StyrbjornSterki wrote:The lowest they can go is 10-8, only recently changed from 10-9. All forms of professional fighting are heavily influenced by the gaming industry, and I think the odds-makers want to keep fights close even though one fighter is clearly superior because it benefits the gambling business.
This is my obviously too-long-winded explanation of how the UFC got to a 10-point scoring system to begin with.
First they got in Dutch with "the authorities" from the start because the UFC billed itself as "no rules" fighting. Which wasn't entirely true (though not far from it), but thanks in no small part to American Senator John McCain's use of his bully pulpit, 36 of the American states passed laws banning "ho-holds-barred" fighting.
The first few UFCs didn't have weight classes or rounds or judges. Or a prescribed dress. Shoes or barefooted, gloves or no, gi or no, all up to the individual fighter. The fight didn't end until one fighter tapped or was knocked unconscious. The rules didn't even allow a TKO, but they did allow head-butting, hair pulling, groin strikes, fish-hooking, small joint locks and elbows to the top of the head.
To get their legality (and their livelihood) restored, the UFC had no choice but cozy up to the athletic commissions in all of those 36 states. Which led not just to a considerable softening of the rules of the contest but also to adoption of the 10-point scoring system. In part that was because some of the states wouldn't allow a contest in their jurisdiction without their own judges were used (you might have noticed that the state of New York conspicuously requires the referee at UFC events to wear a NY athletic commission shirt), and those judges would have been schooled in the 10-point system.
Any system for scoring a fight necessarily is going to involve an element of subjectivity. Even scoring a single blow requires multiple layers of subjectivity because there are only two types of blow that can be scored completely objectively: a wiff that altogether misses and has absolutely zero effect, or a strike that renders the opponent immediately unconscious, a KTFO. In
every instance, the former is a zero and the latter is a maximum score. However, everything else would have to be scored on the basis of where did it land, how hard did it land,
and what effect did it produce. Only one of those three considerations can be weighed completely objectively but even that one would require some subjectivity in assigning the score value per blow because somebody somewhere would have to address the question of how many points a kick to the calf is worth versus an elbow to the jaw or a punch to the abdomen.
Too complicated, I think. Best to only require each judge to distill his assessment of each fighter's performance in each round to a single number.
On the subject of the impact of the states' athletic commissions on the competition, you might have noticed that Big John McCarthy was absent from the UFC for a while, and then only showed up occasionally. Big John's stature in the UFC cannot be overestimated because he was the
only referee for
all the fights in the first UFCs. And it was only at his insistence that they implemented the first change to the fight rules. He insisted on being able to stop the fight whenever one fighter lost the ability to intelligently defend himself. In effect, a TKO. And he set the standard for decorum and performance for all the other referees. He's as much a bedrock feature of the UFC as the steel fence is. Anyway, in 2007 Big John left his gig at the UFC to become a commentator on a start-up MMA telly station. When that station failed, the UFC graciously gave him his old job back.
However, in the interim, his license to referee combat sports in the state of Nevada lapsed. When he returned to the UFC, which stages a majority of its events in Las Vegas, Nevada refused to reissue a license to him. They said, in essence, we don't need you, we have enough referees. So for a while after he returned, he only could referee UFC events that weren't in Nevada. Which explains why he was absent for a spell, and then uncommonly scarce for a while longer.
After all that he had been to the sport, can you imagine the hubris of denying Big John a license to referee because you already had plenty? Along with Herb Dean and Jacob "Stitch" Duran, he's as much as a rock star. I am quite sure he could make a comfortable living entirely off his celebrity, were he a mind to. And probably without having to resort to accidentally leaking a pr0n video of himself having sex with someone named Kardashian.
I didn't get turned on to the UFC until the number of their events was up into the 60s, and as my interest grew I decided I needed to go back and watch those early events for myself. So I got ripped digital copies of the first 40. I tried to binge watch when I could because I found that compressing time that way gave me a heightened sense of just how the the sport was evolving in response to a frequently-changing rules structure. Besides, digital video let me skip all the dead parts, and the majority of the events only had 30-45 minutes of action anyway, so I could watch half a dozen UFCs in roughly the same timespan as two films.
I started out thinking that one of the founding principles of the UFC was that the fighting should be as near real-world as possible, a "run what you brung" fight, regardless whether what you brung was karate or boxing or drunken monkey kung fu. And there's no "rounds" in a real fight, so why should the fighters get breaks in the UFC?
Then I got to UFC 5. The championship match was Ken Shamrock vs Royce Gracie. At UFC 5 there still were no rounds and no time limits but they stopped the fight after 36 minutes and called it a draw because the only people in the audience who hadn't already walked out were the ones who had fallen asleep. Gracie and Shamrock both were submission artists, and equally skilled at submission defence, and after more than half an hour neither one had enough petrol left in the tank to out-submit the other.**
That wasn't the only time in those early UFCs that the fight lost most (or all) of its entertainment value because both fighters were gassed, but it certainly was the one that drove a stake through the heart of not having rounds and not having a scoring system to decide the victor if neither could finish the other. But I count both those changes good ones, in large part on account of that fight.
So the UFC kissed the pope's ring and adopted the 10-point scoring system. To quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." That's how I view the 10-point system. It sucks, but it sucks less than all the others. Certainly less, IMHO, than not scoring the fight at all but insisting that one finish the other.
**Gracie and Shamrock faced off again in 2016 at Bellator 149. It was the only win by striking in Gracie's long and distinguished career, but that fight was the poster child for mandatory redundancy for aging mixed martial artists. It was painful to watch. On top of that, Shamrock tested positive after for steroids and methadone.