Rey_Piste Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 What I'm saying is none of the rounds would have been a 10-8 or a 10-10, I'd give Johnson the first round but McCall had the final two rounds in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 4, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2012 In that case, unless you are arguing that the second round was so blatantly McCall's that it's absolutely impossible to give it to Johnson and if you do you should never be allowed to judge again, then it only takes two out of three judges to differ with you to get a perfectly reasonable Johnson win under the scoring system. Â The problem with MMA judging, apart from the way judges interpret it or are encouraged to interpret it, is that it's inherently unsuited to MMA. Mathematically it doesn't work for a three round contest because a "mistake" or disagreement on any one particular score in one particular round has a good chance of changing the entire outcome, as can giving a round anything other than 10-9. And logistically it doesn't work because unlike boxing where you are simply scoring one thing (landing effective punches) with a single objective modifier (knockdown = point lost), MMA has a wide range of tactics and moves. Â The only way to make point scoring work in MMA would be to make it like amateur wrestling where you literally would earn a point or points for a specific action, but that would completely change how people went about matches and utterly miss the point that no matter how much regulation is designed to make MMA a sport like any other, it's still meant to be a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 If you can't finish a guy in 15 minutes, you shouldn't get a win. It should be a draw. However, if you are going to have the rules the way they currently are, you have to properly enforce 10-8s. If a guy edges a round, he gets a 10-9. If he clearly wins, it's a 10-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I had McColl winning 1 and 3, actually. Â Johnson was more lively in round 1 and hit more strikes, but McColl hit two takedowns, struck well on the counter and never looked in real trouble. I could see round 1 being close, but jesus...round 3 was a blow out. Should have been scored 10 - 7, nevermind 8 or 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Milano Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Just a heads up, if anyone bet on Johnson I'd give it a go and try to claim some winnings. Popped into BetFred earlier to see if I could get a refund due to the screw up, but their system has it as a Johnson win. No-one had any idea of what happened in the fight and even when I tried to explain what happened and the chap rang various people up, they were none the wiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Vegas Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If you can't finish a guy in 15 minutes, you shouldn't get a win. It should be a draw. Â That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read in regards to an MMA or Boxing thread, so you are telling me that if somebody completely and utterly dominates, outskills or punishes their opponent over a duration of the fight then they somehow don't deserve to be labelled a ''winner'' and it should always be marked a draw? Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If you can't finish a guy in 15 minutes, you shouldn't get a win. It should be a draw. Â That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read in regards to an MMA or Boxing thread, so you are telling me that if somebody completely and utterly dominates, outskills or punishes their opponent over a duration of the fight then they somehow don't deserve to be labelled a ''winner'' and it should always be marked a draw? Nonsense. Â Well, if you can't come to an agreeable solution to fights where there is no decisive winner, the only possibility is to say they either keep fighting until there's a winner (ala Gracie/Sakuraba) or it's a draw, which is how "martial arts" bouts, NHB and shootfighting previously worked. Â Personally, I think we've seen plenty of times where the 10-points must system doesn't create interesting fights. You can leghump, you can lay and pray, you can LnP 2.0 or use some such negative, usually wrestler-devised, tactic to win a 30-27 without really fighting. If that guy can't get a win with negative tactics, he is forced to fight. It would change the business as much as a Pancrase-esque system of points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Vegas Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If you can't finish a guy in 15 minutes, you shouldn't get a win. It should be a draw. Â That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read in regards to an MMA or Boxing thread, so you are telling me that if somebody completely and utterly dominates, outskills or punishes their opponent over a duration of the fight then they somehow don't deserve to be labelled a ''winner'' and it should always be marked a draw? Nonsense. Â Well, if you can't come to an agreeable solution to fights where there is no decisive winner, the only possibility is to say they either keep fighting until there's a winner (ala Gracie/Sakuraba) or it's a draw, which is how "martial arts" bouts, NHB and shootfighting previously worked. Â Personally, I think we've seen plenty of times where the 10-points must system doesn't create interesting fights. You can leghump, you can lay and pray, you can LnP 2.0 or use some such negative, usually wrestler-devised, tactic to win a 30-27 without really fighting. If that guy can't get a win with negative tactics, he is forced to fight. It would change the business as much as a Pancrase-esque system of points. Â I agree in principle with what you're trying to say about "boring" tactics being used to win a fight and i hate that myself however for me there are two fundamental problems with your opinion. Â Firstly this is Mixed Martial Arts and as wrestling is classed as one then my argument would be that if one fighter can't defend another's ability to take him to the ground and keep him there, then tough shit...he should work better on that aspect of his game. Â I personally hate lay and pray fighters however for every time we've heard a striker complain "all he did was take me down and hold me there" have you ever once heard a wrestler or ground specialist complain "all he did was punch and kick me in the face". That's why it's called MMA, you have to be skilled in all areas and if your weak in a certain area and your opponent exploits it then that's the whole game. Â If you want to see stand up fighting then go and watch K1 or Boxing or something, MMA has the rule nowadays that if a fighter is stalling on the ground then it gets stood up so if it's being allowed to happen then that's an error in the refereeing not the rules. Â Secondly taking away scoring fights and only having them end by submission, ko or tko isn't going to stop boring fights, it's going to create them. If you wrote down a list of the 10 best MMA fights in history there's no way all 10 of them didn't go to a decision and I'd be willing to bet that most of them did. Â If you took away time limits and scoring all you would get is a shit load of fights ending due to one fighter being too exhausted to continue meaning that we'd have a tonne of fights that looked like the last 60 seconds of Kimbo v Houston Alexander. Â I'm not saying that my opinions or ideas are right but yours are 100% wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.