Cub Swanson Beautifully Articulates Why Current Scoring System Needs Change

[markg171]

Ahh. Not many people with any logic on these boards. Thank you, sir. It's a funny mentality.

'Hey, you know how we keep changing the scoring system? Let's keep changing it. Also, you know how the judges suck? We should give them more options so that they continue to suck more. If we can't understand how they score, just keep throwing more things at them so we are totally confused.'

Why give the judges more power? I swear man, ppl think of changes, but not how they could work in a negative way.

Yeah, I just don't get it. I tend to think it's just some kind of retroactive rose tinted glasses when thinking about past robberies and pretending like there were so many of them/they were so bad, but I just don't see how people possibly think making things more complex, and open to subjectivity, would ever make the scoring system better here. Obviously you're just opening up a completely different can of worms than asking them to simply declare their flat out winner.

Multi-pronged scoring systems work in sports like football and basketball because there's objective measures to them. A 3 point shot needs to have been from X distance. A field goal is worth Y points. Etc. There's no (real) subjectivity there, you achieved it or you didn't. Hence why you can bitch all you want that a Super Bowl was disappointingly won by a field goal, but still have to acknowledge it had a legitimate scoring criteria attached to it which led to that result. We can't do that in MMA without also implementing such objectivity markers like a KD must cause a point deduction for the knocked down fighter (like in the original 10-9 boxing system they stole) or whatever.

I also just find it weird that we try and have a point system period, when the real point of a points system in other sports is because the match MUST go to a "decision". The game can't end early, and the periods don't matter at all except to give breaks to the athletes. There must be an overall score. In MMA though the match can end whenever and the points can be nullified whenever. The points don't actually matter except in the event they required the whole match. They're actually a secondary concern for determining the winner, not the primary like in other sports. You first have to make it to a decision rather than a finish.

Which to me is just another reason to make the points as simple as possible. You can be up as much as humanly possible and get finished and have it completely washed away. It's also an argument for Pride's scoring to favour the fight never making it to the decision, but that's a bit of a different topic.

 

[The Old Guard]

PRIDE had some robberies obviously but the idea of scoring a fight as a whole over round by round was something I liked in MMA.

Pride was 100x better in every way possible

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

10-10s indicate that a round is very close, there are very close rounds in both active and inactive rounds, so it's fine to score them both 10 10

Oh, I get it, it's just that they are a bad idea in active rounds, while being a very good idea for uneventful rounds.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

I do agree with more 10-10 rounds, I've always said they need to be welcomed.

So many toss up rounds are scored the same as a guy clearly winning a round 10-9 (but not dominating for a 10-8)

 

[JSF]

I don't think anyone can say it any better than Cub Swanson. The Aljo/Yan example is recent and relatable, as it is still being hotly debated on Sherdog.

"I would like to see more 10-10 rounds and I would like to see more 10-8 rounds. Like, we’re talking about the Aljamain Stering vs Peter Yan fight [at UFC 273] — I think that was a draw. I don’t think anyone deserved that first round, and then I thought it was two apiece after that.

“There was definitely case for [Round 2 to be a 10-8 for Sterling as well],” Swanson continued. “So, to me, how are you going to score [those the same]? Like, if there’s two rounds and one was one-sided, very one-sided, and one was close but somebody clearly won, those rounds shouldn’t be scored the same.”

from: https://www.mmafighting.com/2022/4/...of-fighter-pay-open-scoring-debate-ufc-legacy

So do you agree?

Yes, pretty much read anything I've written on it.

Otherwise scrap the 10 point must altogether, just score the fight as a whole

 

[CerebralKnievel]

I dont see the point of having a 10 point system. Its not like they are ever gonna use anything below 8 anyway.

You definitely don't see too many 7-5 rounds.

The idea, I assume, is to preserve padding for point deductions as well.

 

[M.U.S.C.L.E.]

10-10s are totally fine for even, active rounds.

For the folks who say Draws will mess up the rankings, the rankings are trash as is already and certain folks get fast tracked to a title shot all the time. Nothing would change except that more Draws will be on records, which in many cases is a more reasonable result than assigning an arbitrary winner and loser.

