What would YOU change in the unified rules?

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.

Like wise, no matter how grand judges you have, the judging will still suck if the system is shit.

adam wrote:

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.

Look, that is sort of on you.

I frankly don't have time to conduct a thorough statistical analysis of why the system sucks.

In fact, time to log off. I have a class to teach.

nodogoshi wrote:

adam wrote:

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.

Look, that is sort of on you.

I frankly don't have time to conduct a thorough statistical analysis of why the system sucks.

In fact, time to log off. I have a class to teach.

Nice cop-out.  

And why is it on me? You're the one who supposedly has all the answers. :>

"I'm Nogodoshi and if I say something is "shit" it just is. I don't have to explain why, it just is. Don't believe me? Well too bad, got a class to teach".

If you are so sure of yourself why don't you give reasons to back your point and educate the people of this site?

I'm not stubborn, if you have anything good to add I'll hear you out.

"it is because I said so" isn't good enough.

Nice try though :>

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

adam wrote:

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.

Look, that is sort of on you.

I frankly don't have time to conduct a thorough statistical analysis of why the system sucks.

In fact, time to log off. I have a class to teach.

Nice cop-out.  

And why is it on me? You're the one who supposedly has all the answers. :>

"I'm Nogodoshi and if I say something is "shit" it just is. I don't have to explain why, it just is. Don't believe me? Well too bad, got a class to teach".

If you are so sure of yourself why don't you give reasons to back your point and educate the people of this site?

I'm not stubborn, if you have anything good to add I'll hear you out.

"it is because I said so" isn't good enough.

Nice try though :>

Keep it civil. Debate is fine but the personal jabs aren't good. Just ask somebody to explain themselves. If they chose to engage you, OK. If they don't that's just as OK.

Just a heads up.

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

adam wrote: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.

Look, that is sort of on you.

I frankly don't have time to conduct a thorough statistical analysis of why the system sucks.

In fact, time to log off. I have a class to teach.

Nice cop-out.  

And why is it on me? You're the one who supposedly has all the answers. :>

"I'm Nogodoshi and if I say something is "shit" it just is. I don't have to explain why, it just is. Don't believe me? Well too bad, got a class to teach".

If you are so sure of yourself why don't you give reasons to back your point and educate the people of this site?

I'm not stubborn, if you have anything good to add I'll hear you out.

"it is because I said so" isn't good enough.

Nice try though :>

I did explain. You just aren't accepting it. Maybe it's because you don't have the ability to comprehend? I do not know, but I'm not going to hold your hand.

You seem to expect me to give a thorough theoretical breakdown, maybe because you can't understand the numerical significances.

And yes, I do have to teach a class in precisely 10 minutes.

Dagwood wrote:

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote: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.

Look, that is sort of on you.

I frankly don't have time to conduct a thorough statistical analysis of why the system sucks.

In fact, time to log off. I have a class to teach.

Nice cop-out.  

And why is it on me? You're the one who supposedly has all the answers. :>

"I'm Nogodoshi and if I say something is "shit" it just is. I don't have to explain why, it just is. Don't believe me? Well too bad, got a class to teach".

If you are so sure of yourself why don't you give reasons to back your point and educate the people of this site?

I'm not stubborn, if you have anything good to add I'll hear you out.

"it is because I said so" isn't good enough.

Nice try though :>

Keep it civil. Debate is fine but the personal jabs aren't good. Just ask somebody to explain themselves. If they chose to engage you, OK. If they don't that's just as OK.

Just a heads up.

I am keeping it civil.

Don't you think it would be a good idea for him to explain his points more thoroughly for the sake of moving the discussion forward though?

We're all adults here.

nodogoshi wrote:

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote: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.

Look, that is sort of on you.

I frankly don't have time to conduct a thorough statistical analysis of why the system sucks.

In fact, time to log off. I have a class to teach.

Nice cop-out.

And why is it on me? You're the one who supposedly has all the answers. :>

"I'm Nogodoshi and if I say something is "shit" it just is. I don't have to explain why, it just is. Don't believe me? Well too bad, got a class to teach".

