RealGM

The proposed new language would also clearly underscore the current order in which rounds are supposed to be scored, beginning with effective striking and grappling. Only if those two things are equal does a judge consider aggression and cage control, respectively, in that order. The proper scoring order is a common misconception in MMA. Aggression and cage control are merely tiebreakers, not primary scoring methods.

"Effective Aggressiveness and Fighting Area Control are back up plans, should the effect of striking/grappling be 100% equal for both competitors," the proposed language states.

Bernman wrote:And I do like more 10-8 rounds to reflect the difference between a dominant round and a close one, unlike we often get now, but unfortunately that would cause a considerably higher frequency of draws. Then maybe judges are giving close enough rounds to the wrong guy to avoid that. What about having half-points, but only awarding them from 10-8.5 on down? Then for a super dominant round you could give like a 10-7.5, and you couldn't get that back with two 10-9's. If you considered a round more decisive than a 10-9, but not that dominant or damaging still, then you can give a 10-8.5, but then other fighting can still come back for the win with two 10-9's. But you wouldn't have the dilemma of giving a 10-8 to reflect more decisiveness than a 10-9 would, but then either allow a draw with 2 10-9's on the comeback, or giving the less deserving fighter one of those 10-9's to avoid said draw.

REDDzone wrote:Eliminate rounds to find out who the best fighters are.

CPT wrote:I don't like that they are still discouraging the use of 10-10 rounds. I feel like I see them all the time. If you see a round as being close enough that it should not decide the fight, I think giving a 10-10 and essentially putting more weight on the other rounds is reasonable.

CPT wrote:Draws will become more common, but I'd prefer draws to bad decisions.

CPT wrote:Could a 4th round or must-decision in the event of a draw work?

Under the 10-point plan, fighters who miss weight will be fined 20 percent of “all bonuses,” including win bonuses. The full bonus fine will go to the opponent who made weight. The 20 percent fine of the show money (half to the opponent, half to the commission) will remain. Repeat weight-miss offenders will be recommended to go up to the next weight class.

A fight-day weight check will be implemented to see how much fighters gain back between the weigh-ins and the fight. If a fighter gains back more than 10 percent of his or her body weight, that fighter will be recommended to move up to the next weight class for his or her next bout.

The additional weight classes added will be at 165, 175, 195 and 225 pounds. Foster said at the meeting that stakeholders did not want to remove the current 170-pound division because of its “iconic” status in MMA.

Foster, who wrote the plan with input of stakeholders, said perhaps the most important part of the package is licensing by weight class. In other words, doctors will have a greater input on the lowest weight a fighter can get make safely. CSAC medical exams will include information for physicians about weight classes and medical committee recommendations about weight cutting.

...

Another interesting provision: the ability to do 30- and 10-day weight checks, like the WBC does in boxing. That way regulators, promoters and doctors can see if it’s realistic and safe for fighters to make the contracted weight the day before the bout.

“If we have a fighter contracted for 155 and they’re 195 pounds 30 days out, maybe it’s time to get with the promoter, get with the medical committee and talk about this to see if it’s really appropriate for this fight,” Foster said. “It does happen.”