So, Did We Win? An Examination Into The 10 Point Must Scoring System

With the final seconds of the clock ticking away, the usually stoic Tom Brady appears slightly in doubt as he audibles to his teammates. He hesitates and options crisscross his mind: throw for a touchdown? Kneel down to end the game? Spike the ball for a field goal attempt? He looks and sees no scoreboard. Sound ridiculous? Sound like a gridiron nightmare? Yes, and potentially also yes. In combat sports, you must compete without knowing the score and without knowing what you need to do to win. It is what makes judgment sports very dubious in design. There is no goal line in the fight game – other than an indisputable knockout – and the actual power in the octagon or ring is held not by the tattooed and muscle strapped, but by the three varyingly accredited judges at ringside clinging tightly to their scorecards. It’s time to evolve the rules and bring more integrity to prize fighting.

Legendary fighter Jack Boughton in 1743 brought forth the first known set of rules to boxing. His intrepid seven rules consolidated and legitimized the fledgling sport- very similar to what the NSAC did with Vale Tudo. One important note is that the concept of a round was initially to fight until a knockdown was scored. The fighter had thirty seconds to rise and another eight seconds to be ready to fight again (“come to scratch”), if they could do so, that commenced a new round. If they could not continue, that ended the contest. The fight would last with unlimited rounds; they fought till a knockout was scored- no judging.

In 1867, the Queensbury rules of boxing were published and remain the fulcrum of combat sports to this today. Important changes include: gloves, knockdown being changed from thirty seconds to ten and the different standard for defining a round. The concept of a round became based on three minute intervals with a one minute rest period. This proved to be a watershed moment for the sport, as now judges entered the equation.

Connecting this to modern MMA is important as we are now in 2010 and have an opportunity to enhance the legitimacy of the sport, for the fighters and for the fans. The questionable and sometimes just ludicrous decisions rendered by judges leave fighters and fans unsatisfied. Fighters routinely roll their eyes at decisions ( Bisbing has worked diligently on perfecting his “ I was robbed “ look- he even he believes he won the Henderson fight.) and some even appear surprised when they are awarded a win ( Ninja Rua- Quinton Jackson ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9p1wNJnXWA) , Couture-Rizzo, Griffin-Jackson ).  I believe that a competitor has the right to know they are losing. It is important to know that judges record their scoring of a round immediately after the round- during the break. They then score the subsequent rounds individually based on their own merits. Therefore, I submit that once the judges have recorded their entries that this information posted publicly. Thus allowing the fighters to know where they stand and eliminate post-fight hysteric of protest. (Quinton Jackson would have less reason to tear apart flimsy doors.)

It could be countered that a fighter who is declared ahead might use this information to avoid taking risks and be passive. Yet, we should consider that in MMA most fighters are true to their sport and are looking to fight are not as yet tremendously overpaid and need the lucrative bonuses, popularity, and fame.

Furthermore, “Timidity” is against the rules (http://www.squidoo.com/ufcrules ) and the referee is obligated to deduct a point for such a violation and even disqualify someone for continued violations. Moreover, the crowd will know exactly what the fighter is doing and this will call into question his honour which will cost him fans and marketability. I think this will in fact reduce passivity as the mentality of “thought I was ahead” or simply hoping for a decision will be eliminated as there will be no ambiguity at all. There will be no excuses for not “going after it”. The fighter was well aware of what they needed to do. Any imbalances or anomalies in judging would be known.

Judges would be held more accountable under this new system. Based on the current system, the judges' names are attached to their scores, but not the rounds. So, for example, Judge A scores the fight 29-28 for Fighter A and everyone believes that Fighter B won the first round clearly, we will never know how the judge scored that round. (Sometimes if you search on the internet, the scorecards are posted, but other than that it is hard for an ordinary fan to see the actual scorecard.) However, if the judge has to post to the crowd how they judged that very round, it will help their focus and work against dodgy scoring.

Fighters have now also begun to manipulate current scoring trends to help them win decisions. This goes against the intended spirit of entering a competition to defeat one's opponent with displaying the means to submit them or render them unable to continue. Rather, a growing number of fighters now strive to control an opponent while earning favour with the judges and winning via decision. This will give their opponents extra incentive to get that needed stoppage as they will know decisively that they need it and the normally conservative fighter who knows they are already ahead 2-0 going into the third may actually look to be more aggressive!

In addition, the role of a cornerman would significantly change. Instead of providing approximations on how the fight is going, actual scores will feed strategies and necessary adjustments. How often has a corner misguided their fighter? Most recently Nate Marquardt was a victim of this and Nam Phan also grossly mislead his charge,  Aaron Wilkinson, during TUF by purporting that he was winning the round- but how are they really to know? It is their job to provide insight on how to win. This is made more difficult when the score is kept hidden from them.

