Refining the Ten-Point Must System
November 3, 2009
Dave Meltzer is calling for changes to the ten-point must scoring system in Mixed Martial Arts:
Instead of the current implementation, this suggested system would include half-points. If a round is even, it should be scored 10-10. If it’s a close round and someone squeaked it out, go 10-9.5. A 10-9 round would be when there is no doubt who won the round, but the round winner didn’t hurt the other fighter to the point a judge would go 10-8.
Meltzer explains why this is preferable to the current scoring system:
What often happens in three-round fights is that there are two very close rounds that could go either way, and then a third round where one fighter dominates. In the old system, similar to the system still used in Japan, that fighter would be the clear winner. In the current system, with a little bit of bad luck, that fighter could lose. There have been numerous fights I’ve scored in 10-point must where, after adding up my scores, the deserving winner ended up the loser.
Payout Perspective:
I fully support changing the ten-point must system to include using 1/2 points rather than full points, exactly for the reason given in Meltzer’s second quoted paragraph.
As Meltzer explains, when a fight lasts a mere three rounds, not only is it possible, but it’s inevitable that you will have situations in which fighter A wins two close rounds, which are both scored 10-9, and fighter B has a more dominant round, but not quite to the point of 10-8, and therefore figher B loses a fight he probably should have won.
In the scenario described above, if 1/2 point increments were utilized rather than full points, fighter A would win two rounds by scores of 10-9.5, fighter B would receive a 10-9 score for the more dominant round, and the fight would end in a 29-29 draw.
Although a draw might not be the correct result (perhaps fighter B deserves the win outright), it’s at least preferable to declaring A the winner when everything except the flawed scoring system points the other way.
8 Responses to “Refining the Ten-Point Must System”
Got something to say?
Im not too keen on this new half point system, because of the example you’ve given above with the draw.
With some cards having nearly half the bouts going to the judges, and some of those fights ending in 29-28. The new point system could possibly result in several draws, meaning we would have several rematches or even worse. fighters not progressing in the ranks because of the new system. Also what would happen to bout purse’s? Also judges may feel obligated to use the new system and only award half points, meaning more possible draws
The new system sounds good, but we’re not looking at the real effects of it in use.
This suggestion reminds me of the guitarist with an amplifier that goes to 11 because he can play louder than other guitarists.
We’ve got plenty of room on a ten-point scale to produce more refined decisions. Ever heard of a 10-6 round? There just has to be agreement to do it and some reeducation of judges. Either way, if everyone’s playing by the same rules, I don’t think it makes any real difference.
Overall, educating judges in a reasonably uniform way is the bigger problem. The ABC is soliciting information on existing training programs for referees and judges with an eye toward promoting standardized curricula. With a little luck, we could see some results of these initiatives in next year’s rewrite of the “Uniform Rules.” From there they could move in the direction of more nuanced judging guidelines, whether that’s by adding half-points or spreading the range of the scale that’s actually used. It really doesn’t matter which. 11 isn’t louder than 10, and neither is 10-1/2.
HB
There certainly is more than one possible solution here, but the major problem is this:
there needs to be a way to differentiate the dominant 10-9 round from the close 10-9 round, whether that be by making the 1/2 point increment change, encouraging rather than discouraging 10-10 scores, or changing to the Pride method of judging based on an overall fight.
I don’t like how often my scorecard tells me fighter A won 29-28 when all other objective factors point in favor of fighter B.
I don’t really find the Spinal Tap analogy on point. Any of these scoring changes will in fact effect changes to the system, as opposed to, you know, turning it up to 11 on the stereo, man.
The 10 point must system does not need to be changed.
We need educated mma judges.
We need judges who can tell the difference between a guy who is counter fighting and a guy who is being backed up against his will in the case of machida in his shogun fight.
I was pulling for machida but I don’t think he won this fight.
HB, i was thinking the same thing.
The 10 point must system may as well be the 2 point must system with the winner getting 2 points and the other guy getting 1 or less. We’ve seen 10-8 rounds occasionally, but how many 10-7 rounds has there been in the history of major MMA? One or two…or less?
I have always said the best scoring system is to use 100 points and not 10. Or if you like move the decimal over and use the ten of a point system. Like 9.8, 9.6, etc. It allows for the fine tuning of rounds to the point it completely eliminates Draws which are the worst possibility for a promotion. It also allows for the scoring of the fight as a whole but keep all parts of the fight scored equally unlike Pride where the end caused the judges to forget the other 12 minutes of the fight.
Score a fight with the 10.0 or 100 point system and you will see that the score is a more accurate reflection of the fight.
If the round was close score the round 100-99 or 100-98.
Also the 100 pt system allows to spot corruption in judging if/when it exists. A corrupt judge can give a 10-9 to the wrong guy and clame he did so but it was a close fight. Knowing he did so because the guy needed his score to win. 10-9 10-9 9-10 dont look to suspecious. Just run of the mill split decision. But 100-99, 100-98, and 92-100 shows clear intent to over rule the other judges and effect the outcome of the fight. Said judge can no longer claim its was close but he picked the other guy.
10-10 = Draw
10-9 = Close
10-8 = Clearly won round
10-7 = Dominant round
Just enforce those more loosely than the current scores are enforced. If its a slow round with not much striking but 1 fighter controls the other, then score it 10-9. If both fighters stand up and trade during the round with both landing solid shots but one was slightly more aggressive, dont be afraid to call it 10-10 considering nothing was really splitting them.
Being afraid of draws is short sighted. Sure, we may have a few draws, but pretty soon, people will realize grinding out cheap, slow unconvincing wins wont cut it and will seek to do more and hopefully aim to finish fights.
There are a bazillion, thats right, a bazillion different systems that could be implemented. Each has flaws, of course, but all are better than the current 10 point must system. It really is terrible.
The scoring has needed fixing for a while now, but half points are just weird. My thoughts are the same as Glen:
10-10 = Draw
10-9 = Close
10-8 = Clearly won round
10-7 = Dominant round