I think Rogan makes an excellent point, with so many close fights and even match ups, does the 10 pt must system really work in a sport like MMA? How do you score submission attempts vs dominant position or take downs vs submission defence, etc.
Definately an interesting arguement here and with the fighters becoming so well rounded and putting up such even fights it is going to have to be adjusted at some point. But then again, where do you draw the line? Clearly you don't want so much discretion that it becomes too complicated and overwrought.
10 pt must system is fine for this SPORT.
Fine? It's fucking horrible.
they need to change ths scoring system...i mean, in Diego/Fitch, what won the fight for Fitch??he didnt have Diego in danger at all thr entire fight, and although Diego had a fes sub attempts on Fitch, they werent close to tapping Fitch either but they were still more numerous and effective than what fitch handed out...i have to assume Fitch won the fight based on his positioning and control then??
The 10 point must system is not the problem (or at least not the main one), it's that many or most of the judges clearly have not read or made an attempt to understand the clearly defined rules. The fact that half the fights these days are split decisions makes that obvious.
The #1 criteria are effective grappling and effective ("clean") striking (which of these is given more weight is dependent on where most of the round takes place).
After that it's control of fighting area (not just "who gets a takedown", but also "creating threatening sub attempts" and passing guard), aggression, and then defense.
Effective striking is defined as landing legal HEAVY strikes.
A takedown goes toward effective grappling, but remaining in your opponent's guard DOES NOT get you any consideration beyond the initial takedown. You don't win a round just because you're on top unless the other guy does nothing.
Submission attempts that force the other fighter to defend DO count (toward grappling, control AND aggression). This is not debatable; it is plainly stated in the unified rules.
Being constantly on the defensive, no matter how good your escapes and sub defense is, is weighted the LEAST of all scoring criteria. These facts are laid out plainly in the scoring rules.
There is no reasonable interpretation of the unified scoring rules that give Tyson Griffin round 2 of the Tavares fight (in which Tavares landed the heaviest strike, got the takedowns, passed guard and had threatening sub attempts), much less round 3. Same goes for first round of Hughes/Charuto, at least the third round of Diego/Fitch, and many other fights.
ttt for rational discussions
As I have said before. I liked the old ISCF 5 point system.