Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


Eddie Goldman


Liver Kick Radio


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Should 10-10 and 10-7 rounds be used by judges in scoring MMA fights?

By Zach Arnold | January 20, 2011

Print Friendly and PDF

On Tuesday, a caller on Jordan Breen’s radio show called in to discuss his experience last week in going through a licensing course in the state of North Carolina for MMA. In short, the caller claimed that he was instructed and taught to not embrace 10-10 or 10-7 rounds for scoring and that on the written tests applicants took, it was clear what answer was supposedly wanted to pass or fail the test. According to the caller, the instructor in question said that scoring 10-10 rounds is unfair to the fighters who train hard and that you should be able to tell who won a round. The same person also allegedly said that you shouldn’t score 10-7 rounds because that would indicate gross negligence on the part of a referee to not stop a fight and that if such an occurrence took place that the referee should be arrested.

(If you’re thinking of a 10-7 round in MMA, think of Cris Cyborg vs. Jan Finney.)

“The unfortunate part and the really chilling part is that the explanations you were given are no different than what are given at the highest levels,” Mr. Breen said in response to the caller.

“That, to me, that could have been Marc Ratner talking. I mean, that is Marc Ratner’s explanation of things.

‘You shouldn’t score 10-10 rounds because you’re supposed to be a professional judge and if you’re a real judge you can tell the difference between who is more effective.’

“And the fact of the matter is, it’s backwards thinking because to say that, you know, ‘oh, well these rounds never happen’ or ‘this isn’t the right way to score things.’ Well, what if, like there are so many things that can happen in a round and, OK, if a 10-7 round happens and, you know, it’s unconscionable that the referee let it go, OK, arrest the referee after. You still have to score the round. What, you scored a 10-8 and then… what? The referee just gets arrested after and no mentions that it was a worse than 10-8? This doesn’t even make sense. Whether or not the referee did a good job doesn’t make you exempt from scoring the round properly, like it’s not even a sensical thing. Like, to say, ‘oh, well, 10-7 is the worst thing because if it happens the ref didn’t do his job.’ Oh, is that to say that referees always do their job in MMA? Because I would beg to differ.”

Reacting to the assertion that the instructor wanted specific answers to pass/fail a written test, the Sherdog host said do what you have to do to get your foot in the door.

“The best thing you can do is pass whatever stupid hoops they want you to jump through and then when you’re a man with a score card in front of you, score 10-10s as often as you think are appropriate. I mean, the thing is, the people who are in charge of the system feel that way for a reason. The thing that needs to be said, though, I mean it’s a particular viewpoint which is softening in general, think of it like any kind of social change. Now, obviously 10-10 rounds are less important than other, you know, wide-spanning social changes but these things take time to be decayed and broken down in people’s minds. The fact that we’ve come as far with 10-10s, like the fact that for me, you know, I see someone like Josh Gross who, when, we worked together here at Sherdog, always steadfastly argued with me, like 10-10 rounds, ‘leave those in Shooto, that’s stupid.’ And now when I see him score 10-10 rounds himself and, you know, when I see like major MMA web sites score 10-10 rounds quite liberally, I mean clearly the climate of MMA is changing. It’s something that people didn’t even really discuss until, you know, two or three years ago. So I think we’re moving the right direction but the unfortunate reality is if you’re looking to get licensed, looking to take scoring courses and the like and whatever, you’re going to encounter people who are pretty old-guard and have this idea that, yeah, you never score 10-10 rounds, they never happen, and that, yeah, a 10-7 round, perish the thought because if that happens then the referee didn’t do their job as though that makes any sense whatsoever.”

Recently in Canada, Big John McCarthy held a COMMAND officiating seminar and laid out the way to judge effectiveness of holds/moves during a fight (as opposed to simply scoring a round for a fighter who has top position but does nothing with it.) Mr. Breen told listeners that these types of seminars are great for those who go into them with an open mind to learn but that the bad judges currently in MMA are those who are least likely to take away anything from the seminars.