People look on fight finder and see that Bones beat Reyes and Santos, but the result is hardly indicative of what the fight was actually like. It's like in data analysis: garbage in, garbage out.

Spot on my brother!

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

10-10s aren't great for very even, but active rounds, but they are great for very uneventful rounds. Sometimes you have that first round in which both guys throw something paltry like 10 strikes each, and one lands five and the other six. Should be a 10-10 unless one of those strikes clearly rocked a fighter.

why wouldn't you just give the rd to the guy who landed 6?

 

[Captain Herb]

There's no need for round by round scoring, just an odd number of judges who judge the fight as a whole. An added plus is that the later rounds would be fresher in their minds and carry more weight. A real fight is usually judged by who was winning at the end.

 

[CrimsonFan]

I actually don’t like the idea of 10-10s being commonplace. I think it will be used as a cop out anytime it’s remotely close and we’ll end up with a ton of draws which will stagnate divisions and lead to unsatisfying conclusions. The scoring system is imperfect and always will be. I haven’t seen a fix yet that didn’t bring along it’s own issues.

A draw is a better conclusion than a coinflip decision.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

why wouldn't you just give the rd to the guy who landed 6?

That's what they do now and it leads to very dissatisfying outcomes. Generally speaking, those are very even rounds, neither fighter should be rewarded, and fights shouldn't swing on those.

Go look at the list of fights people complain about and a large number swing on a round in which nothing of note occurred which can easily be interpreted either way.

 

[CanadianKobold]

I would be happy for more liberal use of 10-10 (and 10-8, 10-7) under an open scoring system so the fighters/corners can know where they stand and adjust gameplan/strategy during the fight to compensate for their position.

Combine that with flatter contracts that combine show+win into show-only, plus finish bonuses for all fights and I think we can improve a lot on scoring/outcome without needing to overhaul the whole thing.

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

That's what they do now and it leads to very dissatisfying outcomes. Generally speaking, those are very even rounds, neither fighter should be rewarded, and fights shouldn't swing on those.

Go look at the list of fights people complain about and a large number swing on a round in which nothing of note occurred which can easily be interpreted either way.

but if one guy did more than the other that guy deserves the round even if it was only landing 1 more strike/takedown. it's not even if one guy did more than the other.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

but if one guy did more than the other that guy deserves the round even if it was only landing 1 more strike/takedown. it's not even if one guy did more than the other.

I see your point, I just disagree. In uneventful rounds, a 10-10 score is usually better than a 10-9 either way. I think this scoring policy overall would lead to better outcomes.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

I agree, scoring still needs more work. Ive always had a big problem with the rules promoting stalling/ neutralizing style of inching out a win. At the end of the day it's bad for all parties involved.

 

[markg171]

I would be happy for more liberal use of 10-10 (and 10-8, 10-7) under an open scoring system so the fighters/corners can know where they stand and adjust gameplan/strategy during the fight to compensate for their position.

Combine that with flatter contracts that combine show+win into show-only, plus finish bonuses for all fights and I think we can improve a lot on scoring/outcome without needing to overhaul the whole thing.

I always love the argument that an open scoring system would be bad because winning fighters would just coast. Completely ignores that sure the winning fighter may try to do that, assuming they don't want a finish/dominant win, but the losing fighter knows definitely they need to turn things up and by how much. They can't coast if they've got somebody on their ass.

Like what, are you afraid to see the guy score a TD to try and ride out the round, only for the guy on bottom to be desperately elbowing, escaping, throwing up subs knowing he absolutely cannot let it happen?

Additionally, but if they do try and coast and the other can't stop them, well then the rightful winner won the round lol. You don't have to like it, but the other guy apparently couldn't stop that strategy so it's not like they should be rewarded it.

