What would YOU change in the unified rules?

wekka wrote:

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:

wekka wrote:Seems like even Rogan doesn't even understand the scoring system.

Why is it so hard to give 10-10 rounds?

I agree. Which goes back to me saying I think a lot of MMA "experts" don't get it.

KSW wrote:To make a fair judgement of the fight they would have to give out 10-10 as well as 10-6 or 10-7 when someone is getting completely dominated and saved by the bell. This is why it´s best to look a the whole fight and count which fighter landed most strikes, went for most submissions and did most takedowns and trips.

Why would a 10-7 or a 10-6 be needed?


And I agree with the second part (not bolded).

In 5 round title fights 10-6 rounds are needed. What if one fighter barely wins 4 rounds and gets totally destroyed in one fight?

Then that would be a 10-8, maybe 10-7. That's where a solid criteria would come into play.

Yeah.

I've always saw a 10-8 as a round where a fighter is just getting completely destroyed. I know that's subjective but it's also subjective to the judges. I don't see a reason for a 10-7 unless the fighter losing commits a foul and gets a point taken.

wekka wrote:

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:

wekka wrote:Seems like even Rogan doesn't even understand the scoring system.

Why is it so hard to give 10-10 rounds?

I agree. Which goes back to me saying I think a lot of MMA "experts" don't get it.

KSW wrote:To make a fair judgement of the fight they would have to give out 10-10 as well as 10-6 or 10-7 when someone is getting completely dominated and saved by the bell. This is why it´s best to look a the whole fight and count which fighter landed most strikes, went for most submissions and did most takedowns and trips.

Why would a 10-7 or a 10-6 be needed?


And I agree with the second part (not bolded).

In 5 round title fights 10-6 rounds are needed. What if one fighter barely wins 4 rounds and gets totally destroyed in one fight?

Then that would be a 10-8, maybe 10-7. That's where a solid criteria would come into play.

That´s not fair at all. Let´s say one fighter wins 4 rounds by one takedown or one punch and then his opponent lands 30 good punches in one round. The 10 Points must system doesn´t work for mma. They must look at the whole fight.

adam wrote:

wekka wrote:

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:

wekka wrote:Seems like even Rogan doesn't even understand the scoring system.

Why is it so hard to give 10-10 rounds?

I agree. Which goes back to me saying I think a lot of MMA "experts" don't get it.

KSW wrote:To make a fair judgement of the fight they would have to give out 10-10 as well as 10-6 or 10-7 when someone is getting completely dominated and saved by the bell. This is why it´s best to look a the whole fight and count which fighter landed most strikes, went for most submissions and did most takedowns and trips.

Why would a 10-7 or a 10-6 be needed?


And I agree with the second part (not bolded).

In 5 round title fights 10-6 rounds are needed. What if one fighter barely wins 4 rounds and gets totally destroyed in one fight?

Then that would be a 10-8, maybe 10-7. That's where a solid criteria would come into play.

Yeah.

I've always saw a 10-8 as a round where a fighter is just getting completely destroyed. I know that's subjective but it's also subjective to the judges.  I don't see a reason for a 10-7 unless the fighter losing commits a foul and gets a point taken.

Let´s say you and I meet in an mma fight. We land equally amount of strikes in the first four rounds but I finish with a takedown and steal the rounds. In the fifth you rock me 10 times with headkicks and strikes and almost submits me when the bell rings.

Who won? You must give more than 10-8 rounds to make the 10 Points system work in mma.

Well then the fighter who was more dominate in the first for rounds wins and the fighter that out landed him on the feet in the 5th (assuming they were only striking) wins.

Draw rounds= 10-10
Clear round winner= 10-9
One sided beating= 10-8

That's the problem with the system is people over complicate it when it doesn't need to be.

adam wrote:Well then the fighter who was more dominate in the first for rounds wins and the fighter that out landed him on the feet in the 5th (assuming they were only striking) wins.

Draw rounds= 10-10
Clear round winner= 10-9
One sided beating= 10-8

That's the problem with the system is people over complicate it when it doesn't need to be.

What? Both guys win? I said one fighter barely won the first four and got destroyed in the fifth.

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:

wekka wrote:

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:I agree. Which goes back to me saying I think a lot of MMA "experts" don't get it.

Why would a 10-7 or a 10-6 be needed?


And I agree with the second part (not bolded).

In 5 round title fights 10-6 rounds are needed. What if one fighter barely wins 4 rounds and gets totally destroyed in one fight?

Then that would be a 10-8, maybe 10-7. That's where a solid criteria would come into play.

Yeah.

I've always saw a 10-8 as a round where a fighter is just getting completely destroyed. I know that's subjective but it's also subjective to the judges.  I don't see a reason for a 10-7 unless the fighter losing commits a foul and gets a point taken.

Let´s say you and I meet in an mma fight. We land equally amount of strikes in the first four rounds but I finish with a takedown and steal the rounds. In the fifth you rock me 10 times with headkicks and strikes and almost submits me when the bell rings.

Who won? You must give more than 10-8 rounds to make the 10 Points system work in mma.