“Most MMA judges that people who have score cards put in front of them don’t have that level of familiarity. That’s the unfortunate part. For a lot of people, that doesn’t exist. I mean, it says a lot that when judges go astray most people agree on who won a fight. There are always going to be some fights that strongly divide people. Take a fight like the Rampage (Jackson) & (Lyoto) Machida fight. That’s a good example of a fight that some people will feel one way, some people will feel another but it comes down to a fundamental apples vs. oranges kind of argument. It’s not so much about someone blowing it and fundamentally misunderstanding the sport, so much as what’s personal valued. And when get down to that atomic, subjective level, it’s understandable. But most bad decisions in MMA are still decisions that most people, 60%, 70%, 75%, 80% of people feel one person won. Why is that? The people who are responding, the people who are in love with MMA and understand the sport have a much, much more savvy insight than unfortunately the people who are being asked to score these fights. So, the fact that a course for someone who already gets this stuff would help turn their mind onto these things, sure. I mean, think of it like any kind of teaching curriculum. Put someone who’s an absolute blathering idiot in a graduate school scenario. I mean, the hope when you give people higher education is that they are already of a sufficient intellect that they can be turned onto new ideas and respond to them critically. If someone has no ability to do that all, what are the odds that they’re going to get anything out of it? What are the odds that Glenn Trowbridge is going to be able to really appreciate John McCarthy’s thesis on effectiveness? What are the odds of that? Not very great. If people who are really concerned about the well-being of MMA and really love this sport were getting into judging on the whole, it wouldn’t be an issue and that’s why I encourage listeners and readers to do it and take up the cause en masse. And I think it’s, as I’ve said, extremely encouraging to see so many people who e-mail in are like, hey, you know, I took COMMAND this weekend or, hey, I just got a response from my local athletic commission and really, really get involved. That’s a huge, huge step forward because that’s not something that MMA has in any significant number at this point in time. At all.”

Despite the current frustration that many MMA fans have with the crop of judges in the sport, he encouraged everyone to get involved and be pro-active by getting involved in the officiating process.

“Going back to June of last year and talking about the Vancouver athletic commission, Lance Gibson, fought in the UFC, now trains guys in the UFC. He was a judge for UFC 115 where Rich Franklin knocked out Chuck Liddell and on that night he scored two 10-10 rounds. Now, Lance Gibson fought in Japan, fought in pro Shooto, kind of influences his understanding of how 10-10 rounds work. Marc Ratner was reportedly very upset that he did that. It seems ridiculous. Seems ridiculous on a night where you had a guy like Tony Weeks who scored the fight with Tyson Griffin and Evan Dunham for Tyson Griffin. It seems ridiculous that the guy you would be singling out is the guy who scored 10-10 rounds and actually has a clue about MMA. But that’s the state of regulation.

“The only way it’s going to change is if more people continue to bang the drum about 10-10 rounds, 10-7 rounds, and continue to challenge these very archaic and stone-ladened, chiseled-out, prescribed, idiotic principles that have guided judging in Mixed Martial Arts since 2001 and longer. I think we’ll get there, eventually. We’re never going to get to a point where all decisions please everybody but we’ve already moved in a fairly, fairly positive direction. It’s going to change if more people continue to take up arms against the treachery of horrible decisions and get licensed themselves. It’s noble, it’s fantastic, and any one who goes out and does it I think its a fantastic, fantastic contributor and asset to Mixed Martial Arts.”

Topics: Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 49 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

49 Responses to “Should 10-10 and 10-7 rounds be used by judges in scoring MMA fights?”

  1. sam says:

    This whole article is based on hearsay from an anonymous radio caller. In this situation the exact language used is very important.

    How do we even know the caller was even telling the truth or correctly recounting what he was told/instructed?

    The fact of the matter, which no one seems to want to accept, is that scoring fights is VERY subjective and difficult. I’m not defending all bad judging, but people (including commentators, journalists, and especially fighters) unjustifiably complain and criticize judges MUCH more than is appropriate or warranted. This only serves to hurt the mission of improving judging. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf.

