Has anybody notice all the 10-8 rounds lately?

I've noticed this myself. I'm glad they're not afraid to now, but sometimes it seems unwarranted. There have been a couple fights that deserve one, but then you have Shogun and Gustaffson? No.

A little too trigger happy, but I'm sure it will correct itself over time.
 
I'd like to see more 10-10 rounds and 10-8 rounds. 10-7 for beatdown and near finish.
 
just a little FYI:
There is no such thing as a 10-6 round. 10-7 is the biggest difference allowed
10-7 might as well not exist either because I have only seen 1 judge score 1 round 10-7, 1 time, and the judge was so screwed up, he got the fighters mixed up on his scorecard and scored it for the wrong fighter.

Just out of curiosity, anybody ever seen a 10-7 round scored?

Is 10-7 the biggest pre-deduction difference, or the biggest the judges can award independent of the referee?

Does anyone else wonder why they don't score rounds 3-(2,1,0) as opposed to 10-(9,8,7)?
 
Yes. But I've found them to be used incorrectly.

This. It's like the judges heard all the criticism and then thought "hey let's start giving some more 10-8 rounds. Instead of actually looking at the criteria and applying it.
 
Finally somebody is judging correctly.

And of course he gets criticized because it's been done incorrectly for so long

Erm I am up for 10:8 rounds but some of the late ones were really weird and some of the obvious ones werent scorded as ones.
 
Yes. I think I like them too. I reserve the right to change my mind if they start awarding when I don't think they're warranted though.
 
Along that tack, theres no such thing as a 10-8 if Maynard/Edgar 2 wasn't a 10-7.

Eh I agree.
Maynard dropped Edgar 3 times if I'm not mistaken, almost finished him twice I believe.
Edgar had 0 offense except landing a decent shot on Maynard near the end.
 
'Yall don't get it.
10-10 should be awarded if no one gets hit
10-9 for a slight beating
10-8 for a decent beating
10-7 for a hard-to-watch, 'feel bad for the poor sap' heavy beating
10-6... doctors would step in because of grevious bodily injury. Obviously, such a round can never go to the judges.
 
They're not necessarily picking the right 10-8s to award, but I love the trend. We need more of these. To bash my own fighter, Condit should have only gotten a draw vs Ellenberger. There's just no excuse for that round not being called a 10-8.
 
So, you're saying the 10-8 score was an accurate measure of Maynard's dominance in R !?

No. I'm saying that you misidentified Edgar-Maynard 2 and called it Edgar-Maynard 1, and you misidentified the score on BOTH fights, as no judge gave a 10-7 round in either fight. READ.
 
Yes!! I have noticed...good to see. But some have been way exaggerated
 
I was just thinking the same thing about the 10-10 score. Is it allowed under the Unified Rules of MMA?

yes, but it should almost never happen. More often than not when you do see it, it happens when you have judges who aren't very good or very knowledgeable and they do a 10-10 as a cop out.
The reason it should almost never happen is because a 10-10 is supposed to be a complete draw (not a close round that you don't want to make a decision on). There are so many things that get judged that it is virtually impossible not have 1 guy do just a hair more. It could be 1 more punch or just a little bit more control, or a little bit more aggression. About the only realistic way you can have a 10-10 is if 2 guys bounce around and never engage for the entire round. If that happens, the ref should have already stepped in and taken action for timidity.
 
I for one am fine with all these recent 10-8 rounds. I mean yeah some of them were ridiculous, but it's not like any of the 10-8 rounds resulted in a controversial decision. Of course it was bad that there was a 10-8 in Shogun vs. Gus, but Gus still would have won regardless.
 
Back
Top