You win 48-46.

adam wrote:

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:

wekka wrote:

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:I agree. Which goes back to me saying I think a lot of MMA "experts" don't get it.

Why would a 10-7 or a 10-6 be needed?


And I agree with the second part (not bolded).

In 5 round title fights 10-6 rounds are needed. What if one fighter barely wins 4 rounds and gets totally destroyed in one fight?

Then that would be a 10-8, maybe 10-7. That's where a solid criteria would come into play.

Yeah.

I've always saw a 10-8 as a round where a fighter is just getting completely destroyed. I know that's subjective but it's also subjective to the judges.  I don't see a reason for a 10-7 unless the fighter losing commits a foul and gets a point taken.

Let´s say you and I meet in an mma fight. We land equally amount of strikes in the first four rounds but I finish with a takedown and steal the rounds. In the fifth you rock me 10 times with headkicks and strikes and almost submits me when the bell rings.

Who won? You must give more than 10-8 rounds to make the 10 Points system work in mma.

You win 48-46.

That´s completely wrong and not something I want to watch. The fighter who landed more and did more damage during the whole fight must be the winner. I don´s look at rounds I look at the whole fight. I skip through the breaks, they´re irrelevant.

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:Well then the fighter who was more dominate in the first for rounds wins and the fighter that out landed him on the feet in the 5th (assuming they were only striking) wins.

Draw rounds= 10-10
Clear round winner= 10-9
One sided beating= 10-8

That's the problem with the system is people over complicate it when it doesn't need to be.

What? Both guys win? I said one fighter barely won the first four and got destroyed in the fifth.

No, both do not win.

The fighter who was winning during most of the duration of the fight wins.

adam wrote:

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:Well then the fighter who was more dominate in the first for rounds wins and the fighter that out landed him on the feet in the 5th (assuming they were only striking) wins.

Draw rounds= 10-10
Clear round winner= 10-9
One sided beating= 10-8

That's the problem with the system is people over complicate it when it doesn't need to be.

What? Both guys win? I said one fighter barely won the first four and got destroyed in the fifth.

No, both do not win.

The fighter who was winning during most of the duration of the fight wins.

Take away the breaks and make a highlight of the whole fight and you´ll see who the winner is.

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:

wekka wrote:Then that would be a 10-8, maybe 10-7. That's where a solid criteria would come into play.

Yeah.

I've always saw a 10-8 as a round where a fighter is just getting completely destroyed. I know that's subjective but it's also subjective to the judges.  I don't see a reason for a 10-7 unless the fighter losing commits a foul and gets a point taken.

Let´s say you and I meet in an mma fight. We land equally amount of strikes in the first four rounds but I finish with a takedown and steal the rounds. In the fifth you rock me 10 times with headkicks and strikes and almost submits me when the bell rings.

Who won? You must give more than 10-8 rounds to make the 10 Points system work in mma.

You win 48-46.

That´s completely wrong and not something I want to watch. The fighter who landed more and did more damage during the whole fight must be the winner. I don´s look at rounds I look at the whole fight. I skip through the breaks, they´re irrelevant.

Let's say I am a word class grappler, you are a good striker with virtually no ground game.

The fights starts. You are absolutely lighting me up on the feet and I take you down for the rest of the round, pass your guard, throw in little gnp but nothing is hurting you too much. We repeat this for the rest of the fight, no matter how many rounds it is.

Yes, you may have done more damage but I changed the dimension of the fight and put you in a place you didn't want to be for a longer time while passing to dominant positions with you being in my world longer. Do you think you should still win?

It's not like the guy on the bottom wants to be there. The point of MMA is to simulate a real fight in a way that most of society will accept on a large platform.

Let's say the same thing happens in a real fight. You hit me really hard a few good times at first but I take you down and control you. Since they are no rounds I would just control you and wear you out until your will broke and you just gave up. It's dominant like hammering someone on feet but just in a different way and less damaging but more demoralizing.

It's not fun to watch and I'm not a huge fan but some people just don't have those other tools and recognizing the dominance of the ground is important for the legitimacy of the sport.

^It´s all about damage, dominant postitions are irrelevant. You´re actually defending zuffa and the unified rules here.

I think cage is fine

Elbows are fine

Kneese to downed opponent maybe

Soccer kicks no thx

10 point must is fine completely agree judges are problem completely under educated and need to pass equivalency test to judge.

Boxing judges learning as they go is UN acceptable there needs to be clear judging criteria not leave everything to how each judge sees it.

I'd love 10 minute first rounds, but I'm afraid that will never fly with the athletic commissions. They'd cite safety concerns or some such BS.

Rules
Ban elbows
Implement knees to grounded opponents
Overtime rounds for decision fights

Changes to scoring criteria
Effort to finish > effort to hug and stall.
-Example 1: If the guy on bottom is attempting subs and sweeps, he's in control over the guy on top who is doing nothing to advance position, and thus he is winning that moment of the fight. "UFC judges" always score for the guy on top because they don't know what they're seeing.
-Example 2: Significant strikes from standup are worth more than takedowns, no matter if one guy is on top of the other for much of the round doing nothing.