  2. Promoters hate 10-10 rounds because they lead to draws. The very reason MMA bouts are 3 rounds and 5 rounds is to obviously to prevent them.

    As for the “These people who are bad judges can’t take anything away from it” sort of statement – what a load of shit. Obviously he goes after Glenn Trowbridge because he’s a “boxing guy”, and MMA folk love to trash boxing and blame it for most of their ills. Any yet, what does this say about Jeff Blatnick? There’s a guy who was instrumental in the design of the rules for MMA and also for the judging standards, and he picked Rampage as the winner. Is he some sort of cancer on the sport because he refuses to learn or adjust? Naturally, he stays away from this. I’m not surprised.

    Look, close fights are close. Trying to make more draws will not have any sort of benefit for the sport or make fans happier. Find me a draw in MMA where the crowd cheered the decision.

  3. Phil says:

    In the current system, I can see why people would be against it, but I think they should have a place in a reworked scoring system (no decimals, we can use the other whole numbers that are forbidden.)

    It’s silly that every round has the same weight, so the system can be fine tuned to make it more accurate. If this tuning results in more tied scores, and it’s a problem, find a way to break the tie. Let the judges make a must decision, have an overtime round, give it to whoever won the most rounds, give it to whoever won the least round (since they had to have a dominating round to make up the difference). Putting fingers in our ears and saying “ties are bad so we’ll keep this inaccurate scoring system,” doesn’t seem like a good plan.

    • 45 huddle says:

      The devil is always in the details. What you say might sound good on the outside, but let’s really get into it….

      Right now it’s so simple. Win the majority of the rounds (with no 10-8’s) and you win the fight.

      If we did what you say:

      1) Must decisions would be the ultimate judges CRUTCH! Any close fights the judges would just get lazy and put a bunch of 10-10 round and then make a verdict in the end. Which basically just turns the round scoring pointless and now you have judging based on the entire fight. That did’t work in the early UFC’s. It wouldn’t work now.

      2) Overtime doesn’t work in fighting. Perhaps in team sports where they aren’t getting kicked in the head. There is a reason why they don’t have overtime in boxing matches. To expect a fighter to put it all on the line for 15 to 25 minutes…. And then potentially have an overtime would be bad news. AND HERE IS A PROBLEM…. What happens if Fighter A should have won the fight in 3 rounds but the judges called it a draw. And then Fighter A gets KO’d in the extra round. Guess what happens? PEOPLE WOULD STILL COMPLAIN!! It doesn’t solve anything. People would just be complaining about the bad draw now and how unfair it was for going an extra round. You can’t stop complaining. Adding more rounds will never fix close fights. NEVER!!

      Lastly, the system is not “inaccurate”. Both fighters know the rules going into the fight. They know they have to win the majority of the rounds. It’s that simple. So if Melvin Guillard wins round 1 by a bigger margin then rounds 2 and 3 that he loses…. He knows based on the rules he loses. He knew going in he had to win 2 rounds. It was his fault for not doing so. That’s not inaccuracy. That’s just a fighter failing to do what is necessary to get the W.

      • The Gaijin says:

        The fact that your ultimate conclusion is “fighter X has to win ROUNDS” is exactly the problem with the current system (and the judges).

        • But this isn’t a real fight. This is a combat sport. If you score the most points over the course of a 4 period NBA game, you win. It doesn’t matter if you outscore the opponent 42-17 in the 4th quarter should you have come into it down 30. I don’t want to see guys dominate 10/12/22 whatever minutes that make up the overwhelming majority of the fight, get hit with a lazy right hand and drop a decision.

          No judging system is perfect. This, honestly, is better than Shooto’s or PRIDE’s or the old UFC system.

        • 45 huddle says:

          The Gaijin,

          No, it’s not the problem. If you can’t come out ahead for 10 of the 15 minutes in the fight…. Then you deserve to lose.

          If Fighter A wins the first round narrowly, then he won the first 5 minutes of the fights. If Fighter A then wins the 2nd round narrowly, then he won the 2nf 5 minutes of the fight.

