Originally Posted by PoisonGodMachin
Going by the current way they use the 10 point must system you mean? Surely you would agree that Hendricks was more dominant in that round than GSP was in the first round? (not that I think GSP won that round, but going by the way the judges scored it) and if so Why not score it accordingly?
I'm not wanting to know HOW they should score it based on the current way they use their stupid scoring system, I'm saying how they SHOULD use the system so as to avoid ridiculous decisions that don't properly reflect the way a fight has transpired.
It's not "Well that was a 10-9 round, and anything slightly more definitive is automatically 10-8."
There's a certain threshold to be reached. A 10-8 round is supposed to be a big deal. That round wasn't. Solid, clearly Hendricks, but not by a massive margin.
Does that not fit the MMA format? Perhaps. The 10 point must system was designed for boxing, where championship fights used to be 15 rounds, and are now 12. Perhaps MMA needs a different system, make theirs a five point must (so people don't get it confused with boxing scoring), and give out bigger differentials.
Still, I think that most of the 10-8 arguments stem more from butt-hurt than actual dominance.