Ten Point Must

Another point to consider is the Ten Point Must system (without entering the debate of judging the fight as a whole- as in Dream). This is the current system for MMA and it is slightly different than boxing. In boxing, it is named so because one fighter must receive ten points and another less. However, in MMA, both fighters can conceivably receive 10 points. MMA judges are required to score rounds 10-10 if they feel it is even. They are not required to score it 10- 9. Confusingly, rounds are very rarely scored 10-10.

My Proposal: Half-Point Scoring

I propose a new method – half-point rounds - 10 for the winner and 9.5 for the loser. This is important to consider because often a fighter who clearly loses a round is given the same amount of points to a fighter who loses a 50-50 round. When fighters win a round clearly and then have two fifty-fifty rounds and lose the fight it is easy to understand their frustration. The recent Quinton Jackson- Lyoto Machida main event, for example. Either fighter could have won the first two rounds, but Machida clearly won the third and overall did more damage over the course of the fight due to that dominant third round. Yet, he lost a split decision because two judges gave those closely decided first two rounds to Jackson. Jackson confessed after the fight that Machida had “ beat his ass “. He later recanted and felt he won the first two rounds and therefore, the fight. No one would dispute that overall Machida won the fight, but that within the context of the 10 Point Must scoring system, one could make a strong case for declaring Jackson the winner for his actions in the first two rounds.

More 10-10 Rounds!

The potential argument against my reforms would be an increase in the probability of draws. But I think fans and fighters agree that some fights are draws and should be judged as such and not be a less than deserved win or loss on a fighter’s career record. Some rounds and some fights are too close to definitively who won, but the judge feels obligated to score it for someone.

The UFC themselves misrepresent the rules of the sport. The UFC broadcast posts “The ten-point must system is in effect for all UFC fights; three judges score each round and the winner of each receives ten points, the loser nine points or fewer.” Mike Goldberg, who reads this, fails to mention the option of a 10-10 score which is perfectly legitimate. This contributes to the misnomer that they are not allowed, as in boxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Fighting_Championship#Judging_criteria ). Judges should either follow the proper guidelines and score the even rounds 10-10, or they should implement the half-point scoring system.

The Case against Open Scoring

Keith Kizer, the venerable Executive Director of the NSAC, provided me with some fascinating insight on my article specifically pertaining to open scoring and even rounds. His very sound opposition to open scoring is based on technical decisions. Consider these rules:

1. If an injury sustained during the fight is a result of an accidental foul is severe enough for the referee to stop the fight immediately, the fight shall result in a technical decision awarded to the fighter who is ahead on the score cards at the time the fight is stopped only when the fight is stopped after two rounds of a three round fight, or three rounds of a five round fight have been complete.

1. If an injury sustained during the fight is a result of an intentional foul causes the injured fighter to be unable to continue at a subsequent point in the fight, the injured fighter shall win by technical decision, if he or she is ahead on the score cards. If the injured fighter is even or behind on the score cards at the time of stoppage, the outcome of the fight shall be declared a technical draw.(http://www.ringsidebygus.com/mma-rules.html )

This would mean that fighters would win the fight, if they knew they were ahead on the score cards, by quitting. Kizer poignantly referenced many examples of this having occurred in boxing. Currently, we have fighters feigning head injuries from phantom illegal knees, so offering a win to discontinue the fight might be too tempting for some fighters. The Executive Director also states that 10-10 rounds are rarely scored because in five minutes of action it is very difficult for two competitors to be exactly even. He made the clever analogy of an election with five thousand voters being tallied at exactly 2,500 a piece. With all due respect, I try to subscribe more to the philosophy of giving one the benefit of the doubt and act in the best interest of the majority while allowing, and, lamentably, accepting, for a few instances where abuse will occur ( panhandlers, welfare recipients, insurance claimants etc. ) and not punishing the entire group for fear of what a small dishonorable minority may be able to do.  Bearing these excellent points in mind, consider for yourself if changes are needed and if they would enhance the sport.

There is good evidence that these modified rules can work. In Japan, the live open scoring ( 4^th and 8^thround totals only ) has been implemented successfully in boxing for several years now.

And consider the Bonner-Griffin 1 fight, Rua-Machida 1, all very close rounds to score that would have benefited from half-point scoring. Do you think B.J. Penn would not have liked to have known that he needed a stoppage to win in his fights with Edgar that ultimately cost the Hawaiian his title?

Basically, it comes down to the hyper-informed generation that is consuming this product in growing numbers. The young people attracted to MMA demand things well, on-demand! The very notion of social media and the gadgetry that delivers it instantly across the world requires that nothing be played close to the vest. Nothing is a secret anymore and the world’s most dangerous sport should be keep up with the times and be no exception.

Andrew Dodds