          So it is established that he won the first 10 minutes of the fight. So why should he lose now? Because the 3rd round was a little more in favor of fighter B?

          Any other system that tries to award points to the fighters…. Which is what is really want happens when you do decimals or the other crazy stuff that happens…. You create even more issues and even worse…. Point fighting.

          Is the system perfect? Nope. But it’s 10 times better then trying to weight each round as to how much the fighter won and then coming up with a final verdict that way. Because that’s exact how you get even worse decisions that people would shake their heads at. Trying to figure out what a 10-9 versus a 10-8.5 round would create such controversy that it would make the current system look perfect by comparison.

          People have a hard enough time figuring out who won a round lately. Now people want them to figure out a far greater range of potential scores? Yikes!!

          And adding in more 10-10 rounds would just kill the fanbase, so that can never happen.

        • The Gaijin says:

          Alan, your analogy isn’t really on point. In your comparison to the NBA/NFL, etc. the team that comes back would have routed their opponent in the 4th quarter while the other three were close enough for them to still be in the game…and ultimately their overwhelming 4th quarter was more evidence of domination than anything done in the first three. If a team wins like that, they still win. So I don’t see why a fight that has two razor close rounds that the current judging system forces you to flip a coin so to speak, couldn’t be decided in the basis of a fighter being the clear and dominant fighter in one of the rounds. The Machida-Jackson fight is the perfect example…while I disagree with Jackson getting the W in the first place (but can see how it could be scored that way under the current system), in no way was he deserving of a win in that fight. He won the “points” in round 1 and 2 and then was utterly dominated and hurt in the 3rd round.

          Ultimately agreed that no system is perfect, but the current one could be fixed in a lot of ways and I don’t agree with the current mindset of “it could be worse” and “we’ve always done it this way”. If we allowed that line of thinking to dominate us we’d still be writing letters and using party line telephones.

        • Then compare it to Tennis instead – you can win a set 7 games to 6 twice, then lose the third and fourth set by wide margins. If you win the fifth 7-6, you still win the match. That’s not any different than MMA or boxing.

          There’s always been a tough time in boxing judging “ring generalship” too, which is the effective equivalent of octagon control. I don’t think there’s an easy answer to that, or someone would have it.

  4. 45 huddle says:

    “Look, close fights are close. Trying to make more draws will not have any sort of benefit for the sport or make fans happier. Find me a draw in MMA where the crowd cheered the decision.”

    This is 100% correct. Close fight as close fights no matter what judging criteria you give them.

    Even though Edgar/Maynard was really a draw…. Fans don’t want that. They want a winner. 10-10 rounds, if used more, could really hurt the sport. And that’s not good. I never use 10-10 or 10-7 when scoring a fight on my own.

    Breen knows the judges don’t use 10-10 but he insists on still using them when scoring a fight. Very silly that guy is.

    Also, I think the scoring is fine. To win a fight (assuming there is no 10-8 round), you have to win the majority of the rounds. That’s as simple as it gets. Go out there and beat your opponent in more of the rounds then he beats you. It’s easy for the fans to understand. It’s easy for the tired fighters to understand. It’s easy for the judges to understand.

    Fighting at its core is basic. The scoring at its core should also be basic. It’s not “archaic”, it’s simplicity at it’s finest. And it should stay that way. I have yet to here a better solution that doesn’t include making it nearly impossible to figure out or turning MMA into point fighting.

    People like Breen complaining about 10-10 annoy me just as much as the fans who complain about the wrestlers taking their opponents down and winning the fights that way. Diaz/Kim is a perfect example. Diaz shows ZERO takedown defense and should lose because of it when he spends the entire round on his back with not really 1 true submission attempt and no real blistering strikes. But people still need to complain about the rules being to much for the wrestlers. I say BS to that too!!

    • Jonathan says:

      I agree with everything here. 10/10 rounds to me, are either a “art nuveau” way of saying you’re an egghead MMA enthusiast. Also, I think that scoring rounds 10/10 are kind of a cop out. In my mind, if you look hard enough, you can find a winner for that round.

