That ain't a solution bro, that's just dumb
Rantuckjr - I think we run into the same problem.
Say GSP runs into the middle of the cage throws one punch, takes down his opponent and controls him while taking no damage the entire round. He does this 3 times and he is up 15-0 instead of 30-27.
Unless his opponent subs him or knocks him out in the next two rounds, he still wins. No additional motivation to finish. No matter how badly he gets beaten up in rounds 4 and 5 he cant lose. At least under the current system he could theoretically still get the win if he got 10-7 rounds.
I think the exact opposite. This system DOES NOT reward inactivity/stalling. "Blankets" tend to play defensive and maintain position without serious striking or sub attempts. In these cases, the opponent being controlled could easily outperform them in areas of damage and offensive output. I've seen it a lot, actually. If they don't, then the blankets actually IS winning all areas and deserves the 5-0. Either way, inactivity/stalling is not rewarded.
In your example where he's simply controlling the opponent, if he doesn't inflict any damage, and doesn't work to finish - that could be a 3-2 round rather than a 5-0.
If the opponent was working subs, even unsuccessfully, they could earn the Aggression/Output point; and if they are throwing more strikes from the bottom than GSP was from the top they could earn the striking and damage points. It is actually possible for a lay-n-pray fighter to lose a round 2-3 if all they did was control position and out-grapple their opponent.
As for late-fight motivation to finish - if a fighter is up 3-2 in each of the first 2 rounds (6-4 aggregate), it is entirely possible for "coasting" to result in a loss. If they do not engage and evade contact they'd lose both the aggression/output and the control points (basically tying the bout with the remaining 3 categories being the deciding factor in the final round). The fighter "coasting" would HAVE to do something other than evade in order to NOT lose the round 4-1. That would lose them the fight. If they were up by a higher margin, it would be more difficult for the opponent to come back, but the scoring still wouldn't benefit stalling. It would actually incite the opponent (way down on the cards) to be super-aggressive in later rounds...which tends to make for exciting finishes anyway.
BTW - thanks for discussing this.
Fobby - Here's the real fix. 10-10 rounds unless there is a clear winner. A winner is defined by someone who inflicted more damage than their opponent. I stress, A fighter must CLEARLY inflict more PAIN than their opponent to win the round. Sub attempts don't count. Take downs do not count for anything.I like that I really have no idea why judges won't use 10-10 rounds. There's so many cases where there's 2 very close rounds that could go either way then a dominant but not quite 10-8 round. And the opponent wins off of the 2 close rounds. For example rampage vs machida.
I hate seeing guys go for the takedown with 15 seconds left. Dumbest shit ever.
If 2 rounds were a tie, the third found would be huge motivation for the fighters to finish the fight somehow, or have the fight conclude as a draw.
Your welcome

bump