Posted On:9/14/2007 6:06pm
Originally Posted by meataxe
In Pride, the first priority for the fighter is to be actively trying to end the match through submission or KO. No? That would be nice in the UFC.
Yeah, I am all for knock out or tap out. To hell with the descision ****.
Posted On:9/14/2007 7:48pm
Originally Posted by JabCrossHook
Change it already? Man, Cecil hasn't got his head round the current scoring system!
As a sidenote, does anyone know why the UFC actually employ him? Other than the fact he used to ref on smaller shows (and by all accounts was pretty crap at that too!). Can't they find ANYONE else?
Except for shows outside the US, they don't. Judges are employed by the various athletic commissions.
Posted On:9/14/2007 9:40pm
More Cecil Peoples lollery - I was watching Sherk v. Florian @ UFC64 again today, and the bout was scored 49-46 49-46 50-48 (by Peoples). How that's even possible I have no idea, you can see the total "WTF" look on Florian's face when they announce Peoples'es score too.
Martial and Sexual Artist
Posted On:9/17/2007 10:59am
Style: standup to ground
I'm indifferent to rounds, different round lengths make for different sports basically.
But I'm against judges to begin with. I think draws should just be a legitimate stat. If you didn't beat him, you didn't beat him.
This isn't ice skating, we don't need judges. To make fights interesting, they can still have all manner of things, short rounds, standing grapplers up, purse incentives, whatever.
Winning by decision is not great for your ego either, but if you get the money from it, you can live with it.
A no rounds event would be a totally different sport, in that endurance would become so crucial, it would probably make for a very boring fight, in the eyes of most American fans especially. It would probably make for some interesting breaks from the usual boxing-flared MMA though.
Posted On:9/22/2007 7:32pm
Style: Baboo Baby
A system I'm thinking would be good is only score points for near finishes. If you hit the guy hard enough that he falls down and keep pounding on him, you get a point. Like Matt Serra vs Karo Parisyan. Hell, even just knocking the guy down would be cool. If you get a tight sub that needs work to get out of, like Charuto vs Hughes/Trigg, or hell, Karo's armbar was on Serra pretty tight before he spun out, you also get a point. If at the end of round 2, the score is 0-0, the fight is over. They get a draw, and nobody gets a win bonus. If there's at least one score above 0, it keeps going to the next round. At the end of round 3, the highest score wins. If it's tied, they get to keep fighting for another round. Any round where they keep tying it up by increasing the score they get to keep fighting. Any round where the score stays tied at the same as the previous round, judges score it by advantage and you get a winner.
Boring fights won't make it past round 2, and the fighters will have to just try to finish the fight, there's no way to fight for a decision with this system. If the fight keeps going, it's because it's an awesome back and forth battle and it's worth keeping watching it.
Barring that. Judges with some guts would be nice. I don't think the problem overall is that they're not knowledgeable (there's a thread on the UG where Douglas Crosby answers some questions, and he seems to know what he's talking about, he's just a ***** too).
The judges aren't willing to criticise each other, so they've created a little circle where they just stand by each other so their jobs are secure. Crosby's argument for 10-9 rounds is that if they score something 10-10 they're considered to be lazy, so they try to give a round to someone even if it's slight. They don't want to go any further than 10-9, because judging is "subjective", so they don't want to get hassled about why they scored it a 10-8 instead of a 10-7 or a 10-9. If it's 10-9 every time they can't complain about the scoring because it's 10-9 all the time. It makes no sense when you're thinking about judging a fight properly, but it makes perfect sense when you think about the judges being pussies and not wanting to back up their scoring decisions. Incidentally, Cecil Peoples seems to be the only judge who's willing to judge fights a bit differently, so even though his decisions are bizarre, he's at least not conforming to the flock. He really shouldn't be officiating MMA though, he has no understanding of the ground game and stands fights up 15 seconds after one of the fighters managed to pass to mount. It's ridiculous, but at least he's willing to score rounds something other than 10-9.
The biggest annoyance with the TPM system is that they have 10 points. Why don't they use them?
0 is why the **** didn't the ref stop the fight? 10-10 is the fight was way too close to call. And use everything else in between. You might still have some results people disagree with, but at least you wouldn't have stupid results where one fighter squeaks out a win in 2 rounds and gets 10-9, 10-9 for those rounds and the other guy beats the **** out of him for the last round and still gets 10-9. A lot of Okami fights are like that, he's passive in the first 2 rounds so he loses them, and then gets to work in round 3, doing much more work in that round than his opponent did in the previous two but still loses the decision.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info