Quote:
Originally Posted by chop
I went back and listened to a Dana White interview after the fight and I think he was saying that the judges should put more weight on damage inflicted and not just out striking or winning by rounds (at least that is the way I took it). He clearly thought Hendricks won by the amount of damage that was inflicted on GSP and the lack of damage on JH. If the scoring system is based upon the 10 pt round scoring system, I'm not sure how to get around this unless you automatically score the round 10-8 whenever someone inflicts more damage.
|
Well, in the rule book, it's scored by "effective striking" which is entirely open to interpretation. Do you score a round for someone who landed a large volume of strikes that didn't inflict much damage or for someone who may have had a low % landed but obviously did damage?
The 10-9 isn't horrible but it is flawed (and I have no idea how you truly fix it or create a perfect scoring system). If judges were more keen to give out 10-8 and 10-7 rounds, it's possible the system could be rectified. However, you then open a whole new can of worms, in that the majority of fights are only 3 rounds. If an opponent gets a 10-8, you're going to have to finish or score your own 10-8 to secure a victory.
Then you factor in that the majority of these judges are coming from boxing and don't understand how kicks or the ground game should be scored. Even when you get guys who have adequate credentials (e.g. Almeida) and understand the sport, you can still be left with undesirable results due to human error (being forced to watch cageside/tiny monitors) and bias.