10 point must system or Overall scoring?

Lately there have been a lot of disagreements with the scoring system in MMA. The Rampage-Machida and Sanchez-Kampman fights being the obvious ones. The 10 point must system is the major cause for this in my opinion and something needs to be done. My suggestion is to get rid of it and at the end of the fight each judge says who won the fight overall. In basketball you don't win a game by winning more quarters and in baseball you don't win by winning more innings.

Your thoughts and opinions?

10 point must system is the most effective way for scoring a combat sport ......IF YOU HAVE GOOD JUDGES

Not really. Rampage won 2 rounds against Machida but overall Machida should've won that fight.

Basketball and baseball have cumulative scoring. MMA should as well.

Jamal wrote:

Not really. Rampage won 2 rounds against Machida but overall Machida should've won that fight.

what a joke argument

you just admitted Rampage won 66 % of the fight yet Machida should have won, see the flaw in your argument.

look we get it, you are on a Diego won campaign, go watch UFC fights where they judged the fights as a whole, we had some whack ass results.

Go rewatch Rutten vs Randleman, Burnett vs Miletich, etc.

Bird...Rampage won two rounds by scoring a go nowhere takedown and a punch here and there. Machida trumped everything Rampage did the whole fight within the first 2 minutes of the third round and laid an even bigger beating after that. Effective scoring is how something with only a few rounds at the most need to be scored. Machida did more damage, he did more things that earn points in one round alone...but since Rampage did a little more of practically nothing in the first 2 rounds he wins? BS and Rampage thought so as well.

FIGHTS HAVE ROUNDS FOR A REASON, this isnt 1800's boxing were we fight 60 rounds until we have a winner

Machida ran backwards 90 percent of that fight and DID NOT COUNTER EFFECTIVELY, he lost that fight sorry.

I understand that is HOW they score it..but they should not.

The rounds should be a rest period because 5 minutes of punching, kicking, grappling can be very tiresome and the fight should be judged by WHO DID MORE where in the example of Jackson-Machida..Machida did far more. If you don't see the logic in the fighter who DOES MORE winning then there is nothing to discuss here.

Round 1- Rampage lands a punch, maybe another one

Round 2 - Rampage lands a takedown, maybe a punch

Round 3 - Machida lands several punches, kicks to the face, knocks rampage down, mounts him, holds position for a bit, lands gnp, attempts a sub.

Yeah, WINNER..RAMPAGE.

3 rounds is not enough to do it by a round by round basis. It's a commission thing that failed to distinguish MMA from boxing when it comes to scoring. Japan had it right, and i'd think if Dana White and US promoters had the power..they would do it via effective scoring as well.

10 point must system just does not work in MMA, the only thing that fails worse than it is the judges perception of what scoring actually is...which came into play last night with the Kampmann/Sanchez fight.

What about scoring it like amateur wrestling? There are still rounds but they use an overall score. In wrestling you get x amount of points for an escape, takedown, reversal, near fall and I know they use to give what is called "riding points" where if you where in control for so long you got a point. Maybe you could have something similar for mma, just a thought.

KingsOwn19 wrote:

I understand that is HOW they score it..but they should not.

The rounds should be a rest period because 5 minutes of punching, kicking, grappling can be very tiresome and the fight should be judged by WHO DID MORE where in the example of Jackson-Machida..Machida did far more. If you don't see the logic in the fighter who DOES MORE winning then there is nothing to discuss here.

Round 1- Rampage lands a punch, maybe another one

Round 2 - Rampage lands a takedown, maybe a punch

Round 3 - Machida lands several punches, kicks to the face, knocks rampage down, mounts him, holds position for a bit, lands gnp, attempts a sub.

Yeah, WINNER..RAMPAGE.

3 rounds is not enough to do it by a round by round basis. It's a commission thing that failed to distinguish MMA from boxing when it comes to scoring. Japan had it right, and i'd think if Dana White and US promoters had the power..they would do it via effective scoring as well.

10 point must system just does not work in MMA, the only thing that fails worse than it is the judges perception of what scoring actually is...which came into play last night with the Kampmann/Sanchez fight.

Round 1 Machida does absolutely nothing, Rampage does more
Round 2 Machida does nothing, Rampage lands some shots and takes him down
ROund 3 Machida controls the round

2 rounds to 3 pretty simple

so did Tiago Silva beat Rashad
Did Rampage beat Rashad

?????

thats not a good scoring system if so

OU wrote:

What about scoring it like amateur wrestling? There are still rounds but they use an overall score. In wrestling you get x amount of points for an escape, takedown, reversal, near fall and I know they use to give what is called "riding points" where if you where in control for so long you got a point. Maybe you could have something similar for mma, just a thought.

Interesting. However, it would depend on how each thing was scored...knowing american judges...takedown=100 points and a whole round of effective striking = 20 points.

but if there was like a scoreboard or something then somebody see's they are up 2-0 and start stalling, or avoiding to fight to protect a lead then that can be horrible.

effective scoring is the invisible scoreboard...it does not always work because there is still always judges perception but atleast it does not come down to three to five sepeate fights when one guy can win two rounds with two punches and lose the third round by sodomy and still win the fight.

