I get this a lot when arguing whether a certain round in a fight was a 10-8 or not. People usually say "But he didn't do enough damage/dominate enough for it to really be considered a 10-8". Personally, I think that point of view defeats the whole purpose of having 10-8 rounds, which is to distinguish the levels of dominance with which a fight was won. If a fighter won a round in more dominant fashion than he lost others, shouldn't that be reflected on the overall judging of the fight? Isn't that the whole point?