Lastly, bring in the ring! Ok, this one is unrealistic just like 10 minute first rounds. Just a personal wish.

I agree with Adam....

In a real fight even if you beat the shit out of a Guy for the first min if he takes you down controls you askren style and drops gnp you will break and give.

Mma is supposed to be closest thing to a real fight and I think too much emphasis is put on stand-up damage and not ground damage.

Just cuz a Guy lands hands before getting completely grinded on the ground doesn't mean he did more damage people don't account fir how much Guy on bottom is constantly being pressured and forced to work especially when gnp is being utilized.

People bitch about boxing rules and scoring being used in mma but a lot of people still overweight stand-up over groundwork when it isn't always the case.

The scoring in mma needs to be fully highlighted like your explaining it to kindergarten kids.

North to south elbows stay banned

Regular elbows standing and ground are fine if we added in grounded kneese OK by me.

Elbows are completely defendable as much actually more so then a grounded knee in north south position.

Head stomps whatever really if u get caught with this you should lose anyway you see them a mile away.

Soccer kicks not legal IMO.

BIGGEST PROBLEM IN MMA TODAY IS COMPETENCE OF JUDGES

Doesn't matter what style judging you use if judges don't know what they are looking for.

Judges need to know what there looking at when it comes to grappling.

Stand-up for most part is pretty obvious to score whereas grappling unless you understand what can be done from top or bottom and who is actually attacking and who is defending reguadless of position you really are just guessing.

When a Guy gets a takedown I think there should be a 30 secs to either advance position and look to finish or atleast use gnp to open a Guy up yo advance your position.

If after 30 you just Layin on top in guard pitter pattin your stood up.

Who won this fight? 

  


The whole unified rules and it's judging system is a joke. In any fight in the real world anywhere on this planet humans can tell who did and did not win a fight. They can also tell when neither fighter go the best of the other.

KSW wrote:^It´s all about damage, dominant postitions are irrelevant. You´re actually defending zuffa and the unified rules here.

Um...no.

I'm telling you why the 10 pt must system isn't that bad. Telling me I'm defending ZUFFA sounds like a cop-out, no offense.

I'm trying to be objective about the whole thing.

You don't have to agree with me and that's fine. I see you are sticking to your guns and I can't change your mind.

Yet still nobody in this thread has made any strong points as to why the 10 pt must system is terrible and it is a bigger probably than moronic judges.

I'm just tired of talking about it because I don't think anyone besides a few get what I'm saying. I'm just gonna drop it.


Anyone got any other rules they hate? Maybe some more obscure out of the box ones?

Halle who? Gross anyone does nude scene wit billybob should be murdered including Jolie lmao.

Halle who? Gross anyone does nude scene wit billybob should be murdered including Jolie lmao.

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:The 10 point must system is one of the biggest problems of all, and this has nothing to do with the competency of judges.

We have a system which is designed for 10, 12, 15 round boxing matches being applied to MMA.

Honestly, I am so sick of discussing this. It is self evident how inappropriate it is.

No offense, but if you're sick of talking about it no one if forcing you to.

And how is it a bigger problem over the competency of the judges?  I've seen people say that on many forums but they never have any valid points.

I am anticipating your reply.

An absolute shit system even with the best judging is still an absolute shit system.

Judging is incompetent often, but that is not the heart of the problem. To suggest it is implies acceptance of the horrible MMA ten point must system (the system is fine for boxing, which is what it is designed for).

10 pt is fine works great when USED PROPERLY if judged were competent it solves everything.

Don't care what system u use if judged don't understand how to use it it'd worthless.

Adam I'm completely on board I'm trying to be objective honestly most people will refuse 10 pt must because it was bred by ufc so admitting its OK would be bad you can imagine why LOL .

Judge competence IS THE ISSUE period.

There really is no argument to prove otherwise.

No matter how grand a system you come up with idiotic judges will screw it up if u have competent judges they can use the current system properly.

nodogoshi wrote:

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:The 10 point must system is one of the biggest problems of all, and this has nothing to do with the competency of judges.

We have a system which is designed for 10, 12, 15 round boxing matches being applied to MMA.

Honestly, I am so sick of discussing this. It is self evident how inappropriate it is.

No offense, but if you're sick of talking about it no one if forcing you to.

And how is it a bigger problem over the competency of the judges?  I've seen people say that on many forums but they never have any valid points.

I am anticipating your reply.

An absolute shit system even with the best judging is still an absolute shit system.

Judging is incompetent often, but that is not the heart of the problem. To suggest it is implies acceptance of the horrible MMA ten point must system (the system is fine for boxing, which is what it is designed for).

Why?

You're saying a lot but not really saying anything.

fka wrote:10 pt is fine works great when USED PROPERLY if judged were competent it solves everything.

Don't care what system u use if judged don't understand how to use it it'd worthless.

Adam I'm completely on board I'm trying to be objective honestly most people will refuse 10 pt must because it was bred by ufc so admitting its OK would be bad you can imagine why LOL .

Judge competence IS THE ISSUE period.

There really is no argument to prove otherwise.

No matter how grand a system you come up with idiotic judges will screw it up if u have competent judges they can use the current system properly.

Yep.