I think boxing and MMA are the only sports where the score is a complete mystery until the end. This is exactly whats needed for a corrupt org to hand in horrible score cards, such as displayed recently in the Shogun/Machida fight. IMO, and maybe just for title fights, after every round the judges scorecards just be made viewable to all. Is that too much to ask? Would it help solve some of the score debacles we have seen?
Worst idea ever.
^
Worst response ever.
They should totally revamp the scoring system for sure.
a good idea but just think of the possible bad outcomes,fans booing uncontrollably where they cant start the next round from corners arguing and possibly fighters arguing and affecting there performance in the next round because there worried and pissed already feeling robbed.i dont think its the answer
Eatin Applesauce - a good idea but just think of the possible bad outcomes,fans booing uncontrollably where they cant start the next round from corners arguing and possibly fighters arguing and affecting there performance in the next round because there worried and pissed already feeling robbed.i dont think its the answer
Yes but it gets rid of alot of the idea of "fighter A or B" being ahead on a scorecard so they can relax. It would add some spice to the fights when a fighter knows he is for sure down and needs to steal a rounnd. I don't think its a bad idea. I think that at the very least the corners should be allowed to see them. The fans I could care less about. I don't think they need nor would it improve the sport any. I agree with you about the booing and so forth.
Boxing tried "open scoring" back in 1999. It sucked. It completely robs close fights of their mystery when you know exactly who won which rounds. And when someone did get a solid lead, they'd coast just like in Olympic boxing.
I agree with the need to score fights better, but I'm afraid this isn't the answer.
Kizer raised another interesting point. He noted that technical decisions are his No. 1 argument against open scoring, since a fighter who knows for a fact that he’s ahead later in a fight will be that much more encouraged to say he can’t continue because of an accidental foul. Kizer said the fighters who abuse the accidental-foul rule prior to the end of the fourth round don’t concern him as much as those who do it after four rounds are complete.
“My bigger concern is when it happens later in a fight, and instead of quitting and getting a no-contest, you quit and get a victory,” Kizer said.
We’ve seen that happen quite a few times. There was undefeated Hector Camacho Jr. looking for a way out against Jesse James Leija in July ’01 after his team members sneaked a peek at the scorecards and knew for sure that he was ahead through five. (Thankfully, the technical-decision win for Camacho was later changed to a no-contest.) Ironically, in Leija’s next fight, against Micky Ward, he took the same route, winning by fifth-round technical decision just as Ward was coming on.
And perhaps the most famous case of all came in 1986, after Johnny Bumphus built an early lead against Marlon Starling, started to fade, suffered a relatively minor cut in the sixth round, and won by technical decision when his trainer, Lou Duva, convinced referee Vincent Rainone to stop the fight.
http://www.ringtv.com/blog/981/are_fighters_abusing_the_accidentalfoul_rule/
While that may be a point with the 10 point must system, it needs to go anyway. I can't imagine why the ACs don't draft a new scoring system - it can't possibly be any worse thant 10PM.
KeithKizer - Kizer raised another interesting point. He noted that technical decisions are his No. 1 argument against open scoring, since a fighter who knows for a fact that he’s ahead later in a fight will be that much more encouraged to say he can’t continue because of an accidental foul. Kizer said the fighters who abuse the accidental-foul rule prior to the end of the fourth round don’t concern him as much as those who do it after four rounds are complete.
“My bigger concern is when it happens later in a fight, and instead of quitting and getting a no-contest, you quit and get a victory,” Kizer said.
We’ve seen that happen quite a few times. There was undefeated Hector Camacho Jr. looking for a way out against Jesse James Leija in July ’01 after his team members sneaked a peek at the scorecards and knew for sure that he was ahead through five. (Thankfully, the technical-decision win for Camacho was later changed to a no-contest.) Ironically, in Leija’s next fight, against Micky Ward, he took the same route, winning by fifth-round technical decision just as Ward was coming on.
And perhaps the most famous case of all came in 1986, after Johnny Bumphus built an early lead against Marlon Starling, started to fade, suffered a relatively minor cut in the sixth round, and won by technical decision when his trainer, Lou Duva, convinced referee Vincent Rainone to stop the fight.
http://www.ringtv.com/blog/981/are_fighters_abusing_the_accidentalfoul_rule/
So who do you think won the Shogun/Machida fight?
Open scoring is a horrible idea, unless you want to see a bunch of fighters down two rounds to zero qutting on the stool (or worse)
Don't they do open scoring in K1? I think because there's only 3 or 5 rounds the situation is a little different than boxing.
smoogy - Open scoring is a horrible idea, unless you want to see a bunch of fighters down two rounds to zero qutting on the stool (or worse)
I think you could also have the opposite effect where a fighter with heart decides to go balls out knowing that he's down on the cards.
would be kinda cool if they just told the guy whos officially losing he needs to win the round to win the fight, or he needs a finish
however might make a winning dude fight safer and more boring if he knew he has it won unless he gets finished
Yes Keith Kizer, when a judge like Cecil Peoples says fights arn't ended with leg kicks surely, you can't allow someone like this to be a judge, correct?
Do you see the outcry and frustration with having unqualified judges?
Part of the problem I see is that judges are required to understudy with existing judges, who are grandfathered in by some fashion and don't actually know the sport, so new judges who would actually give more accurate scores don't make it in because their decisions don't match those of the existing judges.
open scoring doesnt work for alot more reasons than Kizer mentioned...
Kizer is right...theres more negatives than positives in open scoring.....
the flaws in MMA scoring are in the eyes(how he/she interprets the action) and ears(effect of venue noise) of the beholder(judge) and the education of the judges in MMA..
hate to admit the 10 point must system does work....IF judges know what they are judging....more 10-10 Rounds prob wouldnt hurt MMA either..depite it being discouraged in boxing...
More 10-8 and 10-7 rounds would also help. 10-10 if you're not sure. 10-9 if it's close but you think one person edged it out (there'd be some rounds which get 10-10, 10-9 or 9-10 from the judges), 10-8 and 10-7 when it's pretty clear (right now 10-9 is used for everything when it's too close to call to when it's utterly clear who won), 10-6 and 10-5 for what currently pulls in 10-8 rounds. There are 10 points to work with, they should make use of them. It wouldn't allow fighters to coast by knowing that they won 2 of the 3 rounds. If they win with 2 10-8s, then they could still lose if the other fighter pulls off a dominant 10-5 in the third. It might still have lots of arguments over who won, but at least fighters wouldn't be able to coast anymore.