Would there be less bad decisions if there were more judges?

Yes. I tend to think the correct winner would be identified through a larger pool of scorecards instead of just 3.
 
Beerus said:
Pride_Logo.jpg

Only way to get best results, scoring wise.
Click to expand...

Their standards may have been better, but they had some horrible decisions too.

This concept of “significant” strikes and TD’s in the Unified Rules is complete garbage.
So you get guys like Dom Cruz just doing that, and little else.
For me, a single devastating punch means more than all of Cruz’s 10-9 BS...even if he was “winning 99% of the fight”.
 
4 judges.

3 need to agree on the rounds winner otherwise it's a drawn round.

3 need to agree it's a 10-8.

Of course judges can still score a round as a draw.
 
rambosabeast said:
Yes. I tend to think the correct winner would be identified through a larger pool of scorecards instead of just 3.
Click to expand...

Imo the judges need to be given more scale to work with and to actually use it.

I want to see 10-10, 10-7 and 10-6 being scored.

10-9 is currently used for everything from a coin flip to anything just shy of a complete beatdown.
 
Yes. Reduces the influence of a bad judge from 33% to 20%.

I believe the best way to ameliorate the prevalence of bad decisions is evidence based judging. It can be implemented in the following way:

1 person in the truck presses a button every time they believe a strike may have landed. A slow motion clip of the preceding 1/2 second in patched through in real time to two judges who rate the efficacy of the strike on a 1-10 scale. 1 for an insignificant glancing blow and 10 for a flush, heavy, knockdown type blow. The scores are added, then halved and submitted to a third judge at the end of the round.

The third judge, who during the round scores the fighters on a 1-20 scale for octagon control and aggressiveness adds the cumulative score for the strikes landed to their OC&A score which can be adjusted based on situations where strikes that appeared to land well did not.

A fourth judge scores the grappling exchanges if they are present. For each pass, advance or period of control, fighters receive a score adjusted to the length of time spent grappling vs the length of time spent striking. e.g. In a fight where grappling exchanges consist of 2/3's of the round, the scores will be doubled in relation to the striking scores. as they consisted of 67% of the fight vs 33%.

Lastly, a fifth judge views the grappling and striking exchanges and gives a weighting based on which type of attack was most significant in the round and that weighting is then multiplied by the scores given by the other 4 judges. e.g. In a fight where fighter A score 30 for striking and 10 for grappling, and fighter B scores 10 for striking and 20 for grappling, but the fifth judges views the grappling exchanges to be twice as significant as the striking exchanges, the scores will be adjusted so fighter A ends up with 15 for striking and 20 for grappling (35) and fighter B scores 5 for striking and 60 for grappling (45).

This is a very small and heavily simplified snapshot of the algorithm I developed for part of my masters dissertation. I am prepared to engage conversation about it if anyone is interested.

Rounds are scored according to the existing 10 point must system with differences of 30% or more (with a 50 point total minimum) resulting in a 10-8 round and 70% or more (with a 70 point minimum) a 10-7 round.

I have used my algorithm to score 17 controversial judging decisions in development, with all 17 decisions being corrected to the majority public consensus.
 
100 judges, there would be no bad decissions at all.
 
HIMBOB said:
Imo the judges need to be given more scale to work with and to actually use it.

I want to see 10-10, 10-7 and 10-6 being scored.

10-9 is currently used for everything from a coin flip to anything just shy of a complete beatdown.
Click to expand...
Assuming that is something we see in the future, wouldn't it still be helped by additional eyes/scorecards being used to give decisions?
 
rambosabeast said:
Assuming that is something we see in the future, wouldn't it still be helped by additional eyes/scorecards being used to give decisions?
Click to expand...

I believe it would help but not materially.
 
Reason said:
Yes. Reduces the influence of a bad judge from 33% to 20%.

I believe the best way to ameliorate the prevalence of bad decisions is evidence based judging. It can be implemented in the following way:

1 person in the truck presses a button every time they believe a strike may have landed. A slow motion clip of the preceding 1/2 second in patched through in real time to two judges who rate the efficacy of the strike on a 1-10 scale. 1 for an insignificant glancing blow and 10 for a flush, heavy, knockdown type blow. The scores are added, then halved and submitted to a third judge at the end of the round.

The third judge, who during the round scores the fighters on a 1-20 scale for octagon control and aggressiveness adds the cumulative score for the strikes landed to their OC&A score which can be adjusted based on situations where strikes that appeared to land well did not.

A fourth judge scores the grappling exchanges if they are present. For each pass, advance or period of control, fighters receive a score adjusted to the length of time spent grappling vs the length of time spent striking. e.g. In a fight where grappling exchanges consist of 2/3's of the round, the scores will be doubled in relation to the striking scores. as they consisted of 67% of the fight vs 33%.

Lastly, a fifth judge views the grappling and striking exchanges and gives a weighting based on which type of attack was most significant in the round and that weighting is then multiplied by the scores given by the other 4 judges. e.g. In a fight where fighter A score 30 for striking and 10 for grappling, and fighter B scores 10 for striking and 20 for grappling, but the fifth judges views the grappling exchanges to be twice as significant as the striking exchanges, the scores will be adjusted so fighter A ends up with 15 for striking and 20 for grappling (35) and fighter B scores 5 for striking and 60 for grappling (45).

This is a very small and heavily simplified snapshot of the algorithm I developed for part of my masters dissertation. I am prepared to engage conversation about it if anyone is interested.

Rounds are scored according to the existing 10 point must system with differences of 30% or more (with a 50 point total minimum) resulting in a 10-8 round and 70% or more (with a 70 point minimum) a 10-7 round.

I have used my algorithm to score 17 controversial judging decisions in development, with all 17 decisions being corrected to the majority public consensus.
Click to expand...

this would be perfect, in a perfect world, but tbh probably too many moving parts to be EFFICIENT, I feel like we would be left hanging round for 10 minutes as the judges re-watched certain clips after the fight

but if they could test it out and work out the kinks for a handover period while the current criteria was still in use and switched when they had it down to a T, then yeah, 100% like this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,891
Messages
55,452,611
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top