Taking the forest-rampage fight in consideration, is the UFC scoring system flawed?

Question

I based this off of the griffin-rampage fight. If you get technical griffin won the fight. He threw more punches, was more aggressive, and had more attempted chokes. But other than the 2nd round his punches were weak, his chokes were not effective(one even led to him being slammed), and rampage nearly always got the better of the exchanges and damaged forest more.

Should points be awarded for non-effective moves? I think that's why there is so much controversial around the fight decision because if we based it off of damage done I think score would have been 47-46 to rampage.

10-9(ramapage)

8-10(forest)

10-9(close but rampage had the rockers...rampage)

10-9(rampage)

9-9(toss up..wayy to close to call...draw)

47-46

but if we get technical..forest easily won

10-9(ramapage)

8-10(forest)

9-10(forest)

10-9(rampage)

9-10(forest)

46-48

Answer 1

forest was more aggressive in the fight, judges dont like it when the other fighter is backing off. I wanted forest to win but I thought the score was off alittle.

Answer 2

I am so tired of this question. I can give you almost fifteen boxing fights off the top of my head  that the boxing system did not work correct in. Judging is all interpretive. if you have gene libbel scoring your fight you should try for a lot of submissions because he is a submissionn guy and then if you have Cecil Peoples scoring making your opponent stand and trade with you will score you points. in boxing some judges like the brawlers while others like counter fights and others just go by who hit more. three different judges from three different will always score the bout different. All I really know is that every one at the gym I train and fight out of agreed with the judges in this fight.

Oh the rounds where there isno real winner is a Ten-Ten round

Answer 3

don't forget octogan control, forrest was in the middle of the octagon longer.

Answer 4

Yes and No

Yes because the 10-point Must system is a boxing system that is converted to MMA, and each judge will view an MMA fight differently, where as boxing is more black and white.

On the other hand, what is a better way to score a fight? You could gauge an entire fight but that would be even more subjective then the current system IMO, basing an opinion on an overall viewpoint of the fight. In terms of scoring, it's less effective because the same criteria will be used by each judge, but with no variance for rounds, which allow the scoring to be balanced (if that was clear)

It's a good question, but I think the 10-point Must system is the best one as of yet. In terms of the Forrest/Rampage fight, a casual fan would probably view Rampage as the winner due to the punching power and damage.

But in terms of technicality, Forrest was a clear winner. MMA is a technical sport, so Forrest won.