10 point scoring system explained

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » 10 point scoring system explained
SmileR
12/6/10 2:36:29PM
I'd like to start off this thread by firstly saying this is not aimed at anyone in particular but after reading some of the recent posts I thought it might need explaining to some people.
I know its kind of an ass-hole thing to do but some of the posts I've read recently have been crazy.

The scoring system:

10-10:
A 10-10 rounds should be rare, judges should be able to distinguish a winner if warranted but if not a 10-10 round is awarded.

9-9:
9-9 rounds are only awarded when the winner of that round is deducted a point. There should be no other reason to score a round 9-9.

10-9:
A 10-9 round will be scored for round the winner. This score is set regardless if it is razor thin or a clear cut round! Either way the winner gets 10 and loser of the round gets 9.

10-8:
A 10-8 round should be rare! The only time a 10-8 should be given is if the loser was knocked down repeatedly or completely dominated everywhere the fight went.

A recent example of a clear 10-8 round is the first round of Brock vs Carwin. That fight could have easily been stopped, Brock was dropped and dazed several times, dominated in the clinch and on the ground while offering little to no offence. This is the type of domination needed to award a 10-8.

10-7:
Although technically possible10-7 rounds should never be awarded in MMA! I've seen a few posts saying a 10-7 round should awarded, but this is nonsense! Any MMA judge that has actually passed a test will tell you it is pointless in MMA and shouldn't be awarded.
For a start if you award one fighter a 10-7 and the next two rounds his opponent wins quite easily he still loses the fight despite wining 10 minutes of a 15 minute fight. For a completely dominant round in MMA a 10-8 should be and usually is awarded.

(10-7 is a relic dragged through from the 10 point scoring system in boxing, even now you'll struggle to find a 10-7 round in boxing, which has 7 to 9 more rounds than MMA)


Again I know its a petty thing to post and I'm going to get flamed but some of the discussions on here recently (Especially because of poor official judging) have needed addressing.




bojangalz
12/6/10 3:32:28PM
I'm going to do my best not to flame here. But I believe that maybe you should change the name of the title to 10-point must scoring system opinionated instead.

Here's exactly how it's written in the Unified Rules of MMA straight from NJACB




(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round ;

2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.




Your "explanation" states:


A 10-10 rounds should be rare, judges should be able to distinguish a winner if warranted but if not a 10-10 round is awarded.


This is the biggest problem with opinions about the 10 point must scoring system. The idea that judges should be able to distinguish a winner in nearly every round is a big part of the problem with the sport today. So many times a round is won on the idea that one or two extra shots (no matter how little effect they may have had) is enough to win a round is silly imo. The fact is with the evolution of the sport as far along as it is; more and more fights are going to be so closely contested that a far greater percentage of fights should have 10-10 rounds when scored properly.

It's not at all inconceivable to score two rounds 10-10 and still have a clear cut winner at the end of the fight. (see Tibau vs Guillard. First and second were so close that they should have easily been scored 10-10. Tibau came out and clearly won the third and deserved to win the fight.)



A 10-8 round should be rare! The only time a 10-8 should be given is if the loser was knocked down repeatedly or completely dominated everywhere the fight went. Basically meaning, the fighter that lost was lucky not to have the fight stopped.


This is another issue I have. No where does it state that a fighter has to be nearly finished to lose a round 10-8. A fighter should be awarded a 10-8 round when he/she displays "overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling." A perfect example of this that almost everyone misses is R3 of Forrest/Tito 2. Griffin was never near finishing the fight but if that wasn't overwhelming dominance, than I don't know what is. Had that round been scored properly there would have been no split decision. Thankfully the right fighter won anyway.

Wanna see a 10-7 Round? Sadollah v Baroni R3. End of story.


Better/proper utilization of 10-10 and 10-8 rounds are what the sport needs. Opinions about how either round should be "rare" don't help in my opinion. We don't need to add additional criteria and gray area definitions like "near finish" and so on. We simply need judges who know what they are watching, and know how to properly administer the scoring system that is in place. Not trying to flame at all here, but I think you've missed the boat quite a bit with your post.
grappler0000
12/6/10 4:03:20PM
A bit off topic, but to just supplement what bojangalz has already said...I've read on multiple occasions where particular commissions instruct their judges to always score a winner for every round. I'm not sure if it's their attempt to reduce the number of draws or what the reasoning is, but that really shouldn't be their concern...not to mention it's technically not doing their job properly. So you have uneducated judges, who can't always see all of the action (due to the lack of monitors)...and then they do a flip of the coin on a close round. It's no wonder sh*t is screwed up.
Pookie
12/6/10 4:27:11PM
The first round of Benji Radach's last fight was the definition of a 10-7 round.