      Also, how often CAN you score a 10/7 round? We all agree that a 10/7 round would probably be called by the ref before the round ended….so how many 10/7 round have there been? Two….three….four tops?

      If that is the case, then why is it an issue if it rarely ever happens.

  5. Norm says:

    Zach,

    I know this is WAY off topic, but it did catch my eye and seems like a big story, but will you have any more info/details on the GSP/Spencer split? She took him to unheard of heights sponsership-wise for a MMA fighter and now they are chalking the split up to “different visions” they have for his career. What gives?

    • The Gaijin says:

      Money?

      • The Gaijin says:

        And by money I mean, she’s probably taken him as far as she’s going to be able to and now he’s looking for a manager with the skills/experience needed take him to the next level. Gatorade, Under Armor and RUSHFIT are all great things, but no doubt the plan is to have him make the Tiger/Federer-type push to the next level as the elite guy in his sport (e.g. luxury brands – watches, clothes, cars, etc.). I’m sure CAA is probably in his ear on this one and he’ll end up consolidating all of his handlers with them.

    • Norm says:

      I just saw a piece speculating that John Danaher, his BJJ coach, may be the catalyst for this change along with GSP’s split with Jonathon Chaimberg his S&C coach. IMO, if it isn’t broke don’t fix it. Any other thoughts?

  6. mr. roadblock says:

    The mechanics of the scoring system itself are fine.

    The two flaws with MMA scoring today are the fighters and the judges. Both are fixable.

    First, many fighters today are looking to win a points decision and not finish fights. This is where the close rounds come back to bite them in the butt. If you go out there aiming to dominate and finish your opponent the scoring will take care of itself.

    But how many times do you hear cornermen, especially Greg Jackson or Randy Couture in the Maynard/Edwards fight, tell a fighter what the scorecard is looking like. ‘You’re up a round’, ‘You can’t lose another round’ etc. These are guys who just want to win and don’t care if there’s a finish or not. Fuck ’em if they lose. The anti-boxing crowd can say that happens in boxing too. But there are 10-12 rounds in boxing. You get a better picture of what’s going on. Not a single boxing trainer of guys fighting in 4-round fights will tell them win this next round to get the decision. They say knock his ass out and let’s go home.

    The other problem is the judges. They seem to think taking a guy down and laying on him is something special that should be rewarded with a 10-9 round. Really it should be disregarded. In football you don’t get any points for driving the ball 80 yards downfield. You get points for putting it in the endzone or kicking a field goal.

    Only effective strikes and near submission attempts should count towards scoring.

    If Joe Bob and Pete Stud are fighting and Joe Bob lands 2-1 punches on Pete for the first minute and a half and cuts his face up then Pete takes Joe down and holds him on the cage for the next 3.5 min, Joe Bob should win the round.

  7. edub says:

    I don’t see why scoring a round 10-10 immediately makes the fight a draw (that’s what I get from you guys above, if I’m wrong I apologize). I score fights for fun, and I scored the last round of Edgar-Maynard 10-10. My end score of the fight was 48-47 Maynard by giving the first a 10-8, and the third to Maynard 10-9.

    “Must decisions would be the ultimate judges CRUTCH! Any close fights the judges would just get lazy and put a bunch of 10-10 round and then make a verdict in the end.”

    This is what happens way too much in K1! People get happy with the fact that 10-10 is acceptable so they run with it. What would help is for supposed experts to push the fact that 10-10 rounds are acceptable, but are rare and round winner should be seen most of the time.

    I think there is a place for 10-7 rounds too. I don’t think Maynard-Edgar was one considering Frankie had his feet back under him by the end of the round and landed a few on Maynard. But I do feel there is a place for it. As Zach pointed out Cyborg vs. Finney is a good example.

    Personally I would like to see a complete reworking of the system, by bringing in long time fans, fighters , and writers to start a new judging and scoring criteria. Get rid of all judges who have made a terrible decision in a fight on record, no matter who they are or who they know.

    But that is just a pipe dream.