KingsOwn19 wrote:

OU wrote:

What about scoring it like amateur wrestling? There are still rounds but they use an overall score. In wrestling you get x amount of points for an escape, takedown, reversal, near fall and I know they use to give what is called "riding points" where if you where in control for so long you got a point. Maybe you could have something similar for mma, just a thought.

Interesting. However, it would depend on how each thing was scored...knowing american judges...takedown=100 points and a whole round of effective striking = 20 points.

but if there was like a scoreboard or something then somebody see's they are up 2-0 and start stalling, or avoiding to fight to protect a lead then that can be horrible.

effective scoring is the invisible scoreboard...it does not always work because there is still always judges perception but atleast it does not come down to three to five sepeate fights when one guy can win two rounds with two punches and lose the third round by sodomy and still win the fight.

Yeah I was thinking they can just use the same concept but adapt it. I don't like the idea of showing the score, that is something I wouldn't want them to do. But if they could figure out some way to adapt the scoring for mma it might work. Again it's just a thought.
You would still have the cards read at the end of the fight, but the scores would just be completely different.

I can't see point scoring like amateur wrestling. It cannot account for power, guys getting hurt, being in danger etc.

I think 10 point is fine, just use more of the spectrum. as farmer said, lets see more 10-7's, 10-8's, 10-10's.

captain organic wrote:

I can't see point scoring like amateur wrestling. It cannot account for power, guys getting hurt, being in danger etc.

I think 10 point is fine, just use more of the spectrum. as farmer said, lets see more 10-7's, 10-8's, 10-10's.

Yeah it would be very hard to figure out what value to put on certain things. But they might be able to figure something out if they just play around with it.

captain organic wrote:

I can't see point scoring like amateur wrestling. It cannot account for power, guys getting hurt, being in danger etc.

I think 10 point is fine, just use more of the spectrum. as farmer said, lets see more 10-7's, 10-8's, 10-10's.

The more varied scores would in the end score the entire fight, but it still keeps the round by round scoring system so you don't forget what happens earlier in the fight if someone does a little more in the end or if someone gasses.

OU wrote:

captain organic wrote:

I can't see point scoring like amateur wrestling. It cannot account for power, guys getting hurt, being in danger etc.

I think 10 point is fine, just use more of the spectrum. as farmer said, lets see more 10-7's, 10-8's, 10-10's.

Yeah it would be very hard to figure out what value to put on certain things. But they might be able to figure something out if they just play around with it.

A governing body needs to look at past fights, find several very good examples for what a 10-7, 10-8, 10-9, & 10-10 would be, and train judges on the new scale.

Birdofthad wrote:

so did Tiago Silva beat Rashad
Did Rampage beat Rashad

?????

thats not a good scoring system if so

Uhh no. Rampage didnt do more in a few minutes than Rashad did the whole fight. He did much much less and even went back to losing the fight after he knocked him down, and two of the judges thought he even lost that 5 minute fight.

Silva-Shad is blurry but i remember Rashad scoring a lot of takedowns, staying busy on that front but never keeping Silva down for a duration and never doing any damage...and then Silva had him hurt but failed to finish. It would have been interesting in Japan where takedowns arent as valued.

You're simply not understanding bird. Rashad was SCORING a lot in those fights in all rounds and those guys didnt match it, or atleast Rampage DEFINETLY did not. Pride would have scored it unanimously for Rashad as well, not even close. Rampage just didnt do enough in the fight with Machida..he didnt control, he scored few and far between and then he got destroyed for 5 minutes straight.

I mean, look at the fight metric for it(which was infallible to you when you wanted to back up your opinion of Fitch-Penn)..the effective scoring is not even close despite the 10 point must system scoring it a draw...Machida was more effective by nearly 100 points. Metric is based on perception of the guys making it...but 100 is usually the gaps you see a huge blowouts when looking at fight metric...it just shows how far off the ten point must system is in relation to effectiveness.

Bird I love you man but I'm going to have to side with KingsOwn19 in this. Basically everything he said in this topic is spot on.

Im with Bird there is a reason there are rounds. If u dont want them to score round by round just put 15 minutes on the clock and let them fight. Then u can judge the fight as a whole.

If they want to score it by rounds then they should'nt make it 10-9 must.

I'm with bird on this one

If ur gonna judge a fight as a whole then have one 15 minute round...

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/3/31/2082583/dana-white-open-to-a-sudden-death-round-to-eliminate-draws-in-the-ufc
Dana White open to a sudden death round to eliminate draws in the UFC: (via a viewer question on TUF 13: The Aftermath)
Question: You do it on TUF, this would be an awesome addition.
Dana White: "Yeah I don't disagree with that. I hate draws. I think it's such a waste of everybody's time and energy. It's something that I would definitely explore."

What happens if that round is a draw also?