Why 10-10 Draw Rounds Nonexistent?

Why dont they ever have draw rounds (no, I'm not talking about those resulting from a foul resulting in the loss of a point)?

Some fights may just need to be scored draws, and either result in an extra round or a draw decision. Or so it seems reasonable to me, at least.

I remember Freeman and the guy from lions den tying without a point deduction...I think.

also is that why its called a must system? cause someone "must win" each round?

ohhhhh - i didnt know that.....

then they should change that shit!

In Japan i watched some fights Draw Justice

When I was doing the commisioner role for Shooto we used to have a serious problem with people judging rounds 10-10. I had to get on the judges and make them pick a winner. Two guys train hard and come to fight, lay it on the line in the ring, as a judge you gotta step up and have some balls and pick a winner.

LOFL @ using boxing scoring for MMA.. does a knockdown automatically equal a 10-8?

no, but draw decisions or Overtime rounds seem rational to me.

"So if both guys train their hearts out and fight a great, and EVEN fight. One should go home with a loss?"

No they shouldn't. I have seen a few draw fights (and I have judged and scored a few draw fights) but in most situations if you go by the scoring guidelines given you will be able to determine the winner of each round. Most of the 10-10 rounds I have ever scored is because both fighters did hardly anything to win the round (circling, being cautious, etc.), it wasn't because both had a great round.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Shooto gives 1 point deductions for knockdowns (similar to boxing) and for catches (almost being submitted).

IMO, there should be more 10-10 rounds scored in MMA. That means there will be more draws, but it's the only fair way to score some fights.

If we MUST use the 10-point system (which I don't think is the best way) then there definitely should be more draw rounds, and also more 10-8, 10-7 rounds.

I like the Tito/Forrest example someone else used. That first round was as brutal a beating as someone could take without being KO/TKO'd, but because of the current system, many people thought Forrest won by eeking out the last two rounds. There's no way that should be equivalent.

ive judged over 100 fights this year alone and i have two more events to
judge in the next 3 weeks... ive only given 1 (ONE) 10-10 round in all of
those fights, and that was because both guys fought their butts off and
the round was dead even. takedowns were even, striking, aggression, ring
control was all even... 10-10 round... ive also only given out ONE 10-8
round this year.

i think the reason there arent more 10-8 and 10-7 rounds is because
rounds that would be scored 10-8 or 10-7 usually get stopped by a
submission or a TKO... unlike boxing where they are allowd to recover...
big difference...

"When I was doing the commisioner role for Shooto we used to have a serious problem with people judging rounds 10-10. I had to get on the judges and make them pick a winner. Two guys train hard and come to fight, lay it on the line in the ring, as a judge you gotta step up and have some balls and pick a winner."

i find this to be soooooo stupid. the pressure should be to judge properly based on clearly defined scoring criteria, not to 'pick a winner'. there should be way more 10-10 rounds. it's a lame boxing tradition imo.

"i think the reason there arent more 10-8 and 10-7 rounds is because rounds that would be scored 10-8 or 10-7 usually get stopped by a submission or a TKO"

Based on what? The whole number thing is just random anyway. If a round that has no clear winner can be scored 10-9, then why is there such a disparity between that and 10-8. You go from an almost even round being scored 10-9, to a situation where one fighter has to almost kill the other to warrant 10-8. It doesn't make any sense, and if we're going to keep the 10-point system, it needs to be reevaluated and not used like boxing.

"i find this to be soooooo stupid. the pressure should be to judge properly based on clearly defined scoring criteria, not to 'pick a winner'."

True but that's what you use the scoring criteria for. To figure out who the winner is.

"LOFL @ using boxing scoring for MMA.. does a knockdown automatically equal a 10-8?"

exactly. someguy will get his ass whooped for an entire round w/ no knockdowns and get only 10-9. someguy will lay and pray while getting sub attempts on him and actually win (?) a round 10-9. Then, a striker lands a glancing blow, the grappler pulls guard to defend and gets right back up and the douche boxing judges give a 10-8 because of knockdown, when the guy that pulled guard may have even won the round. judges should have skill in both grappling and striking. it's fucking ridiculous how unqualified some of these 'judges' are..

well, the whole system is retarded. i mean why are there 10 points? is it because 10 is easier than 5 for ppl who suck at math? why not just award a point to the winner, 2 points if he dominates, and -1 point if he fouls? anyway, all of that is besides the point.

the point is, as oleg2004 said, sometimes draws are far more fitting than controversial win decisions.

also, why not include extra rounds as well?

multiple judges have said that they are pretty much expected not to give any 101-10 rounds cause the fans want a winner. I don't agree with it, but I understand the logic I guess.

I like what they did in TUf for draws at the end of 2 rounds though, they went to a sudden death. I think that would be a good idea for 3 or 5 round fights if there is a draw. In other words, allowing that rule would give judges more leniency to give 10-10 rounds.

well thats just silly, imo.

I like the old school Brazilian Vale Tudo rules (TUF Noobs don't need to read anymore) if one person didn't win by submission, knockout or TKO the fight was declared a draw.

Makes sense to me.