    • GRZ says:

      “What would help is for supposed experts to push the fact that 10-10 rounds are acceptable, but are rare and round winner should be seen most of the time.”

      Too be fair to Breen he actually did say this. Something along the lines of “The vast majority of rounds are 10-9 but there’s still a place to 10-10 and 10-7 rounds” And i have to say i agree.

  8. EJ says:

    10-10 rounds happen alot and have a place in MMA but people need to get out of here with the 10-7 rounds that’s like a lunar eclipse you almost never see one.

    Like i’ve said in the past the scoring system is fine it’s the fact that alot of judges have no clue how to actually score fights that’s the problem.

    We need to educate and weed out the bad judges who’ve screwed over countless of fighters and robbed them of money, face and sometimes even jobs.

    • Oh Yeah says:

      Do you have examples of 10-7s?

      The way people talk about wanting more liberal 10-7s, it seems like they’d come up more often than 10-8s do nowadays.

  9. Oh Yeah says:

    I endorse the half point system, but it doesn’t seem too popular for whatever reason. I feel that the ability to submit a more developed score in each round is worth the risk of making addition slightly more difficult.

    I’m not really for more liberal use of 10-8s and 10-7s, though. I feel like it’s hardcores trying to do something novel, where it’d be extremely rare that a 10-7 round comes to conclusion, and even 10-8 rounds are not that common.

    Even round: 10-10
    Squeaker: 10-9.5
    Solid round win: 10-9
    Solid, nearing domination – 10-8.5
    Domination – 10-8
    etc..

    I figure the scale would probably bottom out around 10-7, and that would only be called in pretty extreme circumstances – like if Rampage managed to survive Wand’s barrage of knees from Pride.

    • Phil says:

      Half points are not necessary, you can do what you want with whole numbers.

      • Oh Yeah says:

        It keeps 10-9 and 10-8 right where they are so that scoring is on the same scale as it has been historically.

        You say this as if turning the half points into full points means there isn’t a change, when in fact you will end up seeing increased 10-8s and lower #s. I don’t think you can reasonably expect judges to change their scale – but you can give them a chance to be more accurate within the scale they’re already using.

        • Phil says:

          Half points do change things, because you have to take rounds that are currently scored 10=9 and score them 10=9.5 or 10=8.5. This scale argument has no merit, we are making up the scale, we can do whatever we want.

          Adding half points just adds extra confusion and difficulty. Fractions exist to represent in between whole numbers, we don’t need to go in between when there are unused whole numbers and we can just change the scale.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      Let me give you a recent fight that shows why half points are bad….

      Diaz vs. Kim at UFC 125….

      First 2 rounds could have been scored 10-9.5 for Kim. Last round could have been scored 10-9 for Diaz. That’s how it would work for the half point system.

      1) Draws are not good for fans and that scenario would happen far too often.

      2) Kim won 12 minutes of that fight. Why should it be a draw for Diaz coming on strong for the last 3 minutes? But under that scoring system it’s a draw.

      That is how the half point system completely fails. And it would happen so often that fans would be calling for it to be abolished within 6 months.

      • edub says:

        Well if it deserves a draw it deserves a draw. Just because a half point system is added doesn’t mean there will be more draws anyway. Besides people whod have acted the same if there was a draw instead of Kim getting a decision over Diaz. Smothering a person for 10 minutes than getting pieced up on your feet simply shouldn’t be scored the same.

        Ill compare it to Hockey because of the three periods. If the Penguins score once in each of the first two periods against the caps, then the caps score 2 in the final period it is a tie. The Peguins don’t automatically win because they won 40 of the 60 minutes.

        If you want to put in overtime then do it, but fights should be scored correctly. Not what looks good to fans and promoters.

        Also another fight would’ve been a lot more clear with the half point system, Tito Ortiz-Forrest Griffin 2 which I scored for Griffin but looking back should have been a draw:
        Tito Ortiz Rd. 1 10-9.5
        Tito Ortiz Rd. 2 10-9.5
        Forrest Griffin Rd. 3 10-8.5

        29-28.5 Forrest Griffin.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          But Kim/Diaz doesn’t deserve to be a draw. 12 minutes of controlling your opponent should be enough to win a fight under any criteria.

