Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by PROlogic, Jun 12, 2018.
It's not trolling. He is that dumb.
He was also separated for inactivity, aka doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. But yeah, I can at least see the argument for a 10-8 round upon re-watching, but I don't know. I'm not as convinced as some people.
Whittaker 14 of 29
Romero 26 of 47
The most "outlanding" round was the first, in favor of Whit, with 33 to 9.
33 to 9
Oh shit, round 5 Yoel out landed him by 12 strikes and got separated for inactivity, clear 10/8...
There was no 10/8 Round in that fight and no one would even be mentioning it if Rogan never brought it up in commentary.
What you have to consider is this: that same night mike Jackson got a 10-8 for very little and yoel did not in a round where he knocked Whittaker down, took him down three times and almost had him finished twice...
Its all off the back of Joe Rogan and his love for Yoel.
The point is valid though but it was a draw at best.
The only possible other round is the third.
Romero scored a knockdown but Whittaker landed significant strikes back, it was 10-9.
You could have said that in about a third of the length.
Robert did a much better job fighting back. He took way more punishment and still had success in the round. That is the difference. One man got beat from bell to bell. One man did not, dispite taking more punishment.
That's who the op is? I knew his style seemed familiar, but I couldn't figure out who.
To me 8-10 rounds were always gone of the dodgiest areas of MMA judging with a seeming favourism as to who got them. All that seems to have happened with the rule shift is rather than being rare but going to favoured guys like Forrest there now common but don't go to unflavoured guys like Romero(in this situation missing weight).
I thought that to lol. If round 5 is a 10-8 how ain't 1.
Romero did absolutely nothing in that round ffs.
Don't let it go to the judges. /thread
I'm a big Whittaker fan, but I get people saying rd 5 was 10-8. I don't think it's just butthurt Romero fans. It really looked like the fight was going to get stopped, and I think that if it was a different ref, it would have been.
Under the new scoring criteria (which this fight was under), 10-8s are meant to be more commonplace. If you wanted to be really generous, it could've gone 10-8 in 3 and 5 to Romero, and 10-8 in 1 and 2 from Whittaker.
Still, glad he won though.
Boorrrrriiiiinnnnngggg! Who gives a fuck about the 5th fucking rd? Get a fucking life!
I quickly went from unaware of to quickly skipping over his posts
Don't confuse this current system with the old one.
Here using the new system we get to score rounds 10-8 and 10-7's and using the new system we have it a 10-8
If we use the old system it's not. It meant it needed to be a 10-7 in the new scoring and it wasn't that drastic get it ?
You are just using the old rules and aren't getting to our result and wonder why many of us got there when we just used the new scoring system and can give a 10-8 easier in situations like this cause that round wasn't just a 10-9.
I know the arguement you are trying to make but the problem is that one of those rounds he competely turtled up and wasn't even fighting back he just was doing that thing where the only place open is the back of the head. One of the rounds he really didn't fight back. He got back up and then was almost tkod along the fence
Was wondering that myself
Separate names with a comma.