Baroni v. Sadollah round 3 i would still score as 10-8.

SmileR
12/6/10 4:40:43PM
I'm with you when it comes to people believing every round deserves a winner. Some don't and the Tibau vs Guillard fight is a perfect example. Both those round should have been scored equal, but again rounds like those are rare. Its not often when two guys fight that its that close.

I'd say they where 10-10 rounds. But what I said actually backs that up. Judges should be able to distinguish a winner if warranted in the round, and if not a score of 10-10 is awarded.


This is another issue I have. No where does it state that a fighter has to be nearly finished to lose a round 10-8. A fighter should be awarded a 10-8 round when he/she displays "overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling." A perfect example of this that almost everyone misses is R3 of Forrest/Tito 2. Griffin was never near finishing the fight but if that wasn't overwhelming dominance, than I don't know what is. Had that round been scored properly there would have been no split decision. Thankfully the right fighter won anyway.


You're right when it comes to it not stating the fighter needs to be nearly finished to be given a 10-8 but everything else you said I had already posted. The only difference was the example we used. Forrest did deserve a 10-8 round because he dominated the fight everywhere it went for the entirety of that round but so did Carwin.
I will however remove the "Basically meaning, the fighter that lost was lucky not to have the fight stopped." part from my original post.

Although I do stand by what I said about them being rare, its not often I see a round and think that was a 10-8, where as on here recently people have been throwing out "10-8 examples" that clearly aren't.



Wanna see a 10-7 Round? Sadollah v Baroni R3. End of story.


I've got to disagree with you on this though, Baroni was throwing and landing, in that round. A 10-8 for sure, Amir clearly dominated I even think it was the most leg kicks landed in a MMA match at the time, but Baroni hit him more than once and although outclassed Baroni did land and did it more than once.

A example of a 10-7 and pretty much the only time it was used properly recently is Pacquaio - Marquez round 1. Marquez connected with something like 4 shots if i can remember rightly. But was dropped 3 times, dazed for pretty much the whole second half of that round and was out punched by something like 14-1.
bojangalz
12/6/10 6:54:06PM
I understand what you mean about 10-8's being a rarity in MMA. I just didn't like the way you worded it. The thought that 10-8 round "should" be rare suggests that judges should be reluctant in awarding them. Hope that makes sense.
bojangalz
12/6/10 7:05:19PM

Posted by grappler0000

A bit off topic, but to just supplement what bojangalz has already said...I've read on multiple occasions where particular commissions instruct their judges to always score a winner for every round. I'm not sure if it's their attempt to reduce the number of draws or what the reasoning is, but that really shouldn't be their concern...not to mention it's technically not doing their job properly. So you have uneducated judges, who can't always see all of the action (due to the lack of monitors)...and then they do a flip of the coin on a close round. It's no wonder sh*t is screwed up.



lol, it's not just commissions grappler. The UFC's own Marc Ratner has gone on record numerous times lambasting judges who score rounds 10-10. He was the former head of NSAC before becoming VP of regulatory Affairs for ZUFFA. He's the one who decides which judges to take with the promotion when they go overseas and to places that do not have a regulatory body in place. His personal position is that every round has a winner and it's not professional to call a round a draw. Thanks for helping propel the sport forward.

Another huge problem is Dana always trumpeting that stupid phrase "Don't let it go to the judges." How about don't let the judges ruin the sport instead! Don't get me wrong, I love to see a finish; but that's not always possible. Just ask Evan Dunham. I'm not sure what more he could have done to try and finish the Sherk fight. Still got screwed.

It's a great marketing ploy by the boss though; I'll give him that much. He's in the business of selling excitement to the tune of $50 bucks every 2-3 weeks. It makes perfect sense for him to tell his fighters repeatedly not to let the fight go the distance. But because of the traction his words get with man UFC fans that phrase has become a common theme amongst those who follow the sport. And it misses the point completely. Fighter's shouldn't have to feel as though their pocket book should be threatened just because they couldn't finish a fight. If they clearly won, they deserve that recognition from competent judges. End of story.
grappler0000
12/7/10 12:47:09AM
Oh, I totally agree...I've always hated that phrase and have made it known.
Related Topics