          And what is a 9.5 or 9.0 or 8.5 or 8.0?? What constitutes each score? Even experts would disagree to the point that it renders the scoring system useless.

        • edub says:

          He didn’t control 12 minutes. He controlled 10. If you say he controlled the first two minutes of the last round then Diaz won the last minute (at least) of the first two.

          I think it’s pretty cut in dry that Tito “edged” Forrest in the first 2 of their second fight, and then Forrest beat him up way past a 10-9 in the third.

        • Oh Yeah says:

          What is half an inch vs. a full inch vs. an inch and a half vs. two full inches?

          This isn’t hard.

          And I don’t know where this “most time won” criterion comes from, as if all time where a fighter holds an advantage should be considered equal..

        • The Gaijin says:

          The biggest issue is that these incompetent judges have no problem scoring a round that could go either way or was a 10-10 as a 10-9 but then score a round that clearly goes to one fighter as a 10-9 as well. There needs to be a better way to differentiate a “coin-flip” round from a clear round. The problem is they are using a system borrowed from boxing and in boxing you have 8-10-12 round fights.

  10. robthom says:

    “Should 10-10 and 10-7 rounds be used by judges…?”

    The rules are fairly sturdy.

    (Everybody knows that they should be expanded a bit from the boxing tradition!)

    The mathmatics doesn’t seem to be the problem more then the understanding of the action taking place.

    I’ll admit that I’m not professionally versed in the technicalities of Striking, Wrestling, and submissions.
    But if that was my job I would sure as fluck make sure to be!
    I would assume that those in positions to judge MMA would be required to be trained in every one of the applicable discaplines!
    And vented to be nuetral of bias towards a specific aspect before given power over peoples ability to work and earn a living!

    Are we still being judged by boxers?!

  11. IceMuncher says:

    10-7 rounds should be impossible. It’s the equivalent of winning 3 regular rounds. Since 95% of fights are only 3 rounds, implying there are only 2 remaining rounds, it’s basically saying you automatically win the fight as long as you don’t get finished.

    Even in a title fight (say Maynard vs Edgar), a 10-7 round requires Edgar to win all 4 remaining rounds to win the fight. There’s no way you can establish that much dominance in one round.

    • robthom says:

      “10-7 rounds should be impossible.”

      So if somebody gets the holy stuff kicked out of them but survives it should be a close call on points?

      Thats almost as ding dong as Big Nog winning on points after multiple flying knees from Ricco,
      because “Ricco didn’t finish him” and “Nog wanted to be on the bottom”!

    • robthom says:

      “Since 95% of fights are only 3 rounds, implying there are only 2 remaining rounds, it’s basically saying you automatically win the fight as long as you don’t get finished.”

      ^^

      Although thats an interesting point.

      The almost twice as many rounds changes the percentage for judging.

      Weird.

      Maybe 5 judges for 5 rounds?

    • edub says:

      No that’s not true at all.

      EX: In the fourth if Edgar added a knockdown, and hurt Maynard to the extent of a 10-8 round he would have gotten two points back right there.
      FTR I scored the first of Gray-Frankie 10-8.

      It’s the same if someone loses the first round 10-7 then goes on to win the next two 10-8. He still wins. It’s not very likely, but this is MMA. Unlikely shit happens at each event. There should be a scoring system in place, and qualified judges to enforce it for EVERY situation possible.

      These

  12. Chuck says:

    Hey, maybe we can take something from fencing? In fencing matches, the players have an electronic device on their bodies that when stabbed by their opponent, the stab gets registered as a score automatically. The score can not be denied or disputed. Hell, maybe we should get that for MMA and boxing (I’ll get to why in amateur). Basically punches, kicks, knees, etc. would be scored points (turning it into, yes, point fighting. Taekwondo FTW!) Would that solve any problems? Naw, of course not!

