I agree with how you broke down the fight. I did think Volkanovski won Round 4 clearly at the time as I remember thinking it was either 2-2 or he was down 3-1 after that round, but on re-watch my opinion might change. Close one, for sure.
As for changing the scoring system, I am fine with something closer to what Pride did. The one part of scoring that would be tricky is are you scoring it as an equal whole or are you weighing the end of the fight more heavily? To me there's an element of it being a replication of an actual fight, and in that case what is happening at the end of the fight is probably the most important.
For example under the current system, Rose definitely beat Andrade 29-28. But under a Pride system, would anyone give that fight to Rose? I would give it to Andrade. But then how much better do Rose's first two rounds have to be to win that fight and erase that last round?
What if you flipped around the rounds and Andrade's big round was the first round and then Rose came back and out-pointed her for the last two rounds? In that case, maybe you give it to Rose?
The one part about a new scoring system that I would welcome is more draws. It just seems that there are so many fights where both guys are pretty equal and you are just basically flipping a coin. Max/Volkanovski 2 could of been a draw. Hooker/Felder could have been a draw. Maybe it's unsatisfying to some but if both guys are equal then why not call it like it was?
I understand the logic, but I don't like weighing the later rounds more.
1. It's still a sport. You don't get extra points because you scored in the last period of a hockey game.
2. I think it could potentially make some of the earlier rounds boring because they are saving themselves for the bonus rounds. Not in every case certainly, but I think it would be noticeable in too many fights.
3. There are ebbs and flows in fights all the time. Just because a guy lost round 5 doesn't mean he'd lose round 6.
4. If you squeak out round 5, does that count as much as a clear round 1 win? I don't like that. Exactly like you said with Andrade-Rose. If Andrade did that damage in the first round, but Rose wins 2 and 3, I still think Andrade won.
If they used it as a tie breaker or something, I could live with that. And I'd still probably like it more than the current 10-point-must system, but I'd rather the fight be judged evenly.
My preferred method though, I think is just to loosen up the 10-point must system. Maybe Max wins Round 1 and 2 10-8 because of the knock downs. Round 3 is a 10-10. Round 4 10-9 for Volkanovski (to be generous, I'd probably score it 10-10). Round 5 is 10-9 for Volkanovski. Max wins 48-46. Maybe Rose-Andrade is 10-9, 10-9, and 7-10. Andrade wins 28-27. Why have it out of 10 if you are all but guaranteed 8 points if you make it to the end of the round? (I think they can score 10-7, but I'm not sure I ever saw one.)
I'd be OK with more draws, too, but as I've suggested, I don't think Max-Volkanovski 2 was a draw. I definitely think rounds should be scored as draws more often, though.
I'd also like there to be a little bit more guidelines on what scores and how that score compares to other scores. Like those pitter patter leg kicks Volkanovski throws, surely that is not equally to Gaethje trying to break guys legs in half. Because I agree people liking Max is probably influencing their opinions some, but I think the 'significant strike' totals are effecting other's for Volkanovski. Some of those kicks he landed had to have been counted as significant strikes, but were probably mildly annoying at best. But is it half? 25%? 10%? Same with those takedowns with no control. It's got to count for something IMO, but is it 25% of a takedown with control? 10% of a takedown with G&P? Or is it equal to a jab? Or 5 jabs? It's never going to be an exact science, but I think there is too much interpretation now.