Message Boards

10-4???

Wow Roni, I must respectfully disagree on this one. Under the current system a 10-4 is ludacris.

You would have to completely restructre the Unified scoring system for this to work. If you want a 10-4, the "ten point must" system, at least as it is set up in the unified rules of combat under which all major North American promotions operate, this is almost impossible. Here is a quote from the rules:

"19) OBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA:

10-10 Round

A) When both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round.

B) When both contestants suffer equal numbers of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes and neither shows clear dominance in a round.

10-9 Round

A) When a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers.

B) When a contestant remains in the guard position with no fighter having an edge in striking or grappling, the fighter who scored the legal takedown wins the round.

10-8 Round

A) When a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

B) When a contestant adversely affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.

10-7 Round

A) When a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

B) When a contestant detrimentally affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded."-This is where it ends.

Under the ten point must system, there is no such thing as a 10-6 round, let alone a 10-4.

Now that I've done that meanness, let me say that I fully support a half point must system, which I think would effectively accomplish what Roni is getting at here.

Take the Machida Rampage fight for example. I think that Quinton edged the first two rounds 10-9, very closely, and lost the last one 10-9. Under the Ten Point Must this leads to Rampages hand raised even though he "got his ass whooped."

Half point must, that fight goes 10-9.5 Rampage, 10-9.5 Rampage, and 10-8.5 Machida. Then we have Machida winning that fight 29-28.5, which seems far more reasonable.

What are your thoughts?

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 11:56 AM ET  12.09 by JimJ77 Can't make it up

I believe Doc Hamilton has brought up the half point system. It kind of makes sense and is better than what we currently have but I think I'd rather just see judges score more 10-10 or 10-8 rounds. Seems the 10 must point system is not going anywhere.

Yes, Doc is its biggest champion.

They are experimenting with it in California at the Ameteur level. If all goes well Cali might change, then more people would be open to it.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 04:51 AM ET  12.09 by Clouis_39

10-4???Wow Roni, I must respectfully disagree on this one. Under the current system a 10-4 is ludacris. You would have to completely restructre the Unified scoring system for this to work. If you want a 10-4, the "ten point must" system, at least as it is set up in the unified rules of combat under which all major North American promotions operate, this is almost impossible. Here is a quote from the rules:"19) OBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA:10-10 RoundA) When both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round.B) When both contestants suffer equal numbers of legal knockdowns, takedowns, and strikes and neither shows clear dominance in a round.10-9 RoundA) When a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers.B) When a contestant remains in the guard position with no fighter having an edge in striking or grappling, the fighter who scored the legal takedown wins the round.10-8 RoundA) When a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round. B) When a contestant adversely affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded.10-7 RoundA) When a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.B) When a contestant detrimentally affects his opponent by knocking him down from a legal strike, threatening submission attempts, throwing, legal striking while standing or grounded."-This is where it ends.Under the ten point must system, there is no such thing as a 10-6 round, let alone a 10-4.

C, when I say 10 points, I mean a system that you can score "up up 10 points"
What you wrote is what i would call ludacris

it is the same as if you would say something cost a "cheap 10 dollars" as opposite to an "expensive 10 dollars". What would this even mean? Both are the same price.
Obviously somethings are better than ones for 10 dollars, but unless you have a "true" 10 points where you can score from 10 points all the way down to 1 (or even to 0), then you will not be in a true 10 points system.

In the round we are talking about, Silva was almost KO'd and then dominated without launching any offense.
He took multiple unanswered power hits and the only thing he did was survive! I stand by my 10-4.

In the Machida/Rampage, if you would score the last round as it should have been scored, Machida would win the fight as he did much more damage, and had Rampage in mount.

The point here is: Let it be 10 points. but score as it is 10 popints, not as this is a 3 points system (with possibles 10, 9 or 8).

I don't like the half point system. I like the 10-point must system. The problem is that judges never give 10-8 rounds and it is killing the sport. No matter how dominant someone is in a round the judges give 10-9 rounds. If someone is clearly dominating a round they deserve a 10-8 score. The only time it should be 10-9 is if the round is very close but one person did slightly more damage. For a round to be 10-7 it should only happen if someone is completely dominating someone else from bell to bell.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 05:28 PM ET  12.09 by HarryHood

I don't like the half point system. I like the 10-point must system. The problem is that judges never give 10-8 rounds and it is killing the sport. No matter how dominant someone is in a round the judges give 10-9 rounds. If someone is clearly dominating a round they deserve a 10-8 score. The only time it should be 10-9 is if the round is very close but one person did slightly more damage. For a round to be 10-7 it should only happen if someone is completely dominating someone else from bell to bell.

Harry,
How is this a 10 point system?
If the domination is from bell to bell (like on Silva's first round), then why is it a 10-7?

If this is a 10 points system, how come you only use from 7-10? What is wrong in using 1-6 also?

This is where the current logic abandons me...