    But in all seriousness, something like this can be great for boxing in the Olympics. If you think scoring in North American MMA is bad, just watch a boxing match from the past few Olympics. It is, by far, the worst scoring system ever. And it was designed because of how badly screwed Roy Jones Jr. was in the 1988 Olympics.

  13. Mirko Mladenovic says:

    I am very proud of the judges I selected for UFC 115. More than six months later I am still getting positive feedback, and especially for Lance Gibson. As a certified IPRO judge I know they tell you “pick a winner”. So when I heard about those even rounds I was worried, but I have come to believe that it was a good thing. Promotions don’t like a draw because it’s not marketable. In order to facilitate change I would urge qualified persons to contact Athletic Commissions and inquire about becoming licensed judges.

    Thanks,
    Former VAC Chair

  14. Steve4192 says:

    10-7 rounds is a non-issue. They almost never happen, so I really don’t care if judges aren’t using them. The reality is, when someone dishes out a 10-7 caliber ass-whooping, the fight gets finished the vast majority of the time. I doubt I have seen more than a handful of legit 10-7 rounds during the entire lifespan of the sport. If a 10-7 only happens once every couple of years, why waste time worrying about it?

    10-10 rounds are fine by me, but they should be used sparingly. Fucking Breen hands ’em out like a pedophile hands out candy on Halloween. Every Sherdog play-by-play has Breen dropping at least a half-dozen 10-10 scores. If you are handing out more than one or two 10-10s per card, then you are using them WAY too often.

  15. klown says:

    While I don’t feel very strongly about judging theory, I just wanted thank all the contributors on this thread for their intelligent contributions. Nowhere else on the internet do I find this quality of discussion.

  16. MMA Tycoon says:

    There is nothing wrong with a draw – it’s just one of three possible outcomes. I wish people would just get over it so that we can have fair scoring.

  17. 45 Huddle says:

    Funniest thing I have been reading online today concerning MMA is some of the fans making a huge deal about Manny/Mosley fight being put on PPV by Showtime instead of HBO.

    And why are they making a huge deal about this? They now think this will put Strikeforce on the map.

    Manny will be fighting on PPV. That won’t increase Showtime subscriptions at all. And the hype show is likely going to be on CBS.

    And a good bet is that if Manny fights a bigger named guy after this, Manny is right back with HBO. It’s not like Arum isn’t doing business with HBO anymore.

    If it comes to a bidding war in the future, HBO has more subscribers and gets more $$$ per subscriber as well.

    • The Gaijin says:

      Thats a pretty generalized and unthought out viewpoint. Showtime has increased subscriber levels in the neighborhood of 40% in the last five or so years while HBO has seen numbers fall off or level out at around 28.5 million (Showtime is about 21-22 million).

      Maybe Showtime throws more money at Manny to swing some momentum in their favor for boxing. The status quo doesn’t mean “forever” so who knows what will happen. Maybe theyve decided with the Strikeforce GP, Super Six finals and swiping Manny that they want to sway the balance for a more integrated combat sports channel…maybe not. The idea that they are actually planning things out and getting their ducks lined up between Sho, CBS and PPV is a promising step for them and maybethats a beta for future events i dont know if its true or not but im not claiming with absolute certainty and a foolishly authoritarian slant either. I know it doesn’t fit your narrative, but these type of sweeping claims with little back up make you sound less than intelligent and we know you aren’t .

      • 45 Huddle says:

        Every major cable and phone company I have seen for TV packages makes it easy to get HBO and harder to get Showtime.

        HBO is often included in bundles more often then Showtime. Showtime you can typically only get if you pay $10 to $20 a la carte…. Or by getting the biggest bundle possible.

        • The Gaijin says:

          Time Warner Cable was offering Showtime, Showtime HD, Starz, etc. for free for three months and as part of their premium package when I signed up.

          Verizon offers a package of Starz, Showtime, The Movie Channel and Encore for $15.99/month. HBO is $16.99/month standalone.

          DirectTV is offering Showtime for 3 months for free and 12.99/month. HBO is $14.99/mo and no free three month offer.

Comments to GRZ

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image