If you are so sure of yourself why don't you give reasons to back your point and educate the people of this site?

I'm not stubborn, if you have anything good to add I'll hear you out.

"it is because I said so" isn't good enough.

Nice try though :>

I did explain. You just aren't accepting it. Maybe it's because you don't have the ability to comprehend? I do not know, but I'm not going to hold your hand.

You seem to expect me to give a thorough theoretical breakdown, maybe because you can't understand the numerical significances.

No. You didn't. Anywhere. At all.

In order to present a point, it is not always necessary to break down each and every point. Among people who are informed on a subject, concise statements and general allusions should be enough. If you can't understand what I said, that is on you. I think you either just refuse to accept it, are too lazy to consider it in context, or unable to understand.

I'm certainly not going to write an essay though.

nodogoshi wrote:In order to present a point, it is not always necessary to break down each and every point. Among people who are informed on a subject, concise statements and general allusions should be enough. If you can't understand what I said, that is on you. I think you either just refuse to accept it, are too lazy to consider it in context, or unable to understand.

I'm certainly not going to write an essay though.

You don't have to write an essay. You just have to do better than "it sucks because I say so".

Otherwise, I won't take you or your opinions serious at all.

Yes I did.

A system designed for 10, 12, 15 round boxing fights being used for MMA fights.

Just think about the arithmetical significance here.

And re-read Rogan's comment as well.

That's my point. You don't have to agree with it, but you should accept it, and it is certainly a valid position.

And don't expect me to write essays. That isn't why I'm here.

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:In order to present a point, it is not always necessary to break down each and every point. Among people who are informed on a subject, concise statements and general allusions should be enough. If you can't understand what I said, that is on you. I think you either just refuse to accept it, are too lazy to consider it in context, or unable to understand.

I'm certainly not going to write an essay though.

You don't have to write an essay. You just have to do better than "it sucks because I say so".

Otherwise, I won't take you or your opinions serious at all.

So it was my potty mouth which offended you?

Apparently.

And what I said is that a shit system even with the best judges is a shit system.

I didn't say it sucks because I said so.

nodogoshi wrote:Yes I did.

A system designed for 10, 12, 15 round boxing fights being used for MMA fights.

Just think about the arithmetical significance here.

And re-read Rogan's comment as well.

That's my point. You don't have to agree with it, but you should accept it, and it is certainly a valid position.

And don't expect me to write essays. That isn't why I'm here.

I didn't say you had to write an essay. Quit being so vain.

So your opinion is basically "it's designed for boxing" and regurgitate Rogan's response.

Fine, I'll accept that as your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

adam wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:Yes I did.

A system designed for 10, 12, 15 round boxing fights being used for MMA fights.

Just think about the arithmetical significance here.

And re-read Rogan's comment as well.

That's my point. You don't have to agree with it, but you should accept it, and it is certainly a valid position.

And don't expect me to write essays. That isn't why I'm here.

I didn't say you had to write an essay. Quit being so vain.

So your opinion is basically "it's designed for boxing" and regurgitate Rogan's response.

Fine, I'll accept that as your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

Actually that has always been my position and I never knew of Rogan's comments until they were posted in this thread, after my own initial comment.

This really just shows how self-evident it is how messed up the rules are when many people independently can come to essentially the same conclusion.

In a three round fight with 10-9 scoring, the range of scores is extremely limited. Barring any point deductions, the only possible scores really are 30-27, 29-28, 28-29, or 27-30. Now if there is a point deduction, it often results in a draw (see above). It also puts the deducted fighter into a position where he must win every round to get a victory, which is way too big a burden.

Let's compare to a 12 round boxing fight. Barring any knockdowns or point deductions, the range of scores is 120-108, 119-109, 118-110 (...) clear back to 108-120. Point deductions do not automatically change the scoring system as a matter of course, like they do in MMA, though they do act as effective punitive measures, which can effect a fight significantly if the fight is very close, thus presumably acting to even the score following a series of fouls which presumably may be thought to have given the offending fighter some tangible advantage (in other words, they act to level the field of play). Knockdowns, by equating to one extra point, add an additional dynamic to the scoring tally.