I mean I don't think the 10 point must is flawless, but I think it's serviceable and I can't think of a better system to use. I think the 10-point must works perfectly fine if judges use scores other than 10-9 and actually implement 10-10 and 10-8 rounds, which currently are an extreme rarity.

Do you have any suggestions for a better way to score fights? I have never heard any other suggestions on how to score MMA and I would be intersted in knowing if there are other scoring systems out there.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 10:02 AM ET  12.10 by HarryHood

I mean I don't think the 10 point must is flawless, but I think it's serviceable and I can't think of a better system to use. I think the 10-point must works perfectly fine if judges use scores other than 10-9 and actually implement 10-10 and 10-8 rounds, which currently are an extreme rarity.Do you have any suggestions for a better way to score fights? I have never heard any other suggestions on how to score MMA and I would be intersted in knowing if there are other scoring systems out there.

Well, I have 2 solutions:
1) as I noted, IMO the 10 points would be more effective if you would judge using all 10 available points. All the way from 10-1 to 10-10. That gives more flexibility and will allow matches such as Rampage & Machida to award the victory for the guy even if he dominated only one round like it happened. it also gives hope to guys that are behind. as a commanding round can save them even if they are behind the scorecards.

2) a second way to judge, and IMO better is to start from 0-0 each round. then award points for each thing that happens. So instead of going down, you will be adding up.
You can even standardize it.
i.e. each takedown is worth 0.15 points
Each Power shot (that lands) = 0.5
Each leg kick 0.5
Each takedown defense = 0.1 (thus almost neutralizing the takedown)

Then they sum it all up and the one with the most points wins!!!

I'll maintain my stance:

- Get rid of the 10-point must system

- Judge the fight as a whole

And I cannot see a single reason NOT to do it like this, while the 10-PT must system has seen its share of blunders.

while I have nothing against pride rules, I have to disagree with you.
The blunders occurred not because of the 10 points (if it is used as I noted).

It happened because of incompetent judges and the fact the 10-point must system is used as a 3 points system where most of the time people are just afraid to vote anything other than 10-9.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 04:15 PM ET  12.10 by Roni

while I have nothing against pride rules, I have to disagree with you.The blunders occurred not because of the 10 points (if it is used as I noted). It happened because of incompetent judges and the fact the 10-point must system is used as a 3 points system where most of the time people are just afraid to vote anything other than 10-9.

If you want anything other than 10-9,10-8 and the occasional 10-7, you are voting for a new system. The ten point must does not contain these.

I like the Pride System, but it leaves too much room for judges to run wild.

I like the Ten Point must system more for America, with judges not as well educated as the Japanese and Matt Hume.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 04:21 PM ET  12.10 by Clouis_39

If you want anything other than 10-9,10-8 and the occasional 10-7, you are voting for a new system. The ten point must does not contain these.I like the Pride System, but it leaves too much room for judges to run wild.I like the Ten Point must system more for America, with judges not as well educated as the Japanese and Matt Hume.

well, that's the thing.

I agree with you that on pride rules it gets too much power for the judges and giving the level they currently have, it would be even worse than the current system.

That's why i think that giving proper value could work. Also giving a "true" 10 points (where you use all 10 points) would work better than the current system.

Pride rules will only work when MMA is fully established and disseminated as a sport. right now i don't even think the judges fully know it...

Bottom line is that, relatively speaking (considering the total amount of fights both organizations have/ had), there have been many more bad decisions in the UFC than in PRIDE.

well, but that you are being unfair.
You are being oblivious to the fact that the UFC/american events are under rules that came from Boxing (unified rules) and so the judges. This alone brings bad decisions.
You are also not counting that ride did all their events in japan where judges are not just more knowledgeable, they are better formed and have less hidden agendas.
So you get the judges here and give them pride rules without changing anything else, you would have as many or more bad decisions....

QUOTE(#19):

Originally posted 10:41 AM ET  12.11 by Roni

well, but that you are being unfair.You are being oblivious to the fact that the UFC/american events are under rules that came from Boxing (unified rules) and so the judges. This alone brings bad decisions.You are also not counting that ride did all their events in japan where judges are not just more knowledgeable, they are better formed and have less hidden agendas.So you get the judges here and give them pride rules without changing anything else, you would have as many or more bad decisions....

Actually judges in PRIDE had more hidden agendas than UFC judges. Simply because UFC judges are from athletic commissions. PRIDE judges were company employees.

But that's beside what we're talking here.

Some judges in the US are knowledgeable (I said "some"). The problem isn't just that. The problem is that the Unified Rules don't specify things such as "how many points is a takedown worth?", "how many points is a guard pass worth?", "how many points is a good submission attempt worth?", and so forth.

That needs to be built almost from scratch and clearly clarified.

But the 10-PT must system is also a part of the problem. The Machida vs Rampage fight is a terrific example of that.

Anyone who wins the 2 first rounds plays conservative in the 3rd, for example.

Plus the 10-PT must system is applied for fights with 10 rounds or more, where scoring the fight as a whole is a hard task.

But in MMA you have 3 rounds, 5 for championship fights, no need to score the fight like it is done today.