Anderson Silva vs. Micheal Bisping; another reminder of why unified rules suck for mma.

Once again we are reminded of why the 10 point must system taken from boxing shouldn't be used to judge mma fights. Logic says the sole purpose of a fight is to inflict more damage to your opponent than he can cause to you. At the end of a fight the question must be asked "which fighter would you prefer to be?" And obviously it's the one who didn't get as banged up and hit as hard, the one who tried to finish the fight landing the more meaningful blows. The fighter that lost in this fight if it were to be judged in a street scenario would definitely have not been the one that needed to go to the hospital and is out for 6 months compared to the other one that is fine to fight again soon.

I sometimes think that zuffa hasn't tried to change these rules because they are ambiguous enough to allow them to manipulate outcomes such as these and award the win to the fighter that makes them more money in the bets. There's a saying that goes "the best way to rob a bank is to own it". So there you have the bettors conspiracy scandal waiting to be investigated. It's not a proven theory but of course there's corruption and the main goal is to make more money. Of course Bisping brings in that England crowd money as well so there is that incentive to keep him up there in rankings and fighting important fights to fill arenas. Bisping is blonde, well spoken and marketable just like the other big time needle movers the ufc has pushed firmly before. He fits the prototype perfectly. The fans of these anglosaxon looking fighters are also white folks who are usually more likely to be well off financially. At least more so than your average Mexican or Brazilian hard worker.


Pride rules had it right because they rewarded the more aggressive and effective fighter who tried to end the fight with more intention and aggresiveness. Too bad mma is fucked in this regard but rizin will shine In contrast as I feel fans will become the wiser to these possible fight fixes.

I didn't see the fight but I agree. The Unified Rules are possibly the worst thing in MMA right now. They're a cancer that needs to be removed and it makes me sick how other countries try to use them. It's a flawed system that doesn't fit in MMA and it's too vague.

I agree, scoring the fight as a whole with damage being the top criteria is the way to score an MMA fight. 10-pt must system has no place in MMA. PRIDE and RIZIN have best scoring system. Anderson won that fight based on these rules.

One reason why draws never occur is because they don't make the company any money

Yup, Pride rules are best and reflect a real fight. 10 point must sucks, especially in a 3 round fight. Plus they don't give out enough 10-7 or 10-8 rounds so you can have one round where almost nothing happens and it's a 10-9 but another round where one guy obviously dominates another guy but it's also 10-9.

In Silva/Bisping, 10 point system, I gave Bisping rounds 1, 2 and 4. But Anderson won the fight as whole through damage and being closer to finishing, though at least Bisping did some damage and did hurt Silva in rounds 1 and 2.

My only worry on judging damage is that some fighter swell or cut easier than others.

We need to put a new system in place where they use catscan machines immediately after the fight to measure which fighter had the worse brain damage and declare a winner.

Longtime Fan wrote:We need to  put a new system in place where they use catscan machines immediately after the fight to measure which fighter had the worse brain damage and declare a winner.

Damn, that'd be wild.. I'd actually really like to see that after thinking about it a bit. That system could actually help regulate out fighters who've taken too much punishment. Realistically, I'm sure that wouldn't be possible for some decades but that's definitely an interesting concept, Longtime Fan.

Lol I was just joking about that.

Mini cat scanner helmets for 2019.

I'll file that next to zero gravity in space mma
And spiked cup holders

Longtime Fan wrote:Lol I was just joking about that.

Mini cat scanner helmets for 2019.

I'll file that next to zero gravity in space mma
And spiked cup holders

LOL...I'd tune in for it.

Its not just the rules its the RING!

ONE FC is still a little meh in a dog cage

then you had rizin and that was fucking amazing

CDF47 wrote:I agree, scoring the fight as a whole with damage being the top criteria is the way to score an MMA fight.  10-pt must system has no place in MMA.  PRIDE and RIZIN have best scoring system.  Anderson won that fight based on these rules.

I say yes and no yes damage should be a part of scoring but at the same time some people do cut and bruise more easily than others i mean if they scored fights by the way someones face looks like then gsp fedor wanderlei nick diaz and all the others would of lost all their fights . 

In my opinion the top criteria should be going for the finish the guy/girl trying to either knock out or tap out their opponent and yes  unified rules do suck blame jon mccain and the other wowsers for that .

westcott123 wrote:

CDF47 wrote:I agree, scoring the fight as a whole with damage being the top criteria is the way to score an MMA fight.  10-pt must system has no place in MMA.  PRIDE and RIZIN have best scoring system.  Anderson won that fight based on these rules.

I say yes and no yes damage should be a part of scoring but at the same time some people do cut and bruise more easily than others i mean if they scored fights by the way someones face looks like then gsp fedor wanderlei nick diaz and all the others would of lost all their fights . 

In my opinion the top criteria should be going for the finish the guy/girl trying to either knock out or tap out their opponent and yes  unified rules do suck blame jon mccain and the other wowsers for that .

I think ONE FC still uses 1. Damage, 2. Aggression (going for finishes),... If someone cuts easy should probably be based on the strikes that caused the cuts and if the cuts were damaging to the opponent (fighter was rocked, knocked down,..)

There's a mathematical formula for everything, why can't they come up with a scientific system that doesn't rely so much on subjectivity ?

CDF47 wrote:

westcott123 wrote:

CDF47 wrote:I agree, scoring the fight as a whole with damage being the top criteria is the way to score an MMA fight.  10-pt must system has no place in MMA.  PRIDE and RIZIN have best scoring system.  Anderson won that fight based on these rules.

I say yes and no yes damage should be a part of scoring but at the same time some people do cut and bruise more easily than others i mean if they scored fights by the way someones face looks like then gsp fedor wanderlei nick diaz and all the others would of lost all their fights . 

In my opinion the top criteria should be going for the finish the guy/girl trying to either knock out or tap out their opponent and yes  unified rules do suck blame jon mccain and the other wowsers for that .

I think ONE FC still uses 1. Damage, 2. Aggression (going for finishes),...  If someone cuts easy should probably be based on the strikes that caused the cuts and if the cuts were damaging to the opponent (fighter was rocked, knocked down,..)

Yes of course though i still think one should be aggression going for the finish and then the 2nd one being damage with 3rd being who is being the more effective in the stand up or on the ground . they should have  a judge focused on the stand up the other on the ground and the 3rd looking for the one going for the finish and doing the most damage . I know it will never be perfect but that is my opinion of it