This is how the system is designed to function. It was transposed on to MMA out of convenience, for which it is entirely inappropriate.

Maybe you just haven't watched enough boxing, so as to be able to fully appreciate the way the 10-point must system is designed to function.

They use a 10 point must in 3 and 5 round boxing matches too and they seem to do alright. If the fight is a draw then it's a draw. No big deal. MMA should have more draws because there is more being brought to the table. Then you can go on if the fight is a draw make a sudden death round or some crap. I think TUF did it but I don't watch it so I don't know.

If we're going to argue which has a better outcome, we must also look at the bad decisions PRIDE, SRC, DREAM, Shooto (Which I feel is the best) and Pancrase have too. When you give it to human beings to judge a fight you're never going to get them all correct all the time. It's a slippery slope. If you want to change what goes on in the cage, I think you've got an argument. Changing the system all together will not change the bad outcomes.

Well said src

SRC wrote:They use a 10 point must in 3 and 5 round boxing matches too and they seem to do alright. If the fight is a draw then it's a draw. No big deal. MMA should have more draws because there is more being brought to the table. Then you can go on if the fight is a draw make a sudden death round or some crap. I think TUF did it but I don't watch it so I don't know.

If we're going to argue which has a better outcome, we must also look at the bad decisions PRIDE, SRC, DREAM, Shooto (Which I feel is the best) and Pancrase have too. When you give it to human beings to judge a fight you're never going to get them all correct all the time. It's a slippery slope. If you want to change what goes on in the cage, I think you've got an argument. Changing the system all together will not change the bad outcomes.

Boxing matches are typically 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. 3 or 5 round fights are generally just in tournaments, and the intention is to prevent draws. 6 and above is generally fine. In 4 round fights they can be an issue. I've seen young prospects just starting out run into problems. For instance, getting flash knocked down can suddenly be a big deal. Lets just say for the purposes of illustration that the prospect loses round 1, wins rounds 2 and 3, and is comfortably winning the fourth, when he is suddenly caught and flash knocked down. In all likelihood, he has just lost the fight. I have seen scenarios essentially just like this.

SRC wrote:They use a 10 point must in 3 and 5 round boxing matches too and they seem to do alright. If the fight is a draw then it's a draw. No big deal. MMA should have more draws because there is more being brought to the table. Then you can go on if the fight is a draw make a sudden death round or some crap. I think TUF did it but I don't watch it so I don't know.

If we're going to argue which has a better outcome, we must also look at the bad decisions PRIDE, SRC, DREAM, Shooto (Which I feel is the best) and Pancrase have too. When you give it to human beings to judge a fight you're never going to get them all correct all the time. It's a slippery slope. If you want to change what goes on in the cage, I think you've got an argument. Changing the system all together will not change the bad outcomes.

Also, I think you are still not getting what my position on this is. Of course bad (as well as corrupt) judging is unavoidable, and will happen under any system. Hence, I have never emphasized that at all--quite the opposite really.

Also, keep in mind that the system of officiating and scoring directly impacts the style of the fights. This is so in every combat sport--why do you suppose wrestling and judo are continuously changing up their rules? It is in an effort to effect the styles of the fights (typically to attempt to induce more action). Hence, this is a very important issue.

If you don't have a problem with the way things are, fine, but I and a lot of people seriously do. It literally makes it very hard for me to even want to watch. And no, this is not because of any sort of Pride, etc. bias, it is because of the serious flaws I perceive which have resulted from the artificial imposition of a system specifically designed for 10, 12, 15 round boxing matches on to MMA--such as I have described.

adam wrote:

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?

I explained perfectly why the 10 Points must system doesn´t work. When I score a fight it´s all about damage, landed strikes/kicks, submission attempts and throws/trips. Dominating your opponent with grappling without doing any damage isn´t worth anything to me. Zuffa wants to hype the american wrestlers and therefore the unified rules are perfect for them and that´s why I said you´re defending them. You said grappling without doing any damage is worth more than landed strikes.

