fights with more action, fights that have a more decisive winner, and more finishes.
I have said for a long time that many more rounds should be given a 10-10 score, but commissions are taught to do this sparingly. One huge factor is that if you give more evenly scored rounds, open scoring must be used for this to be effective. If you score a round 10-10 but the coaches/fighters don’t know, then nothing changes.
No. That fight doesn’t fall under the framework you created in your OP. Israel clearly and decisively took every round tonight, none of those could have been 10-10. We are talking about fights with very close rounds where either guy could take it. Unless I am misunderstanding…
Yes 100 percent. That fight is a perfect example of why the scoring should be changed.
Why not? Draws doesnt mean the fight was boring right? A draw could be a very very entertaining fight. A draw is a more fair way of reward. It doesnt make sense to ALWAYS appoint a winner. Éven if one guy is slightly better thán the other, it doesnt matter, just make it a draw. He didnt showcase enough to claim and boast to be the better fighter.
Not true. Everybody knows if a round was 10-8, thats an obvious round. It should either be 10-10, 10-8 or finish.
Yes you are misunderstanding. Close dead even rounds you already agree with.
But I will go a bit further. Im saying they should eliminate rewarding fighters for júst executing neutralizing moves or even insignificant advantages (harmless punches, laying on top without real damage). Getting points for that is too great of a reward if you just stick and move without bringing the opponent ever in danger. At least showcase and demonstrate you are the better one with a larger margin (10-8 round). Who in the hell is scared of a typical 10-9 pointfighter? MMA fighters should be the most feared men on earth. And with the current reward criteria you do not necessarily produce those feared men on top.
The bookies would love it dude. Are you crazy?
There would be a lot more draws, where they don’t have to pay out anybody, and they’d drop their odds betting from normally around +6000 to dramatically low to the point where betting on it wouldn’t be lucrative.
A regular money line bet would become very reliant on finishes.
Lol putting live scoring from the official judges up on the screen in between rounds would create a lot more urgency IMO.
1 Like
Why not? Draws doesnt mean the fight was boring right? A draw could be a very very entertaining fight. A draw is a more fair way of reward. It doesnt make sense to ALWAYS appoint a winner. Éven if one guy is slightly better thán the other, it doesnt matter, just make it a draw. He didnt showcase enough to claim and boast to be the better fighter.
Draws don’t mean a fight was boring, but the rankings and everything that comes along with being a great fighter depends on a fighter’s record. If a guy is 15-3-8, how is that looked at? Is a promoter supposed to go and watch those draws to see how they looked? If fans know there are lots of draws then they won’t watch, simple as that. Hardcores will watch no matter what but people want to see a definitive result, even if the fight was exciting. Hell even post fight discussions won’t be as exciting if there were a ton of draws. Sometimes one guy is slightly better and I do want to encourage more action and finishing, but there will be super close fights that are also exciting.
Not true. Everybody knows if a round was 10-8, thats an obvious round. It should either be 10-10, 10-8 or finish.
Not necessarily. Different states are using different rule sets and it isn’t clear when a round should be 10-8. 10-9’s need to exist. In order for fighters to take more risk, themselves or their corner needs to know how a round was scored. Otherwise they will fight like they normally do and taking minimal risk. if they or their coaches KNOW there was a 10-10, it increases their chances of going for a finish.
Yes you are misunderstanding. Close dead even rounds you already agree with.
But I will go a bit further. Im saying they should eliminate rewarding fighters for júst executing neutralizing moves or even insignificant advantages (harmless punches, laying on top without real damage). Getting points for that is too great of a reward if you just stick and move without bringing the opponent ever in danger. At least showcase and demonstrate you are the better one with a larger margin (10-8 round). Who in the hell is scared of a typical 10-9 pointfighter? MMA fighters should be the most feared men on earth. And with the current reward criteria you do not necessarily produce those feared men on top.
Okay this is a lot, so I’m gonna try to break it down piece by piece:
-
Define “neutralizing moves” and “insignificant advantages” in a way that leaves little room for interpretation. We all know laying on top without doing any damage is a clear method of point-fighting, and that is slowly being changed due to the scoring system putting more emphasis on damage. Aside from that, we need to have an understanding of what you are referring to other than a vague description.
-
Define “stick and move” to you and what you consider to be danger. There are plenty of fighters that stick and move. Many of them are exciting, and many of them produce finishes. “sticking and moving” alone does not constitute point-fighting.
