 |
 |
||
 Everyone has been complaining about the judging situation, but no one has really been offering any solutions to fix anything. This is mainly because getting Athletic Commissions to change anything is only possible either after the head has been caught dipping his dick in the company employees (that's how the old saying goes, right?) or if it's the big annual Association of Boxing Commissions MMA rules meeting.Last year they tried to add a whole bunch of new dumb weight classes. This year they locked in the definition of 'back of the head', added greasing parameters, and specified that women can do five minute fights - In yo face, Dr Johnny Benjamin. There is some confusion about what exactly happens to these rules after they're decided on at the rules meeting - from what I hear, each commission has to go and make the appropriate changes afterwards which to me kinda defeats the purpose of the meeting - but still, change CAN happen. And maybe next year the ABC will take a look into Dave Meltzer's suggestion on how to fix MMA scoring: Instead of the current implementation, this suggested system would include half-points. If a round is even, it should be scored 10-10. If it's a close round and someone squeaked it out, go 10-9.5. A 10-9 round would be when there is no doubt who won the round, but the round winner didn't hurt the other fighter to the point a judge would go 10-8. I think most of us are in agreement that it's mainly the judging that sucks and not the scoring, but this new way of scoring would allow even dumb judges to give the obvious score for squeaker rounds: 10-9.5. I'd be lying if I didn't mention that the draws thing worries me slightly, but wouldn't it be nice to have a scoring system that recognizes the difference between a clear win and a squeaker? Ironically, the best system according to Meltzer was the original one the UFC used to use until 2000 where the judges just wrote who won the fucking fight on a slip of paper. At the end of the fight. With a marker. Yep, that's it. Sadly enough, that's way too straightforward to keep doing now, so we're stuck with 10 point must systems and scoring criteria that nerfs submissions, leg kicks, and all sorts of other behavior.  No, no, no. We must first get judges to know what the fuck they're looking at before we give them more tools to make close decisions even closer.I like the idea of naming a winner at the end, but it just doesn't work in practice - too easy for corruption to do it's thing.  The 10 point must system is fine. It's the judges using it that are at fault.If you give the judges more options they'll just score with even more wild inaccuracy. Education, Education, Education is the answer.  argh Anything that gives those assholes even more numbers to fudge should be disregarded immediately.  Education & higher standards for judges. That's it.  Half points are not the answer. Then it would basically be a 20-points must system, just cut in half, which would lead to even worse decisions probably. I say start using 10-10 rounds and using more 10-8 rounds.I respect Meltzer and his inside info(although his pro wrestling bias is fucking stupid and annoying as piss), his idea that just writing the winner down is dumb as hell. Is that not just the PRIDE system of saying whoever the fuck you want to win? ^ Yes, it is. However, in PRIDE, you could write down 'MOAR' as they did with Mezger/Sakuraba, and I don't think Meltzer's advocating that.  is it too early to have older mma guys as judges themselves, or just people with actual fight experienceis it too much to ask for the 3 judges for one to have an extensive career in striking, wrestling/sub grappling/bjj prior to being a judge rather than a gov, official who just happens to watch a ton of fights, or do we need the draw plus extra round option ala k-1?  I say have the fans text message in the score after each round a la American Idol.Sure, you'll say, "what about gambling favortism"? I guess "Johnny McFancybelt" will just have to try harder to finish the fight and not just try to "defend" his belt.  I agree with FacePunch, it makes no difference if it's a 10-point system with whole or half points or a 69-point system or whatever. What would make a difference would be if judges felt more inclined to call 10-10 and 10-8 rounds where warranted, instead of just calling everything 10-9.Really, bad decisions have nothing to do with the point system, it's just bad judging.  Missed subs aren't counted like missed punches? Landing strikes with the largest weapon in your body thrown by the most powerful muscles in the body against the core horsepower generators in your opponents body aren't worth as much as a stiff jab?And you think floating point numbers are the solution? Were you up all weekend smoking and fixing the server? So you guys all seem to think its great that a fighter could win round 1, 10-9, after completely dominating his opponent. And this opponent could squeak out round 2, 10-9 after barely winning by a stupid takedown at the end, while doing no damage? I agree that the reffing is completely ass backwards fuck nut city, but having two rounds so completely different given the same score is atrocious and it happens all the time in this sport. Lets take the last fight off the Ultimage Fighter(Argh I know). Matrione smashes the shit out of his opponent, drops him 2.5 times(the .5 was for when he blocked a leg kick and then punched his opponent while holding his leg) and wins the round 10-9. Second round, the fight goes back and forth with both fighters landing good shots and tubby Mcgee taking down Matrione. Two judges give the round 10-9 to Matrione while one gives it to his opponent(who's fat name escapes me). So say Matrione had lost that round on all the judges scorecards(which he didn't but just for arguments ake), even though it was close, it has the same meaning as the round he won where he completely highschool raped his opponent? / That theoretical round 2 would be scored 10-10 as allowed by the 10 point must system Also if the guy got absolutely smashed in Round 1 it's a 10-8. Simple absolutely smashedThat's too vague a term to be using I think. Some people would call Rothwell's beating a smashing while others wouldn't. I think actual points for work/control done is the only way a sport this complicated can be scored. But fucked if I know what to score things as. Matrione smashes the shit out of his opponent, drops him 2.5 times Yeah, that one probably would've been a 10-8 if he weren't so gassed. I think shit like that really throws off the already confused judges. Are they counting those as truly damaging shots or as clumsy flubbering by both guys?  Further complicating the system judges are using right now is like sending a bunch of kids who are failing algebra into a calculus class. I'm delighted that almost everybody swarmed on this with the same point of view.And I have to agree with Danny P72. Posting hypothetical examples of judges misusing a system does not show the system is inadequate. Evenly matched rounds are 10-10. Ass-whuppins are 10-8. Use the system that's there correctly, and the right guy usually wins.
|
    Skyscraper 120 Right 120x600 |