Like I said the 10 points must system would work if they gave out 10-6 or 10-7 rounds and focused on landed strikes/kicks, submission attempts, trips/throws. Someone who lays on his opponent for 2 or 3 rounds without landing anything while the opponent lands several good punches shouldn´t get the win.

KSW wrote:

adam wrote:

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?

I already explained this to you. When I score a fight it´s all about damage, landed strikes/kicks, submission attempts and throws/trips. Dominating your opponent with grappling without doing any damage isn´t worth anything to me. Zuffa wants to hype the american wrestlers and therefore the unified rules are perfect for them and that´s why I said you´re defending them. You said grappling without doing any damage is worth more than landed strikes.

Like I said the 10 points must system would work if they gave out 10-6 or 10-7 rounds and focused on landed strikes/kicks, submission attempts, trips/throws. Someone who lays on his opponent for 2 or 3 rounds without landing anything while the opponent lands several good punches shouldn´t get the win.

Me and KSW are fairly close to on the same page.

Just to point out, with 10-6 and 10-7 rounds we would wind up with scorecards like 41-48, 45-43, 47-47 or some such shit.

Adam atleast we agree that scoring the whole fight is the best. I think we have a similar view of how mmma should be.

Do you guys prefer stomps or soccerkicks if you have to choose?

SRC wrote:They use a 10 point must in 3 and 5 round boxing matches too and they seem to do alright. If the fight is a draw then it's a draw. No big deal. MMA should have more draws because there is more being brought to the table. Then you can go on if the fight is a draw make a sudden death round or some crap. I think TUF did it but I don't watch it so I don't know.

If we're going to argue which has a better outcome, we must also look at the bad decisions PRIDE, SRC, DREAM, Shooto (Which I feel is the best) and Pancrase have too. When you give it to human beings to judge a fight you're never going to get them all correct all the time. It's a slippery slope. If you want to change what goes on in the cage, I think you've got an argument. Changing the system all together will not change the bad outcomes.

Exactly. The 3-5 round fights aren't only in mma. It happens in boxing and kickboxing too.

And Nodo, judging from your opinion in this thread and how everyone took your opinion in the Haye/Fury thread, I think it's you who need to watch more boxing.

KSW wrote:Adam atleast we agree that scoring the whole fight is the best. I think we have a similar view of how mmma should be.

Do you guys prefer stomps or soccerkicks if you have to choose?

Yeah. We agree more than we disagree for sure. I think that way IS best.


And to answer your question, I think I'd rather have stomps. But I don't know, it's really hard to say.
If you think about it, you're already allowed throw axe kicks to a grounded opponent's body if you are standing but you're not allowed to stomp.

It doesn't make much sense because you get much more momentum from the movement of the axe kick. I know both techniques are technically different but they finish the same way.

adam wrote:

SRC wrote:They use a 10 point must in 3 and 5 round boxing matches too and they seem to do alright. If the fight is a draw then it's a draw. No big deal. MMA should have more draws because there is more being brought to the table. Then you can go on if the fight is a draw make a sudden death round or some crap. I think TUF did it but I don't watch it so I don't know.

If we're going to argue which has a better outcome, we must also look at the bad decisions PRIDE, SRC, DREAM, Shooto (Which I feel is the best) and Pancrase have too. When you give it to human beings to judge a fight you're never going to get them all correct all the time. It's a slippery slope. If you want to change what goes on in the cage, I think you've got an argument. Changing the system all together will not change the bad outcomes.

Exactly. The 3-5 round fights aren't only in mma. It happens in boxing and kickboxing too.

And Nodo, judging from your opinion in this thread and how everyone took your opinion in the Haye/Fury thread, I think it's you  who need to watch more boxing.

That wasn't intended as a knock on you, I don't know how much boxing you do or don't watch.

Statements like this one certainly don't do anything to make me respect your opinion any more though, and I stand by all of what I said in each thread.

And, if you can't (or choose not to) see the blatant foul in this video, you are either horribly biased, or don't know shit about boxing.