Also, but an open scoring system would stop fighters from WRONGFULLY adopting strategies. People always bitch about these hypotheticals, and not the countless times we've seen a fighter ACTUALLY think they're ahead only to slow down because they think it no longer matters so long as they get to the decision. Then they find out the round actually did matter and lost when they'd have otherwise probably won without that incorrect thinking of the score cards. I'd much rather a fighter knowingly and rightfully decide to coast because they're actually ahead than see fighters make incorrect decisions based on opinions of the cards.

Like, open scoring works in combat sports. Just go look at wrestling or karate. Why would MMA be any different?

 

[Pierced7681]

Not a fan of the 10-10 idea.

Sorry to anyone reading this for the billionth time: but I believe 10-9s should only be for toss ups or slight advantages.
10-8 for clear but not overwhelming advantage.
10-7 one dude/chick was getting F'd up or just completely dominated.
10-5 even if there were prolonged instances of near stoppages.

The above scores are meant to reflect *a solution. There are probably better figures.

Judges are always going to score rounds differently. There's almost no was around that.
Razor thin rounds that could go either way won't be able to easily offset the rounds in which one fighter is in trouble in multiple situations and gets saved by the final horn/bell.

You'd end up with a more quantitative method of scoring the fight as a whole w/o doing away with the round by round scoring.

Would also like to see more instances of points (maybe even multiple points) getting taken away for lazy/blatant fouls. The fighters gotta control their weapons. It'd be better to make the fighters scared to foul their opponents which would lead to cleaner technique being trained and less of a likelihood of fighters winning close decisions when their harmed their opponent's ability to fight effectively.

Also, take points for running away or not engaging; especially if the fighters are only trying to run out the clock.
It's a fight; not a game.

TLDR: MMA scoring absolutely sucks.

I agree that 10-10 rounds are a terrible idea and I’m glad they rarely ever get used, but being too liberal with 10-8s isn’t a good idea either when you only have 3 rounds for most fights. Hell, even in a 5 rounder its tough to overcome if you get a 10-8 scored against you. Personally I’d like to see them add a 10-9.5 round for razor close rounds, 10-9 for a normal round, 10-8 for a dominant round, and 10-7 for an almost finished thorough ass whooping

 

[Pierced7681]

I always love the argument that an open scoring system would be bad because winning fighters would just coast. Completely ignores that sure the winning fighter may try to do that, assuming they don't want a finish/dominant win, but the losing fighter knows definitely they need to turn things up and by how much. They can't coast if they've got somebody on their ass.

Like what, are you afraid to see the guy score a TD to try and ride out the round, only for the guy on bottom to be desperately elbowing, escaping, throwing up subs knowing he absolutely cannot let it happen?

Additionally, but if they do try and coast and the other can't stop them, well then the rightful winner won the round lol. You don't have to like it, but the other guy apparently couldn't stop that strategy so it's not like they should be rewarded it.

Also, but an open scoring system would stop fighters from WRONGFULLY adopting strategies. People always bitch about these hypotheticals, and not the countless times we've seen a fighter ACTUALLY think they're ahead only to slow down because they think it no longer matters so long as they get to the decision. Then they find out the round actually did matter and lost when they'd have otherwise probably won without that incorrect thinking of the score cards. I'd much rather a fighter knowingly and rightfully decide to coast because they're actually ahead than see fighters make incorrect decisions based on opinions of the cards.

Like, open scoring works in combat sports. Just go look at wrestling or karate. Why would MMA be any different?

Not a fan of open scoring, I think it takes a lot of fun out of combat sports for the fans by ruining the element of surprise. Also causes issues for betting. UFC should do what boxing does and have an unofficial scorecard kept during the fight by someone like Din Thomas.

 

[tdluxon]

I like the idea of more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds, but you’re going to end up with a lot of draws/ties.

What they need to do is take something from the system from k1 used… if it’s tied after 3 rounds, make them fight another sudden death round.

Another thing I also always thought was interesting about k1 scoring system was that they showed the scorecards in between rounds so the fighters knew where they were at with the judges.

 

[Game_Bred_Irish]

It is a form of art for a fighter to win a fight by slightly doing more than their opponent.
10-10s should definitely not be allowed to happen. There is a winner, however slight. 10-10 should be when you have perfectly the same amount of work.