In a span of 24 hours I have done a complete 180 in regards to the scoring of the first round of the Sanzhez/Guida fight and once again did not post a piece soon enough (damn my real job).  I originally did not think that the first round deserved a 10-8 and even though I disagree with this I could understand the rational of giving rounds two and three to Guida.  However, there is no way you could convince me that Clay Guida won that fight.  The more I thought about it the only reason I did not want to reward, as if I have that power, Diego a 10-8 score was based on precedent.  Sanchez dominated the round, but based on what most judges deem necessary for that score I was unsure.  This is where the real problem lies.  Why are MMA judges so set on everything being a 10-9 round.  This trend is one of the reasons for bad decisions within the world of MMA.  Michael David Smith draws on this and everything else I wanted to talk about before he posted his article.

MMA and Boxing are two different sports and therefore should be judged differently.  A few ideas he brings up are judging the fight based on its entirety, having more 10-10/10-8/10-7 rounds, and using a completely new method for scoring fights.  I think it is clear a problem exists and clear that a solution needs to be found because if Clay Guida had walked away (more like hopped away, seriously that dude is crazy) the winner we would have had a major controversy.  Below I highlight why the scoring system needs to be changed and offer a few options (some borrowed, some new) for change.

Despite both being combat sports there is a clear difference between boxing and MMA and yet we continue to use the same scoring system.  Boxing has had its scoring controversies, but the constant 10-9 rounds have tended to work themselves out in major fights.  This is because of the length of a boxing match.  Over the course of 12 rounds the rate of error reduces (channeling statistics class, what just happened) and a misjudged round here and there will disappear with a larger sample size (more rounds).  With only 3 rounds one mistake can have a huge outcome on the final result.  With fewer rounds there needs to be less rigid scoring and more room for, dare I say, subjectivity.  This is a slippery slope since judging is already subjective and no two judges score everything the same.  The more discretion judges have more problems can arise.  For example, what one judge considers 10-6 another might consider 10-8.  With only three rounds those two points can have a major impact on the final score.  That is why it is difficult to open up the scoring options.  MMA needs to find a good middle ground where judges are provided more options, but still keep it simple.

Also, to counter those who are going to tell me Amateur Boxing has 3 round fights that is a radically different beast.  Amateur boxing has a standardized scoring system which details how fighters earn points to determine victors.  A regulated scoring system is actually what many people argue for in the world of MMA.  However, since MMA only has three or five round fights which are scored primarily as 10-9 we will continue to have problems.

I have two ideas, in addition to the two that Michael David Smith has mentioned.  The first is not awarding points to the loser of a round.  Every round the fighter is awarded 0, 1, 2, or 3 points.  This is essentially the same as the 10 point scoring system, but I think the way it is created judges would feel more freedom to score differently.  Actually, this is the exact same as having a 10-10, 10-9, 10-8, or 10-7 round, but by changing the system a little judges might not feel the restraints they currently feel.  Even if judges are informed to loosen up their scoring it is hard to change what they have already been doing for years.  As we have seen in a lot of the first class of MMA greats, it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.  If a switch happens, either scoring system mentioned above, all the options should have an equal frequency.  A 10-10 round and 10-7 round should happen almost as much as the 10-9 round.  Judges must not be scared of having a strong opinion.

The other option is to add two more judges.  I am not sure if this has been done or is even allowed (please let me know), but if it is allowed then why not.  Hitting on my old statistics classes once again this would be another way to reduce error.  Increasing the amount of judges more or less increases the sample size and has the same effect as increasing scoring options.  For all you mathematicians, I know that increasing the sample size is not always necessary and if there is a strong representative sample then increasing the sample size does not matter, but who cares what you have to say. Everyone hates your classes anyways; take that Mr. Swatt.  I think you would solve a lot of problems if two judges were added and the scoring system opened up.

Overall, scoring disputes are not that common a problem and in the end Diego won the fight, but it appears as if this is a solvable problem.  Increasing scoring options or adding judges might only be a Band-Aid (you know that is trademarked like Kleenex, crazy) and the cure is creating a standardized scoring system, but it still helps the problem.  There are larger problems in MMA, but this appears to be one we can fix.  Along with creating a cup that works in MMA, my plea to the people above is fix this problem and someone tell Kevin Burns there is something flowing down the left side of his head.

The Ultimate Fighter 9 Finale coverage