10 - 8's are a joke

I remember that there was a time when there was a contingent of voices on Sherdog calling for more 10-8 rounds.
 
It is a joke. 10-10s should be given more freely too. I hate this idea that there’s gotta be a winner, so let’s flip a coin to decide who won an even round.
 
Karl_Hungus said:
I remember that there was a time when there was a contingent of voices on Sherdog calling for more 10-8 rounds.
Click to expand...
A few people misread what I said. I'm saying it's too hard to get 10-8's at the moment. I don't know if that's because the judges suck or the rules for a 10-8 are too vague but there should be more of them than we are seeing
 
10-8 should be damage based and not control based or volume based unless there is a lot of damage being doing with the volume/activity. Can't give 10-8s for octagon control or positional control, it should be based on damage. In boxing 10-8s are given with a knockdown, multiple knockdowns in a round should get a 10-8 in mma or damage taken while the other fighter is just covered up or trying to survive the majority of the round should be 10-8s. Could be striking damage or ground and pound damage.
 
Flammenwerfer said:
A few people misread what I said. I'm saying it's too hard to get 10-8's at the moment. I don't know if that's because the judges suck or the rules for a 10-8 are too vague but there should be more of them than we are seeing
Click to expand...
It's the rules and not understanding exactly what they are watching. They have an understanding of it, but not a great understanding of it.
 
FIghtxIQ said:
10-8 should be damage based and not control based or volume based unless there is a lot of damage being doing with the volume/activity. Can't give 10-8s for octagon control or positional control, it should be based on damage. In boxing 10-8s are given with a knockdown, multiple knockdowns in a round should get a 10-8 in mma or damage taken while the other fighter is just covered up or trying to survive the majority of the round should be 10-8s. Could be striking damage or ground and pound damage.
Click to expand...
I agree but volume should factor into it. If Max lands 130 strikes in a round to Ortegas 20 he should get a 10-8 even if he caused no damage.

To simplify it, if you dominate the round with striking or Khabib style grappling it should be a 10-8. At the moment an incredibly close round gets scored the same as an ass kicking
 
Flammenwerfer said:
I agree but volume should factor into it. If Max lands 130 strikes in a round to Ortegas 20 he should get a 10-8 even if he caused no damage.

To simplify it, if you dominate the round with striking or Khabib style grappling it should be a 10-8. At the moment an incredibly close round gets scored the same as an ass kicking
Click to expand...
Max's volume causes damage, he would have 10-8 rounds. I meant the volume that are more to just score points, like light leg kicks and light punches. Max has volume and pop in his punches, he causes damage with his volume.
 
We need 10-9.5 rounds.

10-9.5 : close round, you could give it to either fighter
10-9 : clear point-fighting round win to one fighter
10-8: total domination, ass-whooping, close to a stoppage
 
10-8 is for when the round could or should have ended in TKO but the ref didn't stop it.
 
Poser Caust said:
You can fix the criteria all you want but it won't mean shit with incompetent judges, which has never been properly addressed during the entire history of the sport, boxing too for that matter.
Click to expand...
This.The judges will continue to give 30 27 Guillards, no matter what you tell them to look for from your computer seat.
 
wildchild88 said:
From MMA junkie article:

According to the unified rules that D’Amato and other judges rely on, a 10-8 score “does not require a fighter to dominate their opponent for 5 minutes of a round.” A 10-8 score should be awarded if “one fighter has dominated the action of the round, had duration of the domination and also impacted their opponent with either effective strikes or effective grappling maneuvers that have diminished the abilities of their opponent.” A 10-8 score should be considered if “a fighter IMPACTS their opponent significantly in a round even though they do not dominate the action.”

This is really broad, think it leaves a lot to interpretation..

Doesn't judging in every sport suck though?
Click to expand...

It should be damage based. It should not involve control.

Almost at all honestly.

It should not be easy to achieve.

In a three round fight, with that much leeway in how it's written and so much up to interpretation, it could really fuck a fighter over.
 
Flammenwerfer said:
Sick of hearing "that could be a 10-8" by the commentary. It never is.
It's so hard to get a 10-8 that by the time you get one you've essentially won the fight anyway.

It would be so easy to implement, if you get 2 knockdowns in a round or deal double the damage/output of your opponent that should be a 10-8.

Either make 10-8 rounds achievable or just get rid of them.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Leaving them open ended means a lot of judges just don't give them and running into one of the ones that does is an element of bad luck rather than merit.

This is one of the few ways boxing is right. 10-9 winner/loser,point subtracted per knockdown. Nice and simple. Then again in boxing the judges have more rounds to fuck up the 10-9's(hence why you see more comical decisions) and the 10-8 rule serves as a type of quality control as a knockdown cancels out some bad judging. In MMA judges have less rounds to be potentially wrong in thus they have less impact on the fights.

But hey they're more common than 10-10's. Those are technically supposed to be a thing and the judging community has an unspoken agreement to never use them under any circumstances(as they'd cause a shit ton of draws).
 
TheHabitualLineStepper said:
Exactly. The commentary was saying Usman Colby round 2 should be 10-8, wtf??

10-8 should be rounds where the fighter is totally dominated, Dana White even said that himself.
Click to expand...

Nah, that's exactly the problem with 10-8s. Complete domination is rarely achievable. Partial domination should be sufficient, especially in striking, where 10-8s are scored way too sparsely. Any round in which a fighter badly rocks or drops their opponent, and has them in survival mode for a period of time should be a candidate for a 10-8. A round in which a fighter drops their opponent twice and doubles their output, as mentioned in the OP, should be a candidate for a 10-7.

The huge flaw in using the 10 point must system in MMA is that judges only ever use 10-9s. So a round in which the fighters are essentially equal, or in which there is little action, is given as much weight as a round where a fighter gets put on his ass and goes into survival mode. It's stupid.
 
Personally I think they should just go back to the old way but have draws more often. lt is ok to have 10-10 rounds.
 
What doesn’t work is 10-9 being a round when someone knocks the opponent down once or twice (i.e Kamaru-Colby), as well as a round when both fighters land about the same but they just have to give it to someone. Either make the first 10-8 or the second 10-10, but both being 10-9 is stupid.
 
Scoring is and always will be a matter of opinion. That's why even if a fighter I love loses a decision that I feel they won, I accept it and move on. No matter how bad the decision appears, I accept it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,887
Messages
55,452,428
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top