-
There is a fundamental problem with the statement “showcase and demonstrate you are the better fighter”. We all watch fights, and a lot of them are close fights. The challenge is knowing whether or not a fighter is risk averse, or if they simply don’t have the skill to perform any better than they are. If neither fighter proves they are better over the course of three rounds and there is no clear winner, then it should be a draw. If one fighter clearly won but didn’t necessarily dominate, then that person should win the round 10-9.
-
I’m not even sure what “who is scared of a 10-9 point-fighter” even means, but it’s late.
Reading all of this gives me the idea that you are looking to isolate certain styles or groups of fighters than you are looking to encourage more action and exciting fights. There are plenty of fighters who walk forward and throw 100+ strikes in a given fight. That doesn’t necessarily make them exciting, more likely to finish, or win. There are plenty of fighters who have a counter striking style. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are boring or more likely to disengage. To me, your criteria and comments don’t align with what you say your ultimate goal is.
Ever heard of football (biggest sport in the world)?
Will there be tons of draws though? Even right now there are all alot finishes, let alone if the ruleset gives incentives to go for 10-8 or finish…
Nobody is against this. We are against rewarding insignificant advantages…
You are refuting yourself now. Scoring a 10-9 to a fighter (which one?) in the current system is móre vague than scoring 10-8 to the obvious fighter in my system.
All moves that do not directly produce a potential fight ending situation. So a fighter is not big trouble, like 10-8 trouble.
Same. All strikes that do not produce direct potential fight ending situations.
All I would say such a fighter was in the lead, he was not thát much better. Close enough to make it a draw.
Explain…
Well I agree ofcourse. This means you still didnt get the point.
When was I anti counter striker??? Anderson Silva is great!! You have to read better mate…
Let’s here if you’re with me on this.
Now personally I’m not the biggest fan of Jon Jones these days like most people. Although I suspect I don’t dislike him anywhere near as much as some of you.
His fight with reys. I was perfectly 100% ok with him winning that. Yep. Reys got robbed . I’ve never been more ok with seeing someone get robbed.
He won 3 of 5. But the rounds he won he did his work early then ran and tried to keep his lead for the rest of the round. That’s demerit points in my mind.
I felt the same way with things santos and tonight with vitorii. They have nobody to blame but themselves if they loose but didn’t turn up the volume when they needed to. At this stage in their career they should know these things. No sympathy from me . I absolutely don’t give a massive amount of credit to the champs though that did barely enough to win like the commentators like to knob ride them.
Use 4 judges.
The amount of judges is not the problem. Its the reward criteria itself whats the big problem.
Then you should agree with me to turn 10-9s into 10-10s. Jones against Reyes and Maretta should both be scored as draws.
Anybody seen this new explanation of Bisping? Well those 10-9 rounds are ridiculous!
The system works the way it is now. Imperfectly, but overall it gets it right most of the time. Its when judges fuck up that the system falls under scrutiny. A round where a fighter had a clear advantage = 10-9. A round where there is NO advantage or superiority (which happens more often than is scored) is 10-10. 10-8 needs to be clear advantage the vast majority of the round or damage resulting in a near finish or multiple near finishes.
What I can’t stand is when Jim clearly wins round 1. Dave clearly wins round 2 and then round 3 is close and one of the judges has it 30-27. Or like the Brad Tavares fight where he CLEARLY won 2 rounds and one of the judges had it 29-28 the other way and Tavares ends up winning a split decision when he clearly won two rounds.
Yesss
The problem is that you can watch fights through different lenses and come out with different opinions. The easiest example is volume vs precision.
A round goes by, one guy lands 20 strikes out of 50 with 1 or 2 good clean hard shots. The other guy is pouring on shots and lands 30 out of 75 but none as noteworthy as the 1 or 2 clean blows from the other guy.
I personally wish judges would score for Guy 1. I completely understand why they would score it for Guy 2. I would rather they choose one or the other over defaulting to a 10-10 out of convenience. Have some balls and make a choice.
I disagree here.
This happens alot. And the reason this happens is because the judges HAVE to give someone a 10-9 win round, even though the differences are so so small. If you just turn all those close 10-9 rounds into 10-10s, it immediately would solve this problem. If you really are better than the other guy than you should at least demonstrate you are better by large margin, and not with insignificant stuff as “He had 2 punches more”.